1
   

Is Howard Bush's Mini-Me?

 
 
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 08:13 am
Is Howard copying Bush's right wing coup of America? I want to think not but I was reflecting on his ambush of the states this week concerning his sneaky effort to take over running the ports. Is he going to override the states and take control of everything himself? Is that why he's staying in office?

I was reading this piece from AlterNet and was struck by some parts of the description:



Quote:
Bush: Worst President Ever?
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Posted on May 20, 2005, Printed on May 20, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22057/
For the record, I don't like George Bush. And I don't like most of the people who work for George Bush. So, diehard Republicans can just brush aside my remarks as so much partisan blather.

But by now I suppose very few diehard Republicans ever read what I write. So do me a favor -- e-mail this to the diehards in your family and circle of friends. Ask them to tell me why I am wrong about this:

George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down.

And here are just a few reasons why I believe that statement is true.

America the Disgraced

President Bush's actions and policies have destroyed America's image as a nation that adheres to a set of core values, such as the rule of law, humane treatment of prisoners, presumed innocence, trial by jury and respect for international laws.

How do I know this? Because the world is telling us so, whenever we care enough to ask.


Positive views of the U.S. in Russia have risen 11 points in the past year. But U.S. favorability ratings in France and Germany are somewhat lower than last year and there has been a larger decline in Great Britain (58 percent now, 70 percent last year). Young people in Great Britain, France, and Germany have more negative views of America than do people in other age groups. An important factor in world opinion about America is the perception that the U.S. acts internationally without taking account of the interests of other nations. Large majorities in every nation surveyed believe that America pays little or no attention to their country's interests in making its foreign policy decisions. This opinion is most prevalent in France (84 percent), Turkey (79 percent) and Jordan (77 percent), but even in Great Britain 61 percent say the U.S. pays little or no attention to British interests.

Nice going George. Even Richard Nixon couldn't tarnish America's image that much.

George's Vietnam

Then there's the war that is largely responsible for that drop in our international image. President Bush really screwed this one up. First, everyone not drinking the neocon Kool-Aid tried to warn George not to pull that trigger. Then Army chief of staff, Gen. Shinseki, warned Bush that a war in Iraq would not be the "cake walk" his neocon Rasputin, Paul Wolfowitz, promised. Instead, he warned, we would need a lot of troops in Iraq for long time. For that piece of advice he was first publicly embarrassed by his boss then shown the door, according to The New York Times:


At a Pentagon news conference neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned Gen. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a post-war Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort. "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

That was 2003. Here's a story from today's paper.


BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 - American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq. ... In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major draw-down in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gee. Who saw that coming?

So, thanks to George W. Bush and the handful of Neocon nuts you listen to. Now we are stuck in another Vietnam-type war thousands of miles from home. All the Vietnam trappings are here for anyone who cares to notice -- indigenous insurgents, driven by a fanatical ideology, supported and supplied by "spoiler" nation-states with their own anti-U.S. agendas, thousands of dead civilians, American soldiers dying by the gross week in and week out, with no end in sight.

Nice going, George. Maybe because you skipped out on the Vietnam War you didn't know this could happen. Or maybe you really are as dumb as common road gravel.

Sovietization of America

One of the Republican party's proudest boasts is that Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Evil Empire. The irony is they are now recreating pieces of that police state here at home now.

Hyperbole? You judge -- while you still can. From The New York Times:


WASHINGTON, May 18 - The Bush administration and Senate Republican leaders are pushing a plan that would significantly expand the F.B.I.'s power to demand business records in terror investigations without obtaining approval from a judge, officials said on Wednesday. "This is a dramatic expansion of the federal government's power," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. "It's really a power grab by the administration for the F.B.I. to secretly demand medical records, tax records, gun purchase records and all sorts of other material if they deem it relevant to an intelligence investigation."

Now, the Patriot Act -- you know, the law that among other things allows federal agents to demand your local library tell them what books you are reading -- is about to be expanded.

Little by little this administration has chipped away at state powers by transferring them to Washington. And nowhere has this process been more pronounced than in the area of law enforcement and the courts. The FBI, which once had to defer to local and state law enforcers when on their turf, can now barge right in and take charge. All they have to do is an investigation a "national security" or "homeland security" matter.

Federal courts, which have acted as a brake on law enforcement abuses, are being systemically stacked with rightwing judges less likely to side with victims of overzealous cops or invasions of personal privacy.

That's why this is going on right now:


WASHINGTON, May 18 - The Senate plunged into an intense partisan struggle on Wednesday over the fate of stalled federal court nominees and the governance of the institution itself as the two parties locked in a debate over the right of the minority to prevent votes on a president's judicial candidates. "If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," said Senator Reid. "The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization.

The Bushites are on a neocon roll and the federal judiciary is their final obstacle. If they can stack the appellate courts and appoint two rightwing Supreme Court justices before the end of Bush's final term, it will be "game over" for civil libertarians -- and America as we knew her.

Peasantization of Workers

Over the past five years we have seen the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of money. The already wealthy have become mind-numbingly rich under George Bush. Where did the money come from? It came right out of the pockets of working Americans and the poor.

I heard that groan from the right. Same old liberal, bleeding-heart bullshit, right?

So, you judge.

What the right has accomplished in just five years is the creation of a low-wage economy -- a management wet dream -- a country filled with high-skilled workers so desperate for jobs they will work for peanuts. Once powerful labor unions have been powerless to stop the flow of once high-paying blue and gray-collar jobs to cheap overseas venues. The jobs that replaced those lost to outsourcing pay an average of ten grand a year less. (As I said above, the money came straight out of workers' pockets.)

Deflating Inflation

The administration likes to boast that it has kept inflation in check. Yes they have, at least somewhat. But the reasons inflation remains low are all bad reasons that will result in very bad news down the road.

First, consumers have less money to spend, as noted above. Since consumer spending power is a prime driver of price inflation, prices on many core consumer products have remained low. And many of those now low-price products keeping inflation low are no longer made here but in cheap-labor countries like China.

But inflation has many causes, not just consumer spending. Raw materials, shipping costs, currency fluctuations. And deep inside the bowels of the economic gut, rumbling can be heard.


WASHINGTON -- Consumer prices jumped again last month, primarily reflecting sharp increases in food and energy costs, the government reported today. But prices for items other than food and energy were flat in April, while oil and gas prices have fallen since then, the Labor Department said, boosting hopes in financial markets that the recent inflation flare-up may be fading. Food prices climbed 0.7 percent last month, largely because of the rising costs of fruits and vegetables. But the so-called core-CPI, which excludes food and energy costs, was unchanged in April and is up 2.6 percent from April of last year.

Inflation is not as benign as the government figures pretend. This is because of how they calculate inflation on individual items in the CPI and can fiddle with the facts. For example, if HP replaces a printer with a new model that might include a few modest enhancements over it's predecessor which sold for $100, but prices the new model $125, government economists can claim the price really did not go up because the new model is better than the old model.

Trouble is you can't buy the old model any longer, but never mind that. Even though you have to pay more for basically the same printer, the price did not go up -- because "they" say so.

How much of that is going on in calculating the CPI? Plenty. And if you shop you know it. They keep saying inflation is in check, but the checks I have to write for everything from my utilities to the food keep getting larger.

The point -- figures don't lie but liars can figure -- and they are.

Keeping Up Keeping Up

If things are so bad, why hasn't the economy slipped back into recession? Because it's been running on credit. During Bush's first term the economy perked up because Bush pumped $1.6 trillion in tax rebates into it. That was like giving a dying patient an injection of meth and then claiming he was cured because he was up and jerking around in bed.

Once consumers consumed their paltry tax rebates and the wealthy had deposited their hefty rebates into family trust accounts, the economy would have slowed again -- had it not been for low interest rates and easy credit. Consumers turned into home-equity vampires and credit card addicts in order to maintain the middle-class lifestyle their new low-paying jobs could no longer finance.

And, the government as well went on a borrowing binge running up a national credit card debt of just over $7 trillion.

All that damage in just five years! It's almost unimaginable, but true. And the negative long-term implications stagger those who understand that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, that deficits do matter, be they government deficits or consumer's.

Christian Jihadists

I will not belabor this point, except to say that, at the very time Bush berates religious fundamentalists abroad, he has breached the wall between religion and state here at home. He has jimmied open this Pandora's Box and there will be hell to pay for it eventually -- as there has been everywhere on earth where this was done.

All the above, and more, is why I contend that George W. Bush is the worst president EVER. Hands down, no one else even comes close.

Herbert Hoover may have triggered the Great Depression, but he didn't invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts. Franklin Roosevelt did try to stack the courts but Congress said "no" and he said "OK," and went on the save the world from fascism and secure the lives of America's elderly by creating Social Security -- which Bush now wants to subvert.

Johnson and Nixon did fight an illegal and immoral war but Johnson lifted millions out of poverty and got the Civil Rights Act passed, much to his own party's determent. Nixon tried to subvert the Constitution but was caught and thrown out of office before he could succeed.

But I fear it's too late to stop George W. Bush and his band of right-wing revolutionaries. We have let them get too far along now to stop them. We have let them neutralize too many constitutional checks and balances. And once they deep-six the filibuster it truly will be game over.

Yes, the Democrats have begun to fight, but too little and now too late. The only recourse soon will be public demonstrations of the kind and size not seen here since the 1970s.

The only question is, are there still enough of us out here who give a damn.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.


© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22057/


Is John Howard George Bush's Mini-Me? Is Australia being taken over by a right wing stealth campaign?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,206 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 08:17 am
Worrying the crap out of me.

Ports gonna be run by masked men with guns and dogs again? Cattle calls, and devil take the unionist?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 08:26 am
I had to smile wryly earlier this week when I heard Chris Corrigan on radio bemoaning the cost of dealing with Sydney Airport and that the Federal Govt had to look at it as it was essentially a monopoly. As ye reap....

But yes I'm worried about what is happening. I think sadly that unless there is something approaching a secular miracle (is that possible?) in the US that they're just about cactus but now I'm actively worried about Australia going the same way and I'm not given to paranoia. Listening to the chief of ASIO droning on about the need for ASIO to keep its extended powers (good to see he has a plum Ambassadorial position, fits my hypothesis) and sadly the ALP agreeing to a point, I'm wondering if it isn't too late for us as well.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 05:03 pm
Aah - think you to be over-reacting a tad, GF.

The problem is the nebulous natire of "the war against terror" - and the fact that, once granted powers, most institutions have to be forced to give them up.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 05:50 pm
Over-reacting. That's probably right. I think I'm entering my Blue Period. I have to stop reading all this left wing media we have in Australia :wink:
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 05:52 pm
Lol!!!!!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 10:33 pm
This is from an ABC program - whose name I don't know - but all of you will:

PM may be targeted by criminal indictment: lawyer
Reporter: Tony Jones

TRANSCRIPT

TONY JONES: Now to the international lawyer who claims that John Howard might one day find himself targeted by a criminal indictment in a foreign country over his decision to go to war in Iraq. Philippe Sands QC is the Professor of Law at University College in London. As a barrister he was involved in cases before English and international courts, including those concerning the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay and detained asylum seekers in the UK. He's also an author and his latest book is called Lawless World - America and the making and breaking of international rules. He's currently in Australia on a speaking tour and he joins us now from our Melbourne studio.

TONY JONES: Philippe Sands, thanks for being there.

PHILIPPE SANDS, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER AND AUTHOR: Very good to join you this evening.

TONY JONES: Thank you. Can I start by asking you to tell us more about what you've described as the "most remarkable moment of your professional life" when the deciding vote was cast in the House of Lords over the decision of whether Augusto Pinochet should have immunity.

PHILIPPE SANDS: It was a fateful day in November 1998 when the judicial committee at the House of Lords, the Law Lords, decided by three votes to two that Senator Pinochet was not entitled to claim immunity in relation to an extradition request from Spain for charges concerning his activities whilst he was a Head of State - torture, disappearing people and so on and so forth. The significance of the judgment was it was the first time that any national court had said a former Head of State or a former head of Government couldn't claim immunity. It was always thought that immunity attached even after individuals left office. It was a remarkable moment when the fifth judge, Lord Hoffmann, at 2-2, a score draw, gave his vote in favour of no immunity and you hear on the web site of the BBC if your listeners would care to listen to it, an audible intake of breath as a moment when the international legal order really changes.

TONY JONES: Okay. What were the implications of that decision for former heads of state and former officials? I'm thinking in this case of Margaret Thatcher in particular who apparently does constrain her travel arrangements these days and Henry Kissinger who has to do the same.

PHILIPPE SANDS: It signalled a real change in the nature and purpose of the rules of international law and a coming of age of the human rights rules and the humanitarian rules that Australia and Britain and the United States had done so much to put in place after the World War II. The consequences in practical terms are that any Head of State or Head of Government who's engaged in activity which could give rise to a criminal investigation abroad at the level of international crime, it's got to be at that serious level, faces the prospect of investigation when abroad. To give you an example, Henry Kissinger was in Europe not so long ago publicising a new book and he took the decision not to go to Paris, I understand, because there was a credible concern that he might be the subject of a request for extradition in relation to activities he'd been involved with in Chile in the 1970s. Equally, I understand, that Baroness Thatcher after she left office in relation to issues relating to the Belgrano, the sinking of the Argentinian Naval vessel off the coast of the Falklands, the Malvinas, used to take considerable care in determining where she was going to travel.

TONY JONES: You say that it's not fanciful to believe that Donald Rumsfeld that Tony Blair and even our own Prime Minister John Howard might one day find themselves in a similar position.

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, let's take the case of Donald Rumsfeld. In a sense, his is the clearest case because in December 2002 he signed a memorandum, one of the infamous torture memorandums, which I describe in the book Lawless World, in which he authorises various techniques of interrogation which in the views of basically every international lawyer around amounts to torture. Those techniques were used for several weeks before the order was rescinded. They were used, for example, in Afghanistan, which is a party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over torture and that means in principle that court has jurisdiction to investigate the involvement of Donald Rumsfeld for authorising activities which amount to torture. You mentioned Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prime Minister John Howard, the issue there is slightly more complex and turns really on the legality of the war in Iraq. No-one is suggesting that either the British or Australian prime ministers have been involved in torturing anybody, but most people now recognise that the war in Iraq was illegal and under international law, an illegal war amounts to a crime of aggression and in some countries around the world a crime of aggression is one where they exercise jurisdiction. So the possibility really can't be excluded if Messrs Blair and Howard at some point in the future travel after they've left office to a country which, for example, has an extradition agreement with another country where you have an independent prosecutor like the independent prosecutor in Spain who initiated the investigation of Senator Pinochet, a request for extradition or for investigation or questioning has happened in the case of Mr Kissinger could happen. There's precedent for it.

TONY JONES: It does sound a little fanciful in the case of our Prime Minister John Howard. Who on earth would want to prosecute the Australian Prime Minister?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, others - I've been talking about this a little bit since I've been in Australia and of course it may turn out to be much easier to go for John Howard than Tony Blair or for obvious reasons George W Bush.

TONY JONES: Why is that?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, he may produce a more easy target in the sense that Australia doesn't have politically the clout of a country like the United States. I mean, I'm not saying that it ought to happen, nor am I saying definitely that it will happen, but the simple point is that the rules of international law have changed very considerably in the last 50 years, largely as a result of efforts of the US, by Australia and the United Kingdom. A whole new range of international criminal rules has emerged and when you break the rules of international law you pay a price for that and one of the prices that you pay if you're a leader is you travel with greater care and caution.

TONY JONES: Let's look at that fundamental question at stake there and that's about the legality of the war in Iraq. This question dominated much of the recent British election campaign as we know and it really got going, didn't it, when the full advice of the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith was actually released to the public. Tell us about that.

PHILIPPE SANDS: It was my book which had been published a couple of months before the election which confirmed for the first time there was a full written legal advice written by the Attorney-General on the 7th March, 2003 which was different from the very short one-page document that was put into the public domain on 17th March, 2003 in the House of Lords just three days before the war began. The first document, the 17th of March document, 13 pages, carefully balanced, basically says, reading between the lines, it will be safer to go if you have a second resolution and if you don't have a second resolution from the United Nations, the better view is that it is going to be illegal. Ten days later, a complete change of view and the public and parliament and the Cabinet, because the Cabinet was never given the full legal advice, is presented with an unequivocal view that war would not be unlawful in any circumstances.

TONY JONES: The critical question here, who wrote the second document if it wasn't Lord Goldsmith?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Lord Goldsmith wrote both the documents and that's the astonishing thing.

TONY JONES: How do we explain that then?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, we haven't been able to explain it. What happened in those 10 days? Now you may ask, what's the relevance of this for Australia? Interestingly preparing for my visit here with help from some Australian colleagues, I checked out what John Howard had said in the Australian parliament and on the 18th of March he relied on the British legal advice or he called it the British legal advice -

TONY JONES: To be fair, he didn't rely very heavily on it. He tabled the summary of the advice but he actually relied on his own advice from the Australian Attorney-General and lawyers from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

PHILIPPE SANDS: He relied on two documents, one from a senior lawyer in the Attorney-General's office and one from a senior lawyer from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and he also tabled, as you said, but he also referred on two occasions to what he called the summary legal advice of Lord Goldsmith, but that was the document of the 17th of March, and what is significant is the document of 17th March was not a summary of the legal advice. In fact, Lord Goldsmith very clearly stated on 26th February, in response actually to the publication of my book, that the second document, the 17th March document, wasn't a summary of the first. It was simply, if you like, a recast view. The question that I think is interesting is, was the Australian Government aware of the earlier full written legal advice prepared by the British Attorney-General on the 7th of March and if so did it have an opportunity to consider an expressive view on that earlier advice which of course was very, very equivocal about the case for war?

TONY JONES: We don't know the answer to that, but let me ask you this: has Lord Goldsmith ever been cross-examined or questioned by journalists about these discrepancies in the first and the second advice?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, he's been subject to many requests for interview. To the best of my knowledge, he's given only one interview to a friendly journalist writing in the Daily Telegraph last week and he's not answered the question, the key question: why did you change your mind between the 7th and the 17th? I just want to put this in a broader context also. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy Foreign Office legal adviser, resigned at around this time. She resigned because she said she could not be part of a government which was participating in what she called, the crime of aggression, an illegal war. But more significantly, her resignation letter confirmed that Lord Goldsmith changed his mind not just once but twice and his earlier view back in December or January 2003 was that an explicit Security Council resolution was needed and that resolution 14.41 which of course had been adopted in November 2002 was not adequate. So there's a great mystery as to the chain of events that happened at a crucial point shortly in the run-up before the war.

TONY JONES: All of this raises the question of how the three countries and the coalition of the willing seemed to come simultaneously to the same view about how to call the war legal and in this regard you raise a visit that Lord Goldsmith made to Washington I think in February of 2003. Can you tell us about that visit and what was later said about it by officials?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Yeah. The book refers to a visit that Lord Goldsmith made to Washington on 7th February, 2003. At that point of course my understanding is Lord Goldsmith was very wobbly about the war and believed a second resolution was needed. During the course of his visit he met with John Bellinger who at the time was legal adviser to the National Security Council, Condoleeza Rice's legal adviser. Later on John Bellinger told, and I reported this in the book, the senior visiting British official, "We had trouble with your attorney, but we got him there eventually." I put that to Tom. I know him and he's a decent man and honourable man. He gave a denial. He couldn't remember and he'd be surprised if the Attorney-General, so eminent a man, would need persuading. There's been no denial the meeting took place, nor frankly that Lord Goldsmith that the Americans played a decisive role. In fact, if you read the full legal opinion, which if your viewers are interested, you can get it on the No. 10 Downing Street website and you will see that the Attorney-General of the UK makes explicit reference to the significance of the views of the US on the legality of the war.

TONY JONES: A final question, if we can, because we are nearly out of time, I'm afraid. It was Prime Minister Blair I think who first started pushing the idea that humanitarian intervention could be a justification for war and in fact all of the leaders of the Coalition of the willing relied not only on the UN resolutions but on the humanitarian intervention aspect of the war in Iraq, including, it must be said, John Howard here in Australia who in making the case put human suffering in the balance and concluded that human suffering in Iraq would be worse if Saddam remained in place. That argument still remains cogent to this whole question, doesn't it?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, it doesn't, but let me just explain that briefly. The NATO countries supported the war in Kosovo in 1999 on the basis of humanitarian intervention, intervention in Kosovo to protect the fundamental human rights of Kosovar Muslims threatened by Serbian actions. My own view is that war was lawful and was consistent with international law. The argument of humanitarian intervention was not used by the United States or by the UK. I'm not aware that it was used by John Howard. The British Attorney-General in the advice of the -

TONY JONES: I am just pointing out to you it was used as part of the overall argument he made in parliament on the day in question.

PHILIPPE SANDS: It was used as part of the political context but not used as a legal argument. The British Attorney-General in his advice is absolutely clear there was no humanitarian crisis as at March 2003 such as to justify that argument and it's plain that however appalling Saddam Hussein was, and he plainly was, at the time of March 2003 he was not at the height, if you like, of his powers of brutality. The real excesses had taken place in the late 1980s and early 1990s particularly in the early phase when he was an ally of the US and other countries around the world in trying to prosecute a war against Iran. OK Philippe Sands, we are out of time, unfortunately. We've enjoyed talking to you. We have to leave you there now unfortunately. Thank you for talking to us.

PHILIPPE SANDS: Thank you very much.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9171.htm


(Video there - as well as transcript)



Mini-me to Bush, indeed - seems Bush will be protected by America's failure to recognize the Court.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2005 06:23 pm
I'd vote for extradition Very Happy
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:23 pm
in answer to your question, a simple phrase:

apart from the exception of chinese policies and outlooks - yes.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:49 pm
I want to ask - (and forgive me if I'm wrong) but we seem to have a lot of left wingers here - is that right? No one seems to like Howard alot...especially in regards to his detention and USA policies.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 06:32 am
I'll put my hand up for that pragmatic. I hope though that I'm not one of those who blindly oppose. I like to think through his policies and then condemn them Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Howard Bush's Mini-Me?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 01:33:47