|
16 Oct 05 - 10:41 AM (#1584123) Subject: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: GUEST A quick snippet from this morning's Times UK: "was Rove who crafted the new Republican majority in America: that of a religiously centred party dedicated to steering the largesse of bigger government to its own faith-based and corporate constituencies. It was Rove who used the war to marginalise fiscal conservatives alarmed at spending and libertarian conservatives worried about civil liberties. It was Rove who forged a difficult alliance between a growing conservative intelligentsia and evangelical Protestant voters. It was Rove who decided that a wartime president, rather than seeking national unity, should use the war as a means to drive a wedge into the Democrats and consolidate his own supporters. It was Rove who was the architect of a 51% strategy of playing to the party base, and expanding it, especially among blacks and Latinos, rather than reaching out to the centre." So, anyone heard any betting odds on whether he and Scooter will be indicted? |
|
16 Oct 05 - 10:43 AM (#1584125) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Peace "Bush's Brain Under Indictment?" Thought this was gonna be a thread on cytological technique. |
|
16 Oct 05 - 10:47 AM (#1584126) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Peace I hope he is, but I think that 'justice' in the USA is too far eroded and that it will not happen. (If it does, he'll leave with lotsa money and a few days in jail. Big deal.) However, since I am usually wrong about politics . . . . |
|
16 Oct 05 - 01:24 PM (#1584188) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Don Firth Maybe he and Tom DeLay can share a cell. Couldn't happen to a couple of more deserving guys. Don Firth |
|
16 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM (#1584208) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I think they're all dipped in Teflon immediately after the elections, so nothing sticks. As to Dubya's brain, how can you indict a non existent entity? DT. |
|
16 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM (#1584219) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: DougR Yep. I expect that both Carl and Scooter will be indicted, but probably not for the original charge. DougR |
|
16 Oct 05 - 05:08 PM (#1584269) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: dianavan Yep. Looks like Libby will take the fall for Rove - (as if Rove, Cheney and Bush knew nothing about it). Can you believe they would defame the CIA in an effort to cover their own butts? Isn't that a bit like shooting your security guards? If they would go to this much trouble to cover their butts, doesn't it occur to the Bush apologists that the Bush administration has something to hide? When will people finally believe that the War on Terror was, indeed, a smokescreen to cover a corporate agenda? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:28 AM (#1596474) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: GUEST |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:36 AM (#1596529) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: DougR Oops, Dianavan, think you got it assbackwards. I think it is the CIA that is trying to cover it's butt for providing false information to the President which resulted in the invasion of Iraq. Remember? George Tenent, when queried by the President about whether or not the CIA's reportage that Saddam had WMD, his repy was, "It's a slam dunk!" How conveniently we forget. DougR |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:03 PM (#1596811) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Yeah Doug, and how conveniently you forget the Downing Street memo which proves that Blair knew early in 2002 that G Dubya was massaging the intel to justify an invasion. Guilty as charged! Don T. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:06 PM (#1596814) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Cluin They had the means and the end in plain sight. They figured to put up their feet and provide the justification later. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 07:40 PM (#1596871) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Bobert It's truely amazin' how much recent history is being revised as if none uf us were actually alive two or three years ago... I rememeber the Oct 11th Okay maybe 10th) Cincinatti speech where Bush wanted to use the "nuclear" card but the CIA (mainly George Tenaent) was sayin' "hey, wait a minute, we ain't got no confimation" so poor ol' Bush had to go out that night without his "16 words".... But, over the next month or two, Dick Cheney was making regular visits to the CIA headquarters and musta been doing somethin' there 'cause when Blair presented Bush with what would soon be found to be a forged document to support the Niget claim, Tenant din't stand in the way of the "16 words" and Bush said 'um... Well, IMHO, Bush knew he was liein' but he was gettin' desperate and needed to get the "16 words" into the Americans minds to back up the mushrrom cloud crap that Cheney and Rice were spouting for months... But fast forward and we're not hearin anything about the Cincinatti speech or Tenent's attempts to reign in an out-of-control mad dash to war??? Even right afterwards, Tenant was sayin' "Hey, I din't give the green light"... There were several articles in the Post at the time about the back and forth negotiation between the CIA and thre White House on what language would be acceptable... But like if an alien were to drop in from a distant planet and listen to what is being talked about here, these things just din't happen... Problem is, they did... Yeah, there's more being swept under the carpet than is comin' back out... We are right in the middle of a massive cover-up that makes Watergate look like a kid snitchin'a cookie outta grannie's cookie jar... They must think the American people just don't give a danged about nuthin'... This revisionism is not only wrong but an insult to anyone who has been payin' attention... Yeah, Rove should go... Lemme tell ya who else should: Richard Pearle, Pual Wolfowitz (should be fired as president of the World Bank), Rove (of course), Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and..... Bush. They are all liars... Bobert |
|
03 Nov 05 - 08:19 PM (#1596894) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Kaleea Brain? Under indictment? how did it get under there? Too much nookyoolering weapons of mass destruction, I suppose. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:30 PM (#1596930) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Amos And clean out his brownshorts in the National Parks Service, too! See this page for reasons why. Effin' slimeballs passed the Arctic Wilderness oil exploration Big Favor today. But hey, what's a few caribou between friends, right? A |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM (#1596936) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Bobert At best, how much oil is in the Artic Wilderness... I've heard 'bout 'nuff to meet the US's energy needs fir a couple months???? Yet, this big push to to screw it over and why??? Well, I think I know why. Big OIl don't like nobody tellin' them what they can or cannot do... Here, with the average taxpayin, hard workin' American tryin' to make ends meeet, Big Oil is gougin' 'um big time and why? President: Oil guy Vice Prsident: Oil guy Sect. of State: Oil woman-guy Any other questions? Bobert |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM (#1597000) Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Brain Under Indictment? From: Ron Davies How much oil? According to Bush's own DOE, about enough to make a 2% difference (that's 2 per cent--60% versus 62%)--in about 10 years, when they finally get some oil out. The hidden agenda here, as I detailed (from the the Wall St Journal) in the spring--first ANWR thread--is that the oil isn't really the big draw, but the $2. 5 billion Bush has planned into the budget (2007, I believe)--for oil leases. Anything to protect the sacro-sanct tax cuts--mostly benefiting guess who--his well-heeled supporters. Yup, slimeball is about right. Interestingly enough, according to the Journal yesterday, moderate Republicans want the ANWR drilling stripped out of the bill. |