The whole world is holding their breath until he leaves. A message from Osama is also long overdue. I am surprised another video from him did not surface just in time for the election.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
If Obama inspires this kind of behavior in his followers, yet another reason I would not want him for President.
Do you find it interesting that some Democrat in Pennsylvania has filed suit in federal election court challenging Obama's birth certificate? Yes, I know fatcheck.org says they have looked at it and examined it and say it is legitimate. But...this guy claims to have proof he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Oh well, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. And yes, I know the guy is a Clinton supporter. I just find it amazing that they are going to these kinds of lengths. He filed it this week...right before the convention.
I find it this all fascinating to watch. I think Hillary is saying one thing to the public and quite another to her supporters behind the scenes. I think she is already building for Hillary 2012 and many well be instrumental in getting him beat in November. Never be able to prove anything of course...who ever can on the Clintons. That being said, I would rather have her with all her warts than Obama. at least I know what she is.
Poor Barack...he stepped on the wrong toes. The Clintons are just not willing to concede the castle yet. Politics. Gotta love it. NOT.
Quoted from Paris Hilton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5rtSQKj-L0&feature=related
He may have said goodbye...
...but he ain't gone yet.
Once January 21st arrives and Obama is still alive and healthy, then I'll breathe a sight of relief and wave a long-awaited buh-bye to Bush. In the meantime, there's still so much more damage Bush can do.
WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.
The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion.
Feminists for Life has sponsored a national advertising campaign aimed at ending abortion in America. One of its mission statements proclaims: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
The president of Feminists for Life, Serrin M. Foster, said Roberts maintained her ties by advising the group on how to draw up incorporation and not-for-profit papers.
She also has written for the group's newsletter, Foster said, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
"She's a brilliant attorney, and we're really proud that she lent her legal services to us to help serve the needs of women," Foster said. "She was a very good board member. She was invaluable as an attorney for us."
Foster said that she had met John Roberts, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that the judge had not been involved with Feminists for Life.
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.
In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
But abortion rights groups are convinced that Roberts is opposed to abortion.
"He's absolutely anti-Roe," Gandy said. "He believes it was wrongly decided and should be reversed." Asked then why Roberts two years ago proclaimed Roe vs. Wade a "settled" issue, Gandy responded: "You have to say that. You can't get on the court without saying you will follow legal precedent. All the most extreme nominees say that. You can't even take the oath of office [unless] you say that."
Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., in 1976. In 1984, she graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.
She practices and is a partner with the Washington firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, mostly concentrating on the firm's communications and global sourcing groups.
A close friend characterized her as an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic" who had enjoyed her antiabortion advocacy.
The Catholic News Service in Washington, which praised Judge Roberts and cited his government brief in 1990 challenging Roe vs. Wade, also spoke kindly of Jane Roberts.
"She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term," the news service said.
It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Before Jane Roberts joined the board of Feminists for Life, the organization filed amicus briefs on abortion with the Supreme Court. Records show that the group filed briefs supporting the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a law aimed at limiting the right to abortions, particularly for minors.
Several antiabortion groups including Feminists for Life also filed a brief in support of the right of abortion protesters to picket a Virginia women's health clinic. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the courts did not have the authority to limit protesters' access to such clinics.
And Feminists for Life filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of laws in Ohio and Missouri that attempted to limit the rights to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.
*
Times staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report.
He said that if asked to choose between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, ''I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy.
Unfortunately, that was 40 presidents ago.
The present president has a decidedly different view of the news media's role. His administration sees the press as a thing to be bought. In fact, while political manipulation of the news is hardly new, Team Bush has a long and singularly sordid record of trying to turn the media into a wholly owned public relations subsidiary.
Now they're taking their act on the road. And get this: They're doing it under the guise of building democracy. Which is rather like stealing from the collection plate under the guise of giving to the needy.
I refer you to last week's Los Angeles Times report that the Pentagon has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories, written by American troops, that reflect favorably upon the U.S. mission in that country. The stories, while basically factual, are reportedly written so as to flatter U.S. forces and the Iraqi government and to omit information or perspectives either might find embarrassing. These press releases are presented to the Iraqi people as independent reports by independent reporters.
One is appalled, but hardly surprised. After nearly five years of watching these folks' truth-optional approach to dealing with the public, one is seldom surprised anymore.
BUYING PRAISE
This is, after all, the same Bush administration that was caught buying praise from an ethically challenged columnist -- in violation of federal laws against propagandizing the public, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office. It's the same administration that allowed into the White House press room as a reporter an Internet porn entrepreneur who wrote for a GOP website. The same one that issues video reports favorable to its policies to be broadcast without attribution as TV news. The same one that censors and quashes its own scientific studies when they conflict with its preferred worldview.
So this is just more of the same in a new ZIP Code.
It will be argued by the usual sycophantic Bush enablers that what's being done is justifiable. We are at war, they will say, and in war it is perfectly acceptable to propagandize the enemy.
So it is. But the flaw in that logic is this: We are not at war with Iraq. We are at war in Iraq against insurgents seeking to topple the government. At least, that's the line put forth by Team Bush. Iraq, they say, is a sovereign nation to which we are simply helping bring the joys of democracy -- one of which would be a free press.
That being the case, you cannot justify telling covert lies to its people any more than you can justify telling them to ours. You want to communicate something to them? Buy an ad. Drop leaflets. Put up posters. But don't produce a commercial and tell people it's news.
CREDIBILITY AT STAKE
Doing so undermines both the message and the medium. It could also conceivably encourage Iraqis to question how seriously they should take -- how seriously we ourselves take -- this whole notion of a free and independent press.
Indeed, one can only guess how this is playing with Iraqi journalists. After all, the messages could hardly be more mixed. On the one hand, U.S. officials are offering them workshops in media ethics. On the other hand, U.S. officials are violating the most basic media ethics with blithe indifference.
But then, it's a sour joke in the first place that the Bush administration purports to teach Iraqis how democracy works.
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
By George, I think I've got it!!
I watched "The Situation" on MSNBC last night, and I got a pretty good laugh regarding the Bush Administration taking a quote from Bono (of all people), completely twisting what it said to mean something completely different, and running with it.
I believe I'm starting to understand the disconnect between some of the Conservatives on this board and the rest of humanity. They've obviously adopted the George W. Bush way of communicating. I'm not sure if Bush is their hero because of his communication style or whether they personally adopted his technique after the fact. Someone should really enlighten them that just because Bush does it, doesn't make it right, and that that is the very crux of many people's frustrations with Bush: That he lies, and nobody can believe what he says.
Anyway, here's a copy of the transcript from that show.
CARLSON: Next situation, the Bush administration between the rock and a hard place and it‘s all because of rock star Bono. A State Department press release quotes the U2 front man praising President Bush. But apparently, Bono was not so much quoted as misquoted.
According to the State Department, Bono said Bush, quote, “has already doubled and tripled aid to Africa.” But actually, Bono told “Time” magazine, quote, “Bush feels he‘s already doubled and tripled aid to Africa, which he started from too low a place.”
This is such an interesting story on so many levels. Here is the most interesting level, as far as I‘m concerned. The Bush administration feels compelled to twist Bono‘s words. Why do they care what Bono thinks? Bush actually has dramatically elevated aid to Africa to a much higher level than Clinton ever even thought about bringing it.
The United States is the largest donor to Africa far and away. We have no moral obligation to give anything to Africa. We do it because we‘re decent. Isn‘t that enough? The front man from U2 has to approve? Why are they lying about this? It‘s bizarre.
SEVERIN: This is very sad. By the way, Bono has an “r” missing from the end of his name. I just wanted to report that on this program.
Secondly, you know, how can I know what to think about world affairs until Bono and the Edge weigh in? What about the Backstreet Boys? What do they think today? I mean, this is really sad that we care about what “Bonor” thinks about anything.
MADDOW: Well, fine, you can be upset that they quoted Bono. But the fact is, they misquoted Bono.
CARLSON: No, but that makes me more upset. Why are they doing that?
Why do they care?
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: ... get out there and say that Bono, who they respect for whatever reason, he‘s actually made himself into a voice on debt issues...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Well, I‘m sure he‘s a great guy and very smart. I mean, still.
MADDOW: Paul Wolfowitz thought he was worth, you know...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: That‘s right.
MADDOW: ... long phone call before he took the head position at the World Bank.
SEVERIN: I knew we‘d get you to say something nice about Wolfowitz before the year was up.
MADDOW: Exactly. But the fact is, the State Department, like they‘re doing—like the Bush administration is doing on way too many things, just overreach. They not only had to quote Bono, they had to lie about what Bono said. It‘s embarrassing.
CARLSON: But why not just tell the truth about their own record? It‘s compelling enough. It‘s amazing. Here‘s this purportedly mean, right-wing administration sending huge amounts of aid to Africa.
MADDOW: Well, yes, they‘ve promised—they asked for $4 billion for the Millennium Challenge. They‘ve actually spent $4 million. So we‘ve got a difference of opinion on that.
CARLSON: The fact is, in money spent already, they‘ve elevated 56 percent over the final year of the Clinton administration. It‘s a lot of money.
MADDOW: Yes. But you can‘t take credit for more than you‘ve done.
SEVERIN: Yes, but they‘re Republicans. That‘s why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5KD8_22K4w
George W. Bush
Why would you say that about our President? Please help me understand.
George Bush
I am counting the days until this person is out of office and pray that our country can withstand the wait.
I have been around a while (let's just put it that way) and in my opinion we have NEVER had a President who has been so bad for our country - and I certainly include Poor Nixon and his few bungling burglars and his silly little lies in that list, along with Clinton and his scandalous behavior, which now in sad retrospect is just par for the course, apparently, among politicians - he has ransacked our Treasury (I don't know if you all remember we had a surplus when he came into office), has totally ruined the reputation of the US around the world, got us into a pointless war with untruths and fabrications causing the death of over 3000 young Americans (so far) and is able to somehow hold his head up and act like nothing is wrong. And is now busily trying to broker a peace settlement in the Middle East to there is something to be said for his 8 lousy years in the White House.
I truly believe he stole the first election with the help of his like-minded buddies on the Supreme Court and the second one by the curious release of the Osama Bin Laden tape shortly before the elections, which I feel prompted some rubes to be too scared to change horses in the middle of the stream (war) and voted to keep him in office. I myself did not vote for him either time and am glad I didn't, even though I am living with the consequences of his presidency; for example paying $4.15 a gallon for gas and seeing the price of groceries rising every time I go into the store (plus I live in Michigan, which is a hard luck state right now to start with).
Frankly, I was shocked when he was reelected; I truly did not believe that our supposedly sophisticated and intelligent electorate would put this man back into office.
The day he hits the dusty trail for Texas will be a happy one for me!
George W. Bush
There was a genuine atmosphere of trust and goodwill that summer of 2001, when a new era seemed to be upon us, with the Berlin Wall gone and the divisions of the past overcome. I was sharing this thought with President Bush (both of us recently elected to lead our countries) at the closing dinner of the G-8 summit in Genoa in July 2001. Bush led the conversation, talking amiably with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, the tragedies of the Second World War and cold war seemed far away indeed. Bush observed how much the world had changed, and how we could pass on a lasting peace to our children. I remember feeling true happiness inside me. Just two months later the unthinkable happened, and the Sept. 11 attacks would again forever change the world. The battle against terrorism would become the principal preoccupation of the American President and our common international priority.
In the months that followed that immense tragedy, we nonetheless tried to stay focused, aware that justice, freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is security. President Bush knows this well, that a secure world is bound to be a united world, where everyone—and particularly those more fortunate—can and must do their part.
George W. Bush, 61, will be remembered as Commander in Chief, but not only for that. He was above all a President who felt the moral obligation that the leading nation of the free world must carry. My thoughts return again to that G-8 summit, where Italy had brought to the top of the agenda the fate of the world's poorest nations. And Bush was an early and enthusiastic supporter of our initiative to establish a fund for combating endemic illnesses.
One time, Bush told me that it is reasonable to have doubts, but not to have so many doubts that you cannot make a decision. It's up to historians to judge his presidency, but whatever fate history holds for him, I am sure that George W. Bush will be remembered as a leader of ideals, courage and sincerity. Personally, I will always remember him as a friend, a true man who loves his family, understands the meaning of friendship and is grateful toward America's allies around the world.
Berlusconi was elected Prime Minister of Italy for a third time last month
icon, declares McCain temprament unfit for presidency. You don't get any more conservative than George Will. Meanwhile, Sara P has pictures taken with foreign leaders but absolutely no questions allowed. Photo op.
History will be much kinder to you, when all is known. While I may not agree with everything that has transpired in the past eight years, I do know that you are kind and decent person.
I know you have kept me safe over the past eight years. Nothing the far left can say or do, can take that away from you.
God bless you and yours, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart, for your service to our country.
Have you read ANYthing about George...
one-world government Soros? If you had, you would not be asking the question how he could manipulate world markets. And Obama is in his pocket.
george bush
George W. Bush thinks that God wants him to be president. No arguing with that.
In the words of George W....
So what? Doesn't change the fact that scores of outlets are reporting the same thing....Patrick Fitzgerald, Attorney General and a republican, GOES OUT OF HIS WAY to dampen any speculation about Obama's involvement in this arm of the investigation and had repeatedly stated that Obama is not a subject of the investigation.
Yes, I know that Blago's wife is a real estate broker. You have made nothing clear because you have no valid point...just your usual knee-jerk hateful spin. Like I said earlier, grasping at straws that are not even there.
In the words of George W....
So what? Doesn't change the fact that scores of outlets are reporting the same thing....Patrick Fitzgerald, Attorney General and a republican, GOES OUT OF HIS WAY to dampen any speculation about Obama's involvement in this arm of the investigation and had repeatedly stated that Obama is not a subject of the investigation.
Yes, I know that Blago's wife is a real estate broker. You have made nothing clear because you have no valid point...just your usual knee-jerk hateful spin. Like I said earlier, grasping at straws that are not even there.
This Week with George S. had
Sen. DeMint, Barney Fife, Fred Smith CEO of FedEX (?), and ? (didn't catch his name and am terrible with names anyway) about the stimulus package. Sen. DeMint is against the stimulus because it doesn't do much to help the American people. Fred Smith took a 20% cut in pay to help the company.
So far, Barney has been monopolizing the conversation and arguing with the others. I heard him say that the problem was not regulating the financial institutions....Wait. Wasn't he one that voted AGAINST regulation back when they wanted to put tighter controls on them? He also keeps talking about New Bedford. Isn't that his district? I know he's been fighting for the bank in his district. He seems to have a one track mind. What a jerk!!!....and that's why I call him Barney Fife. He has less sense than the real Barney Fife.
Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure
White House Says Signing Statement Is Normal and Constitutional
Analysis By GEORGE SANCHEZ
March 24, 2006 — - When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.
The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.
However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement, an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.
Presidential Power in Question
In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances.
For example, after The New York Times reported last year that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, the president said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in U.S. custody, Bush signed off on it but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Bush's actions have provoked increased grumbling in Congress from both parties. Lawmakers have pointed out that the Constitution gave the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute them.
On Thursday Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, took issue with Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act. He said it represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, Leahy said. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. Leahy voted against renewing the Patriot Act this year after sponsoring the bill back in 2001.
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required.
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven inspector general reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act's renewal was viewed as a rare victory for the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 280-138 after the Senate passed the controversial bill 89-10.
Did you see the look on George & Laura's face?sm
You know George bounced off the walls when he got home. There is only one look I found more hilarious, and that was the look on Mike Myer's face when Kanye West made the famous statement George Bush does not care about black people.
Top 10 George Bush Moments
see link below.
This is how I see George W. - Kind and Gracious
http://forum.mtstars.com/misc/v/11/18048.html
George Bush isn't running....
and there is a democratic congress who has not done squat since we elected them 2 years ago. Are you going to vote a straight Republican congressional ticket or are you by your own description intellectually challenged?
he has trampled all over the Constitution. Any idjit can see that Obama IS a natural born AMERICAN. I think all the fuss just might be if the radicals can get Obama de-qualified, then Biden would not be the president as he would have been appointed by Obama, thus not legally the VP. What would happen then is the rebel rousers would be calling for another election..............that is if Bush doesn't declare martial law with the news reporting a "new" terrorist group today. This country is in such a mess and perhaps the biggest mess is from some people who want to unelect a president we already elected. Insane AND ridiculous.
A man who will quite possibly go down in the record books as THE worst president this country has ever had to endure.Seriously, could one single man make more mistakes and enemies (in just about any area you would choose to look at) than this man (and his VP DC) has made?I would challenge any remaining supporters of this man to list out exactly what it is he has done for our country since he has been in office and what do you think about the way he has left it for us. Thanks, George!It is wild to see people here flaming Barak Obama, a man who faces the most daunting challenge this country has ever faced and a lot of it is due to the poor policies and decision making of the current administration.Still, here sit the cackling minions of hens spiteful and impulsive in their words and manner.Not a great role model for the next generation. I should bring my sons here to understand how NOT to act in a public forum.I will leave you all to scratch and moan.Pathetic and hilarious.
*Before anyone considers flaming me as one of those whacky Democrats or Independents in response to this post, know that my family goes way, way back in this country and I am from a Republican background--not that this should make any difference, whatsoever, but in this particular forum, on this particular site, I felt I should throw it in.
Oh, I forgot. It's the neocon MO to bash the messenger and defend the actor.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227238 Mary Carey to Dine with President Bush By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:15 pm PDT 5-18-2005 LOS ANGELES - Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be joining her boss, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis, in attending a dinner with President Bush in Washington, D.C. on June 14.
George's questionable military service...
flash back to Bill...who stated he hated the military and was too busy smoking pot (but not inhaling) to involve himself in military service. Puleezzeee. And we all know about Bill's...ahem...stones. Lent themselves to interns, black dresses and cigars (ewwwwww I mean REALLYYYYYY) instead of taking care of the country. Yup, there 's somethin' to be proud of!!! (not)
The present mess has nothing to do with George Bush...
and everything to do with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank and the other Democrats who consistently blocked reforming of Fannie and Freddie. They deserve most of the credit for this fiasco.
Yes, Ronnie and Nancy, and George and Laura...
for one another.
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
see link below.
