Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[CraigD]

Personally, I oppose Impeachment, under the current rules, period. Clinton's actions with in his personal life were not and are not our business and certainly not considered criminal, even dismissable reason in any environment other than if under some moral contractual code. The oath of office, has no such moral code, which would have eliminated many of our greatest leaders.

I agree that the Clinton impeachment – which was on the ground of his perjuring himself by answering “no” when asked by a grand jury if he had had sex with Monica Lewinski – was an abuse of the Constitutional procedure.

 

Likewise, lying to Congress and the public in speeches, which G.W. Bush and his administration are commonly accused of doing, and is the substance of the charges leveled in HR 333, the resolution impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, does not, IMHO, rise to the standard of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” prescribed in Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution as grounds for impeachment of “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States”. The burden of independently ascertaining the truth of claims pertaining to such important matters of policy as a declaration of war (or, as phrased in the act, “authorization of the use of military force”) rests on the members of Congress. Much of my personal disapproval of Congress, and, I think, that of a majority of other Americans, is due to hypocritical spectacle of their attempting to portray themselves as “trusting Americans” deceived by the same “cunning political masterminds” they now accuse of incompetence in nearly all areas of executive function. We, the American People, who are not legally privileged to the information necessary to make such determinations, rely not only on our President, but on our Congresspeople to do so. If the Iraq war has, as I believe it has, hurt Iraq, the US, and the world, the blame is shared by the President and Congress.

 

The case against Cheney for bribery is, I believe, stronger, as (according to multiple reliable sources including this wikipedia article) he continues to derive an annual income of about $8 million from the sale of stock obtained through options guaranteed him under his employment contract as former CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, a company that derives substantial income from contracts with the US government obtained via the direct instructions of the President, the Vice President and their staff. The distinction between receiving money or property from a company or individual in return for favorable treatment by a public official, and a public official realizing income due to an increase in the value of his share of a company that he treats favorable, is beyond my limited legal comprehension, but, as the euphemism goes, smells rotten to me.

[Buffy]

Buffy; A somewhat narrow response to my post and to some off topic,

You might want to look at the title of this thread: "is he a moron" is directly about his competency and measuring it.

 

On the other hand given that you don't really want to directly rebut my points, its an interesting attempt to misdirect attention from that fact. This is an example of the same tactic that the Bush administration uses to avoid scrutiny of its lack of effectiveness: just attack the opposition, even if the attack has no basis in reality....

 

...but indirectly you are making my overall point....

No, I agree that many measures of performance are non-quantitative and these measures should take into account circumstances. Where we part ways is that you are arguing that no measure is valid and therefore no President should be held to account for that performance except by elections.

 

I have this odd belief that the Executive Branch should not be allowed to break the law, and use its unique control over the Justice Department to obstruct justice: as Craig notes in the post immediately above, there is evidence--far more than would get a grand jury going--that Cheney has engaged in bribery, and yet the Administration continues to claim Executive Privilege where there is no supportable claim to it: its not for national security, its simply embarrassing to be caught in the act of a committing a felony.

 

I realize that there are those who argue that bribery is just "having an opinion" and should be protected especially when advising the President, but many, if not most other people, would disagree with this proposition.

 

Now to go back to the business angle, I think it is somewhat misleading to think that Boards are completely hands off, judging CEOs solely by quarterly results and wait patiently until shareholders meetings to replace them. To claim otherwise is misleading at the very least:

In Business, we have a direct way to respond to periodical down turns, error in judgment of to show distrust in management. We SELL there stocks, driving the value of the Managements Company down.

Enlightened Boards will give bad CEOs a swift kick out the door these days, and speaking of leaders whose effectiveness is hard to measure, Marketing VPs now last an average of only 23 months.

 

Trying to say that measurement of such positions is subjective so boards should wait until "the market verifies poor performance" with huge drops in stock prices due to management incompetence is quite divorced from reality.

 

That in fact would lead to the conclusion that polls are useful, and not just those that occur on a quadrennial basis.

Bush II, has established his expectations on the eventual out come, still talking Iraq. Generally its what I mentioned as mine in my last post. These as he has stated on several occasions have no time line, other than he will have passed powers on to the next president or that even some results are generations off.

"Victory" or the more specific "as the Iraqi's stand up" are so extremely vague as to barely qualify as Goals, but they definitely do not qualify as Objectives (using the traditional B-school GOSP model formal definitions of Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Plans), which any manager will tell you *must* have timelines or they are meaningless. Its even okay to move them slightly, but only if there's progress.

 

Ike said the boys would be home by Christmas, but because of the little event at the Ardennes, they didn't quite make it. FDR cut him some slack because he'd made it across the channel and half-way across Europe.

 

If you miss your objective, its okay if you've shown great progress.

 

If you're unwilling to state your objective, you also might get away with it if you've shown great progress.

 

Be unwilling to state objectives and show *no* progress, then I as a Board member will call you incompetent and will fire you *before* the stock goes down the tubes.

 

To do otherwise would breach my fiduciary obligations as a board member.

 

Replace "Board" with "Congress" and "fiduciary obligations" with "Constitutional oversight of the Executive Branch" and you've got the equivalence here.

 

The only problem is in this situation, the Congress can't *fire* Bush for Incompetence, only "high crimes and misdemeanors". But their obligation to *oversight* does indeed involve investigating and working to stop incompetence within the confines of national security and the national interest. The mere existence of the General Accountability Office and the various legal roles throughout the government in enforcing laws that even the Executive Branch must obey indicates that there is a role to be played in exposing and prosecuting illegality as well.

 

Side note; W/O saying what I know your inferring; The recent group of fumbling thugs, found in advance in England, were the very people many relied on for their & their families health care. Be careful in under estimating wrong intentions from would be's, that get lucky...

The point of these episodes is not to say that we have nothing to worry about--an extremely offensive and unjustified accusation--but that the specific policies of the Administration have *only* succeeded in capturing the *most* incompetent threats: there's a strong indication that due to diplomatic pussyfooting with Pakistan, the Chinese and most egregiously, wasting a trillion dollars on a wild goose chase in Iraq, that--even according to the Administration's own National Intelligence Estimate--al Qaeda is no less of a threat today than it was 6 years ago.

 

Where is the progress?

 

We have caught a few bumblers who have been touted as "major attacks" leaving the only conclusion that the Executive has *no idea* how to accomplish his stated goal of "getting bin Laden, dead or alive."

To brag on achievement, is not part of the American system.

Yes, we are all quite modest.

 

But that's no way to run a country: its a cover-up of incompetence.

 

Show me the money,

Buffy

[paigetheoracle]

 

Finally, yes I do have expectation with the apparent primary cause for argument. *War on Terror*. In short a stable Iraq government, the easing of tensions in all the Mid-East, that Israel be recognized by all in the area and that the Worlds current economic growth continues. I don't expect us to invade Iran, maintain and grow friendships with Russia, China, Mexico and Latin America, all of which is being attempted...IMO.....

 

God you are naive! There was a stable government in Iraq, even if not everybody liked it - now there is none and we are left with violent infighting. To quote Gandhi "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" In other words nobody is going to thank you for liberating them from their lives, limbs or homes - watch 'Fahrenheit 9/11' by Michael Moore for the same point but made by those doing the actually killing in Iraq - the American army "They should be grateful we're here, not shoot at us" (Plus film with commentary cut out of newscasts of soldiers killing unarmed civilians and treating it like a turkey shoot). It's not what you say you're doing that counts, that's propaganda, but what you actually, physically do. The world is full nowadays of apologists - those that make tremendous blunders and think saying sorry puts things straight: If you've lost limbs, family, sensory organs etc. apology just doesn't cut it and as for crying on TV - that shows how you feel about the situation (unless it's crocodile tears) but once again it doesn't change the physical facts, the physical damage done or help repair it. To quote every Guru/ Wiseman that ever lived - WAKE UP! Reality isn't words - it's physical action, good (creative) or bad (destruction). Those that preach good and evil exist in any other way are liars and hypocrites.

 

As for Buffy's string of points - this is when a democracy becomes a tyranny. You cannot "claim" to be a democracy, you must act as one every minute of every day. If you cannot then you are not what you claim and that claim is worthless, meaningless and not worth the paper it's written on. If the American constitution is flouted by those using it supposedly as a yardstick, then they should be immediately deprived of office by anyone else with the courage to do it and thereby hangs the thread - conformism means never shaking the status quo but waiting (and hoping) someone else will do it for you. This led to Nazi Germany, where Hitler kept pushing the limits of political power until like all bullies, nobody was willing to take his cheek anymore. George Bush has ignored the American public and pushed them down into the ground as his troops are trying to do in Iraq now. His policies in foreign affairs are more brutal than his domestic ones but just as Unchristian and Undemocratic. He's out to suppress his own people just as much as Putin is doing in Russia. Need I say more?:hyper:

[jackson33]

Well, we have finally taken this thread to the gutter. Bush and Hitler are equals. I can understand, radical elements in the US, taking advantage of argumentative issues and attempting to increase interest in their side issue's, but I cannot in all honesty believe that a forum and many of there STAFF, implying much of what I see as pure speculation, claiming one to five issues being a determining factor, to ridicule not only my government, the people in charge and in general the American people, who play by the rules.

 

Some time back, the issue was *Valerie Plane*, with much the same anger and distrust for government I see today. Careers were lost, degraded and government lost credibility. Points were made that this issue showed just how bad Bush was or his administration and this poor little lady would suffer the remainder of her life. BAD BAD, Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and all should be penalized...We now have an end to that one issue, but I am sure any rebuttal will end in "The Judge was bought off".

 

Paige; There is much in your post which is pure nonsense IMO. The stable government you refer to, under Saddam (AND HIS TWO SON'S) was one, no person writing in this thread would consider living under. M. Moore, 9-11 or his Cuba Health Care glorifications are pure jokes to any one right of Move on dot Org...He has made the money and a great deal of it catering to this radical mind set. I have nothing good to say about this person or his motives.

 

Craig; You post is based on logic. But a couple points; Under art. one, politicians speak to the public as politician. What is said, traditionally is what the audience they are talking to is what they expect to hear. I have no idea how many DIRECT lies are told. I remember driving through Chicago, when Clinton first ran for President, hearing a political ad, saying we needed to increase welfare program and later in my trip going through Cheyenne Wy, hear an ad saying we needed to cut welfare. Not picking on him, but it has stuck with me, as the extreme example. As for Bush II, State of The Union speeches, speaking to the UN and updating the public today on Iraq. Personally, I feel he is saying what he truly believes. True its not consistent to media reports or the perceived conclusion of half the population, but to him he is saying what he believes whether correct or not, in reality.

 

I also have trouble, with bringing business, when discussing politics. Congress people are there to begin with to benefit their own people as best they can and the most they can. The Executive Branch is there to represent all the people, no specific group. However to take out the human factor, your friends, family or what have you is just not possible. However if he or his estate is some how receiving Haliburton money for previous (to VP) work then under law and assuming in a *Blind Trust*, there is nothing illegal or immoral going on.

 

Buffy; Very few boards, have relived the CEO or CFO's from their duties. To start with these boards are generally the ones that appoint/approve them to begin with. Then you have many that are the founders of that Company or members of the distant family of the founders. With 6000 major companies and many more lessor, its hard to expand on this issue, but in general the public plays a large roll in the values of a company, with the customer of a product or service the ultimate determination of success. You should know this...

 

When discussing *War on Terror*, *Iraq - Afghanistan* - *Interaction of the Executive Branch* or for that matter most every subject mentioned, there is no factual argument that can be made. We don't know all thats going on and probably wouldn't understand much of it, if indeed privy to the facts.

 

As for Chaney and Bribery. If enough evidence is available, Congress does not need to call anyone to publicly testify, attempt to humiliate or play political games. All they need to do is advise FBI authorities, hand over the evidence letting the legal system work.

 

I will add this on Iraq, but as opinion and based on what I am told from media.

Progress is being made on the social and military levels. The government or those participating in the government are acting like the US Congress seemingly going no place fast. Where we have only two philosophies, accepted non-religious, they have three philosophies and are very much oriented in religion. I have seen no polls on the Iraq peoples opinion of their governments equal, but I have seen the US people opinions of our Congress.

In fact one as low as 14%, which shouldn't be possible. This really should disturb you....

 

If the President becomes disabled, has not passed on powers to the VP, Congress then can pass these powers on to the VP. Doubt three people in Congress would declare Bush II a moron, mentally disturbed or incapable of making decision. ie, the vote is not there...should add, the majority of the administration Dept. heads, need to start this effort..

[InfiniteNow]

:eek2:

[Zythryn]

The stable government you refer to, under Saddam (AND HIS TWO SON'S) was one, no person writing in this thread would consider living under.

 

Jackson, you are so good and slinging mud you should be a politician;)

Paige's point is 100% valid as a counterpoint to your original statement:

Finally, yes I do have expectation with the apparent primary cause for argument. *War on Terror*. In short a stable Iraq government...

 

You didn't say a government we would want to live under. You said STABLE. Well, it was relatively stable. It also was keeping Iran in check and was one of the few secular governments in the middle east. It is no longer stable, is not keeping Iran in check, and we have yet to see if it becomes a religious state or remains 'democratic'.

[paigetheoracle]

Thank you Zythryn! That was wonderfully simple and simply wonderful! My point was not that Saddam was a wonderful person or I would have added Hitlers 'good points' i.e. getting the trains to run on time and helping set up the autobahn system. Evil men are evil but how do we judge their use in the world, if not through body count? How many people died under his leadership and how many have died since? If you can produce (suppressed) figures on both, I may change my mind.

[Buffy]

Very few boards, have relived the CEO or CFO's from their duties.

My you're right: they mostly resign on their own! How obtuse of me to assume that these resignations might be "requested?"

We don't know all thats going on and probably wouldn't understand much of it, if indeed privy to the facts.

I wonder why we don't know what's going on?

 

I wonder how we as an electorate can make any sort of informed decision at the polling booth about approving the acts of our leaders if all evidence about that performance is kept secret?

 

Corporations are required to report results so that investors can determine how a company is doing. The Bush Administration has systematically eliminated tracking of economic data, and has classified virtually every bit of data related to national security even if it is only performance related.

 

You continue to argue that we have no right to the information that is necessary to making even the one form of approval you support possible.

 

Equating this access to information with being solely to "humiliate or play political games" is tantamount to saying we have no right any sort of measure of who we should support except for the general claims that they make in the election process and our "gut feel."

 

Do you honestly believe that?

 

Can you point to any theory outside of the Unitary Executive that argues for complete opacity of government?

As for Chaney and Bribery. If enough evidence is available, Congress does not need to call anyone to publicly testify, attempt to humiliate or play political games. All they need to do is advise FBI authorities, hand over the evidence letting the legal system work.

How is the evidence ever going to become available? Guess who is in charge of the FBI?

 

Ashcroft had the honesty and integrity to recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor to handle the CIA leak case. Gonzales appears to have none, and now is actually one of the key suspects in the attempt to illegally politicize the activities of the Justice Department, and now the Administration has stretched "Executive Privilege" over the entire affair, explicitly directing the US Attorney responsible for this for handling this legally to take no action.

 

I for one do not believe that you have a democracy when information about the incompetence of those in power can be directly prevented from being exposed by those very same people.

 

Dismissing this as unimportant or exclusively "partisan bickering" defies all logic, and is the furthest thing from the word "patriotism" that I can imagine.

 

If this was a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I am the dictator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUEsm0wNIA

Buffy

[jackson33]

Keeping the *Status Quo* by supplying Iraq with arms to fight Iran, IMO was the wrong approach, but hind sight in a discussion carries no weight. To some degree I have to understand Iranian attitude toward the US, along with our support of the Shaw's.

 

It however is that "definitive actions", which I credit the Bush Administration for taking to the entire *Mid East* situation. Yes, we could have left Saddam in power and think I have made clear, I feel his two boy's were the real threat to a future and probably becoming the true governing force when actions taken. The problems other than WMD (Which every one was fooled on if indeed not there), where the continuous denial to obey UN mandates and the occasional pot shots at US and British planes in the *No fly zone*.

 

When addressing Buffy and then Paige, it was to two different comments. My point was to what I saw, in the two major elections in Iraq, which the people

voted in defiance to their past leaders. Purple thumbs held up in pride and so on...

 

I hope, I have not inferred the Government they elected was the perfect choice or that they are now acting in a manner their public wished. Surely there is much that could be improved on. The importance of Iraq's progress relates to the Mid-East acceptance of co-existence or tolerance of ethnic groups. Many exist already and Iraq could seal the idea, with the ones still bent on the 15th Century mentality.

 

This is off topic, but instrumental to my acceptance to actions taken by the so called *Moron in Charge*....

[jackson33]

Buffy; You are continuing to relate Government and Business, as somehow equals in operations. They are closer to opposites than similar.

 

Where publicly owned Corporations, are required to disclose and advise on a quarterly basis and factually, the President or Chief Executive, is obliged only to an annual report, currently called *State of the Union*. This does not need to be more than a written report and has been that much of our history. Now the Cabinet members are subject to Congressional Committee hearings and answer questions related to their post.

 

I do say, many things that go on with-in government (all), are and should be kept from the general public ONLY for reason. A current analogy MAY be what is being done to secure public safety. It would serve no purpose to explain how, when, why or for what suspected act, a person was questioned, jailed or in some way made useless to an act. This to allow further investigations or for a number of reasons, not permitted to the Legal System, for citizen activity. What is generally released are facts/acts, which media can release with notice having been given. Reason, then being Classified, Secret, Top Secret or for any other National Security reason.

 

Not long ago a *Bay of Pigs* report/scenario was released showing a way to justify a cause to War with Cuba. It was nothing more than a means which US Government could influence the general public into thinking Cuba was attacking the US, totally hypothetical and never used. It was however a legitimate document, which I assume JFK, read. This and I would say thousands of idea's submitted for review are none of our business, would cause undo panic and may/may-not actually some day be used.

 

Personally I am not a fan of Gonzales. More to do with domestic/non security issues. The two jailed border patrol agents and to many issue like that. But on the issue of terror or using the law to pursue possible terrorist and under the current atmosphere and actual threats, I feel he is doing as good as anyone could.

 

Paige; Remember I attacked your comments, not you. I feel a little guilty since you seem to be a nice person. Hitler was IMO an extremely bad person, well below any US leader that ever held any office. To place Bush (under any scenario) and Hitler as equals, will get my and should be many others negative response. You might re-read your comments and note, you do show much distaste for my opinions....even though your not alone.

 

If you are truly interested in the total deaths attributed to Hitler, of Jewish People, or in each Nation which he did take control, the deaths in Britain while trying to take control, or all that died from around the world to stop him, the figures are available and I don't think any one is trying to hide the totals. The are very high.....If your trying to equate our lost forces 3500 in Iraq to that of Vietnam, WWI or II, maybe the Civil War, you will find Bush far from the worst.

[freeztar]

I for one do not believe that you have a democracy when information about the incompetence of those in power can be directly prevented from being exposed by those very same people.

 

Very good point Buffy!

[Buffy]

Buffy; You are continuing to relate Government and Business, as somehow equals in operations. They are closer to opposites than similar.

Its not my analogy: Conservative Republican's have been complaining that "Government should be run more like a Business" for decades, and of course Bush's "experience as a CEO" is supposed to be one of his main claims to qualify him as President.

 

I'm glad that you can confirm that those who say these things change their minds about it as soon as its inconvenient to do so....

Where publicly owned Corporations, are required to disclose and advise on a quarterly basis and factually, the President or Chief Executive, is obliged only to an annual report, currently called *State of the Union*.

So you're reconfirming your belief that there should be no information about the Executive's performance except what he choses to share, and if there are illegal activities being carried out by the government, the Executive Branch should be allowed to prevent any prosecution of those activities, or...

I do say, many things that go on with-in government (all), are and should be kept from the general public ONLY for reason. A current analogy MAY be what is being done to secure public safety. It would serve no purpose to explain how, when, why or for what suspected act, a person was questioned, jailed or in some way made useless to an act. This to allow further investigations or for a number of reasons, not permitted to the Legal System, for citizen activity. What is generally released are facts/acts, which media can release with notice having been given. Reason, then being Classified, Secret, Top Secret or for any other National Security reason.

...are you arguing that actions such as utilizing government resources for promoting a political party is a "National Security" related issue?

 

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law, :confused:

Buffy

[LJP07]

Is Bush a complete Moron? Anyone who amends the Fifth Amendment is a complete and utter Dictator never mind a moron ( Moron is his middle name ).

[TheFaithfulStone]

You're a curious man..

 

Really? I was going with "most talented troll ever." Seriously, jackson has managed to keep this thread going for nearly forty pages by veering uncontrollably between the side rails of incoherence and bad rationalization.

 

It's nothing short of AMAZING.

 

I mean, the babbling! I seriously cannot make heads or tails out of about ninety percent of what Jackson says. For instance:

 

"This to allow further investigations or for a number of reasons, not permitted to the Legal System, for citizen activity."

 

I'm not sure if that means anything or not, but if it does, it's absolutely brilliant in it's obfuscation.

 

Okay, on another note:

 

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law

 

Joke? I thought the 'job' of the executive was to enforce the law. Can we fire Shrub for doing the wrong job then?

 

BTW, I'm increasingly convinced this does not end well. Where does this go but bad places?

 

What if we impeach him and he just refuses to leave? :confused: (seriously...)

 

TFS

[jackson33]

add on to previous post;

 

Buffy; Google *Operation Northwoods*, which is an accidentally released program 40 years after its conception, giving an example of whats not needed to be known.

 

Paige; The best figure on the totals that died from actions taken by Hitler are up to 72 Million, during WWII. 47M Civilian and 21M Military from the world. aside from this another bad guy USSR, Stalin is said to have killed off an addition 20M, both Germany and Russia killing of Millions of captured solders.

 

 

Buffy; There are many CEO's, that have refused to run for political office. Lee Iaccoca from Chrysler and the Head of GE in its prime come to mind. Those two and the many I have forgotten, have all said Government cannot be run like a business and refused the offer. Others with business backgrounds have admitted the pay cut was to great and even Bush, has admitted a comparison does not exist and he ran primarily as a successful 5-6 year tenured Governor.

The President has a legal Staff, who advise on what should or should not be addressed. For me to give an opinion on how/what is disclosed is of no value, but he is responsible to the people he has chosen to advise him on issue to a certain degree, which this legal staff is no doubt aware of...I also say, again, that many if not all Presidents have used *Executive Powers/Privilege* to maintain the Separations of powers. Washington did set the precedent, but have forgotten the issue. No doubt 99% of what goes on to begin with is released on a daily basis under a normal process, press releases, briefings and so on. We are talking about a few issues which for cause should not be released.

 

No, when Hillary took those 178 FBI files and allegedly used the information for political purpose, that has nothing to do with CIA/FBI or National Security issues. Also she was First Lady, not the President. Of course this is pointed response, however I could only give an opinion on any one issue if all the facts were known and I have seen none of that on this thread.

 

Actually the Executive Branch is to Enforce/Protect the Constitution/laws made by Congress and the Supreme Court Interprets, if ever required to. This is where the Checks/Balance come in, as Congress can over ride the Supreme Court by making new law which the SC has found unconstitutional or vague in content.

[CraigD]

Well, we have finally taken this thread to the gutter. Bush and Hitler are equals.

Paige’s post hasn’t consigned this thread to the gutter, only upheld Godwin's Law. :) Actually, that honor goes to Boerseun’s post of nearly a year ago. Note that Godwin’s Law applies not only to G.W.Bush and the Republican party, but to any individual or organization.

I can understand, radical elements in the US, taking advantage of argumentative issues and attempting to increase interest in their side issue's, but I cannot in all honesty believe that a forum and many of there STAFF, implying much of what I see as pure speculation, claiming one to five issues being a determining factor, to ridicule not only my government, the people in charge and in general the American people, who play by the rules.

I can’t parse what you’re saying in this sentence, jackson. :confused: Could you restate it more clearly?

Some time back, the issue was *Valerie Plane*, with much the same anger and distrust for government I see today. Careers were lost, degraded and government lost credibility. Points were made that this issue showed just how bad Bush was or his administration and this poor little lady would suffer the remainder of her life. BAD BAD, Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and all should be penalized...We now have an end to that one issue, but I am sure any rebuttal will end in "The Judge was bought off".

I don’t believe the Plame affair is yet at an end. Although a 7/19/07 District Ct. ruling has effectively, I believe, ended the Wilson’s civil lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and Armitage, it has done so non-prejudicially, ruling only that the action did not belong in federal court. Future action by the Wilsons in other courts is almost certain. Although Libby has been convicted, sentenced, and his prison sentence commuted by the President to probation, effectively ending his criminal prosecution, he and his co-defendants are likely to face years of civil action by the well-connected, politically and legally knowledgeable, and clearly intensely pissed-off Wilsons.

Paige; There is much in your post which is pure nonsense IMO. The stable government you refer to, under Saddam (AND HIS TWO SON'S) was one, no person writing in this thread would consider living under.

I don’t recall anyone claiming that pre-war Iraq was a place where any of us would prefer to live. Interviews with many current Iraq residents, and the latest Iraq diaspora, in which about 6% of Iraqis have fled to other countries to avoid current conditions in Iraq, indicate that Iraq is an even less desirable place since the war.

M. Moore, 9-11 or his Cuba Health Care glorifications are pure jokes to any one right of Move on dot Org

:lol: Regardless of you opinion of Moore, referring to the efforts of thousands of planners and clinicians in the Cuban healthcare system is offensive not only to them, but to public health workers worldwide.

 

Despite a national per-capita GDP ranking Cuba among the poorest nations in the world, and many hardships due to non-clinical, political influences, this system, which involves not only healthcare delivery, but provider education, has not only rivaled and in many areas exceeded the quality of much wealthier nations, but produced a surplus of both medicines and clinical staff that have allowed it to be a significant provider of aid to other countries.

 

I’ve met Cuban clinicians, and can personally attest to their ability and good character. These people, and those who support them, are to be applauded.

 

You are not alone, however, Jackson, in denigrating the achievements of these and other non-American healthcare workers. The routine denial of US visas to Cuban healthcare experts, necessitating that US healthcare professions such as myself travel to Canada or other more remote nations to share information, is, IMHO, reason to be ashamed of our government.

...He [Michael Moore] has made the money and a great deal of it catering to this radical mind set. I have nothing good to say about this person or his motives.

This is, plain and simple, an ad hominem argument. Moore’s documentary films do a great public service, in exposing many people to information of which they normally don’t have access.

 

This is not to say viewers should accept the claims made by Moore (or any other documentary maker) in his films non-critically. I routinely need hours to research the claims in a single film, such as his most recent ”Sicko”, which features the “Cuban Health Care glorifications” to which you refer, and to date have always found that Moore presents statistical data in an unsound manner in order to reinforce his theses.

 

However, I believe all of Moore’s non-fictional films have merit, and should be seen by all people interested the social phenomena and policies they address. I am often appalled that some of the harshest critics of a particular Moore film have not seen the film, and find the oft-given rational for not doing so that they don’t want to contributed to Moore’s personal wealth.

 

As a matter of fact, Moore’s net worth is, according to multiple sources including this anti-Moore webpage, about $50,000,000. In comparison, George W. Bush’s 2003 net worth was estimated by this article as between $9,000,000 and $26,000,000, while this wikipedia article estimates Dick Cheney’s net worth at $30,000,000 to $100,000,000. Forbes “400 richest Americans, led by Bill Gates at $53,000,000,000, contains no one with net worth less than $1,000,000,000.

[Buffy]

The President has a legal Staff, who advise on what should or should not be addressed. For me to give an opinion on how/what is disclosed is of no value

Well, its obviously of no value to us, but what about yourself?

 

Don't you think you ought to have information upon which to judge this? Do you think that a Congressional Committee and even Republican Attack Dog Special Prosecutor Ken Starr--who found no evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton--had *no right* to investigate the FBI Files allegations at all? Do you think that Clinton *should* have claimed Executive Privilege in the matter--something that he did *not* do?

... No doubt 99% of what goes on to begin with is released on a daily basis under a normal process, press releases, briefings and so on. We are talking about a few issues which for cause should not be released.

You might want to go back to my links above: Far more information is being classified or being covered by claims of Executive Privilege than ever before, except for what the White House deems should be released.

 

Again, should they be the only ones who decide, no matter what?

 

Have you ever heard of the fable of letting the fox guard the hen house?

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law

Actually the Executive Branch is to Enforce/Protect the Constitution/laws made by Congress and the Supreme Court Interprets, if ever required to. This is where the Checks/Balance come in....

Looks like you didn't look up where this quote came from: You should, as you'd find yourself in complete disagreement with the President on the very topic we're discussing here...

 

We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans, :confused:

Buffy