That's quite a rant, Lono. While impeachment of the President would be a proper move, It will never happen for"political" reasons. A reading of the Constitution would lead one to believe that the people of a particular State elect a citizen to represent them in the Congress. In practice, under our two party system, the people elect a politician to represent the Party in Congress. As a result there's nobody from (insert your State) who is going to stand up and say "This is wrong" about anything that's going on. (that's a general statement - there are a few notable exceptions - Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are a couple).

you were right to address your rant to the American people in general. The buck may stop at the President's desk, but the people are ultimately responsible for the quality of the individual they choose to sit behind it. The two parties have hijacked our Republic and they will keep it until the people demand free and open elections. In the meantime, the hijinks will continue. The politician will continue to pass bills without reading them. Unpopular or unwarranted bills will continue to be passed in the wee hours of the morning with only a handful of "representatives" present. Language will continue to be added to bills after they pass. There will continue to be bills passed before they're written. And the national debt, which recently cracked the $8 Trillion mark, will continue to rise.

The people of the United States are sleepwalking from one flag waving adventure to another. I only hope "the awakening" occurs in my lifetime.

I agree with what you have said, but I am a realist in that Bush will 'never' be impeached, let alone convicted. Not while the Republicans have control of both houses of congress.

This business of Frist, Delay, Rove, Libby, Miers, Brown, and Cheney all coming together at the same time is the perfect storm to show how corrupt and inept this administration/regime is.

All I have to say to the american people is: You put these people into power...what did expect? Reform? Fiscal Conservatism? A change in the 'mood' in Washington? You've all been duped.

The reason it will never happen is that you have to prove specific types of misbehavior, and there's no indication at all that Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors by any accepted definition. IMO pinning an impeachment on Clinton just for perjury was a stretch too.

Sending soldiers to war is not a high crime or misdemeanor, btw. It's part of the job description.

Dave

Excellent rant, Lono, & I support you every syllable. 49% of us did NOT vote for this maggot & his posse of cheats, liars, & traitors. 49% of us at least did not have the wool pulled over our eyes. Whether the 2% difference honestly voted for him, or was "helped" along by yet-uncovered GOP malfeasance & dirty tricks remains to be seen, I suppose.

Sadly, I have to agree w/Ghost & FL, congress has set itself up so that it's members can pretty much ignore little things like honesty & integrity, and for the most part, get away with murder almost literally, thanks to protection from fellow party members - and this goes for BOTH parties. When Stevens very recently threw a fit when someone had the gall to propose using the congressional pork to pay for Katrina, instead of sticking it to the poor & middle class, 85 of his fellow senators - both parties - just rolled over and grovelled for daring to even entertain the heresy. Talk about craven, lick-spittle cowardice & selfishness on the part of the overprivileged and overcompensated, true "Special Interests" - the members of congress. They do NOT represent the interests of the voters, the public, their constituents; they never have. They represent only their own selfish ends & that of the thrice-damned parties. They all need to be removed, disenfranchised (i.e. no more ultra deluxe special medical & retirement bennies - they can live on medicare & social security like the rest of us)term limits imposed, access by lobbyists & special interests of ANY stripe criminalized, and oversight given to a non-political citizens' committee; this business of them policing themselves is a farce & a failure. If they can't be trusted to be decent, they certainly can't be trusted to oversee & judge their own behavior.

Meanwhile, add Kay Hutchinson to your list of Hall of Shame nominees. Anyone who would propose seriously that perjury is a little thing is so morally & ethically bankrupt as to not be fit to serve the public in any capacity whatsoever. If I were a Texan, I'd be livid at one more political swine destroying the reputation of me & my state. I don't know ... maybe Texans don't care, or are even proud of it? If not, they don't seem to protest very much.

It's sad that Bush has the power to send The Marines but The Congress has to give the green light for the other Departments of the Military. So, why should Bush be the only one to blame?? I know he told some "white" lies to get us over there but I love to see Sadam squirm in that courthouse...And where is Osama bin Laden?? Mr. Powerful isn't so powerful anymore,huh?? Unfortunately,no matter who you put in the white house isn't going to change much...The seat is already tainted.

So which is it, this:

Ok, America. I warned you over and over again. You didn't listen, you voted for him.

I have been holding this piece in for 6 years

Clinton lied about he BJ because he was married. You would have lied too, unless you are stupid.

Rumor has it that an announcement is coming from Al Qaeda #2 OBL is dead, since he hasn't been seen/heard from for quite awhile. I think that's wishful thinking, myself. But ... who knows, the earthquake may have gotten him. Wasn't he supposed to have cancer or something?

50%+ voted for Bush, I wish you guys would just shut up and learn to live with it. He won. Period. 1 or 2 percent is a fairly normal differential in an election. Bush's biggest problem has been dealing with the ineptitude and lies of his predassor. Clinton had built a house of cards ready to collapse, with the cuts he made to or military etc. The cry babys of the world can just shut up.

Phil,

So are seriously blind. You want to pin the crimes, indictments, and scandals of this administration on the Democrats? Are you for real?

What are you talking about? The cry babies of the world? Are you talking about the fact that these men are all going to jail eventually? Is that the Democrats fault to? It couldn't possibly be, because right now the GOP holds everything. The supreme court, the house and the senate, the presidency, and even the majority of governorships.

So what does this have to do with the Democrats?

Anyone remember being explained 'separation of powers' or 'checks and balances' from high school civics class? Allow me to say this, those of you on the GOP side of the fence... do enjoy your reign right now, because it will be a LONG time before the American People allow you to be in charge of anything.

As for the President, allow me to put this in terms he can understand. I am not looking to impeach the President... I am simply placing myself in charge of looking for a qualified candidate who will impeach the president.

ok, I gotta to go work now but just saw the Meiers nomination was pulled. Love it!

Nancy, I believe bin Laden's illness is kidney related.

I hadn't heard anything about this 'announcement.' I do agree that it seems somewhat suspicious. Granted, when that many people die in an earthquake in the region it is possible. Who knows?

Face it Lono, you and Nancy and several others on this blog site were in the minority in the past two elections and by that should see that the democratic party has disentegrated. Main stream America does not agree with you and your rhetoric is just as lame as John Kerry. The likes of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are washed out "has beens" and fortunately for everyone most voters see through their BS. These are very tough trying times on the world scene. Lets hear some constructive criticism for once. You don't impeach a president just because you disagree with his policies.

I also have been holding my tongue, warning you people over and over again, and it's time I said something: there's a difference between being wrong and lying.

Iraq started a war as the aggressor and never ended that war. They signed a cease-fire agreement, not a peace treaty, and proceeded to violate it. One of those violations was the barring of weapons inspectors. The Bush Administration, like prior administrations, believed that Iraq had WMD's. Any error on that point has got to fall on Hussein's regime. Australia/US/Britain were justified in removing Hussein from power according to international law, although their decision to do so involved faulty intelligence.

Bill Clinton didn't simply lie about sex. He lied in court about sex with a subordinate during a sexual harrassment trial, as the prosecution was attempting to establish a pattern of misconduct. Presumably Clinton knew that he was giving false information. Giving false information knowingly is lying.

Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagon and BUSH - best presidents EVER.

Phil said:

You don't impeach a president just because you disagree with his policies.

You are right. Instead you impeach him for filling his office with felons and allowing only cronies to run the world instead of capable and qualified individuals. As for the rest of you yahoos, allow me to reply to you with what I replied to my good friend Travis who was the only one who had a thoughtful response to my rant.
_______________________________________
Interesting points, thanks for writing. Know that my mention of the 2,000 troops was only 1/20th of my point on the President. I would never imagine the idea of belittling people serving our country and dying as well. Even if it was for something I did not believe in, I still have 1000% respect and love for those who sacrifice themselves so I can sit at home and bitch on my blog.

My point was that everything this president has touched has failed, and that everyone is his leadership group are proven felons and opportunists.

Indeed the Dems do need to start to show some real direction, I am with you on that. However, the GOP is failing so magnificently... I mean really historically... That perhaps they are waiting for this cardhouse to fall.

As for my principles and those of the Dems, I believe in exactly what we communicated in the 2004 election.

1. Stop subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs
2. leave gays alone
3. make health care a more reasonable option for more Americans *

* big problem with Kerry's approach, his numbers made absolutely NO sense to anyone.

4. A)the best way to help society's poorest is not to allow the rich to have free reign and assume it will trickle down to the poor

B) let's instead work on giving the poor a fair opportunity at things like education and health care.

C) by empowering the lower classes and underserved of society to succeed and prosper, you create more money in the tax base, and less crime.

Now of course, some folks will always be lazy and want a hand out, fuck them. We are talking about the working poor in America.

* one last thing, for Phil. Since every single one of the current President's failures rest solely on Clinton's shoulders.... please tell me you will join in blaming the next 10 years of everything on Bush? That would be retarded (though factually true). Stop covering and stop blaming. The people to discuss and hold accountable are the ones here right now. Be a man and stop handing off shit to the last guy.

>>1. Stop subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs<<

They're already all for this - except that it's not a real issue. Offshoring is a very small factor in the economy, stable and not growing, and more than offset by jobs coming into the US from overseas and job growth resulting from increased efficiency associated with offshoring.

>>2. leave gays alone<<

Except that no major national candidate for the Dems has endorsed Gay marriage.

>>B) let's instead work on giving the poor a fair opportunity at things like education and health care.<<

You sound positively Republican.

>>C) by empowering the lower classes and underserved of society to succeed and prosper, you create more money in the tax base, and less crime.<<

Again, and even moreso, that's the Republican approach, and it's totally contrary to the tradition of the democrats, which is to give the poor handouts to keep them poor and dependent on the state.

So what you're basically saying is that the Democrats need to be more like Republicans.

Dave

Dave,

You are a worthy adversary, which is what I was looking forward to. Firstly, your group doesn't believe in anything but set the rich free and society will be better for it.

secondly, the actual Repbulican dogma of:
smaller government, states' rights, and leave the individual alone sounds like the greatest thing in the whole wide world to me. Haven't seen it though.

I am super tired of the myth that Dems are hand out happy. Who was the first (and only) guy to restructure Welfare? Clinton! Who had the smallest government since Kennedy? Clinton!

Stop espousing shit until you can actually DO IT. That simply isn't your leadership, so stop defending them. You should be crying for a PROPER Republican to be put into office... as I am crying for a single Democrat besides myself to speak up and present a platform.

never the less, Dave. You are of a very small and articulate minority who writes from your side of the fence. As you intimated, we are probably closer in beliefs than we realize. If you ever get near Denver... let's have a beer

in the meantime, stop defending these dickwads and get some real leadership. trust me, as a Progressive I am saying the same thing to myself.

Lono -- I've always thought that Howard Dean makes an extremely effective argument when he says that the Democratic Party is the party that can and will balance the budget. You're completely right in saying that the old and tired slogans just don't fit nowadays.

>>You are a worthy adversary, which is what I was looking forward to. Firstly, your group doesn't believe in anything but set the rich free and society will be better for it.<<

What group do you think I belong to? The 'set the rich free' crap is just a ridiculous oversimplification of a much more comprehensive philosophy. It's standard Demo tactics. Reduce something serious to a super-simplified catch-phrase that displays only its worst aspect, and try to pass that off as the reality.

>>secondly, the actual Repbulican dogma of:
smaller government, states' rights, and leave the individual alone sounds like the greatest thing in the whole wide world to me. Haven't seen it though. <<

There are still a hell of a lot of us who believe in it. At least a quarter and probably a much larger part of the GOP. The problem is that we have to get along with the rest of the idiots in the party.

>>I am super tired of the myth that Dems are hand out happy. Who was the first (and only) guy to restructure Welfare? Clinton! Who had the smallest government since Kennedy? Clinton!<<

Actually, Nixon, Ford and Carter all had smaller governments than Johnson. And it's not that the Dems are handout happy, it's just that their approach to the poor is to help them by giving to them rather than encouraging them to do for themselves. Clinton DID break from that tradition. He stole all his ideas from TommyThompson, who's a Republican.

>>Stop espousing shit until you can actually DO IT. That simply isn't your leadership, so stop defending them. You should be crying for a PROPER Republican to be put into office... as I am crying for a single Democrat besides myself to speak up and present a platform.<<

We've got 3 years to go before we can make a change. I'm not a big Bush fan, but when he gets unfairly attacked, I feel obligated to defend him. He's done a lot of things wrong and failed me in more ways than he's failed you, but what he gets attacked for in most cases is NOT where he's really gone wrong.

>>never the less, Dave. You are of a very small and articulate minority who writes from your side of the fence. As you intimated, we are probably closer in beliefs than we realize. If you ever get near Denver... let's have a beer <<

I've been known to drink with a Democrat now and again, but you'd have to make your way out to the ski slopes to find me if I'm ever in Colorado.

>>in the meantime, stop defending these dickwads and get some real leadership. trust me, as a Progressive I am saying the same thing to myself.<<

The whole 'real leadership' thing isn't looking terribly good. Those who have real potential aren't prominent enough yet, and those who are prominent have serious issues. So instead of going for the ideal we're going to have to settle for a moderate Republican if we want to stop the extremists, and even there we've got problems galore. We've got the Crazed Geezer, the Cancerous Lecher and the Scary Schoolmarm. I wish we could put Bob Dole in the wayback machine or ressurect Barry Goldwater.

Dave

What amazes me about Bush is how he is able to take credit for everything positive and able to shift blame for everything negative.
For example, the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center happened on February 26, 1993. Bill Clinton had been in office for 37 days, but the previous Pres. Bush (41) wasn't blamed for it. The 9/11/2001 attacks happened after the current Pres. Bush (43)had been in office for 134 days, but Clinton got the blame in spite of the August 6th briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." Clinton also received no credit for the "Millenium Bombing" of LAX not happening, but got the blame for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. When hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans I wondered how he would shift blame, but learned that it was all the fault of Louisiana Gov. Blanco and N.O. Mayor Nagin (of course, everything was A-OK in Mississappi because they elected a Republican Governor). And of course, loyalty is rewarded so Michael (you're doing a great job Brownie) Brown is STILL employed by FEMA.
I was very upset with Clinton("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), but at least he knew how to balance a budget; in hindsight, he doesn't look so bad compared to George WMD Bush.
I understand the need for the military to follow orders, but when those orders are based upon a lie "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", it makes me wonder why there are less than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (remember Bin Laden?) and almost 140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was captured). I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea.

>>I was very upset with Clinton("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), but at least he knew how to balance a budget; in hindsight, he doesn't look so bad compared to George WMD Bush. <<

It's easy to balance a budget with a booming economy and high taxes. Personally I prefer a budget out of balance but manageable combined with lower taxes if the end result is a growing economy.

>>I understand the need for the military to follow orders, but when those orders are based upon a lie "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.", <<

A 'lie' which almost certainly originated in Iraq, and which was confirmed by Joe Wilson when he testified before the Senate - testimony he later repudiated when it was politically advantageous to do so.

>>it makes me wonder why there are less than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (remember Bin Laden?) and almost 140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was captured). I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea.<<

Oil has nothing to do with it. There's more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq. Plus Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Iran. Perhaps you think that's where we should send out troops?

Dave

"I guess Iraqi oil is more important than Bin Laden, Iran..."

I thought liberals stopped using this one a long time ago.

We are taking soooooo much oil from Iraq that our Gas prices are at par with Gas prices 10 years ago.

"...140,000 in Iraq (I thought Saddam was Captured)."

This guy really expects us to pull out and leave Iraq with no millitary or government!!!

>>Oil has nothing to do with it. There's more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq. Plus Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Iran. Perhaps you think that's where we should send out troops?<<

So, there is more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq... why is that... maybe if the job was done right to begin with Bin Laden would have been caught by now instead of diverting resources so we could catch the guy who actually attacked us (4 years after being told he was wanted dead or alive, I am still waiting)

>>This guy really expects us to pull out and leave Iraq with no military or government!!!<<
Why dont you read what I said... I did not say we should pull out of Iraq, it's too late for that now... maybe we should have relied on FACTUAL statements and gotten some allies (besides Poland) like in 1990 before invading another country (as bad as that country may be)...

What's it going to take for liberals and conservatives to shut up and start talking to each other? I'd love nothing more than to see this President step down because I believe his administration has been a complete failure and stain on America's history. On the other side of the coin, his stepping down would be tragic and have political ramifications that would affect every corner of the globe. As a matter of national security, George W. Bush may better serve the national interest by governing for the next 3 years in a cooperative spirit with Congress.

One thing that stands out after watching so many newscasts this evening is that the consensus seems to be that Congress has failed miserably in exercising its duties under the Constitution. The GOP majority has been hesitant to question this President; however, faced with the prospect of resounding defeat next year, these Lemmings are slowly revealing their dissent. It's a little too much, too late. This Congress had an opportunity after last year's elections to do some great things. They could have worked with this President in taking advantage of the "political capital" he claims he achieved after the election.

It's unfortunate that our expectations of this President are so low that any slightly intelligent execution of his job is greeted with universal applause. Have we lowered our expectations across the board? Is it easier to lower the bar than to work at excellence? In the end, who ultimately suffers? In this Information Age one would think that the abundance of information resources would cause us to be a better informed people. As much as I am opposed to Iraq, it's obvious that we have a moral obligation to finish the job we started. Unfortunately, we've lost our ability to multitask. We can only handle one preoccupation per news cycle. Come Monday, Scooter Libby will be on page 20 while the President's new nominee to SCOTUS will take the headlines. This nominee will delegate the news of the next American soldier's death in Iraq to the back page. One issue at a time. That's all we can handle and it seems that's all we expect from the President. Perhaps life has become too complex in the Modern Era. Perhaps we expect too much from the Presidency. Perhaps Congress needs to start doing its job. Perhaps Americans need to start paying attention to what the government is up to.

What's it going to take for liberals and conservatives to shut up and start talking to each other?

Delicious pancakes.

>>So, there is more trouble to be dealt with in Iraq... why is that... maybe if the job was done right to begin with Bin Laden would have been caught by now instead of diverting resources so we could catch the guy who actually attacked us (4 years after being told he was wanted dead or alive, I am still waiting)<<

I guess you can fix the mistakes of the past with your magic wish machine. The rest of us just have to deal with current reality.

Dave

Delicious pancakes? Like the Silver Dollar pancakes that we made using the recipe from our Betty Crocker Children's Cook Book? I figure if we use the word "dollar" more legislators would show up for breakfast.

Silas, Bush is one of our greatest presidents and you are telling him to step down???

Not like any of you care, but I am the one who has to go to bed tonight and, like every other night since 9/11, it will be alone, and I will cry myself to sleep. And his name was Greg, and I will never get over losing him. Can you tell me where Osama is?

I said I'd love it if he stepped down but noted that it might not be good for the country. His greatness may be measured by the amount of expectation we have for him.

My heart goes out to you, R.R. And, for the record, I do indeed care. May Greg rest in peace.

."...can you tell me where Osama is."

In a cave, living miserably and crying himself to sleep repeating over and over, "Bush is not Clinton, Bush is not Clinton, Bush is not Clinton, Republicans are not Democrats, Bush and Republicans actually did something. Clinton let me get away with the U.S.S. Cole, Embassy Bombing in Kenya and the first World Trade Center, but Why did I have to mess with Bush??? I could have been so powerful if a Democrat was in office."

I last saw Osama on a grilled cheese sandwich.

Are you saying that you ate him, Mr. Sussman?

So far, Bush has let Osama get away with 9/11, AG.

Libs will stop talking about Iraqi Oil when you stop talking about Clinton.

Once again this dialogue has been hijacked by idealogues. Stay focused on the point, people: are we having pancakes or not? I sure like pancakes.

Excuse me...but, can anyone tell me one single thing Bush has done to benefit this country? Every idea he has ends in another mess for Congress to deal with. Any objective human being could see he was not interested in capturing bin Ladin...It was an excuse to accomplish his and daddy's dream... "get Saddam"...never mind, the consequences. Has the capture of Saddam changed anything? Hell, no! Did we eliminate the Taliban? Hell, no! Are we making progress in establishing democracy in Iraq? Hell, no! Is the economy showing healthy growth? Hell, no! Was his plan for improving Social Security a sound one? Hell, no! Has he made positive moves to improve homeland security? Hell, no! (Our borders are a welcome mat for terrorists)! It boggles my mind that this stupid, arrogant, uncaring, unqualified man has managed to get himself into a position whereby he could possibly be the downfall of this great nation. No, that can't be....he simply is not that smart. So, who is to blame...the Carlyle group? Karl Rove? Dick Cheney? Anyone willing to "suck up"? George Bush has the blood of 2,000+ young American men and women on his hands and the scoundrels who worked so hard to put him in the White House share in that loss. If he doesn't deserve to be impeached, then God help us for we are willing to accept the lowest!

Patricia, how about the tax cuts??? And have we been attacked since 9/11??? How about No Child Left Behind???

That is only a couple of things. Now I want you to tell me something:

Can you name two things that Clinton did to benefit this country???

I mean I can name a 100 things Clinton did to hurt this country, but I can't name two, no one thing that Clinton did to benefit this country.

Roger, Bush has let Osama get away with 9/11???

Bush took away his headquarter, Afghanistan, where he fully able to train his terrorists.

Bush took away most of his power. Osama can no longer perform a terrorist attack.

Bush also confiscated his million and millions of dollars. Osama no longer has any financial backing and no longer needs a treasurer because he has no treasure.

Osama has lost credibility among Islamics. Osama, if he is even alive, can no longer go where he wants. He is hiding from the "infidels." Fellow Islamics realize that he doesn't have the guts to be a martyr.

--------

Roger, it makes you happy that we haven't caught Osama yet, doesn't it???

All four of those things that I mentioned about Bush doing to Osama are things that Clinton wasn't capable of doing.

Tax cuts?...big deal...as he rapidly leads us into the biggest deficit this country has ever had. No Child Left Behind?? I have discussed this with many, many teachers...not one single teacher has had a positive thing to say about it. In fact, we don't even have the funds to support it! Two thngs Clinton did...led us into a thriving economy and left the country in great shape financially...which Bush managed to deplete quicker than a rich kid with a new inheritance. Assuming the attack on Afghanistan was responsible for Osama leaving there...and, what difference did that make? He is surely (if he is alive), calling the plays from wherever his dismal existance may be. Surely, you are not claiming we destroyed the Taliban...they are slowly, but surely, regaining their power in Afghanistan. IF Bush did confiscate millions and millions of Osama's dollars...someone has done a darn good job of replacing those dollars. It is quite obvious that the insurgency is not short on money...have you ever wondered if we are fighting Iran and Syria at the same time we are at war with Iraq...and probably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan..Bush has gotten us into a real Catch 22...and he deserves to be punished for it!

Bush inherited a deficit that was on its way downhill.

My A.P. History has mostly good things to say about No Child Left Behind.

The tax cuts have helped our economy. People spend more money when they have more money.

And have we been attacked since 9/11??? Because you know we had 4 terrorist attacks when Clinton was in office. Not including the Waco incident.

Regarding Anthony's comments:

Patricia, how about the tax cuts??? And have we been attacked since 9/11??? How about No Child Left Behind???

* it turns out the tax cuts look pretty idiotic right now. We are 380 billion in debt last I saw, and the president wants to go to Mars. We have to pay for a war, we have to pay Halliburton, and we have to fix the gulf coast.

re: No child left behind > I'll use Senator Kerry's words on that "I think No Child Left Behind is a great idea, we should fund it though"

No Child Left Behind has been a disaster for most schools because it was (surprise) an unfunded mandate.

This President has failed the American worker on EVERY single front. That is no small accomplishment. He is a horrible and greedy and imcompetent monster.

>This President has failed the American worker on EVERY single front. That is no small accomplishment. He is a horrible and greedy and imcompetent monster.<

Every single front except for higher wages, lower taxes taken out of their paychecks, an economy pulled out of recession and less unemployment.

But yah, he hasn't managed to pass social security privatization, so he has failed them in at least one way.

Dave

People who outright defend Bush as an American "hero", like a few on this blog, need to get themselves to a doctor right away for a psychological evaluation and/or medication.

No you can't blame everything on Bush, but darn, his presence in the White House and the disastrous course this country is on, is a little more than coincidental.

Bush must go.

Anthony - Bush did NOT inherit a deficit. He inherited a nice, healthy surplus. Why is it that everytime a Republican is elected and then screws up, it is because of something the Democrats did before him. Responsible people stand up and admit they've made a mistake, apologize and then make an effort to do something about it. Not Bush, though...he has yet to admit that he has made atrocious mistakes, and the word sorry isn't in his vocabulary, albeit, I will have to admit his vocabulary is very limited - maybe he just hasn't learned the word sorry.
I don't know what your A.P. History is, but it is a well-known fact that the No Child Left Behind Act has only succeeded in creating more problems in our schools.
As for the tax cuts, I'm afraid it also included cuts in too many good programs. How can we justify a tax cut when our troops went to Iraq without adequate armor? Oh, now I remember---to quote Rumsfield - "You go to war with the army you have". Just absolutely stupid,unreasonable and shows a complete lack of concern for the safety of our troops. My grandson is in Mosul, and my son has bought him the equipment he was lacking, but not every soldier has that advantage, and that is just not fair!
I presume you mean we have not been attacked by terrorists on our homeland...One of those four you mentioned was not on our homeland...the USS Cole. After the first WTC incident, I have to agree with you that we should have become more security conscious. The Oklahoma City tragedy was commited by our very own home-grown neo-nazis, and I am glad McVeigh paid with his own life. Waco should never have happened, and I am sorry we stooped to that. How about Clinton and Reno sharing the blame for that one?
Lono - I say let the President go to Mars! Let's send him even before we get our current problems with NASA resolved (if ever).
Dave - Less unemployment? I don't think so! Maybe less than 1 year ago, but not less than when Bush took office. Just think of all the jobs created by Katrina, Rita and Wilma. That should help the stats. As for privatizing Social Security, it is another one of his ideas that convinced me he is completely "over the edge".
tommyd - Yes, that is quite a coincidence. And, true he has had plenty of advice on getting us where are...Colin Powell was the only honorable member of his cabinet, and I'm glad he got out of that corruption.
As you so succinctly put it, Bush must go!!!

SO MUCH MISINFORMATION!!! AND LIES!!!

You guys win. I am leaving this thread and never coming back. I can't take it.

Way back, in a different era, a different age, a different world (I am referring to autumn 2000), I recall my hippie friends in the next apartment getting frantic about the chances of Bush defeating Gore.

"It'll be a disaster!" they told me. "Worse than your worst nightmares!"

Having a few years on them, I sought to reassure them.

"Don't worry about Bush. We survived his dad. Even Reagan. If he's elected, nothing is going to change..."

I was so confident in this, I cockily voted for Nader, since Gore was comfortably ahead in California.

5 years later, and I stand here, shocked and awed. A bankrupt country, $3 a gallon gas while Exxon posts $10 billion in profits, a war hatched by a cadre of evil incarnate to defend a pack of fairy tales, anti-Americanism running rampant around the world, in-your-face-cronyism, tax breaks for the rich and humiliation for the poor, a lower standard of living, my Social Security money contributions gone most likely forever, creepy fundamentalist kooks running around like they own the government, a depleted and rickety armed forces, pollution we haven't seen since the 70's, lies and more lies, crackdowns on personal liberties, FCC crackdowns on decency, a persident who makes decisions bases on what a little god-voice in his head tells him, arrogance hypocracy and cynicism, big business run amok, I can't even fathom the very real and very serious damage this administration has caused to our nation. Damage it will take generations to fix, if it ever is. And the thrills just keep on continuing, with an idictment, and saber rattling at Syria, and a head-in-the-sand approach to N. Korea, and no plan whatsoever for disaster recovery, the economy, poverty, health care, and the war itself.

I considered myself a moderate with a libertarian streak in 2000, one who actually pulled levers for Republicans on occasion.

I learned my lesson. Not only has this president earned my full and unwavering contempt, which stops just short of calling some of his actions treasonous, it has permenantly swayed me from voting for any Republican until the party who harbors this enemy of my state ceases their blind defense of him and calls him out for the fundamentalist oil scion he has always been.

A bj in the oval office doesn't seem very important at all now, in retrospect.

Impeachment? Where do I sign?

A great post! I wish I had written it. Now we know what Bush meant by "shock and awe"...as for me, I have been in that state since he made his "mission accomplished" announcement wearing his fly boy costume. That was the day I finally fully realized that we were dealing with a hopeless idiot.

Why can't the powers that be initiate impeachment proceedings - or why don't they??? This incompetent @*#&%&* is guilty of war crimes. Have we become such a nation of wimps that we won't do what is necessary to remove him from office? I am genuinely afraid for our country!

uao - Very well said! Damn it, them hippies got it right again... Heh!

uao, do you watch the news or read a newspaper or have any source of input other than Daily Kos or some other leftist propaganda site? It's hard to tell because your comment reads like some sort of bizarre glimpse of a scary alternate reality.

>>5 years later, and I stand here, shocked and awed.<<

Maybe that explains your confusion on the facts.

>> A bankrupt country,<<

In what sense? Easily repayable debt with a strong economy is far from bankruptcy.

>> $3 a gallon gas while Exxon posts $10 billion in profits,<<

Are you familiar with basic math? If you make a 10% profit on your gas sales and the price of gas goes up by 100%, your 10% becomes twice as much actual money, so a $5 billion profit becomes a $10 billion profit overnight.

>> a war hatched by a cadre of evil incarnate to defend a pack of fairy tales,<<

Huh?

>> anti-Americanism running rampant around the world,<<

That's not exactly a new problem.

>>in-your-face-cronyism,<<

Much like Clinton pardonning every criminal democrat who asked at the end of his administration.

>> tax breaks for the rich<<

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The tax break was higher as a percentage for every group BUT the richest, and by a huge margin.

>> and humiliation for the poor, <<

Where does that come from?

>>a lower standard of living,<<

Actually, with the tax cut income easily outpaces inflation and the standard of living is up.

>> my Social Security money contributions gone most likely forever,<<

Except that this - unfortunately - has not happened. And wouldn't you trade your paltry SS contributions for a chance to have a decent retirement income? Any sane, non-brainwashed person would.

>> creepy fundamentalist kooks running around like they own the government,<<

Except that none of them are IN the government - at least not the executive branch. Perhaps they're just delusional.

>> a depleted and rickety armed forces, <<

Huh? Active warfare revitalizes the armed forces and spurs modernization and innovation, which we're already seeing as a result of Iraq.

>>pollution we haven't seen since the 70's,<<

Environmental restrictions are stronger than they have ever been. Were you ALIVE in the 70s? I was and I remember how bad the pollution was. There's no comparison. As for environmental regulation, Bush hasn't reversed a single major policy and has passed the Clean Skies act, which has a lot of positive stuff in it.

>> lies and more lies,<<

OMG we elected politicians again. We need to stop that.

>> crackdowns on personal liberties,<<

On paper in the Patriot Act, perhaps. Not much in practice.

>> FCC crackdowns on decency, <<

Ok, I'll give you that the FCC has been remarkably dim, but they don't exactly have a huge impact on day to day life.

>>a persident who makes decisions bases on what a little god-voice in his head tells him,<<

Or so your leftist leaders would have you believe.

>> arrogance hypocracy and cynicism,<<

OMG we elected politicians again. What are we going to do about that?

>> big business run amok,<<

Yeah, I was really upset when the bank took my children.

>> I can't even fathom the very real and very serious damage this administration has caused to our nation.<<

I can see why not, since you can't even identify it correctly.

>> Damage it will take generations to fix, if it ever is. <<

Generations of hamsters, perhaps.

>>And the thrills just keep on continuing, with an idictment, and saber rattling at Syria,<<

Yeah, I hate it when we threaten nations that actually DO have WMDs and regularly invade their neighbors.

>> and a head-in-the-sand approach to N. Korea,<<

We just had very successful multilateral talks with N. Korea and have worked out some basic agreements whcih ought to lead towards disarmament there.

>> and no plan whatsoever for disaster recovery,<<

Bush did just release a plan for dealing with epidemics, which may be the greatest threat we face. And Wilma was handled quite well - because it was dealt with on the state level as most disasters should be.

>> the economy,<<

You don't like Bush's plan which reversed the recession faster than any previous recession of the same scale.

>> poverty,<<

A strong economy and low unemployment will minimize poverty.

>> health care,<<

I'm all for healthcare reform - Bush appears to share that belief.

>> and the war itself.<<

Surprised you waited til the end for that one. I note you have no specific criticisms left.

Dave

Don't forget that Libby was the attorney for Marc Rich. Keep fighting the left/right battle. It's what they want you to do.

I stand by my comments.

This post is SOOOO lacking in substance, it gives me the pukes...if it were not so late, I would address every one of your inane statements, but actually they are so unrealistic, it isn't worth it....If I had not read them with my very own eyes, I would not believe a person could be so .....so......so....stupid....

There is talk as if Bush was the only one stating that Saddam had WMD. Clinton was saying it years before Bush was. H. Clinton said it, Al Gore (inventor of the internet) said it. Kerry said it. And count them-23 other democrats said he had them. Selective memory at it's best at work here.

P White, "Responsible people stand up and admit they made a mistake, apologize and make an effort to do something about it" Like getting on national television, pointing your finger and saying it never happened. Then send your wife on to the morning shows and say it is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"....yea, right

Bush's chickens come home to roost:poll

Latest poll reported in Washington Post Oct 30 shows Bush administration is plummeting in public opinion. A combination of events are dereailing Bush's second term. Bush's chickens are coming home to roost. The indictment of Cheney's Chief of staff is just the tip of the iceberg. Combined with the Iraq debacle and the inept handling of Hurricane Katrina, the ethical issue is now posing major problems for Bush and his cronies

Yes, Rob, we all know Clinton went before the nation and lied. That seems to be the only answer anyone can come up with to defend Bush. Clinton is a sex addict...that is his reason for the Monica incident, and any man would lie about that. Yes, they are both liars, but Clinton's lies did not cause the deaths of over 2000 young Americans. The comparison is illogical.

What has Bush ever lied about, Patricia??? Clinton is a liar, not Bush. You want to know something that defends Bush, besides the Monica scandal???:

How many laws have Bush or Rove ever broken???? Zero, zip, zilch, nada, NOTHING!!!

"What has Bush ever lied about, Patricia?"
- Anthony Grande

Well, for starters, he told several lies about going AWOL from the Guards in '71 and '72.

GW has stated that he's "not exactly sure what I did at Dannelly AFB, but I recall going to some meetings." The truth is, he never showed up. Gen. William Turnispeed (Ret.), the commanding officer at Dannelly in 1972, to whom Bush was ordered to report to, is on record that GW "never reported in."

GW has also said the reason he wasn't flying at Dannelly AFB was because "they didn't have the same type of planes." The truth is he had actually been grounded from flying by then for skipping a mandatory physical.

www.awolbush.com
//yahoo.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/

did you miss the special where dan rather lost his job due to poor information? it seems as though you have.

If I could vote for bush again, I would. He should run 4 terms like FDR!!!

Bush also has a DUI on his record, which is one more than zero.

So, MCH - was he AWOL or a deserter? You seem not to be able to settle on one explanation.

I'm glad no one is expecting me to recall exactly where I was and who I was with 35 years ago. I'm not surprised that Bush might be wrong, and I certainly believe that the rather elderly Turnispeed could have faulty recollection of that time.

Dave

ya ya I know Roger...he also snorted up half of Peru, right? At least he wasnt a pothead like Clinton. Im just kidding. No leader has a record without some kind of blemish.

Tell that to your comrade, AG. He is the one claiming that Bush never broke a law.

Anthony...welcome back. I thought you left us forever and ever. Two rather costly lies: His insistence that Iraq had WMDs...his piss poor excuse for taking us into this horrible war. Don't say it was a mistake, not a lie. He never had one iota of evidence of WMDs in Iraq. And then he had the unmitigated gall to announce in his State of the Union address that Iraq had purchased yellowcake from Niger...Joe Wilson had reported evidence contrary to that statement, but, Bush in his arrogance and ignorance, thought no one know the difference. Soooo, someone decided to "get" Joe Wilson by disclosing his wife's CIA status....and, according to the Grand Jury, it appears to be "Scooter". Do you actually think Bush's well documented lies have not done irreparable damage to America?

Re comment #63 by Dave (I had other priorities during Desert Storm) Nalle;

Both, Nalle. He went AWOL for over 30 days, contstituting Desertion according to the UCMJ.

It seems that Turnispeed is not the only one with "faulty recollection," considering that of the 700 members stationed at Dannelly AFB in 1972 when Bush was ordered there, not one (zero, zip, notta) came forward to collect the $50,000 reward Texans For Truth offered for a witness to GW being there.
www.texansfortruth.com

Speaking of "not being able to settle on one explanation" Nalle, it's interesting how your story for not enlisting for the Gulf War changed from your original excuse of being "too old" to "having other priorities."

Oddly enough, MCH, I was too old AND I had other priorities. And guess what, it doesn't bother me at all when you keep saying that I had other priorities, because there's no shame in it. We had just had a baby at the time the war broke out, I was past the age which they were actively recruiting, and as I've said before, if I'd volunteered for the war I wouldn't have been through training and deployed until after the war was over. Criticizing me for it just makes you look like an ass and somewhat ignorant. Then as now we had a volunteer military, and not volunteering doesn't invalidate my opinions much as you wish that it did - just as being in the military doesn't make your puerile opinions worth any more than they are.

Dave

"...I was too old and had other priorities..."
- Dave Nalle

Ted Williams flew 38 combat missions in the Korean War when he was 33 years old (your same age during the Gulf War, Nalle) and the father of two children, in addition to losing two years of his major league baseball career.

Kind of puts your spurious excuse of being "too old and having other priorities" into perspective, Nalle; as well as diminishing your constant, bellicose chickenhawk sabre-rattling...

I knew that, MCH. He was in the same unit as my Dad during WW2, btw. Unlike my Dad he remained in the reserves so he got called up for Korea.

But guess what, at the time of the Gulf War I wasn't in the reserves, had no military training or background, and had no reason or desire to serve. And I didn't have to, and there's no shame associated with it despite what you think. Wait, you HAVE the military background. Why didn't you reenlist for the second Iraq War. Were you chicken?

>>diminishing your constant, bellicose chickenhawk sabre-rattling...<<

I'd like you to point to at least one example of this, because it sure doesn't describe anything I've written. Supporting the people of Iraq in their efforts to rebuild is not the same as supporting the invasion.

Dave

What's the point of impeachment? I'm enjoying the fact that this cowboy from Texas continues to shoot himself in the foot. No WMDs (bam!). Miers (bam!). Scooter (bam!). Spy in the White House (bam!). FEMA under Homeland Security (bam, bam, bam!). Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job.
I can't wait til years from now, when ol' George is viewed as the worst president in American history. I'm just gonna laugh ....

A sorta related question -- since Scooter is going to jail, why isn't Robert Novaks his "cell mate"? Anyone know?

Mr. Dude, like several other posters here, you seem to be listing things as if the number of items will distract from the weakness of each one. How important do you think the Miers withdrawl will be in the long run? Some other failed nominations include John Tower (GHW Bush), Zoe Baird (Clinton), and the guy who was supposed to replace Tom Ridge at Homeland Security (GW Bush). They were all viewed as catastrophes at the time. They are future Trivial Pursuit stumpers, as is Miers.

Neither Scooter nor Novak has been found guilty of anything, but if they both are, how would that reflect badly on the President? Scooter isn't exactly a heartbeat away.

FYI, a few years ago a group of historians did one of those "rank the Presidents" surveys. They were rated on various categories, such as foreign policy. Bill Clinton came in last in moral leadership, just below Nixon.

You're right, Baronious, I shouldn't be distracted by the negative aspect of Bush's actions. But sorry, I can't seem to name anything positive about Bush. He just seems like such a fuck-up, at least for the past month or so.
I mean, I usually think there's something good about some person, but my God, how pathetic can he be?
Hope you can understand my pont of view. And if you can convinced me otherwise, please try your best. I mean it.

As for Scooter, you are right again, he's not a heartbeat away from Bush, he's just a member of the Bush administration.

But still, no one has answered my question -- why isn't Novak punished for releasing a name of a CIA agent, an act that even I knew was a crime, and I don't even care about the CIA? Does anyone know the answer?

With any luck, the CIA will see to it Novak slips on a bar of soap while standing at the head of the Exorcist staircase in Georgetown. Yeah, Novak is keeping his head reeeeeeeeeeeal low these days; I haven't even seen his pontifications lately in the W. Post, come to think of it. Interesting - maybe he's, uh, checking out one of those secret CIA prisons overseas?

The justice has been meted out, Nancy. Bob Novak has lost most of his credibility. His standings as a journalist are on the downslide as they should be. Jon Stewart was quite eloquent in the way he chastised the hosts of CNN's Crossfire a while back. Novak has oversold his importance as a conservative political commentator. His editorials are flawed, his stories based in lies and his ego has blinded him on what is best for America. I hope Tucker Carlson took a page from the Novak notebook because he seems to be slipping away from the rhetoric served up by the neocons these days.

Dude, I'll tell you a way in which Bush has been a success.

The value of my IRA (mostly mutual funds) is up almost 80% since he took office in 2000, 42% of that since the 2004 election.

I'm not the only American for whom that excuses a HELL of a lot of other mistakes.

Dave

Re comment #76;

I hope you at least wash the blood of our dead in Iraq off your hands before you count your money, Nalle...