George Bush: Worst American president in history

[green 6]

OK TOM - I get it....You know everthing, I know nothing, you are right about everything, I am right about nothing. You win, I lose. Feel better now?

I grew up not even 2 miles from the Canadian border, I work in the Clerk of Courts office where we see all the criminal cases that come from drug smuggling across the border, but I guess I still don't know near as much as you. Sorry I ever even posted in this because clearly I am out of my league. I will go back to sticking my head in the sand, okay? Thanks for setting me straight. Rant on TOM, that's all you seem to do anyway....I hope it really makes you feel better all day everyday..

Peace out.

Hi Missy4. As you can see from my earlier post, the main portion of our drug exports to the States consist of marijuana. We also manufacture ecstasy and it is possible that heroin is fed into States via Vancouver, a Pacific port city. Of course cocaine does not come down from the north. That's a southern import.

Do you see many border infractions where you live?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

OK TOM - I get it....You know everthing, I know nothing, you are right about everything, I am right about nothing. You win, I lose. Feel better now?

I grew up not even 2 miles from the Canadian border, I work in the Clerk of Courts office where we see all the criminal cases that come from drug smuggling across the border, but I guess I still don't know near as much as you. Sorry I ever even posted in this because clearly I am out of my league. I will go back to sticking my head in the sand, okay? Thanks for setting me straight. Rant on TOM, that's all you seem to do anyway....I hope it really makes you feel better all day everyday..

Peace out.

You have as much right to your believes as anyone. You state yours, I'll state mine.

I am glad that you realize that I am right.

I was being sarcastic too.

[BJean 16]

Did you read about the guy who was just released from prison after being convicted for using marijuana? He had received a LIFE SENTENCE for using!!

[lisah25 3]

Interesting that no where in either of these left-leaning articles or in your post is it mentioned that Bill Clinton fired all 93 lawyers when he came into office, instead of letting them go when their tenure ended like most other presidents. Also, at least a couple of the lawyers fired recently were involved in not pursuing what appears to be openly fraudent election hijinks done by Democrats. Please see this link to a Wall Street Journal Editorial for another side to this story....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

I have heard a lot about how Clinton fired all 93 of the lawyers when he took office. I also thought I read that Bush also fired most if not all of them when he took office?

That aside, how this was handled is interesting, as is the fact it's very rare that a president fires his own appointees.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

On forums and on talk shows and in the papers, where ever people discuss the NSA spying on phone calls and internet usage, or where they discuss FBI collective of data on peace groups, or when they speak or write about warrantless searches of homes and offices, I hear the same continual refrain from members on the Right and/or supporters of the BuSh regime, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide".

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Members of the BuSh inner circle are accused of dirty dealing by firing US attorneys who prosecuted Republicans or who didn't prosecute enough Democrats or more generally were not seen as doing the administration's bidding. The firings, of course were legal, but the motives may have been unethical (to maybe illegal).

Either way, this is a Republican scandal because all of the fired US attorneys are Republicans, who were replaced by Republicans and the replacements were not confirmed by Republicans (or Democrats for that matter). The Senate voted today 94 to 2 to repeal that clause in the newest version of Patriot Act that allows the president to bypass Senate confirmation of US attorneys, something that was slipped in without notice by congress.

But getting back to the main focus of this post; the Right's continual refrain of, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide". Congress wants the people involved in the scandal to testify under oath as to what took place. Some BuSh people have made statements, but the statements keep getting contradicted by the original makers of the statements and by e-mails saved by the Department of Justice and made public since the scandal broke.

BuSh has offered closed door interviews of his people with no oaths and no transcript. The congress fell for this when it was Republican controlled and they were investigating 911. The problem, of course, was that after the interviews, one congressman claimed that the person being interviewed said one thing, another congressman said that he said something else and the person claimed he said a third thing, and of course the US public was left in the dark.

So I want to know, if, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide" is good enough when private citizens are being scrutinized, how come it isn't just as good when government officials are being scrutinized?

Personally I think that it is not ok for government officials to hide behind secrecy, but private citizens should be protected. And that goes no matter which party is in power. Private citizens should only be investigated when they have given probable cause, but government officials give up that right when they take on the job, because then they are working as public servants of the people.

[Alexandra 55]

BuSh has offered closed door interviews of his people with no oaths and no transcript. The congress fell for this when it was Republican controlled and they were investigating 911. The problem, of course, was that after the interviews, one congressman claimed that the person being interviewed said one thing, another congressman said that he said something else and the person claimed he said a third thing, and of course the US public was left in the dark.

I can't wait to see what Patrick Leahy says in response to this "offer." What a slimeball we have in the Oval Office!! We're supposed to buy that it's "unconstitutional" for Congress to want sworn testimony from members of the Executive Branch. WHAT??!!!??? The irony is that this particular situation seems like a small matter as compared to the intelligence failures or mismanagement of the war. But at the very first indication from this new Congress that yep, they actually want to KNOW what's going on behind closed doors at the White House, the administration blows what little is left of its cool. But it's been proven time and time again that without an oath, we can't believe a word any of the Bushies say. And even with an oath, they're willing to say what fits their agenda (like Scooter).

Another day, another set of lies. Unreal.

[BJean 16]

I continue to be amazed at how many Americans still think Bush and his administration are nice, smart, well-intended people. Meanwhile our basic rights in this country are being taken away, bit by bit. I haven't read a lot of books on how things unfolded in Germany in the beginning when Hitler first started getting the Germans to agree with his actions, but it had to have seemed like he was a good and decent man for him to have gained the German citizens' trust like Bush has gained the trust of some Americans.

I am sure some of you will consider me an alarmist. You'd be right. I am not a young idealistic person. I've seen a lot in my lifetime and we should be very afraid of Bush and his backers. We can no longer suspect that he is the bad guy, he has proven himself to be the bad guy.

[lisah25 3]

I was floored when I heard that the offer was to have officials testify in private, and not under oath. I honestly am wondering what in the world is going on in my country these days.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I was floored when I heard that the offer was to have officials testify in private, and not under oath. I honestly am wondering what in the world is going on in my country these days.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, except when George is the gander.

[BJean 16]

Frankly I'd like to give him his Christmas goose early!

[lisah25 3]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, except when George is the gander.

I read some quotes from Tony Snow back when Clinton was president, and he had some interesting things to say about it.

[BJean 16]

I'll bite lisa, what did Tony Snow have to say on the topic?

[lisah25 3]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :

(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:

In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it's an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr's investigation. There's an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered.

Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It is amazing how soon they forget.

But speaking of forgetting, if you have read the George Orwell classic “1984”, you might remember that the book's main character, Winston Smith worked at the "Ministry of Truth" were it was his job to doctor up the old news stories (on tape) so that the government would appear to always have been correct in the past.

Well, the BuSh administration is doing something similar. Instead of doctoring old information, they are hiding it. They have been taking documents from 40, 50 or even 60 years ago and reclassifying them as top secret. I read last year, that a researcher was writing a book and went looking for a government paper that she had read earlier, only to find that this paper "no longer existed".

Why should decisions that President Harry Truman made in 1947 (for example) be classified top secret? Something to think about and something to be afraid of.

[mousecrazy 2]

I can't resist. Maybe Sandy Berger's theft had something to do with it?