Post #144
Subject: Racism and Sexism and the GOP
Have ya heard that the Republican party is worried about charges of racism and sexism in the ’08 election? Supposedly, they are having focus groups and studies to show how to avoid those charges.
Are ya kidding me!?! I thought that appeals to racism and sexism were the whole Republican strategy for ’08. :p
By the numbers, some %80 of voters are vulnerable to racist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no black man.’ Some %50 of voters are vulnerable to sexist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no woman.’ Is it any wonder that Republicans are drooling to run against a black man?
Of course, Obama is not helping his case by appearing as a racist himself. It’s not a big leap in logic to think that, after 20 years of sitting in the pew of Reverend Wright spewing his racist garbage, a little bit of venom has rubbed off.
Oh, how the Republicans must be grinning – YouTube has freely provided all the campaign advertising needed for ’08, and John McCain will not have dirty his hands.
I’m telling ya: I’m NOT voting for a warmonger – I’m NOT voting for a racist. I’ll just sit out this year – and enjoy the talking heads trying to explain how a candidate who had delivered ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ lost. Are ya listening, Chris Matthews? You’ll blame Hillary – even tho Barack stepped on his own toes.
Oh, I know all about “black rage” – living in a fully integrated area and working for a predominately black company and having attended black churches. I feel qualified to spot a racist – and am insulted when I hear that I ‘just don’t get it.’
The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Reverend Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding” that I realized what I was dealing with.
Thank Goodness that Hillary is still in the race – providing an alternative….
I, for one, am sick and tired of calls for Hillary to quit – let all the votes count. Barack IS ahead, but ya don’t stop a football game at the end of the 3rd quarter. I think that some peeps are worried that Barack Obama can’t finish – well, he can’t. He’ll need some of those evil nasty superdelegates to clinch the nomination.
No wonder they want Hillary to quit.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Post #143
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. III
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Posts #141 and #142 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :P
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“There is a strategy:
“Investigate the money trail blazed by Grover Norquist, Bush et al, multinationals, and defense contractors.
“1. Uncover where the billions have disappeared to, or to whom has been receiving kick-backs. In the real world, we call this embezzlement - it MUST be rampant there.
“2. The multinationals and defense contractor outfits that pulled the political puppets' strings for no-bid contracts, etc. - you COERCE these folks to REBUILD Iraq, since it was they - with the AEI "strategists" and the Bush White House cheerleaders; that brought war to common Iraqis and working class Americans.
“You LET them; with their RECORD profits pick up the tab.
“You let the multinationals that have hoarded money in off shore accounts (CitiBank, Banque Suisse, Deutsche Bank, etc. - the latter a preferred bank by the bin Laden family) pay the BILLIONS owed in CORPORATE TAXES to the USA -
“Gee - I think $63 Billion could be utilized to help our VETERANS - I think it could be utilized to help educate more Americans; I think it could be used to help insured American who lack health insurance; I think it could be utilized to off-set the mortage-loan-sharks that have helped evict American families out into the street!
“Read John Zdanowitz's (Florida International Univ.)work about profit laundering, tax evasion, etc. by these multinationals - read how the shell companies launder the profits they make to fund terror!
“Then - WHEN the MULTINATIONALS & DEFENSE CONTRACTORS do pay to rebuild Iraq - they employ IRAQI people to do the work so they can support their families; helping them establish a better, more normal life with security and basic necessities -
“If they were busy, being productive; having the necessities to help their families - they would NOT be as inclined engage in terror: their needs were being met. Read Mike Mazaar's article entitled " The Psychology of Terror" (Hoover Institute's Policy Review). Maazar is a professor at the Army War College.
“Yep. It's about time these MULTINATIONALS PAY for what they reap. It is they that wallow in the dividends - Lynn Cheney is on the BOARD at GENERAL DYNAMICS - gee - cozy, ethical, no-conflict of interest relationship with her war mongering husband and their fellow colleagues at American Enterprise Institute.”
“Seems to be a plan to perpetuate the gravy train for the"Military Industrial Complex" at the cost of many lives & increasing national debt.”
‘The US force size should be: no more than in Korea, paid for by Iraq, and be accompanied by a regional treaty similar to NATO or SEATO.”
“Bush and company misled the Congress” – the people’s representatives :p – “and we went into Iraq. Saddam was the objective then.” Only because the small minds in the White House bought the insane theories of Laurie MyLroie. “But the scenario has changed and so has the strategic goal. How we got there is not an excuse to run out.” How we got there IS important so that we can learn from our mistake – enough votes for an idiot so that he can “steal” an election. “The job that needs to be done is to crush the Islamic fundamentalist and radicals..The Dems need to wake up to the realities of the world. America needs to wake up to the threat that the House of Saud pose in the Wahabi version of Islam! “ And the reality is that Bush’s Iraq policy is NOT addressing Islamic fundamentalism and is making that movement grow. [rolleyes]
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. III
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Posts #141 and #142 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :P
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“There is a strategy:
“Investigate the money trail blazed by Grover Norquist, Bush et al, multinationals, and defense contractors.
“1. Uncover where the billions have disappeared to, or to whom has been receiving kick-backs. In the real world, we call this embezzlement - it MUST be rampant there.
“2. The multinationals and defense contractor outfits that pulled the political puppets' strings for no-bid contracts, etc. - you COERCE these folks to REBUILD Iraq, since it was they - with the AEI "strategists" and the Bush White House cheerleaders; that brought war to common Iraqis and working class Americans.
“You LET them; with their RECORD profits pick up the tab.
“You let the multinationals that have hoarded money in off shore accounts (CitiBank, Banque Suisse, Deutsche Bank, etc. - the latter a preferred bank by the bin Laden family) pay the BILLIONS owed in CORPORATE TAXES to the USA -
“Gee - I think $63 Billion could be utilized to help our VETERANS - I think it could be utilized to help educate more Americans; I think it could be used to help insured American who lack health insurance; I think it could be utilized to off-set the mortage-loan-sharks that have helped evict American families out into the street!
“Read John Zdanowitz's (Florida International Univ.)work about profit laundering, tax evasion, etc. by these multinationals - read how the shell companies launder the profits they make to fund terror!
“Then - WHEN the MULTINATIONALS & DEFENSE CONTRACTORS do pay to rebuild Iraq - they employ IRAQI people to do the work so they can support their families; helping them establish a better, more normal life with security and basic necessities -
“If they were busy, being productive; having the necessities to help their families - they would NOT be as inclined engage in terror: their needs were being met. Read Mike Mazaar's article entitled " The Psychology of Terror" (Hoover Institute's Policy Review). Maazar is a professor at the Army War College.
“Yep. It's about time these MULTINATIONALS PAY for what they reap. It is they that wallow in the dividends - Lynn Cheney is on the BOARD at GENERAL DYNAMICS - gee - cozy, ethical, no-conflict of interest relationship with her war mongering husband and their fellow colleagues at American Enterprise Institute.”
“Seems to be a plan to perpetuate the gravy train for the"Military Industrial Complex" at the cost of many lives & increasing national debt.”
‘The US force size should be: no more than in Korea, paid for by Iraq, and be accompanied by a regional treaty similar to NATO or SEATO.”
“Bush and company misled the Congress” – the people’s representatives :p – “and we went into Iraq. Saddam was the objective then.” Only because the small minds in the White House bought the insane theories of Laurie MyLroie. “But the scenario has changed and so has the strategic goal. How we got there is not an excuse to run out.” How we got there IS important so that we can learn from our mistake – enough votes for an idiot so that he can “steal” an election. “The job that needs to be done is to crush the Islamic fundamentalist and radicals..The Dems need to wake up to the realities of the world. America needs to wake up to the threat that the House of Saud pose in the Wahabi version of Islam! “ And the reality is that Bush’s Iraq policy is NOT addressing Islamic fundamentalism and is making that movement grow. [rolleyes]
Friday, March 21, 2008
Post #142
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. II
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Post #141 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“A report of this on NPR called it a "treaty" with the Bush Administration going out of its way to avoid using the word "treaty". No wonder. A "treaty" requires Senate approval while bilateral agreements generally do not. This is symptomatic of this administrations' go-it-alone-I-know-whats-good-for-you philosophy. They readily violate the Constitute behind our backs and say the Constitute doesn't apply when they do it in front of our faces.”
“That is why the Democratic canditates are demanding that Bush not negotiate a permanent committment to keep our troops in Iraq during the rest of his tenure. No matter, he is going to do it anyway. That not the only matter that he will try to entangle us into before he leaves. How about permanent tax cuts for the rich, Continued survalence on citizens, renewing the Patriot Act. Bush, is going to use fear as a weapon to bludgen the Congress into going along with more funding for this stupid war and further eroding our Constitution rights. That is why I believe an impeachment trial should begin. That is the only way to corral this man.”
Yes, you’d think that President George W. Bush would stop pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining. But nobody has the courage to stop him – or even try. Bush is leading us down a road to ruin, and peeps seem content to follow. * sigh *
The truly sad thing is that Bush’s way – a disrespect for our Constitution, our people and way of life – is not the way to win the War on Terror. Bush just wants 10 more months without a homeland attack – he’ll call his time a “success,” damn the long-term consequences.
“AS LONG AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENSE IS IN IRAQ, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE SOLDIERS STAY IN BASE CAMPS OR IN CAVES, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE AND SUBJECT TO ATTACKS AND PROTESTS BY THE IRAQI PUBLIC. THERE IS NO IDEA OF HOW MANY US TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO STAY AND TRAIN THE IRAQI'S AND OF COURSE, WHAT WILL THE US TROOPS DO WHEN THEY COME UNDER ATTACK? YES I KNOW THEY WILL FIGHT BACK BUT WHERE, IN THE FIELD, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE? AS LONG AS AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE TO COMPLETE TOURS OD DUTY IN IRAQ, THIS WAR WILL NOT BE OVER AND OUR SOLDIERS' PRESENCE WILL CONSTANTLY REMIND THE IRAQI PEOPLE OF OUR INTERVENTION AND ONLY SEEM LIKE A PUPPETEER PULLING STRINGS AND STILL CONTROLING THEIR COUNTRY.”
“There will continue to be war and violence in Iraq until we're willing to confront the root cause of global jihadism, our wonderful "friends and allies," the Saudis:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
"It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the hijackers on 9/11, and the vast majority of the fanatical suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq, all seem to be coming from the exact same place. Indeed, even now they are working steadfastly to undermine the gains we've recently made in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?ref=middleeast
"And you can bet they continue to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, diligently spreading their Wahhabi crap. To cite but one telling example:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bhutto_remembered.html
"Until we open our eyes and confront the real enemy, we will not make one inch of real progress in the War on Terror.”
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. II
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Post #141 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“A report of this on NPR called it a "treaty" with the Bush Administration going out of its way to avoid using the word "treaty". No wonder. A "treaty" requires Senate approval while bilateral agreements generally do not. This is symptomatic of this administrations' go-it-alone-I-know-whats-good-for-you philosophy. They readily violate the Constitute behind our backs and say the Constitute doesn't apply when they do it in front of our faces.”
“That is why the Democratic canditates are demanding that Bush not negotiate a permanent committment to keep our troops in Iraq during the rest of his tenure. No matter, he is going to do it anyway. That not the only matter that he will try to entangle us into before he leaves. How about permanent tax cuts for the rich, Continued survalence on citizens, renewing the Patriot Act. Bush, is going to use fear as a weapon to bludgen the Congress into going along with more funding for this stupid war and further eroding our Constitution rights. That is why I believe an impeachment trial should begin. That is the only way to corral this man.”
Yes, you’d think that President George W. Bush would stop pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining. But nobody has the courage to stop him – or even try. Bush is leading us down a road to ruin, and peeps seem content to follow. * sigh *
The truly sad thing is that Bush’s way – a disrespect for our Constitution, our people and way of life – is not the way to win the War on Terror. Bush just wants 10 more months without a homeland attack – he’ll call his time a “success,” damn the long-term consequences.
“AS LONG AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENSE IS IN IRAQ, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE SOLDIERS STAY IN BASE CAMPS OR IN CAVES, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE AND SUBJECT TO ATTACKS AND PROTESTS BY THE IRAQI PUBLIC. THERE IS NO IDEA OF HOW MANY US TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO STAY AND TRAIN THE IRAQI'S AND OF COURSE, WHAT WILL THE US TROOPS DO WHEN THEY COME UNDER ATTACK? YES I KNOW THEY WILL FIGHT BACK BUT WHERE, IN THE FIELD, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE? AS LONG AS AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE TO COMPLETE TOURS OD DUTY IN IRAQ, THIS WAR WILL NOT BE OVER AND OUR SOLDIERS' PRESENCE WILL CONSTANTLY REMIND THE IRAQI PEOPLE OF OUR INTERVENTION AND ONLY SEEM LIKE A PUPPETEER PULLING STRINGS AND STILL CONTROLING THEIR COUNTRY.”
“There will continue to be war and violence in Iraq until we're willing to confront the root cause of global jihadism, our wonderful "friends and allies," the Saudis:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
"It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the hijackers on 9/11, and the vast majority of the fanatical suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq, all seem to be coming from the exact same place. Indeed, even now they are working steadfastly to undermine the gains we've recently made in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?ref=middleeast
"And you can bet they continue to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, diligently spreading their Wahhabi crap. To cite but one telling example:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bhutto_remembered.html
"Until we open our eyes and confront the real enemy, we will not make one inch of real progress in the War on Terror.”
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Post #141
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
* * *
Nearly half a decade since the big bangs of "Shock and Awe," the United States and the Iraqi government are about to start writing a plan for U.S. forces to exit the war in Iraq, but not the country.
Senior U.S. and Iraqi officials will soon begin negotiating a strategic agreement to answer critical questions about the future role and commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The agreement, being tentatively called the U.S.-Iraq Friendship and Cooperation Agreement, could be the most important bilateral arrangement since the war, setting up U.S.-Iraqi relations for years, if not decades, to come.
American and Iraqi negotiators so far seem to have similar visions for the agreement. Both sides see a long-term U.S. military commitment to support, equip and train Iraqi forces.
On Thursday Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshar Zebari, one of Iraq’s four principal negotiators, told NBC News the agreement should be finished by July and calls for a new mission for U.S. troops.
"What kind of role does Iraq want the U.S. forces to play?" I asked.
"I think to continue the role of building, supporting and arming the Iraqi security forces, and also to provide support, let’s say, on request in the future because we want our forces to be self reliant to stand on their own," said Zebari. "We cannot continue to rely and depend on the U.S. support indefinitely. I think we can, and we know how, to defend ourselves and how to stand up provided we are given the means."
"So you would like U.S. forces to stay on bases to come out and provide support when they’re asked to do?" I asked.
"I think that’s the idea. Instead of carrying out these daily patrols, exposure, and combat missions, you see, this would be changed. And this is a plus really both for Iraqis and for the American soldiers," he said.
The timing is critical and somewhat controversial. Both U.S. and Iraqi negotiators want to finish the agreement while the Bush administration is still in office. It’s reasonable. They don’t want to start from square one with a new administration.
But critics say the Bush administration is trying to lock the United States into an open-ended military commitment in Iraq before leaving office.
On Thursday, Iraq was putting down markers. Zebari said Iraq wants the agreement to include:
- A U.S. commitment of military support and protection
- Clarification of the legal status of U.S. troops and private security contractors, including Blackwater USA, both currently immune from Iraqi prosecution
- A counter-terrorism partnership
- Continued U.S. training and supplies of military hardware
A senior American negotiator told NBC News that Washington wants the agreement to be flexible and said it will not include details about specific troop levels or permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
When I asked a senior Iraqi official if the agreement means there will be long-term American bases in Iraq, he said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."
* * *
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“the empire is on it's last legs. it will end just like all the others.”
Ya been reading my blog? :p The decline-and-fall has been going on since 1950 and our involvement in the Korean, uh, Police Action – George W. Bush has only accelerated the coming end.
“This is all going to cost money. How are we going to pay for this? It would be a lot less expensive if we just got out, period. Ron Paul wants to get all of our troops off of foreign soil and put them to work protecting our borders. I think that is a much better idea.”
“What ever long term commitments the Bush Administration is trying to "Commit" us to, I hope the U.S. Congress and the new administration undoes and gets us out of there. The President can not sign accord with other nations without Congressional approval anyway. Then again, we've seen this president try and usurp the U.S. Constitution time and time again. I bet he wishes the U.S. were a Kingdom instead of a Democracy.”
King Weasel – has a nice ring to it, huh?
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
* * *
Nearly half a decade since the big bangs of "Shock and Awe," the United States and the Iraqi government are about to start writing a plan for U.S. forces to exit the war in Iraq, but not the country.
Senior U.S. and Iraqi officials will soon begin negotiating a strategic agreement to answer critical questions about the future role and commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The agreement, being tentatively called the U.S.-Iraq Friendship and Cooperation Agreement, could be the most important bilateral arrangement since the war, setting up U.S.-Iraqi relations for years, if not decades, to come.
American and Iraqi negotiators so far seem to have similar visions for the agreement. Both sides see a long-term U.S. military commitment to support, equip and train Iraqi forces.
On Thursday Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshar Zebari, one of Iraq’s four principal negotiators, told NBC News the agreement should be finished by July and calls for a new mission for U.S. troops.
"What kind of role does Iraq want the U.S. forces to play?" I asked.
"I think to continue the role of building, supporting and arming the Iraqi security forces, and also to provide support, let’s say, on request in the future because we want our forces to be self reliant to stand on their own," said Zebari. "We cannot continue to rely and depend on the U.S. support indefinitely. I think we can, and we know how, to defend ourselves and how to stand up provided we are given the means."
"So you would like U.S. forces to stay on bases to come out and provide support when they’re asked to do?" I asked.
"I think that’s the idea. Instead of carrying out these daily patrols, exposure, and combat missions, you see, this would be changed. And this is a plus really both for Iraqis and for the American soldiers," he said.
The timing is critical and somewhat controversial. Both U.S. and Iraqi negotiators want to finish the agreement while the Bush administration is still in office. It’s reasonable. They don’t want to start from square one with a new administration.
But critics say the Bush administration is trying to lock the United States into an open-ended military commitment in Iraq before leaving office.
On Thursday, Iraq was putting down markers. Zebari said Iraq wants the agreement to include:
- A U.S. commitment of military support and protection
- Clarification of the legal status of U.S. troops and private security contractors, including Blackwater USA, both currently immune from Iraqi prosecution
- A counter-terrorism partnership
- Continued U.S. training and supplies of military hardware
A senior American negotiator told NBC News that Washington wants the agreement to be flexible and said it will not include details about specific troop levels or permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
When I asked a senior Iraqi official if the agreement means there will be long-term American bases in Iraq, he said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."
* * *
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“the empire is on it's last legs. it will end just like all the others.”
Ya been reading my blog? :p The decline-and-fall has been going on since 1950 and our involvement in the Korean, uh, Police Action – George W. Bush has only accelerated the coming end.
“This is all going to cost money. How are we going to pay for this? It would be a lot less expensive if we just got out, period. Ron Paul wants to get all of our troops off of foreign soil and put them to work protecting our borders. I think that is a much better idea.”
“What ever long term commitments the Bush Administration is trying to "Commit" us to, I hope the U.S. Congress and the new administration undoes and gets us out of there. The President can not sign accord with other nations without Congressional approval anyway. Then again, we've seen this president try and usurp the U.S. Constitution time and time again. I bet he wishes the U.S. were a Kingdom instead of a Democracy.”
King Weasel – has a nice ring to it, huh?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Post #140
Subject: Crimes Against the Constitution?
March 4, 2008 – Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures calling for the indictment of President George Weasel Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution. More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit the two towns or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.
The question put to voters referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations. I could list a few – beginning with the biggie of declaring war all by himself. No matter how much you scare Congress, the Constitution does not change.
"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort. "It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."
Well, gee, Blair, I bet you’re fun at dinner parties. [rolleyes]
Subject: Crimes Against the Constitution?
March 4, 2008 – Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures calling for the indictment of President George Weasel Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution. More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit the two towns or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.
The question put to voters referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations. I could list a few – beginning with the biggie of declaring war all by himself. No matter how much you scare Congress, the Constitution does not change.
"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort. "It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."
Well, gee, Blair, I bet you’re fun at dinner parties. [rolleyes]
Friday, March 07, 2008
Post #139
Subject: George W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘I totally screwed up – I listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But frat boys will be frat boys, buying the Nutty theories of Laurie MyLroie. If only I can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought President George W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain Wednesday.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president – somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.
‘That sounds good,’ probably thought Bush, ‘but I wonder what my speechwriters mean. What “tough decisions” did he make during the campaign that uniquely qualify him to be President? In my 2000 campaign, I made a big deal of my charming ignorance of foreign affairs, not even knowing the name of Korea’s leader. It’s not so charming now.’
‘My Dad said that McCain’s “character was forged in the crucible of war,”’ the Weasel probably thought. ‘What does “crucible” mean? And what does being a prisoner of war have to do with fighting terrorism from the White House? Tho, sometimes, I feel like a prisoner of war as if the Iraq War was somehow my fault.’
“A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said. "Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
‘Ah-h-h, Cindy, the drug addict who had an interracial baby. I hope John don’t take a swing at me for the smears of 2000. I can take him,’ Bush probably thought, ‘but I gotta watch for that sucker punch. Maybe him keeping me waiting and tap dancing like a fool is all of his revenge for 2000,… the wimp.’
"They're not going to be voting for me, I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's not about me," Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Rating said. "I've done my bit. But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
‘Ha Ha – how do you like my present, McCain’s War!?! Just do not expect too much from Crawford when you straight talk the American people about sacrifice, and I won’t mention your daughter.’
Subject: George W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘I totally screwed up – I listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But frat boys will be frat boys, buying the Nutty theories of Laurie MyLroie. If only I can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought President George W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain Wednesday.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president – somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.
‘That sounds good,’ probably thought Bush, ‘but I wonder what my speechwriters mean. What “tough decisions” did he make during the campaign that uniquely qualify him to be President? In my 2000 campaign, I made a big deal of my charming ignorance of foreign affairs, not even knowing the name of Korea’s leader. It’s not so charming now.’
‘My Dad said that McCain’s “character was forged in the crucible of war,”’ the Weasel probably thought. ‘What does “crucible” mean? And what does being a prisoner of war have to do with fighting terrorism from the White House? Tho, sometimes, I feel like a prisoner of war as if the Iraq War was somehow my fault.’
“A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said. "Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
‘Ah-h-h, Cindy, the drug addict who had an interracial baby. I hope John don’t take a swing at me for the smears of 2000. I can take him,’ Bush probably thought, ‘but I gotta watch for that sucker punch. Maybe him keeping me waiting and tap dancing like a fool is all of his revenge for 2000,… the wimp.’
"They're not going to be voting for me, I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's not about me," Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Rating said. "I've done my bit. But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
‘Ha Ha – how do you like my present, McCain’s War!?! Just do not expect too much from Crawford when you straight talk the American people about sacrifice, and I won’t mention your daughter.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)