BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administrart
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:47 PM

Well, okay, here is a switch...

Seein' as there are only about 3 in 10 diehards left who think Gorgy Porgy is doin' a fine job this is yer thread to tell the world why you think that Bub-ya is doing such a fine job...

Keep in mind, thou, that whatever you Bushites say here represents 3 in 10... Hey, sometimes it better to be the underdog... If that's the case then you remaining Bushites oughtta love this thread...

Here's yer chance to defend yer guy so...

...have at it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administrart
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:52 PM

Things mus be gittin butter, Bobert's pushing a SUV around, ain' 'e?
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administrart
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:03 AM

Well, he combs his hair nice, usually.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administrart
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:06 AM

Yes he does & usually blow dries it with a flashlight.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:26 AM

Molly Ivins says he's a lot of fun at a barbeque.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 03:36 AM

The man is absolutely brilliant. Witness the following:

'"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004'

How many of you smarty-pants would have said that, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 07:39 AM

Is this the return of The Frankenstein Thread?

What have you dug up now Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 07:49 AM

Just had to share...

On the radio..

"They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 08:09 AM

Yeah, they do shoot horses but haven't gotten 'round to shooting the horses asses...

Blow dry my haar with a flashligh??? lol...

Hey, I'm ddisappointed here and I'm sure by bud, Amos, is as well...

Where are the Bush supporters??? This is their thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Snuffy
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 10:21 AM

Yer's been told numerus times. There ain't any Bush supporters here.

Only people that object to having every gnat fart blamed on Bush.

I suppose it keeps your residual brain matter something to focus on.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:25 AM

If Americans don't focus on the foibles of Bush, we will lose our Democracy in the US.
if that's a gnat fart, so be it.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:32 AM

Snuffy:

In the Popular Views thread we blamed the gnat's farts on the Administration, not the President himself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Snuffy
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:07 PM

Amos that is horse shit. You hate the man.

And Bobert is not going to find them bush supporters he claims abound here. Sort of delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:48 PM

Snuffy:

It was buulshit, not horseshit. Apologies for injecting dry humor.

Hate the man? I despise his actions, and I think he is shallow, meretricious, insincere, self-serving, personally pusillanimous, unspeakably naive and politically outré.

But I wouldn't say I hate him as an individual. Just as an embodiment of all that is the very worst of human political opportunism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM

Another stupid useless thread! I hope you are paying Max by the yard for the bull you produce here.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 03:53 PM

Dear me, nasty nameless person. I did n't know I was supposed to check with your requirements before posting, to make the thread useful to you!!

Are you all right? You sound dyspeptic, to say the least. Buy a set of those Mudcat CDs and listen to them. Gayranteed you'll feel better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 10:26 PM

Ain't been over to MOAB, have he?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Snuffy
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 03:24 PM

Yeah Amos. Your humor is a dry as a popcorn fart. Nobody laughs but you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:47 PM

I doubt that Amos can find humor in his "humor".

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: number 6
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:53 PM

God .... Americans completely bewilder me these days.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Freddy
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:57 PM

If it keeps Amos busy it is not useless. The old Fart needs something to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 08:22 PM

I wish some of you would sober up before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 08:51 PM

As an Aussie, I'm thoroughly enlightened, by this practical demonstration of the US Political porcess... process even...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Freddy
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:03 PM

Reality is for people that can't handle alcohol mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:13 PM

THe conservatives have just arrived! Note the last several GUEST posts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:36 PM

As regards George, I share the great man's sentiment:

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I
admire."
     - Winston Churchill

As regards the ragtag collection of snipes appended here by various good folks, , I am grateful to them for reminding me of the appropriateness of modesty, especially in their cases who have so much about which to be modest.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:38 PM

Oh goody, a snipe hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 03:47 PM

Snipe.......snipe......sn

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 07:41 PM

...thought snipe were out of season, but...

                                                               The Snipe Hunt

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:30 PM

Thet is one BODACIOUS web-nest you sent me to there, PDQ!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Snuffy
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM

Where's they at Bobert? Same place as the snipes?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 07:10 PM

Delightful news from the Bar Association:

Bar group will review Bush's legal challenges

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The board of governors of the American Bar Association
voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has
exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to
ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.

Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world's
largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of
an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political
parties.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI
director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's
assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with
his interpretation of the Constitution.

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting
which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.

Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing
detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and
``whistle-blower" protections for federal employees.

The challenges also have included safeguards against political
interference in taxpayer-funded research.

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/04/

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM

Don't worry, now tha Diebold has control of the pseudo-voting process...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:10 PM

Interesting that you bring up Diebold, Fooles-t... In yesterday's Washington Post there was an interesting article about two families from a community in Ohio... Both have lost sons in Iraq and the two were as politically diffenrt as one could find with one family very much against Bush and the war and the other in support...

So, as I read them article, I found it interesting that the father in the family that was proBush worked for Diebold...Hmmmmmmm???? Ohio???? Diebold????

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:04 PM

A certain guy by the name of Mr Kennedy (!!!) recently wrote an article for Rolling Stone Mag all about the 'theft of the 2004 election' alleged conspiracy theory, and Diebold...

You'll NEVER get rid of the bastards by just 'voting' now, it seems... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:15 PM

I think the Bush Administration is incredibly wonderfully cool and really boss! I love those guys! They rule! I can't wait to see what they do next, and I hope they change the Constitution so that George W. Bush can remain president FOREVER!!! Or else just burn it, and declare him Emperor for Life.

(how's that?)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:21 PM

Ah! Little Hawk,
I can see you're extra smart and trying to get on side as quickly as possible... ;)

So when is the Bush Youth movement starting up so we can all enrol our kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:23 PM

And if he ever dies...unthinkable as that is (!)...then I hope his brother Jeb becomes Emperor in his place. Yeah! What a great idea, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:28 PM

Ah! A Hereditary Dynasty!

Wait on, didn't you Yanks used to live under one of those with a guy named George before?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:30 PM

Fun for the feebleminded.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:32 PM

Don't call me a Yank, Foolestroupe! Those are fightin' words! ;-)

I'm a Canadian, and a loyal British subject at heart...although I totally disagree with Tony F-ing Bliar (mispelling is deliberate).

I'll tell you, if I WAS an American I'd be scared by this administration. Seriously scared. I thank God I am north of that borderline.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:34 PM

Maybe Bush will eclipse LH's admiration of Shatner and Hillary.... Okay, maybe lust, rather than admiration, for Hillary....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:36 PM

Aggggh! Got Me! The Attack of The Nameless Neo-Cons!

Yep! The King loves to have feeble minded subjets...

"It's good to be da King!"



From one of my efforts...

"Johnny loves the little people,
that's why he keeps them on their knees"



Just browsing the "Learning to love a 'bad' song" thread and I have come to the same conclusion...

"It's called 'Brainwashing' in some circles"....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:39 PM

"I am north of that borderline. "

The _physical_ one..... for now.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:40 PM

Well, it's a different kind of thing with George W., Bobert. Kind of hard to describe, really. I would love to watch him eat a bowl of cereal. His every move is so carefully considered, so well orchestrated. His every comment so incisive. Hmmm. Have you ever noticed the way his eyes focus when he's bearing down hard on evil? Wow. Yes, definitely Imperial material there...Caesar-like characteristics. And that Condoleeza Rice....Whoa! Scarier than Darth Vader on a bad day. Can you see her pronouncing sentence on fallen gladiators? I sure can.

But you're right about Hillary. Sheer lust. How could Bill Clinton even look at Monica Lewinsky???? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:42 PM

I think George will be extremely relieved when his term is up.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:42 PM

Don't think I have not had those same unsettling thoughts, Foolestroupe. The only country that will ever invade Canada is the USA. My hope is that they will be so busy fighting other people in the meantime that they won't get around to Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:43 PM

Possibly, Russ. Hard to say. He's definitely under pressure these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:44 PM

"I think George will be extremely relieved when his term is up. "

I didn't realise that he was going to goal...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: number 6
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:45 PM

"The only country that will ever invade Canada is the USA." ... or China, on the march to invading the U.S.A.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 11:02 PM

Well, Number 6, I'm not saying that's impossible...

But it's not too likely. Would they not have to go through eastern Russia first? Would the Russians let them?

I suppose anything's possible eventually, if one waits long enough. The Chinese would need to dominate the Pacific Ocean to effectively invade North America. That would require them having the world's pre-eminent navy, and that is something they are nowhere even near having at this point. The biggest navy is that of the USA, with Russia coming next.

I've studied my WWII history, and I know what it takes to mount an across the ocean invasion of a continental power. Only the USA and Great Britain have possessed such a capability in the last 100 years.

Hitler couldn't manage it across the little strip of water called the English Channel...and he would have if he could have.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 11:07 PM

"The Chinese would need to dominate the Pacific Ocean to effectively invade North America."

Only for a MILITARY invasion... They are on track for a FINANCIAL takeover right now...

Like the US has already done to Australia... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 11:34 PM

Fighting words? Little Hawk, with all due respect -- you knowhumans are 99.9% the same genetic material as chimps?

You're more of a Yank than you are a chimp! I know you've been backpedaling from the truth as hard as you can, but the is-ness of the business is just so, nonetheless.   But, you are in (or very close to) good company.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: number 6
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 11:44 PM

China is rapidly building their navy and not that far off on having the largest and most sophisticated navy in the world (thank the U.S. for selling off their technology to them) ... in reality, they will succeed not on military might but by economical means.

But i agree, the U.S. is propably the biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty. One good example is Harper, let's face it there was U.S. influence in positioning him to power.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 07:17 PM

There has been some fuss about the CIA allegedly interfering in Aussie Politics - then some US Ambassadors just aren't bright enough to keep their mouth shut sometimes...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 07:46 PM

The George W. Bush approval map.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 07:54 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_14

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry
into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts,
which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote
against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other
efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over
half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Would he rather we think that they are not bigots at all, but only
cynics who exploit the bigotry of others to win elections so that
they canpush the issue again in 2008? Which is worse?


Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
[phone]
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 07:59 PM

LH,

How could his every move be so carefully coriographed... Simple... Remember Ronnie Raygun??? Well, sure you do...

Well, there are more thjan a few folks who think that Ronnie had actaully died before the election and his body was taken off to some lab outside of Atlanta, Ga. and it was reworked as a livin', breathin', Frankenprez... Well that does expalerate alot of stuff...

Well, some of these same folkls have suggested that Bush got the some-lab-outside-of-Atlanta makeover after he died of an overdose while Governor of Texas... Yeah, they make them pretzels extra strength down in Texas...

That would explain a lot...

What doesn't need explainin', however, is that Hillary is a lot hotter than Monika....

That's the way I see it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM

So true about Hillary, Bobert! The trouble with Bill Clinton was he just didn't appreciate what he had, that's all. I guess familiarity really does breed contempt. Or maybe he is one of those who figures more of anything is always better.

I have also been wondering if Mr Bush is a cyborg or something like that. He could be an android. Remember the mysterious bump under his suit at the debate? Could be a control mechanism. What argues against this, though, is that it would be difficult to program a machine to speak and apparently think that incoherently with the sort of consistency he has demonstrated. It would involve a tremendously sophisticated software program. This is why I think George W. is really human after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 09:57 PM

Not really, LH... The programers are closely tied with pollsters who have their fingers on the pulses of the average Joe-Sixpack... Problem is that. ike Reygun, there were certain wiring problems that made the both of them screw stuff up royally before retiring to cuttin' brush...

Hey, the program is in its infancy so don't be too harsh... Heck, what's a 100,000 dead Iraqis in the big scheme of thing???

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 06 - 10:00 PM

"In response, Hatch fumed: 'Does he really want to suggest that over
half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?'"

Well. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jun 06 - 09:26 PM

Yean Don,

if the Foo Shits...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 10 Jun 06 - 08:56 AM

Do the math:

In 1959, before Hussein was the leader of Iraq (before he had
completed high school, even), he participated in the assignation of
the then-current Iraqi leader. (“Crimes Against Iraq,â€쳌
http://www.upforanything.net/archives/000664.html )

In 1968, Hussein, actively engaged in “purifying the government and
society of potential dissidents.â€쳌 (“Biography of Saddam Hussein of
Tikrit,â€쳌 Iraq Foundation:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/research/bio.html )
In 1974, Hussein participated in the killing of five religious
leaders. (“Saddam’s Crimes,â€쳌
http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/Saddam_Crimes/saddam_crimes.html
) Hundreds of other religious people were arrested and tortured.
In 1977, Hussein was responsible for the arrest of thousand of
religious people, and the killing of hundreds of them.
In 1978, Hussein participated in the assignation of former
Prime-Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London. Between 1978-79,
Hussein helped “eliminateâ€쳌 7,000 communists in Iraq.
In 1979, Hussein ordered another purge to eliminate political
opponents. Hundreds of top ranking Ba'thists and army officers were
executed.
During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), 730,000 Iranians died. You will
recall that Hussein was the aggressor in this war, because he wanted
full control of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the
Persian Gulf. (For more information on the war, see “Iran-Iraq War,â€쳌
at Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i/irani1raq.asp
) Approximately 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals were killed in the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait. It’s estimated there were 1,500,000 refugees from
this war, displaced by Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. 750,000 “endured
brutalities, oppression, and torture.â€쳌 Although the date for the end
of the war is usually given as 1988, the struggle continued, and
500,000 Iranians were late killed (the Iranians say it was closer to 1
million), 100,000 by Hussein’s chemical weapons. In one day, 5,000
men, women, and children were gassed. (“Sadaam’s Other Crime,â€쳌 In The
National Interest: http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue29/Vol3Issue29Askari.html
and “Charges Facing Saddam Hussein,â€쳌 BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm )

Between 1987-1988, 180,000 Kurds “disappeared,â€쳌 and 4,000 villages
were razed, in an effort at “ethnic cleansing.â€쳌
In 1983, Hussein killed of 8,000 members of the Barzani clan. Also in
1983, Hussein arrested 90 members of Al Hakim family and executed 16
of them.
Between 1988 and 1999, Hussein killed 7,000 prisoners in what was
called “prison cleansing.â€쳌 (“NoBody Count,â€쳌
http://www.blogoram.com/000184.php )
We also know that Hussein killed and tortured many other “enemiesâ€쳌
before the Gulf War. For example: Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and
his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) were arrested, tortured, and
killed in 1980. In 1981, Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami
Mahdi was killed. In 1987, Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan was killed. In
1988, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan was killed.
In addition, we know from Iraqi officials that Hussein put to death
“officers who did not agree to execute people in the street,â€쳌
religious leaders who didn’t lavish praise of Hussein, and Shiite
Muslims (for their religious views). (See, as an example, “Officer's
tale: Iraq's web of assassination, “ Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0424/p01s04-woiq.html ) Remember, too,
that mass graves were found during the FIRST Gulf War. (“Charges
Against Saddam,â€쳌 TalkLeft:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004668.html )

In the 1990s, Hussein killed 40,000 Shia’s (or Shiite Muslims) for
their religious uprisings; among those who became prisoners,
approximately 2,000 were executed on November 1993 alone. (“Death
Tolls,â€쳌 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Iraq For more on
Shia’s, see “Shiites,â€쳌 http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shiites.htm ) As
further evidence that the Gulf War did not play a role in Shia deaths,
in 1980, before war with Iran, Hussein hanged two leading Shia
figures. (“Radical Shias Worry Bush as well as Sadaam,â€쳌 Daily Times:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-10-2002_pg4_7 )
Since 1974, at least hundreds of Shia leaders have been arrested.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Would fewer people have been
killed if the U.S. had not participated in the Gulf War? Or would
Hussein have continued to kill, even without U.S. intervention?

For a look at the usual figures we hear about Hussein, see “Killer
File:â€쳌 http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein-comment.html

Regards,
Kristwrite

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 06 - 09:12 AM

Thanks, Woody, or Kristwrite, or whoever. I am not sure what this post is a response to but it is a good post anyway, strongly felt and reasonably well worded, and a good reminder that there may have been moral justification for wanting to eliminate Saddam. I do not know how true those numbers are, but what the hell.

Funny that to find all those awful numbers in one place we need to dig into an odd Internet forum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 06 - 09:53 AM

From a newslist:

"New Scientist Magazine has discovered that Pentagon's National Security
Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding
research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post
about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet
technology - specifically the forthcoming "semantic web" championed
by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking
websites with details such as banking, retail and property records,
allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of
individuals."

< snip >

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025556.200?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg
19025556.200

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 11 Jun 06 - 07:49 PM

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand niggers" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

The Politics of a Perpetrator Population
As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns.. There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" and "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids," no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus.

In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.

Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."

Property before people, it seems – or at least the equation of property to people – is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone "pacifists" queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.

Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world – the Mideast, for instance – began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America's purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.

The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption. So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America's free-fire zones.

Tellingly, it was at precisely this point – with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it – that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States.

Meet the "Terrorists"
Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate "news" media immediately following their successful operation on September 11.

They did not, for starters, "initiate" a war with the US, much less commit "the first acts of war of the new millennium."

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."

One might rightly describe their actions as "desperate." Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say "normal" – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy).

That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.

And still less were they/their acts "insane."

Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one – or one's country – holds what amounts to a "divine right" to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US "strategic bombing campaign" against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)

Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of "evil."

Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf's utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere "collateral damage." Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.

Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless "the world is rid of such evil," to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark.

There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of "Arabic-looking individuals" – America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's peoples ample cause to be at war with it – or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.

To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not "terrorist incidents" – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as "escalation").

Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.

About Those Boys (and Girls) in the Bureau
There's another matter begging for comment at this point. The idea that the FBI's "counterterrorism task forces" can do a thing to prevent what will happen is yet another dimension of America's delusional pathology.. The fact is that, for all its publicly-financed "image-building" exercises, the Bureau has never shown the least aptitude for anything of the sort.

Oh, yeah, FBI counterintelligence personnel have proven quite adept at framing anarchists, communists and Black Panthers, sometimes murdering them in their beds or the electric chair. The Bureau's SWAT units have displayed their ability to combat child abuse in Waco by burning babies alive, and its vaunted Crime Lab has been shown to pad its "crime-fighting' statistics by fabricating evidence against many an alleged car thief. But actual "heavy-duty bad guys" of the sort at issue now? This isn't a Bruce Willis/Chuck Norris/Sly Stallone movie, after all.. And J. Edgar Hoover doesn't get to approve either the script or the casting.

The number of spies, saboteurs and bona fide terrorists apprehended, or even detected by the FBI in the course of its long and slimy history could be counted on one's fingers and toes. On occasion, its agents have even turned out to be the spies, and, in many instances, the terrorists as well.

To be fair once again, if the Bureau functions as at best a carnival of clowns where its "domestic security responsibilities" are concerned, this is because – regardless of official hype – it has none. It is now, as it's always been, the national political police force, an instrument created and perfected to ensure that all Americans, not just the consenting mass, are "free" to do exactly as they're told.

The FBI and "cooperating agencies" can be thus relied upon to set about "protecting freedom" by destroying whatever rights and liberties were left to U.S. citizens before September 11 (in fact, they've already received authorization to begin). Sheeplike, the great majority of Americans can also be counted upon to bleat their approval, at least in the short run, believing as they always do that the nasty implications of what they're doing will pertain only to others.

Oh Yeah, and "The Company," Too

A possibly even sicker joke is the notion, suddenly in vogue, that the CIA will be able to pinpoint "terrorist threats," "rooting out their infrastructure" where it exists and/or "terminating" it before it can materialize, if only it's allowed to beef up its "human intelligence gathering capacity" in an unrestrained manner (including full-bore operations inside the US, of course).

Yeah. Right.

Since America has a collective attention-span of about 15 minutes, a little refresher seems in order: "The Company" had something like a quarter-million people serving as "intelligence assets" by feeding it information in Vietnam in 1968, and it couldn't even predict the Tet Offensive. God knows how many spies it was fielding against the USSR at the height of Ronald Reagan's version of the Cold War, and it was still caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As to destroying "terrorist infrastructures," one would do well to remember Operation Phoenix, another product of its open season in Vietnam. In that one, the CIA enlisted elite US units like the Navy Seals and Army Special Forces, as well as those of friendly countries – the south Vietnamese Rangers, for example, and Australian SAS – to run around "neutralizing" folks targeted by The Company's legion of snitches as "guerrillas" (as those now known as "terrorists" were then called).

Sound familiar?

Upwards of 40,000 people – mostly bystanders, as it turns out – were murdered by Phoenix hit teams before the guerrillas, stronger than ever, ran the US and its collaborators out of their country altogether. And these are the guys who are gonna save the day, if unleashed to do their thing in North America?

The net impact of all this "counterterrorism" activity upon the combat teams' ability to do what they came to do, of course, will be nil.

Instead, it's likely to make it easier for them to operate (it's worked that way in places like Northern Ireland). And, since denying Americans the luxury of reaping the benefits of genocide in comfort was self-evidently a key objective of the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it can be stated unequivocally that a more overt display of the police state mentality already pervading this country simply confirms the magnitude of their victory.

On Matters of Proportion and Intent
As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That's about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%).

They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).

In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they've knocked down a half-dozen buildings – albeit some very well-chosen ones – as opposed to the "strategic devastation" visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq's entire economy.

With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.

The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.

Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans). There is, however, no reason to believe that retributive parity is necessarily an item on the agenda of those who planned the WTC/Pentagon operation. If it were, given the virtual certainty that they possessed the capacity to have inflicted far more damage than they did, there would be a lot more American bodies lying about right now.

Hence, it can be concluded that ravings carried by the "news" media since September 11 have contained at least one grain of truth: The peoples of the Mideast "aren't like" Americans, not least because they don't "value life' in the same way. By this, it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life – all lives, not just their own – far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts.

The Makings of a Humanitarian Strategy
In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name – indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it – mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Now they do.

That was the "medicinal" aspect of the attacks.

To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they're now experiencing first-hand is no different from – or the least bit more excruciating than – that which they've been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.

More bluntly, the hope was – and maybe still is – that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as "stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."

Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing.

Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.

Whether they would remain so would of course be contingent upon follow-up. By that, it may be assumed that American acceptance of onsite inspections by international observers to verify destruction of its weapons of mass destruction (as well as dismantlement of all facilities in which more might be manufactured), Nuremberg-style trials in which a few thousand US military/corporate personnel could be properly adjudicated and punished for their Crimes Against humanity, and payment of reparations to the array of nations/peoples whose assets the US has plundered over the years, would suffice.

Since they've shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. Stranger things have happened.

In the Alternative
Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case. Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts. Maybe they forgot to factor in the mind-numbing effects of the indoctrination passed off as education in the US. Then, again, it's entirely possible they were aware that a decisive majority of American adults have been reduced by this point to a level much closer to the kind of immediate self-gratification entailed in Pavlovian stimulus/response patterns than anything accessible by appeals to higher logic, and still felt morally obliged to offer the dolts an option to quit while they were ahead.

What the hell? It was worth a try.

But it's becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose.

Although there are undoubtedly exceptions, Americans for the most part still don't get it.

Already, they've desecrated the temporary tomb of those killed in the WTC, staging a veritable pep rally atop the mangled remains of those they profess to honor, treating the whole affair as if it were some bizarre breed of contact sport. And, of course, there are the inevitable pom-poms shaped like American flags, the school colors worn as little red-white-and-blue ribbons affixed to labels, sportscasters in the form of "counterterrorism experts" drooling mindless color commentary during the pregame warm-up.

Refusing the realization that the world has suddenly shifted its axis, and that they are therefore no longer "in charge," they have by-and-large reverted instantly to type, working themselves into their usual bloodlust on the now obsolete premise that the bloodletting will "naturally" occur elsewhere and to someone else.

"Patriotism," a wise man once observed, "is the last refuge of scoundrels."

And the braided, he might of added.

Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."

One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion – or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet – but the matter is deadly serious.

They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go.

To where? Afghanistan?

The Sudan?

Iraq, again (or still)?

How about Grenada (that was fun)?

Any of them or all. It doesn't matter.

The desire to pummel the helpless runs rabid as ever.

Only, this time it's different.

The time the helpless aren't, or at least are not so helpless as they were.

This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad – or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the "terrorists"' own schedule, and at a place of their choosing – the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here "at home."

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make.

Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.

"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."

As they should.

As they must.

And as they undoubtedly will.

There is justice in such symmetry.

ADDENDUM
The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early '50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.

Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?

Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?

Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?

Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?

One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.

The list is too long, too awful to go on.

No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.

The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.

Ward Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:37 AM

The conclusions of the investigative committee that examined seven allegations of research misconduct against University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill:

• Charge A: That Churchill misrepresented the General Allotment Act of 1887 in his writings by incorrectly writing that it created a "blood quantum" standard that allowed tribes to admit members only if they had at least half native blood.

Finding: Falsification and failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.

• Charge B: That Churchill misrep- resented the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 by incorrectly writing that the act imposed a "blood quantum" requiring artists to prove they were one-quarter Indian by blood.

Finding: Falsification and failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.

• Charge C: That Churchill incorrectly claimed there was "some pretty strong circumstantial evidence" that Capt. John Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoag Indians between 1614 and 1618.

Finding: Falsification and fabrication.

• Charge D: That in several writings Churchill falsely accused the U.S. Army of committing genocide by distributing blankets infested with smallpox to Mandan Indians in the Upper Missouri River Valley in 1837.

Finding: Falsification, fabrication, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research. The committee also found that Churchill was "disrespectful of Indian oral tradition."

• Charge E: That Churchill claimed as his own work a 1972 pamphlet about a water-diversion scheme in Canada titled The Water Plot. The work actually was written by a now-defunct environmental group, "Dam the Dams."

Finding: Plagiarism.

• Charge F: That Churchill plagiarized part of an essay written by Rebecca L. Robbins in a book he published in 1993.

Finding: Research misconduct

• Charge G: That Churchill plagiarized the writings of Canadian professor Fay G. Cohen in a 1992 essay.

Finding: Plagiarism.Source: University Of Colorado Report Of The Investigative Committee

What's next

• Response: Ward Churchill will get time to respond to the report. CU spokesman Barrie Hartman said the university expects response in two weeks.

• Recommendation: CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct will make a recommendation to Provost Susan Avery and Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson, about what action, if any, should be taken against Churchill.

• Final decision: Avery and Gleeson hope to have a final decision by mid-June.

• Appeal: Churchill can appeal to Privilege and Tenure Committee.

• Termination: If terminated, Churchill, he may appeal to CU president. The Board of Regents must vote to approve any dismissal.

Under fire: from the beginning

• 1978: The University of Colorado hires Ward Churchill as an administrative assistant in the American Indian Equal Opportunities Program, which counsels Indian students. Over the next 10 years, he also lectures on Indian topics.

• 1991: Churchill receives tenure and is appointed an associate professor in CU's communications department.

• 1994: Students vote Churchill winner of Boulder Faculty Assembly teaching award.

• 1997: Churchill is appointed full professor, and his tenure is transferred to the ethnic-studies department.

• 2002: Churchill named chairman of ethnic-studies department.

• Jan. 21, 2005: In advance of a speaking appearance by Churchill, a reporter at a student newspaper in New York writes a story about a little-known essay the professor wrote Sept. 12, 2001. In it, Churchill referred to some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as "little Eichmanns," after Nazi Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust. In the next few days, the story is picked up by other media and widely publicized.

• Feb. 3, 2005: The CU Board of Regents, under pressure from lawmakers and the public to fire Churchill, apologizes for his "disgraceful comments" and orders an investigation into whether he should be dismissed.

• March 24, 2005: CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano says Churchill's comments about 9/11 were protected by the First Amendment. But he determines allegations of fraud and plagiarism against Churchill warrant further inquiry by CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.

• May 24, 2005: Churchill meets with the committee. His attorney later says Churchill told the committee the investigation was a politically motivated "witch hunt."

• June 4, 2005: The Rocky Mountain News publishes an investigation of Churchill's work. In it, the News finds problems in all four major areas being reviewed by the CU panel, as well as new allegations of research misconduct. Less than two weeks later, DiStefano announces he will add some of the News' findings to his complaint against Churchill.

• Sept. 9, 2005: The standing committee announces it is sending seven of the nine charges of possible research misconduct to an ad hoc investigative committee for further review.

• November 2005: Two members of the five-person investigative committee resign amid criticism that they have expressed support for Churchill in the past and would not be impartial. They are replaced by two scholars from outside CU.

• April 13, 2006: CU informs Churchill it is launching another inquiry into his work. The complaint stems from allegations that Churchill fabricated material in two books.

• May 9, 2006: The five-member panel - which includes three CU professors - completes its investigation and turns its findings over to the standing committee. Churchill's attorney sends a letter to CU, calling the newest inquiry harassment and threatening to sue if it is not dropped.

• May 16, 2006: CU releases the investigative committee's report, which concludes Churchill committed deliberate and serious misconduct, including plagiarism and fabrication of material. One committee member recommends he be fired; the others suggest he be suspended without pay for two or five years. Churchill calls the report "a travesty."

Who's who in the Churchill investigation

STANDING COMMITTEE

This 12-member panel reviewed interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano's complaint and decided it should be sent to an investigative committee for further review:

Members

• Joseph Rosse, chairman, director of Office of Research Integrity

• Russell Moore, professor of kinesiology and applied physiology

• Cortlandt Pierpont, professor of chemistry and biochemistry

• Sanjai Bhagat, professor, Leeds School of Business

• Steven R. Guberman, associate professor, School of Education

• Ron Pak, professor of civil engineering

• Bella Mody, professor, School of Journalism and Mass Communication

• Richard Collins, professor, School of Law

• Judith Glyde, professor, College of Music

• Uriel Nauenberg, professor of physics

• Linda Morris, assistant, Office of Associate Vice Chancellor for Graduate Education/Research

• Tind Shepper Ryen, graduate student, representative of United Government of Graduate Students

INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE

The five-member panel that conducted the investigation:

Members

• Marianne "Mimi" Wesson, committee chairwoman, professor, CU School of Law

• Marjorie McIntosh, CU professor of history

• Michael Radelet, CU professor of sociology

• Jose Limon, professor of English, University of Texas at Austin

• Robert N. Clinton, professor of law, Arizona State UniversitySource: University Of Colorado

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Cindy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 07:57 PM

Things are going bad for us bush haters. Rove is off the hook, Abu is dead, GWB's ratings are up. What can we do to counter act this?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:02 PM

Aside from flying into Baghdad in secret and then boasting about it, why should his ratings be up? Has he come up with a new and better policy about ANY of his past fuck-ups?

And I know perfectly well your name is not Cindy, so don't act foolish. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Cindy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:29 PM

There you go with those high and mighty intelectual words again. You bring shame to the rest of us Bush haters.

How about this: Bush picks his nose and hides the buggers from the US public.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:39 PM

Washington -- In a span of 90 minutes Tuesday, three prominent Democrats offered competing visions of how to proceed in Iraq and displayed how difficult it will be to turn what was once the Republican Party's strongest asset into its electoral downfall.

As President Bush was returning from his surprise visit to Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading contender for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination, told a gathering of nearly 2,000 liberals that the war was a "strategic blunder,'' but warned it would not be in the nation's interest to "set a date certain'' for withdrawal.

She was followed by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who told the same group the war was a "grotesque mistake,'' and that troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practical date.''

And moments later, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's standard bearer in 2004, said he had made a mistake by voting to authorize the president to use military force in Iraq, and called for a "hard and fast deadline'' for troop withdrawal.

Democrats have put aside many differences in their common yearning to gain seats in the 2006 midterm congressional elections. Yet when it comes to the war that has polarized the nation, and by some accounts is shaping up as the biggest issue in the November election, Democrats are struggling to speak with a single voice.

A USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday found that most Americans considered the killing of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a "major achievement'' and suggested that opinion which has turned steadily against the war remains volatile.

The poll found that 51 percent of Americans still say it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq, a drop from nearly 60 percent at the end of last year. The new poll found that 48 percent believe the war is winnable, up from 39 percent in April.

And the Democratic disagreements on display Tuesday came on the eve of debates in the House and Senate over the future of the war, which leaders hope will clarify the different views of the two parties.

After months of negotiating, Democrats have united around a common call that 2006 be a "year of significant transition'' in Iraq, a statement so broad that it would be hard for anyone, the president included, to disagree. By comparison, a resolution written by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma calling on Bush to "develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal'' of troops, has attracted just 35 co-sponsors.

Strategists have given Democrats mixed advice; some have called on Democrats to exhibit spine by demanding a swift pullout, while others have warned the party risks a backlash if they are seen either as weak or as trying to exploit violence for political purposes.

The conflict was evident Tuesday as Clinton, long a favorite of the party's left, spoke before liberals at the "Take Back America'' conference in the ballroom of a Washington hotel.

"I have to just say it: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment,'' she said, "nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country.''

Many in the crowd cheered. Many booed. Hecklers began yelling "bring the troops home.'' And when Clinton had finished speaking, she was met by a loud chants of "bring the troops home, now!''

By contrast, Kerry who like Clinton is believed to be eyeing a possible presidential candidacy in 2008, delivered an unambiguous indictment of Bush's conduct of the war, displaying clarity and rhetorical resolve that was often missing during his losing campaign against the Republican president in 2004.

Kerry called Iraq and Vietnam, the "two most failed foreign policy choices'' in the nation's history, and made a biting contrast between Bush's surprise visit to Iraq early Tuesday and the president's lack of combat duty in Vietnam.

"Now, I fully understand that Iraq is not Vietnam. After all, President Bush is even there today,'' Kerry said.

Kerry, who earned two purple hearts and a silver medal in Vietnam, went on to draw parallels between the current conflict and the war he protested as a returning veteran in the early 1970s.

In both conflicts, Kerry said, the U.S. intervened "based on official deceptions'' and to fight "a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just the latest battleground.''

"And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go,'' Kerry said. "It was right to dissent from a war in 1971 that was wrong and could not be won. And now, in 2006, it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today.''

The largely anti-war crowd cheered Kerry, as they did Pelosi when she reminded them that in 2003 as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, she had warned that the intelligence did not support the threat being made by the administration.

Pelosi said she stood by the plan promoted by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., which calls for a redeployment of troops "over the horizon'' as soon as is practically possible.

"There are only two directions to take in Iraq: the president's plan of stay the course and let a future president sweep up after you, or the Murtha plan to change the direction of that course. I support the Murtha plan.''

Some party leaders say that Democrats are united in their resolve that the U.S. should not set up permanent military bases in Iraq, and that Bush has botched the execution of the war.

And they insist their differences are being blown out of proportion.

On NBC's Today show Tuesday morning, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean was shown two quotes, one from Pelosi supporting the Murtha plan and one from Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 ranking House Democrat, who said in response to Murtha's plan that "a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists, damaging our nation's security and credibility.''

"I see no difference between what Steny Hoyer just said and what Nancy Pelosi said,'' Dean responded.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:35 AM

Hmmmmmmm?

Looks as if GUEST, Woody owes Max a big donation for violating the one-screen cut'n-post rule...

(Must be nice to be a Bushite... Don't have to actually think anything out for yourself with all these corporate sponsored right wing blogs providing long winded and twisted power point presentations ready for cut'n' paste... I doubt if even the Bushites read 'um...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:25 AM

Yeah, well it was very interesting, the first couple of times, but perhaps it's time for the big chopper to come out... I thought they were all 'originals' (longer than 70 words each) only posted here, but if it was just unattributed plaigairism... well, just a link and a précis is fine with me...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Rush & Molloy
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 10:40 AM

Soros against Iraq backtrack

Billionaire George Soros spent a fortune trying to pry President Bush out of the White House. But the Democratic Midas agrees with the President that we can't pull out of Iraq now.

"Unfortunately, many countries have a national narrative that condemns them to keep on defending a cause that is really indefensible," the Open Society founder said Monday at the Core Club party for his book "The Age of Fallibility." "The Turks can't admit the massacre of Armenians, for example. We have been better in the past at recognizing our sins. I'm afraid that we have to recognize that was a terrible mistake.

"I can't expect President Bush to do that," Soros allowed. "That would be out of keeping for anybody. What's worse, I think we actually have to stay in Iraq for a while. If we left, we would have a conflagration. We are sitting on a civil war. Therefore, American soldiers have to continue giving their lives to a bad cause."

Soros said Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, because that "was where Bin Laden was located." He also conceded that, since pre-war Iraq was "a magnet for general terrorists," the U.S. occupation may "have deflected a terrorist attack" here. But Soros argued that, thanks to Bush's policies, "The danger of a terrorist attack is greater since 9/11. We may actually be growing terrorist cells."

P.S.: Soros was downright courtly toward the Bushies compared with Sen. John Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, who yesterday snarled at White House adviser Karl Rove for accusing Kerry and fellow Vietnam vet Rep. John Murtha of "cutting and running" from the war.

"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison," said Wade. "This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer. When it came to Iraq, this administration chose to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy. … In November, Americans will cut and run from this Republican Congress."

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 10:54 AM

BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 6/12/2006

Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early.

Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal '06 than in any other such period over the past 25 years — except for last year's 15.5% jump.

The 2006 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion at this time last year. Spending is up $130 billion, or 7.9%.

The CBO forecast in May that the 2006 deficit could fall as low as $300 billion. Michael Englund, chief economist of Action Economics, has long expected a deficit of about $270 billion this year. Now he thinks there's a chance the "remarkable strength in receipts" will push the deficit even lower.

With the economy topping $13 trillion this year, a $270 billion deficit would equal less than 2.1% of GDP, easily beating the president's 2.25% goal. Bush made his vow when the White House had a dour 2004 deficit forecast of 4.5% of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual '04 deficit came in at $412 billion, or 3.5% of GDP, before falling to $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, in 2005.

A CBO analysis last week noted that withheld individual income and payroll taxes are up 7.6% from a year ago, with the gains picking up in recent months.

"Those gains suggest solid growth in wages and salaries in the national economy," CBO said.

While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

Nonwithheld income tax receipts are up about 20% vs. a year ago. That may reflect year-end bonuses and capital gains.

Corporate income taxes are up about 30% from last year's pace.

While economic growth is producing impressive tax revenue gains, budget experts say they won't be enough to wipe out deficits, especially as baby boomers retire. Englund thinks the deficit could hit $150 billion if the expansion lasts two or three more years. "When we go into a downturn, the numbers reverse," he said.

Long-term growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "threaten to force either European-style tax increases, unprecedented spending cuts or unprecedented debt," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "There's no growing out of the long-term budget problems."

Heritage sees an $800 billion deficit in 2016, assuming tax cuts are extended and spending stays on its present course. If the economy and tax receipts continue to outperform, the deficit would still be at least $600 billion, Riedl said.

He noted Congress has been more disciplined about discretionary spending lately. But that saves a mere $10 billion a year, he said.

Late last week, House and Senate negotiators reached a deal to hold a supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and hurricane relief to under $94.5 billion.

The Senate had tacked on another $14 billion, but Bush vowed to veto any bill above $94.5 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 11:03 AM

Bobert,

please don't mention the one screen rule again lest Woody uses even smaller print to make the c&p fit the screen.

Diagonal "reading" is so difficult with the small print and more than diagonal reading isn't appropriate for the content.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Cindy
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 12:48 PM

Lets all kibbitz about the way the info looks rather than reading the content.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:36 PM

Wolfgang, but if he makes it small enough, we won't be able to read it at all! :-) And then we won't HAVE to!

BTW, "JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY" isn't really suitable as 'Real Internet Attribution' - as it gives no URL, thus can still be faked nonsensical gibberish turned out by some robotic text generator.

If someone WANTS ME to believe something, then you have to show the URL - it's just not worth my time wasting time searching to see if it really exists, or if it has been deliberately tampered with to change the original meaning as originally written. (Wasn't born yesterday!)

And IF the URL is given, then we need merely a few lines, a short paragraph, to indicate what the original was about - not the whole box and dice!

This is the case with BS posts, especially about 'Politics' here on the Mudcat: now MUSIC content is different - this IS a Music, not Politics, site!

Bobert, you WERE being sarcastic, weren't you?

Bobert? Where you gone?

Oops, sorry, forgot you started this thread so as to confine the nutters all to one place...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:46 PM

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20060612

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 12:18 AM

This seems to me to say, Woody, that the growth of the deficit is being slowed, which, if true, is certainly a good thing. If the budget gets back to zero-deficit for any one year period under Bush, I will be highly surprised. But even if it does, his rampant deficit spending for the last six will still mean a huge national debt incurred by his administration, rather than a reduced national debt. I will be delighted if he stops making the debt worse; but that is a far cry from repairing the damage to our fiscal well being.

Additionally, it won't touch the damage he has done to international repute and the national character with his hijinks. Nor will it do anything for the millions of lives he has brought to ruin through his headstrong recklessness.

Despite all that, it is a good thing the gravedigger is slowing down his digging.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Rufus
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 09:33 AM

Where's it say that?

I'll admit though, slowin is a good thing it will take more than our life time to get it to stop growin and somebody elses life time to back it up to 0 deficit and that's only IF thins go like they is goin now.

Didja see them deficit numbers for France and Italy. Looks like they is in tha hole worse than us.

I heared in Austraily they got Zero deficit. Izat true?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 09:48 AM

Today I wondered if George W will become more strident or more complient after his parents are dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 11:39 AM

Impeach Cheney first
by David Swanson
May 5, 2006

We should impeach Vice President Dick Cheney first, and President George Bush immediately thereafter. This idea is not original with me. It's been seen on bumper stickers for quite some time. My attention has been called to it by the fact that Congresswoman and Judiciary Committee Member Maxine Waters is talking about it. See below.

I'm persuaded of thevalue of this approach for several reasons. Among activists who very much want impeachment, one can hear a long list of fears and concerns about how things might go wrong, how impeachment could help Republicans who come around and back it, how impeachment could take energy away from elections, etc. But by far the most common of the nonsensical fears one hears is this one: "Impeaching Bush would give us Cheney, who is worse."

By proposing to impeach Cheney first, we eliminate this fear.

I cannot conceive of a serious investigation, with subpoena power, of either Bush or Cheney that would not incriminate the other as well. If I'm right about this, then the whole debate over which of these two criminals to impeach first, in one sense, doesn't mean much. But for purposes of organizing activists today it means everything. We need as many people as possible – including those terrified by Cheney – to push for an impeachment investigation. This campaign, and an investigation itself, should we get one, serve educational and political purposes. They further discredit Bush and Cheney while helping to build an opposition.

Our choices are not between impeachment and elections but between both and neither. Polls suggest it will be very difficult to win elections without demanding impeachment.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

After an investigation, we will have to fight for impeachment, and after that for conviction and removal from office by the Senate, and after that for criminal indictments. While millions of Americans who favor impeachment have announced to each other that this goal is impossible or extremely unlikely to be achieved, almost every single one of them has implicitly determined that conviction in the Senate (which has never been achieved with a president in U.S. history) is a guaranteed lock. Thus "impeachment" is equated with "removal from office." We should bear in mind that Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. We very much need to remove Bush and Cheney from office, but it's remarkable how quickly we jump ahead to that stage when searching for reasons to fear and doubt ourselves.

If we were to impeach Bush and remove him from office and somehow not manage to do the same to Cheney, there would be a number of advantages to this. The man who is running much of the government backstage would be thrust up front. His 18 percent approval rating makes Bush's 32 percent look stellar. A President Cheney would be a lame duck and a walking advertisement against the Republican party and its Democratic allies. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 06:40 AM

Impeachment procedures "during a time of war" would be considered a national security risk and could easily trigger the shadow government or code red ,which is in fact martial law and lead to the suspension of Congressional business.

Impeach Cheney first fine, but there will always be someone left to pardon every damn treasonous bastard.

George H W Bush's last day in office saw the pardoning of every Iran Contra criminal. The list is impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 04:18 PM

America's problem is again a usurping king called George

Bush's determination to impose his own reading of new laws amounts to
a power grab and subverts the US constitution

Martin Kettle
Saturday June 17, 2006
The Guardian

Imagine a country with a different kind of monarch from the one we
are used to. Forget the nation-binding human monarch whom Archbishop
Rowan Williams praised so deftly this week. Imagine instead a monarch
who, like many of Elizabeth II's ancestors, routinely reserved the
right to override laws passed by the legislature, or who repeatedly
asserted that the laws mean something they do not say. Imagine, in
fact, King George of America.

On April 30 the Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage wrote an
article whose contents become more astonishing the more one reads
them. Over the past five years, Savage reported, President George
Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws
that have been enacted by the United States Congress since he took
office. At the heart of Bush's strategy is the claim that the
president has the power to set aside any statute that conflicts with
his own interpretation of the constitution.

Remarkably, this systematic reach for power has occurred not in
secret but in public. Go to the White House website and the evidence
is there in black and white. It takes the form of dozens of documents
in which Bush asserts that his power as the nation's commander in
chief entitles him to overrule or ignore bills sent to him by
Congress for his signature. Behind this claim is a doctrine of the
"unitary executive", which argues that the president's oath of office
endows him with an independent authority to decide what a law means.

Periodically, congressional leaders come down from Capitol Hill to
applaud as the president, seated at his desk, signs a bill that
becomes the law of the land. They are corny occasions. But they are a
photo-op reminder that American law-making involves compromises that
reflect a balance between the legislature and the presidency. The
signing ceremony symbolises that the balance has been upheld and
renewed.

After the legislators leave, however, Bush puts his signature to
another document. Known as a signing statement, this document is a
presidential pronouncement setting out the terms in which he intends
to interpret the new law. These signing statements often conflict
with the new statutes. In some cases they even contradict their clear
meaning. Increasing numbers of scholars and critics now believe they
amount to a systematic power grab within a system that rests on
checks and balances of which generations of Americans have been
rightly proud - and of which others are justly envious.

More at

Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:29 PM

Al-Qaeda Planned Cyanide Attack on NY Subway

Politics: 18 June 2006, Sunday.

Al-Qaeda had been planning a Cyanide gas attack on the New York subway in 2003, Time magazine reported.

The weekly published excerpts from the book "The One Per cent Doctrine" by reporter Ron Suskind that will hit the stores on Monday. According to the report, the US' Secret Service found out about the poisonous gas attack from the laptop of a Bahraini, who was captured in Saudi Arabia in the beginning of 2003.

Terrorist were plotting spreading the lethal gas around key subway stations and nearby vehicles, Suskind claims. However, forty-five days before the assigned date Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the now deceased Al-Qaeda functionary, called off the whole plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:36 PM

Well, I can offer you a list as long as my arm of terrorist incidents that have been planned and never undertaken, Woody. What is your point?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:37 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2090703

Offensive Kills About 90 Afghan Militants By TINI TRAN

KABUL, Afghanistan Jun 18, 2006 (AP)— Taliban militants killed five people in an ambush Sunday while U.S.-led coalition troops moved deeper into Afghanistan's southern mountains in an offensive that has killed about 90 insurgents in less than a week, officials said.

More than 10,000 U.S.-led troops have spread out over four southern provinces as part of Operation Mountain Thrust, a counterinsurgency blitz aimed at quelling a Taliban resurgence.

Taliban militants ambushed a convoy carrying a former provincial chief in Helmand on Sunday, killing him and four bodyguards, said Ghulam Mohiudin, the governor's spokesman. The former official, Jama Gul, had been traveling along a highway in the southern province.

Police and coalition forces in nearby Zabul province also killed two militants, while two wounded insurgents were arrested, provincial police chief Noor Mohammad Paktin said.

Afghan soldiers along with U.S., Canadian and British troops are spreading out over Helmand, Uruzgan, Kandahar and Zabul provinces to hunt down Taliban fighters blamed for a recent surge in ambushes and bombings.

More than 500 people have been killed in the past month as insurgents, primarily Taliban, have stepped up attacks against coalition and Afghan soldiers.

British troops battled Taliban fighters on Saturday near Kajaki dam in southern Helmand province, killing six insurgents, Capt. Drew Gibson said Sunday. In the past few days, militants had been firing mortars in an attempt to damage the dam, Gibson said, adding that British forces "have tightened security in this area."

In the past week, coalition officials said an estimated 85 other insurgents were killed in the offensive, the largest anti-Taliban military campaign undertaken since the former regime's 2001 ouster in an American-led invasion.

The operation, which began with limited raids in May, rolled out in earnest last week to help prepare for the handover of military control to NATO forces in the southern region next month.

Military officials say the surge in fighting appears to be an attempt by the increasingly bold Taliban to seize an opportunity in the south while the government's influence remains weak and as U.S.-led troops prepare to transfer the regional command to NATO troops from Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Romania. Militants' tactics have included increased bombings, ambushes and suicide attacks as the weather has warmed during the spring.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told CNN's "Late Edition" the Taliban appears to be "trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO." He noted that U.S. airstrikes have increased along with fighting on the ground.

"The Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing," Snow said. "The government is taking control of more and more territory within Afghanistan proper and you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban."

Air Force officials say the number of air bombardments in Afghanistan about 750 in May alone has surpassed the smaller amount of American airstrikes on Iraq.

U.S. warplanes logged nearly 2,000 strikes in Afghanistan from March through May 2006, about as many as the same period in 2005, Air Force Maj. Michael Young said earlier this month. But he said airstrikes spiked at 750 last month, as opposed to 660 in May 2005.

The U.S.-led coalition invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks and toppled the hard-line Taliban government for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida supporters.

Asked if there had been progress in the hunt for bin Laden, Snow said, "there is," but he did not give details. Bin Laden is believed to be holed up along the border with Pakistan in rugged, remote terrain, protected by loyal tribesmen.

"I don't want to try to characterize anything that's going on, because the moment you try to do that, you could get in the way of ongoing activities," Snow said. "Let's simply say that the United States is determined to do everything in its power, and the president, in the power of the administration, to find him."

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Heidebundt Pikelmaas, international arms dea
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:45 PM

Yes, it's all wonderful for the arms trade, Woody. With any luck, it will go on indefinitely. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it will. If one enemy of convenience is eliminated we just create another one. It's as easy as destabilizing a society or falling off a log, relatively speaking. War is good business. Unending war is even better. The best way to maintain an unending war is to create an intolerable situation for many people, and specify military and political objectives that are completely unrealistic and impossible to achieve. All this has been done by the Bush administration AND their Muslim opponents AND Israel too, and very efficiently, I might add. Business is booming.

I may have to buy another Maserati soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:50 PM

I forget the author of the quote, but it goes something along this line: "It is very difficult to get someone to understand a thing when their salary depends on their not understanding it." I think it was Sinclair Lewis. Someone who understood the human proclivity for selling souls in exchange for pottage.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:54 PM

Yup. That is the crux of the problem, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 10:17 PM

Woody:

More than 10,000 U.S.-led troops have spread out over four southern provinces as part of Operation Mountain Thrust, a counterinsurgency blitz aimed at quelling a Taliban resurgence.

Well, that was good planning, eh? Leave Afghanistan to rot and go off chasing hallucinations in Iraq? Let the Taliban build up their strength again?

Kind of reminds me of the "heck of a job" Dubya did with Katrina.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:45 PM

CNN

Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 18, 2004

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." --

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:58 PM

Putin--now there's an unimpeachable source, who never in his life has participated in disinformation, nor ever received bad data.   Thanks for giving us the definitive answer. Now we can all go out and vote for Bush supporters with a clear conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:59 PM

Woddy:

Do the initial "B" and "S" mean anything to you? Look, if there was anything to this claim, the maladministration would be shouting it from the rooftops ... actually, if it was even mildly plausible this claim might: have any substance, they'd be doing that. After all, they were spreading the lies of Chalabi's thugs far and wide before the war.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 12:28 AM

Why would Iraq NOT want to strike back at the USA? The USA was bombing and persecuting and threatening Iraq ever since the Gulf War with George Bush the elder. They were attacking and damaging Iraq on a daily basis, and violating Iraqi airspace on a daily basis. Seems to me that Saddam or any other national leader would be entirely justified (if a bit foolish) to plan retaliatory strikes against the USA, given such a situation.

Would the USA not feel justified to counterattack with deadly force if it were being bombed by foreign aircraft on a daily basis for about 10 years?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 01:21 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Mar 5, 1998

Desk officers in the U.S. government's Middle East bureaucracy would not return Chalabi's calls when he visited. The CIA was bad-mouthing him to reporters. One senior State Department official bought Chalabi lunch at the Cosmos Club to avoid meeting with him at State -- "off-lining" the meeting, in the official's parlance, meaning that it did not officially happen.

It was a grim time for a man who has been an honest, observant and reliable interpreter of Iraq since we met in Beirut 26 years ago. Our friendship survived my departure from the Middle East a few years later, several wars in the region and numerous betrayals of Chalabi's cause by successive American governments. Despite his own unrelenting confidence on recent visits here, I felt growing apprehension for this cultivated Iraqi banker, mathematician and revolutionary.

But tomorrow is always another day in the life of an exile politician. On Monday, Chalabi appeared before the Senate subcommittee on the Middle East and got a sympathetic hearing for his new detailed paramilitary plan for undermining Saddam's reign of terror. Chalabi is suddenly being sought after by officials at the Pentagon and State to talk about low-intensity conflict scenarios..

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 01:27 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Jul 2, 2000

Gore's problem on Iraq is his campaign problem in microcosm: The meeting with the opposition was the right thing to do. It was intended to suggest that a President Gore would do more to bring down [Saddam Hussein] and to check his development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. But the choreography of the meeting as an official occasion at the State Department (rather than a political meeting, where promises would have to be made) gave Gore a pretext for not saying such words or for actually differing with Clinton's approach. Once again, Gore seemed to lack the courage of his convictions.

Waiting for Saddam to go away has emerged as the most daring strategy President Clinton will pursue in Iraq. He has also extended that strategy to the Iraqi opposition over the past two years, apparently hoping it too will just blow away if not given meaningful U.S. help.

The INC leaders were in Washington this past week primarily to meet with Vice President Al Gore, who voted for Desert Storm as a senator and showed early, strong interest in helping Saddam's opponents. But Gore has quietly gone along with Clinton's Iraq finesse since they arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue together.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 01:30 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Oct 10, 2002

[George W. Bush]'s immediate predecessors overlooked the genocide against the Kurds, the defiance of the United Nations on weapons of mass destruction, the harboring of terrorists, the breaking of the overly generous cease-fire terms that the United States dictated at the end of the Persian Gulf War and other parts of what Bush on Monday accurately called Iraq's "unique" record of evil. Until the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush and his Cabinet seemed able to also argue information about Iraq round or flat.

A sea change has occurred in official Washington since the president decided last summer that he would soon have to be ready to go to war against Iraq. Public attempts by officials to bury or explain away menacing information about Iraq have largely dried up or gone underground, although the CIA fights a rear-guard action. Now information and intelligence are marshaled to make the case, rather than deflect it.

"You sure write a lot about Iraq," an exasperated editor at The Post said to me in 1998. I took it as an unintended compliment from a colleague who was not eager to devote more space to [Saddam Hussein]'s transgressions then. Bush's determination has cleared news space as well as time at the Pentagon for Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 01:45 AM

The USA itself has a long history of harbouring and promoting terrorists, from Latin America to the Middle East or wherever they like. Their own military forces are terrorists. They have funded death squads in Central and South America, and they funded and trained the Mujahedin in Afghanistan (to fight the Soviets), and the Mujahedin were the same people, the same religious fanatics who became, in time, the Taliban and Al Queda. The USA-back Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was different from the Taliban in one very interesting area...they grew opium for the international drug trade. The Taliban had shut down the opium farming in the areas they controlled, because of their religious/moral stand on the matter. The Afghani opium trade is now up and running again full steam, since the USA knocked out the Taliban administration. This is handy for the CIA, because the CIA deals opium (secretly, that is). It's a handy way of raising a hell of a lot of money fast. The Northern Alliance committed mass killings of prisoners during the fighting in Afghanistan. The USA was also complicit in helping Saddam during many of his massacres of Kurds, and standing quietly aside when he massacred Shiites, following the Gulf War.

The USA has itself committed pretty much every crime it is busy accusing others of committing. It's one of the most blatant cases of the pot calling the kettle black in recorded history for the USA to accuse other people of war crimes and/or terrorism.

But I forgot..."terrorism" is only called terrorism when other people do it, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:43 AM

http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2006/06/19/opinion/opinion02.txt

Reader views: Encourage our troops, not the enemy
Monday, June 19, 2006

Polls, polls and more polls. The liberal politicians in our nation complain about our president's low poll numbers. Yet, their own poll numbers are more than 10 percent lower than the president's.

I feel that our president's poll numbers are great considering he has sustained a five-year "Bash Bush" campaign by the liberal press and Hollywood. I don't buy all the bull that American people want to know. I have more faith in the American people than that.

Have you noticed the type of complaints? When our president takes action, he either did it too early or too late or too much or not enough. They push for us to pull out of Iraq, and if we did, they would probably say, "See, I told you we couldn't win, and the war was a quagmire from the word go." Well, we are winning this war against the terrorists. The American people will settle for nothing less.

I often wonder how many of our brave soldiers would still be alive if these complainers wouldn't complain, which encourages the enemy.

We have the best, most well-trained force and the most modern equipment in the world, even after the military was cut by nine divisions during the Clinton administration.

It also seems like our liberal news will believe the word of the enemy before our own soldiers. We should not have any newspeople on our front lines. They should be no closer than our headquarters. They hurt our troops because the newspeople are so critical of our troops that a solider might hesitate and get himself killed and loose the battle. The 75 newspeople that died is a shame, and their deaths were unnecessary.

Also, to accuse our soldiers of deliberately shooting women and children is crossing the line. Because the terrorists are cowards that hide behind women and children, our soldiers sometimes have to make split-second decisions, and women and children do get killed. How would our soldiers know if these women and children have bombs taped around them or grenades under their armpits? Did you ever hear of the human wave attack of the Korean War?

These terrorists are the lowest of all cowards. Let our troops do their job, and keep politics out of it - politics caused us to lose the last two wars. Encourage our troops, not the enemy. I will never vote for a liberal because I'm a Christian and an American, and I am proud of it. Support our troops.

Loren Behmlander

Safford

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 12:09 AM

Excerpt from an article in Rolling Stone:

The Worst President in History?
   By Sean Wilentz
    Rolling Stone


One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush.

  
  (Illustration by Robert Grossman)     
  
   George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

   From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty - and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

   Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton - a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

   The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

   Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole - a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled - and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating - reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled - nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success - flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

   Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt - about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

(snip...)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 12:18 AM

Addendum, Ibid:

Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law - that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening.

   The president's defenders stoutly contend that war-time conditions fully justify Bush's actions. And as Lincoln showed during the Civil War, there may be times of military emergency where the executive believes it imperative to take immediate, highly irregular, even unconstitutional steps. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful," Lincoln wrote in 1864, "by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation."

Bush seems to think that, since 9/11, he has been placed, by the grace of God, in the same kind of situation Lincoln faced. But Lincoln, under pressure of daily combat on American soil against fellow Americans, did not operate in secret, as Bush has. He did not claim, as Bush has, that his emergency actions were wholly regular and constitutional as well as necessary; Lincoln sought and received Congressional authorization for his suspension of habeas corpus in 1863.

Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" - a war against a tactic, not a specific nation or political entity, which could last as long as any president deems the tactic a threat to national security. Lincoln's exceptional measures were intended to survive only as long as the Confederacy was in rebellion. Bush's could be extended indefinitely, as the president sees fit, permanently endangering rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizenry.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 09:48 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Jan 18, 1998

If Iraq's defiance of U.N. arms inspections forces President Clinton to order U.S. military strikes, America's top soldier will not waste time trying to bomb Saddam Hussein into resuming inspections or making other political gestures. Gen. Henry H. Shelton will instead probably go after the chemical, biological or nuclear facilities that Iraq has sought to conceal.

Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined that sensible but historic proposition during a Dec. 19 meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Post. I had asked Shelton if he really thought air strikes could inflict enough pain to make the Iraqi dictator change goals and accept a publicly humiliating retreat on inspections.

The Shelton approach represents not just a shift from Vietnam-era thinking that the military long ago absorbed. It also reflects a still coalescing change in the way the United States will now respond to the spread to hostile or irresponsible nations of chemical, biological and nuclear arms -- weapons of mass destruction, or WMD in the jargon of doomsday thinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 09:57 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Apr 8, 2001

President Bush is said to have empowered three administration working groups to think hard and devise one more new-and-improved U.S. policy on Iraq. Have no doubt: This means war.

The working groups -- the other two cover economic sanctions and the no-fly zones over Iraq policed by U.S. and British planes -- will provide excellent platforms for stealth assaults unless Bush, [Cheney] and [Condoleezza Rice] get a better handle on where the review is going.

Also left out was the salient fact that [Ahmed Chalabi] has become the be^te noire of the CIA and its friends at the State Department. He publicized the intelligence agency's gross failures in Iraq. A serious Iraq review would begin with a serious look at why and how the CIA fell on its face in Iraq under Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 10:01 AM

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jim Hoagland Jun 30, 2002

That means more reliance on U.S. military might to support diplomacy. Events pull Bush toward a strategy of transforming the region by establishing a greatly expanded and intrusive U.S. military presence there. American forces would stay for years to help develop and shield new and democratic leaderships in Iraq and in a Palestinian state.

Straws in the wind suggest a growing acceptance at the White House of the need for an overwhelming U.S. invasion force that will remain on the ground in Iraq for several years. The U.S. presence will serve as the linchpin for democratic transformation of a major Arab country that can be a model for the region. A new Iraq would also help provide greater energy security for Americans.

The wind has shifted in the region as well. Iran welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, [Saddam Hussein]'s most visible and dedicated opponent in exile, for political discussions in Tehran earlier this month. Turkey has privately told Washington it will support U.S. action against Baghdad. U.S. officials will soon begin discussions with Israel on the implications for the Jewish state of a U.S. campaign against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 10:50 AM

Woody:

Rather than a flurry of pastes from various years in the past, how about just posting links, with a brief statement of the point you are trying to make? It is a little bewildering to understand what, if anything, you are trying to communicate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 08:10 PM

oll: Bush Worst President Since 1945
Ronald Reagan Picked As Best President In Nationwide Survey

June 1, 2006
Former President Ronald Reagan, on his ranch in 1992 and President Bush on his ranch in 2001 (AP)






(CBS) President Bush has been named as the worst president since the end of the World War II in a new national poll.

Mr. Bush was chosen by 34 percent of the voters who participated in the the Quinnipiac Unversity survey. Richard Nixon finished second with 17 percent -- just ahead of Bill Clinton with 16 percent.

Ronald Reagan was the top choice as best president, with 28 percent. Finishing second was Mr. Clinton with 25 percent.

The poll reflected deep partisan divisions. Mr. Bush was ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Republicans.

Reagan, on thew other hand, was named as the No. 1 president by 56 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Democrats.

"Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among baby boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

"Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper," Carroll added.

The Quinnipiac University poll was carried out from From May 23-30 and surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:08 PM

It is just plain silly to say of GWB that he is the "worst president since World War II." It underrates him. He is surely the best American president of the 21st Century, so far!

As for competing in the other direction, he has to be the very worst president since before the Civil War. At the very least. Probably the worst in the history of the Republic. Most of those other guys are guilty at most of falling asleep at the switch. Or like poor old Grant, just being elected at the wrong time.

A point I am v. curious about. This is the only on-line discussion group I ever joined, and I have not been around much in the last couple years. Is Guest Woody's tactic of dumping a ton of s..., so you cannot wade through it and have no desire to respond, a common one in on-line discussions?

Surely Woody is right about one thing. Sadaam Hussein is a bastard. He is also a bastard that was put into power by U.S. meddling and fostered and sustained by Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Regan administration. And whoever ends up in power in Iraq after our adventure there is over (if it ever is) is likely to be equally bad. One might think the moral is, meddling can have unintended bad consequences and should be indulged in with restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:21 PM

"I heared in Austraily they got Zero deficit. Izat true? '

Well, depends on just what is MEANT by that...

Howard has got (I forget the EXACT clever phrase) 'Net Govt Debt' - whatever the hell that means! - down to zero, by 'creative book-keeping', just as the unemployment figures are now below 5% - a historical low for oh, yonks, but in order to DO that, even while being paid (partial) unemployment benefit payments (now called 'Newstart' - so it must be all purely the fault of those without a job!) - you are now counted as 'not unemployed' if you are in 'paid employment' (any sort of low paid temporary casual job, like delivering pamphlets at less than $1 an hour) for an hour a fortnight...


Of course 'private debt' has never been higher per capita, and we have had a record run of Trade Deficits (we import far more tha we export, except for jobs, which is the other way around!) of ever increasing amounts...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:50 AM

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/entertainment/14847443.htm

Sun, Jun. 18, 2006

'We have to stay in Iraq,' Soros says
George Rush and Joanna Molloy Star Talk

Billionaire George Soros spent a fortune trying to pry President Bush out of the White House. But the Democratic Midas agrees with the president that we can't pull out of Iraq now.

"Unfortunately, many countries have a national narrative that condemns them to keep on defending a cause that is really indefensible," the Open Society founder said Monday at the Core Club party for his book "The Age of Fallibility." "The Turks can't admit the massacre of Armenians, for example. We have been better in the past at recognizing our sins. I'm afraid that we have to recognize that was a terrible mistake.

"I can't expect President Bush to do that," Soros allowed. "That would be out of keeping for anybody. What's worse, I think we actually have to stay in Iraq for a while. If we left, we would have a conflagration. We are sitting on a civil war. Therefore, American soldiers have to continue giving their lives to a bad cause."

Soros said Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, because that "was where Bin Laden was located." He also conceded that, since pre-war Iraq was "a magnet for general terrorists," the U.S. occupation may "have deflected a terrorist attack" here. But Soros argued that, thanks to Bush's policies, "The danger of a terrorist attack is greater since 9/11. We may actually be growing terrorist cells."

P.S. Soros was downright courtly toward the Bushies compared with Sen. John Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, who snarled Tuesday at White House adviser Karl Rove for accusing Kerry and fellow Vietnam vet Rep. John Murtha of "cutting and running" from the war.

"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison," said Wade. "This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer. When it came to Iraq, this administration chose to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy.... In November, Americans will cut and run from this Republican Congress."

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 01:01 PM

Saturday, July 1, 2006

Is Bush A War Criminal?
01 Jul 2006 05:20 am

That question has troubled me for quite a while. The Hamdan decision certainly suggests that, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions even in Guantanamo (let alone in Iraq), a war crime has been committed. And in the military, the command structure insists that superiors are held accountable. I've been saying this for a long time now, and have watched aghast as the Bush administration has essentially dumped responsibility for war-crimes on the grunts at Abu Ghraib. The evidence already available proves that the president himself ordered torture and abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now he has been shown to be required to act within the law, and according to the Constitution, his liability for war crimes therefore comes into focus. Money quote from a useful Cato Institute Hamdan summary:

Both the majority and concurrence cite 18 U.S.C. § 2241, which Justice Kennedy stresses makes violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention a war crime punishable as a federal offense, enforceable in federal civil court. The majority holds, of course, that trying persons under the president's military commission order violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, suggesting that trial is a war crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2241.

Furthermore, the majority stresses that the Geneva Conventions 'do extend liability for substantive war crimes to those who "orde[r]' their commission" and "this Court has read the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to impose 'command responsibility' on military commanders for acts of their subordinates." The Court's emphasis on the liability that attaches to "orders" is significant, because trials in the military commissions are, of course, pursuant to a direct presidential order. Even so, it's difficult to imagine a circumstances in which charges under Section 2241 might actually be prosecuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:01 AM

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/%24File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf

A textual interpretation of the Conventions can only lead to the conclusion
that all persons who are not protected by GC I-III, thus also persons
who do not respect the conditions which would entitle them to POW status/
treatment, are covered by GC IV provided that they are not:
• nationals of a State which is not party to the Convention;
• nationals of the Party/Power in which hands they are; or
• nationals of a neutral State (only if they are in the territory of a belligerent
State) or co-belligerent State with normal diplomatic representation
(for details see the foregoing quotation from the ICRC Commentary).

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.[2] After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0041033.cfm

June 26, 2006

Bush Issues Executive Order on Eminent Domain

by Pete Winn, associate editor

Last Friday marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo decision.

It has been one year since the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that shocked the country and attacked the fundamental American doctrine, "A man's home is his castle."

Now the backlash is under way.

President Bush marked the anniversary of the Kelo v. New London ( Conn.) decision by issuing an executive order barring the federal government from taking private land for someone else's private use.

Specifically, Bush's order said "it is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property" by "limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Bush's order specifically requires agencies that answer to the president to make sure, when they exercise eminent domain, that people's property is taken only for a public use, such as a road or airport, rather than what Kelo allows � the taking of private property for any use, including commercial development.

"Kelo interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow state and local governments to condemn private property for the benefit of private developers," Hausknecht said, "to build privately owned improvements on that property for the hope of a public benefit, such as a higher tax base."

The ruling, cited by family advocates as an egregious example of judicial activism, sprung from a 1997 case in which the city of New London, Conn., allowed the New London Development Corp. to seize Susette Kelo's entire neighborhood for a shopping mall. Kelo and some of her neighbors sued � and lost.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, applauded Bush for taking executive action.

"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said.

Cornyn has authored legislation � The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act (S. 1313) � which puts into federal law for the full government what Bush's order does for the executive branch. His bipartisan bill now has 31 Senate co-sponsors.

A House bill, H.R. 4128, passed the lower chamber with bipartisan support by a vote of 376-38 and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That bill would restrict federal economic-development funding to states where municipalities engage in eminent domain abuse.

"The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong," the Texas senator said. "But Congress must act soon."

Good news, bad news

The Kelo decision has brought both good news and bad news, according to Steve Anderson, a senior staff attorney for the Institute for Justice. The bad news is that Kelo opened up a floodgate of government property seizures.

"We did a study from 1998 to 2002, which showed more than 10,000 instances of eminent domain abuse around the country," Anderson told CitizenLink. "But in the last year, since Kelo, over 5,700 properties are being threatened or condemned for private development � that's nearly triple the yearly average."

The good news, he said, is that the ruling has unleashed a response from state legislatures and grassroots activists.

"The one thing the court got right is that states are free to pass laws that are more restrictive and pass laws that are more protective of their residents," he said. "We've seen that occur in about half the states. About 25 states have passed some kind of reform."

In addition, citizen-driven initiatives are being placed on the ballot in a number of states this fall, including California.

"We've seen an unprecedented grassroots rebellion because of this decision," Anderson said. "Quite frankly, it hits home."

It's ironic, Hausknecht said, that the anniversary of Kelo comes so close to July 4, America's Independence Day, because the Founding Fathers were very protective of private property in the Constitution.

"Property rights were near and dear to everything the Founders believed," he noted, "and part of the abuse of rights that England committed against America dealt directly with property rights."

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:37 PM

Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.

Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step.

Not satisfied with having won the vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, quickly issued a statement accusing Democrats who opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of putting "their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America." He said the Democrats "would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives" and create "new rights for terrorists."

This nonsense is part of the Republicans' scare-America-first strategy for the elections. No Democrat advocated pampering terrorists — gingerly or otherwise — or giving them new rights. Democratic amendments to the bill sought to protect everyone's right to a fair trial while providing a legal way to convict terrorists.

Americans will hear more of this ahead of the election. They also will hear Mr. Bush say that he finally has the power to bring to justice a handful of men behind the 9/11 attacks. The truth is that Mr. Bush could have done that long ago, but chose to detain them illegally at hidden C.I.A. camps to extract information. He sent them to Guantánamo only to stampede Congress into passing the new law.

The 60 or so men at Guantánamo who are now facing tribunals — out of about 450 inmates — also could have been tried years ago if Mr. Bush had not rebuffed efforts by Congress to create suitable courts. He imposed a system of kangaroo courts that was more about expanding his power than about combating terrorism.

While the Republicans pretend that this bill will make America safer, let's be clear about its real dangers. It sets up a separate system of justice for any foreigner whom Mr. Bush chooses to designate as an "illegal enemy combatant." It raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. It does not require the government to release prisoners who are not being charged, or a prisoner who is exonerated by the tribunals.

(NEw York Times editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Allende
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:49 PM

Bush was first installed into his role through a bloodless coup.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM

Bush Campaigns for Pa., Va. Candidates
By JENNIFER LOVEN , 10.19.2006, 06:52 PM


President Bush campaigned Thursday for a congressman who has confessed to adultery and a senator accused of racial insensitivity, seeking to boost incumbent Republicans once safe for re-election but now in peril.

Bush's appearances for Rep. Don Sherwood here and for Sen. George Allen in Richmond, Va., found the White House on the defensive over the decision to try to help candidates in such straits as the GOP struggles to keep control of Congress.

"I think the president understands that it's important to set high standards," said spokesman Tony Snow.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM

I urge you to watch this short presentation:

Wrong, Sir!.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:57 AM

During an interview today on ABC's This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker's plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is "between 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'"

Bush responded, 'We've never been stay the course, George!' Watch it:


Bush is wrong:

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]


The clip, followed by a thread of disgust, outrage and disparagement of the President's inconsistency can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:06 AM

Good for you, Bobert! You brought back one of the most popular threads on the Mudcat for the past five or six years! You are a doobie! Amos buy you lunch lately?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 11:48 AM

"...If the Democrats win in November, that doesn't necessarily mean that the "liberals" win. Contrary to the simplistic view held by many Republicans, not all Democrats are liberals. However, a return to the liberal values that have made this country great would be a welcome change. For starters, it would be nice to be free of the congressional scandals caused by the Tom Delays, Duke Cunninghams and Mark Foleys of the world.

There are many more areas in which the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to deliver, including immigration reform (unless you call the un-American notion of building a wall a plan), a rational energy policy and balancing the federal budget. It would be almost impossible for Democrats NOT to do better.

If the liberals/Democrats win, we can finally give a boost to working Americans by raising the minimum wage, something GOP senators have blocked nine times since 1997 while voting to raise their own pay. We may finally see affordable health care for all Americans and a Social Security plan that doesn't involve playing the stock market.

At the state level in Iowa, Democratic control of the Legislature would mean that lawmakers would finally have the ability to live up to the progressive nature of this great state. Among the reforms would be a repeal of tax cuts that help only the wealthy, more funding for schools, and an increase in the state's cigarette tax. And yes, a liberal agenda would include upholding reproductive rights for women, and the addition of sexual orientation to the state's civil rights code.

In other words, if the liberals win, the United States of America would have an opportunity to once again be a country with guts, a backbone and a conscience. Just what our founding fathers intended."

Paul Guggenheimer is a free-lance writer and radio commentator from Sioux City. You can write to him in care of The Sioux City Journal or at [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM

Yo, Dougie...

I didn't bring it back... Might of fact I had forgotten that I even started it... One of them senior things that I'm sure you know nuthin' about but...

...that's the truth... I clicked on it and went "Wow, I started this thing???"

But my bud, Amos, has dug it up and pumped some new life into it...

...and I'm glad he did...

Yeah, I am terribly dishartened that the scaredy-cat Rebubs thought they might save their own jobs by punting away 800 years of accepted international legal principles in the hopes that would save their lousy butts... They deserve to lose for that reason alone... I'd bet that if they were told that the only way they would be re-elected was is they went out and shot their parents then there would have been a lot of funerals... These folks are so dishonest and corrupt that America will be much better off with new crooks in town... No Dem will be half the whore as the current batch of Repubocrooks...

Disgracefull and mark my words, historians will not be nice to Bush and his Repubocrook congressmen... No sir...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:36 AM

Some comments from Maureen Dowd:

Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.


The president is cutting and running from the president.

In a momentous event at the White House on Monday, Tony Snow made a major announcement about an important new strategy for Iraq. The president will no longer stay the course on the rallying cry "stay the course."

A presidency built on message discipline (Message: "Stay the course") is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: "No more stay the course").

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 04:41 PM

No matter what you think of political parties and their ideology, you have admit: Bush will probably be the last REAL MAN president.

Thats right W is a real man.


W is a real man of the people who are suspect of higher education and the elitism of extremely intelligent people.

W is a real man who, if lost, will not ask for directions and will stay the course out of pride.

W is a real man because he is ignorant and stubborn.

Don't ask Laura if W would ask for directions if lost while driving stupid...
Ask the former big 3 automobile manufacturers of America.

They have all crashed under his regieme.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:28 PM

no more stay the course?! I did dozens of stay the course cartoons. dammit.

how about 'stay the new course'

Amos: this summer it was no more "bring it on" remarks.



The court said no more torture but the regieme has side stepped that with new revised secret torture definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:46 PM

If you notice, the newest buzzword is "Victory" even though not one Bushite in the universe can or is willin' to even attempt to define what "victory" means.... Hmmmmmmmmmm???

Sound like "victory" actually means "stay the course"...

Like what is the end-game here??? Seems like it's the same end-game they had in Nam...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:59 AM

It is no secret that Bush would not have been (re)elected in Germany, but might have collected close to 10% of the votes.

Now, in Schroeder's autobiography one can read how our Chancellor thought about Bush:

click for English translation of a SPIEGEL article with some quotes

I don't know exactly when in the year 2002 the change in justification for a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq took place -- when, in other words, the fight against international terrorism slid into the background and the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction was thrust into the foreground. But the change made me increasingly distrustful...

In my opinion, the demonizing of George W. Bush tends to divert attention from the need to critically examine a political alliance in the United States that I consider problematic for the world and America: the alliance between neoconservative intellectuals and Christian fundamentalists, which had and still has a great deal of influence over the policies of the United States and its president.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:05 AM

Some more Schroeder quotes

What a string of miscalculations Cheney was never held accountable for any of these mistakes -- or perhaps they were deliberate distortions? (about the decision to turn to Iraq)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:21 PM

Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi takes an in-depth look at the outgoing 109th Congress in his article, "The Worst Congress Ever." In it, Taibbi writes that over the past six years, "The U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable."

Article here.

"How I turned America into a belligerent third-world country in my spare time for fun and profit", coming soon to a True Confessions newsstand near you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:41 PM

Amos is perfectly in agreement with the Communist Party:\

The National Board of the Communist Party USA released the following appeal on Sept. 25:

The Nov. 7 midterm elections are less than six weeks away. The stakes have never been so high: Control of the House and Senate and governorships nationwide. A recent poll shows that 75 percent of voters are disgusted by the Republican majority House and Senate, the highest disapproval rate since 1994. They are frustrated at Bush's endless Iraq war, by Republican cronyism and corruption, tax giveaways to the rich, cutbacks in vital services, and criminal negligence in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Bush's policies of war and repression have made us less secure. The people are angry and they want change.

Scraping the bottom in polls, Bush and the ultra-right attempted to change the subject back to the "war on terror." The aim is to incite fear among voters and smear Democrats as "weak on national security." But this time the "Swift Boat" tactics are falling flat.

Still they haven't given up on "fear and smear." That's why they are trying to ram through legislation to build a 700-mile fence along our border with Mexico, trying to criminalize immigrants. This is a desperate last minute attempt to win — or steal — the election by inciting racist hatred against immigrants and people of color. They are also attempting to pass legislation allowing torture and wiretapping and limiting voting rights, and pushed through the war appropriations in the last week of Congress.

Most Republicans are running hard to distance themselves from Bush and

Cheney. They can run but they can't hide! Even so-called "moderate" Republicans supported Bush when the chips were down. We must not let their scam divert attention from the Republicans' failure to provide the basic needs of the people.

Whereas a few weeks ago only a handful of House and Senate seats were considered "competitive," now more than 50 House seats are in play and more than a dozen Senate seats. A change of 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate would change control of Congress. Members of the congressional Progressive, Black, Hispanic and Asian-Pacific caucuses would chair half of the House committees and sub-committees.

An end to the ultra-right control will give strength to the grassroots demands to enact pending legislation to end the Iraq war, end torture and spying, reallocate resources to hard-pressed cities, towns, and rural communities, and end Bush's attempt to pack the courts. It will open the door for legislation to protect the civil rights of all. We can move long-stalled legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act, Medicare for All, and strengthen health and safety and environmental protection.

But it's not in the bag. In the countdown to the election, everyone must set aside business as usual. We must devote all our efforts to getting out the vote and insuring that the vote is counted.

• Volunteer to phone bank with your union, neighborhood association or political organization.

• Go door to door in your neighborhood or in citywide mobilizations on behalf of candidates you support.

• Help distribute campaign literature including "A Call to Action: Defend Democracy, Change Congress." Distribute the People's Weekly World.

• Know and discuss with voters the basic issues. Explain why changing Congress is so crucial to reversing the extremist, right-wing thrust of the Republicans.

• Volunteer to be a poll watcher or election judge on Election Day.

• "Protect the vote." Volunteer with groups working to prevent the right wing's "voter suppression" and "vote theft" tactics. Know the election laws and be an advocate for people whose right to vote is under attack.

• Register your family, neighbors and co-workers to vote and bring them to the polls on Nov. 7.

• Help give reminders and rides to get out the vote on Election Day.

This is a fight we can win! If not us, then who? If not now, when?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:23 AM

And you, OG, are of course in perfect agreement with who...the John Birch society? Get over yourself and get a little closer to the present. You're acting like a Cuisinart with a broken blade -- all whir and no chop. Who gives you the right to publish blatant cheap-minded little falsehoods about me, you mealy-mouthed little twerp?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM

An interesting analsyis offering three explanations for the apparent imminent collapse of the GOP.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM

Amos:

Explain the differences between your agenda and the Communist Party of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM

Explain the difference between yours and Josef Stalin's, Old Guy. Then, as soon as I have stopped beating my wife, I'll answer your dumbass question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:11 PM

I think Stalin was a Commie so therefore his agenda must have been communisim.

My agenda is Capitalism.

When I ran across the American Communist website I saw that the bullshit they are spouting is the same as the bullshit you are spouting.

Care to point out any differences?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 12:37 PM

The agenda of the CP is of communism, a political philosophy I have no interest in.

I do believe, however, in decency, compassion, clear and thoughtful policy and effective betterment for human conditions.

Bush's agenda has been uncompassionate, brutal, muddied in thinking, unthoughtful, ineffective, self-serving and designed to better only the wealth of the few against the general operation of the larger nation.

Hope this answers your dumb-ass question.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM

What comrade Amos said, Ol' Guy...

Awww, jus' funnin'... Amos ain't no commie but we sho nuff know how righties like to play the "c card" in defendin' their evilness...