Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
MICKI
Published Letters: 618 Editor's Choice: 24
November 7th's elections come down to three referenda: a referendum on the gullibility of the American people; a referendum on whether the United States will wage endless war; and a referendum on whether the United States' Constitution will effectively be repealed.
And what does the Bush gang do to distract the public? It shamelessly spins John Kerry's botched joke into a referendum on John Kerry -- and he isn't even on the ballot!
Also, Hillary Clinton just lost me for good and forever -- she could have kept her mouth shut. Better, she could have been a "uniter" and said that Kerry's gaffe was unfortunate, but let's focus on the real issue, which is Bush and his botched War of Choice on Iraq.
If the Repugs maintain control of the House and the Senate next week, it will not be because of John Kerry's inability to tell a joke. It will be because the American people don't realize that their country has been lead to the point of no return by a bunch of lunatics.
According to an international survey published in The Guardian, UK, the United States is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbors and allies. Bush and his boyfriends have trashed our country's image and reputation worldwide with their bungling, lies, and deception.
British voters see GWB as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The research indicates that Brits think Bush has made the world less safe since 2001. Also, those surveyed in Canada and Mexico overwhelmingly believe that Bush is a great danger to the safety of the world.
If Republicans retain control of Congress, we can count on more instability, more insanity, more fear-mongering. To paraphrase FDR, "the only thing we have to fear is George W. Bush."
I've figured out why The Decider decided that Libby's sentence was excessive.
Bush knows who the real culprit is, so he figures that since Libby wasn't the originator of the leak, he shouldn't be punished with a prison sentence for someone else's crime. Now, he's decided it's time to move on. I mean, afterall, The Decider is through with this issue!
I know that sounds terribly simplistic. But, keep in mind, we have a simpleton in the Oval Office.
McClellan Says He And Bush Were Misled By White House Aides
By KEN HERMAN
Cox News Service
Saturday, March 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that he and President Bush were misled by top administration aides who assured them they had not been involved in the leak of a CIA operative's identity....
He said he plans to write a book that will include more of the "back story than what has come out."
Avoiding the word "lied," McClellan referred to "additional information" that came out during the investigation of White House aides' role...
In September and October 2003, McClellan told reporters that Rove, Libby and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams had told him they were not involved in the leak.....
"I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," he said on Oct. 10, 2003. "And that's where it stands."....
"Additional information," as McClellan called it, "did change things." But by then, he noted, the White House had decided to stop commenting on the matter while it was the subject of a criminal investigation.....
McClellan, asked if he was flat-out lied to by Rove and Libby, said, "I don't want to at this point go further than what I've said. There is certainly enough in the public domain for people to draw their own conclusions. I've made clear what the truth is from my standpoint."...
"My belief is that continuing not to comment on it is only raising more questions in the public's mind and it only increases suspicions. It makes people say: 'What are you hiding?'" McClellan said.
realize that not ALL Dems voted for this travesty? Yes, a minority of them did and Bush got what he wanted (again!), but virtually ALL of the Repugs voted for it.
On the one hand, we should be glad that the Democrats don't march in lockstep as the Republicans do. If they did consistently vote as a bloc, there would be screaming and bitching that "they don't have minds of their own!"
On the other hand, if Pelosi and Reid could whip the Dems into submission and scare them into lockstep compliance, Bush would veto their bills anyway because the Repugs ALWAYS vote in lockstep which means the bills are not veto-proof.
Bush wins because of the Republican bloc and the minority support from the DINOs. Get rid of the DINOs.
goraidh, I agree with what you said, but I think the Dems are stymied, bumfuzzled, at a loss for words, to put it in basic terms. They just don't know HOW to deal with one of the weakest, most reviled, presidents in modern history.
It's as though they see Bush as a shark, with his/its small brain but with the ability to smell blood with a killer's instinct. The Democrats repeat the same mistakes endlessly. Why do they do this? I do believe that many of the Dems are truly committed to "doing something" about our constitutional crisis and they feel passionate about the necessity to "fix things" but they have no strategy for implementing change because they don't know how to fight with sharks.
That may sound simplistic, but unfortunately reality-based thinkers cannot figure out how to fight these bastards.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
