Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Correct. It was interesting watching Henry Waxman today. In typical Waxman fashion, butter wouldn't have melted in his mouth when interviewing Plame, plus they Democrat majority put so many restrictions on what could and could not be asked of Plame, the questions that should have been asked were not asked.

But when interviewing the token 'opposition', he wouldn't let Toesing speak. He advised her that he would not relinquish HIS time to her. Amazing huh? You invite or subpoena a witness to testify and then won't let them talk.

But then.....and this is NOT directed at you Walter.....does it seem that most of the postings on this thread from the non-Bush supporters grow increasing shrill? Frantic? Stupid?

Sorry, but Toensing was invited to answer questions, not to go on at length about her opinions.

Cycloptichorn

When Bush leaves Washington, is there any possibility that we can import the Guatemalan priests to purify the city?

You're a laughingstock. You can't even get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

You say that -



But Armitage never worked in the CIA. He worked in the State Department. Also worth noting, he's a signatory member of the PNAC - a verifiable Bush ally and most certainly not a co-worker of Plame's.

Why don't you stop before it gets worse, Fox? Do you have some sort of self-destructive compulsion to post such foolishness?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo,
From your own quote...



So,here we have a US attorney whose term was about to expire,and the govt replaced her?

Is that what you are upset about?

No. I suppose you are unaware that the US attn. typical serves out until the end of the president's time in office who appointed them. The terms are technically 4 years, but that hasn't been followed - ever.

I'm upset because on the very day that Lam - who already threw Cunningham in the slammer, don't forget him - was reported to be investigating others, there was a memo talking about how they had a 'real problem with her' right now and something had to be done.

Pretty good timing, don't you think? Me too.

Cycloptichorn

This whole thing is bigger than I thought. Bush is smack dab in the middle of it.

Why?

Because it was illegal for anyone else besides himself to fire these attorneys. He literally had to give the order to do so, which pretty much blows up the idea that the White House wasn't involved. And they've been lying about not being invovled.

28 U.S.C.541 provides as follows:



Not the AG, the prez. How specific is this statute? Let's look at the very next line:



Bush is in big-big trouble unless they can backdate a secret executive order granting this power to someone else. And then he's still in trouble, because they have to explain why they chose to lie about it for months now.

I expect Gonzales to be gone within the week and the Stonewalling to begin within the month.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think this speaks too well of our economy.


Updated:2007-03-13 10:24:11
Nearly Half of U.S. Lives Paycheck to Paycheck
Reuters
NEW YORK (March 13) -- Four out of 10 U.S. workers often or always live from paycheck to paycheck, according to a survey released Monday.

Women are more likely to live paycheck to paycheck, at 47 percent, than men, at 36 percent, according to the survey conducted for CareerBuilder.com, an online job site based in Chicago.

Overall, 41 percent of workers say they often or always live paycheck to paycheck, it said.

Also, 41 percent of women say they do not have enough income to live comfortably, compared with 29 percent of men.

U.S. government and other research reports have found that women earn about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men for comparable work. Women are also more likely to be single parents.

The new survey said 19 percent of workers who earn $100,000 or more annually often or always live paycheck to paycheck.

It found 58 percent of respondents report they set a budget each month. But one in five say they typically spend more than their budget, most often blowing it by eating out.

The survey also said one in five do not set aside any money for savings each month. Of those who do, 14 percent save $500 or more a month, 28 percent save $100 or less and 16 percent save less than $50.

It said 26 percent of women do not set aside any savings, compared with 17 percent of men.

The survey of 6,169 full-time adult workers was conducted between November 17 and December 11, 2006 by Harris Interactive and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

Rove and Libby also leaked the ID of Plame. At the least, Rove should lose his security clearance.

What you won't read in the leftwing U.S. media is that the VA hospital system in the US has been a disgrace for decades as are many government administrated programs. You also won't read how much it got worse during the Clinton years during the general anti-military stance of that administration.

And you won't read any credit given to the Bush administration, slow yes but proactive now, who are taking steps to begin clean up of the mess.

Walter Reed is not the ONLY story out there.

Imagine what would happen if the US put government in charge of ALL out health care?

Conservatives extol the Reagan years. They weren't so hot.

^3/19/07: Don't Cry for Reagan

By PAUL KRUGMAN

As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the
personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given
way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time
magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans
"need to reclaim the Reagan legacy."

But Republicans shouldn't cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never
left them. There's no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is
what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.

In 1993 Jonathan Cohn -- the author, by the way, of a terrific new book
on our dysfunctional health care system -- published an article in The
American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government.
Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were
written in 2007.

Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed
with opponents of environmental protection, who "presided over a massive
sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers" that "deprived the
department of several billion dollars in annual revenue." Oil leases,
anyone?

Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because "the ranks of public
officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that
the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have
been left with the worst of both worlds -- demoralized and disorganized
public officials and unaccountable private contractors.-- Holy Halliburton!

Not mentioned in Mr. Cohn's article, but equally reminiscent of current
events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man
who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the
title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got
so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the
deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned
in protest.

Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years
and recent events? Mr. Reagan's administration, like Mr. Bush's, was run
by movement conservatives -- people who built their careers by serving
the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the
religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both
cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is
always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well.
So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find
people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the
interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism,
which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of
apparatchiks who can be counted on to be "loyal Bushies."

The movement's apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its
contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of
a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn't likely to balk
at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats,
or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As
Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican
elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable,
even praiseworthy.

Still, Mr. Reagan's misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush's. As a
result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high
as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of
hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan's relative success,
I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress --
and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who
imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no
Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush
administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in
the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the
hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to
believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure
its position.

But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true
representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it's the
movement, not just one man, that has failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical Krugman, the guru of gloom and doom who hasn't had anything good to say about anyting in years and even gets most of the bad stuff wrong. God, I would hate to be him. I sure don't intend to listen to him, about anything.

Not that you actually have substantive criticism of his positions, though.

Cycloptichorn

Of course not! She told you, she isn't listening to him.