Brown Blames DHS for Poor Hurricane Katrina Response

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184446,00.html

Hahaha. They probably had tea parties together too and braided each others hair.

PLEASE, let this sink Bush:D

Surely you jest. Sink Bush? Come on. If Abramhoff sinks anyone it will be Harry Reid. This is far from a Bush scandal or a Republican scandal. Hope all you wish, but that's all you have....hope.

Stuckon Stupid-

Wishful thinking. The attacks on Reid will end as we all come to realize there is nothing there.

Jack Abramoff is a republican invention,a completely republican creature and a huge republican problem.

Sorry.

Arthur, stuck on stupid is no way to go through life. And having blinders on will surely cause you to eventually have a head-on collision. The fact is the evidence that is clearly available to anyone who cares to see it doesn't support your claim. Harry Reid claims to be as pure as the wind driven snow, but his paper trail on money from Indian lobbyists with ties to Abramhoff is a mile long. And guess what...that's as legal as what the Republicans have done. Lobbying isn't illegal. Knowing lobbyists isn't illegal. Voting for a bill a lobbyist who has given you money and asked you to vote for isn't illegal. The only thing illegal is saying "I'll vote for this if you give me money." This is very hard to prove and will take taped conversations....have you heard of any of these yet?

And just because Bush may have known or met Abramhoff is a far cry from accepting a bribe from him. In fact, nobody has even made any allegations of Bush wrongdoing, so having met him on a handful of occasions isn't a crime. You libs want to impeach Bush every time he farts and it's so funny to watch you deflate when it doesn't stick. Hey Arthur, the Northeast is expecting a snowstorm this weekend....I'll bet it's because of global warming caused by Bush.

3 - 4 Congressmen may go down in this Abramhoff thing in the end (which will be well after the next Congressional election...sorry), but I guarantee you they won't all be Republicans.

P.S. I love this site. Coming here to piss you libs off is easier than fishing at a trout farm and more fun a human being should be allow to have.

This just comes down to who's less credible - the President or Jack Abramoff. Looks like a close call to me.

"far from a republican scandal" ?? are you kidding... yes there are some democrats caught in this net, but give me a break. abramoff wasnt throwing money around to democrats, unless they were right-wingers. So, yes, this IS a republican scandal.

Ok, some people take longer to get it than others so let me try this a different way. So what are you saying this comes down to and what is the President less credible on? Knowing Jack Abramhoff? Is that the crime you are convicting him of? Oh, that's right, if Bush said he didn't know Jack but we prove he met him on several occasions, Bush must have accepted a bribe. Is that what you libs are stooping to here? Come on, get over it. On second thought...keep saying it because I'm going to love watching your head explode when nothing comes of this or any other scandal you are trying to pin on W.

Ha ha ha ha.......

Dear Stupid-If it's no big deal that Bush met Abramoff, then why is he LYING about it? No one is saying Bush accepted bribes. At least directly. It's not that simple. It's more likely that has assorted band of criminals, better known as his administration, did. Otherwise, again, why is he now LYING about it? Some people take longer to get it than others, so here's another example: Sort of like how Cheney didn't know anything about Valerie Plame. Oh wait, he gave the orders to out her, according to Scooter Libby, who I think might know. These guys need to get a new schtick....

Jeez, urStuckOnStupid, ur really abusive. I was commenting on the original post, the one in which Abramoff told The Washingtonian that he and the President knew each other.

I didn't say the President was taking bribes. The President was extremely wealthy from the day he was born, so he wouldn't need to take bribes. I was just commenting on the fact that two guys (Bush and Abramoff) are saying opposite things about the same situation ("He knows me." "I don't know him.") One of them is lying, right? Normally, the confessed felon would lose this debate automatically, but in this case, I can't decide who's the liar.

Stuck-

You hit the nail on the head regarding going through life stuck on stupid.

Spend some time here and those days will come to an end for you.

You flatter yourself. I can't imagine you able to piss anyone off here. You've set the bar so low there isn't much to get worked up over.

Put another way: don't confuse anger with pity.

Here's an article in yesterday's edition of your favorite liberal DC publication. Republican scandal, huh. Face the facts, Dingy Harry. If he hasn't done anything wrong, why is he lying? Oh wait, Bush is lying about knowing Abramhoff....this is much worse than lying about accepting thousands of dollars in contributions connected to Abramhoff. Go drink some more Kool-aid...the ice cubes are melting.

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, The Associated Press From Washington Post Thursday, February 09, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients. The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long-held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid, D-Nev. , has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U. S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U. S. territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show.

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.

Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying partners.

And Reid's longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has gripped the Capitol.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case and is now helping prosecutors investigate the conduct of lawmakers, congressional aides and administration officials his team used to lobby.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid contacts.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return the money.

"Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to fail," Manley said. "Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done anything impermissible. "

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip. "

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, 2001, with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising. "

The Marianas, U. S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean, were one of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their textile industry exempt from most U. S. laws on immigration, labor and pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3. 05 an hour, and were exempt from the U. S. minimum of $5. 15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption. Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U. S. minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the U. S. hourly minimum to $6. 65 and would have covered the Marianas. The legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an initial break by setting its minimum at just $3. 55 _ nearly $3 lower than any other territory or state _ and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the Marianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering specifically to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates. But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate ethics officials, was underwritten by the U. S. Malaysia Exchange Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly registered to lobby for the U. S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff. "My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

Reid intervened on other matters.

On March 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000 check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

Article courtesy of Illumen

Dear Stupid- So what? How does this get Bush off the hook? Bush LIED. Face it. You worship a LIAR. Maybe you admire that, I don't know, but you never answered our question: WHY is Bush now LYING about meeting Abramoff? My guess is, since you didn't answer it, you know deep down in your Right Wing Wacked out heart, that he's somehow involved, directly or indirectly, just like Harry Reid. So go ahead, sling your crap, just remember your hero is in bed with the same scumbags as the rest and probably more.

Bush said he didn't know Abramhoff. Because Abramhoff met him does that make Bush a liar? My neighbor has met Bush on several occasions that was arranged through the GOP and staffers because he and his company has donated lots of money to the GOP. If he tried, I;ll bet he could even get an invite to Bush's ranch in Texas because he knows people. He even has pictures shaking Bush's hand. But Bush still doesn't know him! What is so hard to understand about this concept?

http://www.jaculis.org/images/farce/composite2.jpg

...picture of Bush and Abramoff together.

{grins}

Jaculis

http://www.jaculis.org/images/farce/composite2.jpg

...picture of Bush and Abramoff together.

{grins}

Jaculis

Why would W's lie about Abramoff matter?

He just got outed on the "dodged the bullet" lie that he and all his pals (Chertoff, Myers, and others) deliberately spread after Katrina.

That's criminal negligence. The blogs should be howling, because Chertoff's own department notified the WH situation Room on the night of the hurricane that a levee had been breached (they all knew what that would mean. Even Brownie shot down the "dodged a bullet" thing when the press sprang it on him). They all got together and lied. Who cares? I don't see it anywhere.

But...urStuckOnStupid...why is the White House distancing itself from Abramoff? I still think there is something fishy with how the WH was squealching any pictures or instances of any visitor's logbook with Abramoff.

The WH acted guilty. They still are. They're on the defensive...or acting that way. They're hiding something. (Pure speculation, I'll admit.)

Hey Cowboy, maybe you're right. Based on precedence (ala Mark Rich), Bush ought to pardon the guy. That's what Slick Willy did, but then again, I never heard any outrage by the media on that one.

Let's see....maybe they are distancing themselves because ....hmmmm....he's admitted to committing a felony?!? Call me crazy but what are they supposed to do, let him sleep in the Lincoln bedroom until he gets sentenced?

In all seriousness, here's the issue I personally have with all the Bush haters out there. I thought Slick Willy was one of the worst presidents we ever had. I couldn't name all the bad things he did to our military (I served as an Officer and saw it myself) on two hands. He was slimy...he was a sexual harrassment episode waiting to happen...and he treated terrorist activity as a police matter. I didn't like the guy. But when he did something right, and there were several things he did right like the Welfare Reform legislation he signed, I was right up there with those giving him a pat on the back. George Bush could raise the minimum wage to $100/hour and you guys would find some kind of fault with it. Everything that goes wrong in this world has a root cause...it happened because W is president. It's getting a little old, don't you think? Bush has done his share of screw-ups in my opinion so I don't praise everything he does....Medicaire Prescription Drug program for one. But all you guys who want to incriminate him for trying to catch terrorists and protect our soil from another attack need to think twice about directing your hatred toward the wrong person.

Off topic. I just thought I'd give another perspective on what has been said onhere the last few days about the Mohammad pictures.

Swedish news-programme made an interview with news-chief of arabian TV station, "Al-Arabyan". He pretty much sums up my views on this thing. I have a video-clip on my computer but not enough webspace, so here it is, as a sound clip.

Stuck,

No president is perfect...I will give you that.

How any one group of people reacted to past actions of past presidents is completely irrelevant to this particular issue.

I believe the exact response from the White House was that Bush "Had never met" with Abramhof. Obviously, that was a lie.

The revelations that the White House did indeed know about the seriousness of the situation in NO after Katrina when they claimed to have not been informed at all...Gosh another LIE.

The assertion that the White House had no prior warnings about Al-Queda prior to 9-11 also a lie.

The use of faulty, incomplete and wholly made up intelligence to lead this country into war...lies.

No one died because of Clinton's creative use of a Cigar and no one died because he lied about it...but he still lied. So he's just as bad right?

Wrong.

I am not just talking about Bush's lies, I am talking about this whole administration.

I am talking about an administration that lies, abuses civil liberties and then has the balls to call anyone who disagrees with their policies Un-American.

Funny, I don't recall hearing anyone who criticized Clinton called a traitor to their nation...

What I fail to understand is how any rational free thinking individual can possibly think any of this is okay?

Can you show me the upside to this administration Stuck? Can you show me the good it has done?

I'm listening....

Stuck:

I couldn't name all the bad things he did to our military (I served as an Officer and saw it myself) on two hands.

So you won't name any? When in doubt, Çlinton.

The AP story your're harping about is flawed. This administration can't tell the truth about episodes ranging from the reasons for invading Iraq to when the levees broke during Katrina to the C in C 'never met' Abramoff.

Wake up.

Animal, the absurdity that you spout off here defies explanation because it is impossible to debate someone who is irrational. I don't consider someone who disagrees with the President un-American...what is un-American is when far-left pundits undermine our efforts in Iraq so that we lose there so they can blame Bush for it. Cindy Sheehan claiming that the US is not worth dying for is un-American. Cindy Sheehan calling people who kill innocent women and children with a cowardly car-bomb freedom fighters is worse than being un-American...it gives comfort to the terrorists.

Just because you say something here doesn't mean it is true either. I could dispute every one of your points with specific examples to expose the absurdity, but I will only choose a couple:

First of all, Clinton's lies about Monica may not have killed people, but his policies sure did. If he had dealt with Bin Laden the right way when we did have a chance to kill him, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Second of all, it's clear you were not serving in the military under Clinton...ever hear of Mogadishu where he cut and ran? Clinton was a coward and decisions he made cost lives...lives you will never read about or know about. I know, or knew, some of them personally, so don't give me that psychobabble crap. 99% of our military would rather serve under Bush than they would Clinton so don't feel bad for those that willingly give up their lives so that you can freely spout off drivel.

I heard the exact same things said about another of my heros when he was President...he was supposedly incompetent, a liar, corrupt, etc. etc. etc. But at his funeral almost 15 years later, people now claimed Ronald Reagan was one of the best Presidents ever. This is a concept you will never comprehend so my rational explanations here will do no good.

It must be a real hard pill to swallow to not be able to understand why a majority of this country stands on my side when it comes to National Security. Keep pushing the agenda of "no wire-tapping" because it's a guaranteed loser in the next election and the GOP will keep the power! Most rational thinking people understand that if you don't catch the wire transmissions when they happen, the data is lost and the terrorists are scot-free. The only civil liberties violated are those of the terrorists who are trying to kill you. Think about that one for a while.

Oh, one more thing that proves the libs will stop at nothing. GW gave a perfect example yesterday of the upside of his secret wire-tapping...we foiled a plot to bring down the tallest building west of the Mississippi. What did all the Bush haters have to say...he's lying. He's grand-standing. He's timing it for political reasons. Give me a break. But if we hadn't foiled it and it did happen, it would be Bush's fault for not preventing it.

How absurd.

Wow, ask a simple question....get...I don't know Stuck...what would you call your response?

I'm irrational? On what specific information do you base this claim?

I asked you very seriously to point out the good this administration has done and told you I was listening and you respond with a canned "Bill O'Reilly" attack speech? Oh by the way do they have an online generator for those now? Can you point me to the website you got yours from?

Can you name a specific polling done to support your claim that 99% of our currently enlisted military men and women would rather serve under Bush?

54% of the people who voted does not an overwhelming majority make...all it means is that 46% of the country sill disagrees with you.

Oh, and Ronald Regan put the Taliban into power thereby creating the atmosphere for AL-Queda to thrive in Afghanistan so technically...he made that bed.

I find it puzzling that I was talking about the prevelance of lies and deception in this administration and you come back at me with previous presidents questionable military decisions. Were you confused?

I should also point out...no where in my commentary on LIES and DECEPTION did I ever voice my support for Clinton. Nor did I mention Cindy Sheehan anywhere in my post as she is completely irrevelant to the topic I was speaking about.

However, you seem to be working under the startling misconception that she is the only one who has been labeled Un-American in these times. I assure you, many more have been labled so.

I am also not entirely sure why you feel the need to insinuate that I am less than supportive of the men and women putting their lives on the line for this country. I cannot find anywhere in my comments where I said or indicated anything of the like.

I feel it is important to make clear that the men and women serving our country have my complete and total support for volunteering to keep us safe, however, I feel very strongly that their willingness to sacrifice is being woefully abused by the administration.

I feel there must have been a ton of invisible text in my post...because most of your response had nothing to do with what I said.

You know, maybe you should sleep on it, you must be tired. I know I certainly see things that are not there when I am exhausted, drinking, doing hallucinogens...taking Nyquill.

Get some rest sweetheart, I think you need it. :)

Oh and if you can site specific verified rebuttal sources for my actual arguement here I am perfectly happy to see them.

". . . ever hear of Mogadishu where he cut and ran?"

Ever hear of Beirut where he cut and ran?

Your hero. Ronald Reagan.

"They [terrorists] looked at our response after [...] the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon [...]. They concluded that free societies lack the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy." —George W. Bush

Sure looks like he met him enough times...

http://www.runbutcanthide.com/

Like Stuck I too was impressed by the C in C's discussion of thwarting a hijacking plot to crash an airliner into the "liberty Tower' in LA back in '02.

Details. Details.

The hijackers were going to board with bombs hidden in their shoes, forward to the cockpit where they would pile up their shoes, detonate an explosion to demolish the door to the cockpit whereupon they would gain entry, sieze the controls and head for 'Liberty Tower'.

Really.

This is a hilarious discussion. a rational, albeit brainwashed, right winger who can't see the other side of the fence, arguing with dyed in the wool oppositionists, who also can't see the other side. My take on this is as such:

Abrahmoff: I doubt Bush is invloved in any part of that. the white house is simply distancing itself from him. Did they do it incorrectly by lying about it, you bet, but its not impeachable. is it unethical... well, is this administration unethical? Is the Pope Catholic? Clean out K street, remove pay for play, fund elections with the same corporate lobbying dollars divvied up equally.

Iraq war: Every rational person who has greater than a high school education and doesn't lap up Rush Limbaughs drool saw that the pres was going to Iraq the instant that those planes hit. afghanistan was a bridge to get there. I have no idea why it was so important, but when one strategy of tying osama to hussein fell through, they cried WMD, then genocide, then spreading freedom in the middle east, now staying the course. Was this war illegal, very likely. Will the pres be impeached over it, nope. Will it be recorded correctly in history, hard to say. depends on who is in power at the time.

Domestic spying: Utterly impeachable offese. If clinton can be impeached over perjury, certainly Bush can be impeached for trampling all over the 4th amendment. no president, even in times of war, should be granted the freedom to piss all over the constitution. We are a nation of laws for a reason, without the rule of law, government becomes too powerful and begins oppressing its citizens. Naysayers wil reply that if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care? I care because its the law. just because you have the bully pulpit doesn't mean you can circumvent rules that you don't like. He broke the rules in a far more egregious manner than Nixon did. Nixon was looking for political gain in his spying, here Bush is spying on 280 million innocent americans, without warrant, to find possible leads on an impossible small population of terrorists. Breaking the law is not allowed for any ends. I would rather have my freedom than my safety. By doing this, The bush administration is spitting in the face of millions of men who have given their lives to protect democracy and freedom and the ideals that are outlined in the declaration of independence. I consider this an affront to America, a personal insult to my grandfathers who fought fascism in world war 2, and a cowardly act when what we need is courage.

All we have to fear, is fear itself. Indeed. Fear has become the great motivator. In the face of fear, all those who would surrender their liberties are guaranteeing their subordination.

This is a hilarious discussion. a rational, albeit brainwashed, right winger who can't see the other side of the fence, arguing with dyed in the wool oppositionists, who also can't see the other side. My take on this is as such:

Abrahmoff: I doubt Bush is invloved in any part of that. the white house is simply distancing itself from him. Did they do it incorrectly by lying about it, you bet, but its not impeachable. is it unethical... well, is this administration unethical? Is the Pope Catholic? Clean out K street, remove pay for play, fund elections with the same corporate lobbying dollars divvied up equally.

Iraq war: Every rational person who has greater than a high school education and doesn't lap up Rush Limbaughs drool saw that the pres was going to Iraq the instant that those planes hit. afghanistan was a bridge to get there. I have no idea why it was so important, but when one strategy of tying osama to hussein fell through, they cried WMD, then genocide, then spreading freedom in the middle east, now staying the course. Was this war illegal, very likely. Will the pres be impeached over it, nope. Will it be recorded correctly in history, hard to say. depends on who is in power at the time.

Domestic spying: Utterly impeachable offese. If clinton can be impeached over perjury, certainly Bush can be impeached for trampling all over the 4th amendment. no president, even in times of war, should be granted the freedom to piss all over the constitution. We are a nation of laws for a reason, without the rule of law, government becomes too powerful and begins oppressing its citizens. Naysayers wil reply that if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care? I care because its the law. just because you have the bully pulpit doesn't mean you can circumvent rules that you don't like. He broke the rules in a far more egregious manner than Nixon did. Nixon was looking for political gain in his spying, here Bush is spying on 280 million innocent americans, without warrant, to find possible leads on an impossible small population of terrorists. Breaking the law is not allowed for any ends. I would rather have my freedom than my safety. By doing this, The bush administration is spitting in the face of millions of men who have given their lives to protect democracy and freedom and the ideals that are outlined in the declaration of independence. I consider this an affront to America, a personal insult to my grandfathers who fought fascism in world war 2, and a cowardly act when what we need is courage.

All we have to fear, is fear itself. Indeed. Fear has become the great motivator. In the face of fear, all those who would surrender their liberties are guaranteeing their subordination.

Abramoff/Bush is small potatoes - not worth a small court trial.

The real deal is how Big Pharma bribed the entire GOP to foist $700 billion worth of LIST PRICE pills on future taxpayers for the walking dead. The Medicare actuary was threatened by the White House if he blew the whistle. (name- Foster)

That is REAL corruption.....