I know. I went for the name identification. It was a poor analogy. Probably should have dropped it. The thing is I knew when the story first broke that the as sure as ___ runs down hill the brass would find some little group of noncoms to pin the whole thing on, and the bulk of Americans would buy it.
And yet enough of them have either been in the service or have someone close to them in the service to explain how the fix was in. The media, congress, almost everyone went along with the charade. They had military intelligence in there supervising. They don't let guys wander around without uniforms or id just anywhere unless they are some one like that.
It's was all so depressingly predictable, the whole disgusting scapegoating that lets the guilty parties off to continue their wickedness.
So now they this little pregnant noncom who was probably following military intelligence orders in jail and the problem has been solved. They should have canned a lot of generals over that. Tom Ricks was pointing out that in other wars officers have been removed from command. But as we sink in the corruption of the Bush regime...well, pinning the thing on a pregnant noncom is so debased as well as insulting our intelligence except the press didn't seem to be insulted which really is scary.
Edited by lfen, : discovered my rant wasn't quite over.
I am just going to start ignoring the off topic portions of your posts. The more you rage on against liberals the more your are simply dodging the topic and trying to shift blame. Keep doing it. All it does is make your position seem more and more worthless.
Most conservatives have never unequivocally "supported Bush."
And how many times has a republican controlled congress gone against the desires of the president? How many pieces of legislation has Bush had to veto?
Last time I checked, the count was a big fat ONE.
If that is not unequivocal then maybe you can give me whatever revisionist definition of unequivocal you are using to make your claim. Even the conservative pundits are constantly giving Bush and the administration the proverbial hand job on a regular basis.
They even have the balls, unlike Bush's defenders here so far, to outright defend the NSA wiretapping as legitimate and necessary. Constitutionality be damned.
There is certainly an underbelly of moderate conservatives out there who don't give Bush a blank check but when they are not going with the flow to not rock the GOP boat they might as well be equivalent to a Delay or Santorium. It simply is not good enough. The GOP cannot handle the devil it made a deal with which is the religious liberals squeezing the government under the lie of being "conservative". Now they have a president who panders to that crowd and they can do nothing politically to counter it without self-destruction. Case in point, notice how McCain is playing kiss ass with Fallwell.
I think they are more likely to abuse their office and power
Perhaps. I don't necessarily disagree. You presumed that I am some sort of liberal die hard and your presumtion did nothing except make you look silly. But as it stands now Bush has one upped the whole lot. He will stand atop McCarthy and Wilson. He has brought us the closest to an Authoritarian government that we have ever been. And we still have 2 years to go.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
Bush has declared in these statements that he is exempt from over 750 laws that congress has passed, including laws prohibiting torturing prisoners of war, laws prohibiting government interference with scientific research, etc.
I think that we know why Bush has only used his veto once.
He just signs everything into law, but anything he doesn't want to personally follow, he just makes a signing statement and declares himself above the law.
Tell me, what do you think of a president who thinks himself above over seven hundred and fifty laws?
To be the key-note speaker for a campaign fundraising event? You gotta be kidding me. Politicians at that level do know it is illegal even if you do not.
I guess I still don't know what you're talking about. Bush speaks at fundraising events all the time. If it's illegal, under what provision of the campaign finance code that was present at the time is that the case?
Did you read the wika-link and the references contained therein?
Yes. The tapes etc. were alleged to exist, and alleged to contain something incriminating, but the link gave no evidence for those allegations. And neither have you.
You obviously didn't read the quotes and links provided to you. Using a non-profit religious organization for fundraising is against the law. Using it to funnel bribes from the government of China is even more against the law.
I understand pretty clearly that, like Whitewater and the Vince Foster "murder", this is mostly just another one of those right-wing generated fake conspiracies. The fact that you've failed to present any evidence now at about 100 posts pretty much proves it.
Crash, what a pathetic response on your part. There is actual videotape, heck millions of Americans saw it, of Gore soliciting cash in the Buddhist Temple, of Clinton and Gore meeting with Chinese agents at the White House coffees, etc, etc,....
Heck, even the DNC admits they took illegal money, paid a fine for it, and claimed to return millions back. They claim it was a mere mistake, of course, but the facts indicate otherwise.
It's clear that someone like you wouldn't admit to a crime committed by Clinton's admin or the dems regardless of how much evidence is there for it, and that's sad really, but what I have come to expect from you.