Some do we have a guy at work like that. We super glue his dial lock on his locker whenever we get bored

Oh yes and rummy and rice and wolfowitz.

Im still waiting for your informative thread about voter fraud and acorn

Forces release of Bush Records!
By Hal Turner

January 21, 2009 "Hal Turner Show" -- Washington, DC -- Barack Obama today revoked President George W. Bush's Executive Order which makes presidential records secret for up to 12 years after leaving office!

This would be the first logical step for his Administration to take if they were/are considering going after Bush for criminal prosecution over. . . . . the fraud he perpetrated against the nation by lying to take us to war in Iraq.

The very last section of Obama's Executive Order issued today (Here) states "Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked." This puts up for public consumption, most of the records from the Bush administration and I suspect those records will provide the legal basis for criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney.

George W. may want to jump on a plane and head to his family's 100,000 acre refuge in Paraguay so he can be safe from extradition!

Personally, I would LOVE to see Bush criminally prosecuted and, if found guilty, hung by his neck just like Saddam Hussein.

Executive Order 13233
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Executive Order 13233 limited access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989. The Order was partially struck down in October 2007, and President Barack Obama completely revoked it by executive order on January 21, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21816.htm

feel free to move on if you like or even leave the thread and move to another.

scroll up its called justice and we have allready gone over the acorn thing in another thread. Or feel free to inform us all about it with your own thread

Not hate its justice and like most of america I would like to see it served.

NEW YORK--That's it? Bush moves back to Texas to dote on his presidential library--while drawing a $197,000 pension? Cheney goes back to Wyoming to fish and work on his memoirs? After committing crimes so numerous and monstrous that bookshelves are already groaning under their weight, the cabal of illegitimate coup leaders who destroyed the U.S. get to tiptoe out of the rubble and go home to a comfortable retirement?

Earlier this week a senior Pentagon prosecutor openly admitted what has long been known: torture, the lowest and most criminal act any society can sanction, is official U.S. policy. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture," Judge Susan Crawford told The Washington Post about the alleged "20th hijacker" on 9/11, now being held at Gitmo. The man was so brutalized, Crawford decided, that he could not be charged in court. The same is true of many of those being held at the Guantánamo concentration camp.

None of the Bush Administration officials responsible has faced the slightest inconvenience as the result of his actions.

Donald Rumsfeld, the beast who promoted, botched and joked about a war that has killed more than a million innocent Iraqis, spent the last year as a "distinguished visiting fellow" at Stanford, cogitating about "issues pertaining to ideology and terror."

John Yoo, the Justice Department hack who wrote the memos that authorized U.S. military and intelligence personnel to torture prisoners of war, is enjoying the cozy ambiance of academe as a UC Berkeley law professor.

Colin Powell, whose 2003 lie to the U.N. ("there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more") convinced Americans who were still on the fence to support the invasion of Iraq--a misbegotten project that drove the last nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy--wiles away his days attending the meetings of various corporate boards.

If you were expecting Barack Obama to deliver justice, forget it. "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards," Obama said recently. "Look forward" is Beltwayese for "no accountability."

Obama went on to assure the men and women who tortured innocent detainees to death that no one will ever bother them about their war crimes. "And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up."

Is this what we've come to? Have Americans become so morally depraved that we condone this level of lawlessness? Have we become so weak and helpless in the face of unconscionable violations of the Bill of Rights--torture, government spies listening to our phone calls, starting wars against countries that never hurt us, looting the treasury--that we just "look forward"?

So much for the land of the free and the brave. See you around, nation of laws.

The meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, historians say, brought down the Soviet government by exposing its incompetence and powerlessness. Poor design and disaster response turned the accident into a disaster. The regime's inability to contain the problem and successfully cover it up highlighted its impotence.

"The Chernobyl catastrophe," wrote Philip Taubman in The New York Times in 1996, "was a manifestation of the political, moral and technological rot that was metastasizing in the Soviet system and would soon kill it." People stopped believing in the USSR. Then they stopped fearing it.

Should the United States collapse, historians will likely point to two events: 9/11 and Katrina. 9/11 proved the U.S. was a paper tiger, an aggressive power that can blow up the world with nuclear weapons yet can't scramble a single fighter jet to stop 19 idiots with boxcutters. The inept response to the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans was incompetence personified. The American people don't think the U.S. government cares about them. Even worse, they doubt the government could help them if it wanted to.

With the American government exposed as stupid and weak, all that remains is the American ideal: the 232-year-old democratic experiment that began with the idea that we are all equal under the law and that all human beings enjoy a set of inherent, inalienable rights--even "enemy combatants" and illegal immigrants.

If we fail to hold the elites who seized the presidency in a 2000 judicial coup d'état to account, if we say torture is no big deal, if we don't imprison men who lied and conspired to murder more than one million Iraqis and Afghans and Americans and countless others, if we let these individuals golf and fish and deliver lectures to young people as if they have done nothing wrong, then such horrors will happen again and again. I want would-be torturers to "look over their shoulders." I want them to second-guess themselves.

Even worse than that: If we don't prosecute Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Yoo and Rice and Powell and scores of other top Bush officials who took part in the destruction of fundamental American values, there will be nothing--not even an idea--left of the United States.
_______



About author
Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/19906

22% it is my friend.

Oh I am sure you wont stand up well to a barage of facts and information based in reality.

After little more than two years of the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon resigned and his successor, Gerald Ford, famously declared, "our long national nightmare is over." But the painful end game of Nixon's presidency was nothing compared to the eight excruciating years of George W. Bush.

Even on Inauguration Day 2009, as most Americans rejoice that Bush's disastrous presidency is finally heading into the history books, there should be reflection on how this catastrophe could have befallen the United States - and on who else was responsible.

Indeed, it may become one of the great historical mysteries, leaving future scholars to scratch their heads over how a leader with as few qualifications as George W. Bush came to lead the world's most powerful nation at the start of the 21st century.

How could a significant number of American voters have thought that an enterprise as vast and complicated as the U.S. government could be guided by a person who had failed at nearly every job he ever had, whose principal qualification was that his father, George H.W. Bush, was fondly remembered as having greater personal morality than Bill Clinton?

Why did so many Americans think that a little-traveled, incurious and inarticulate man of privilege could lead the United States in a world of daunting challenges, shifting dangers and sharpening competition?

What had transformed American politics so much that, for many Americans, personal trivia, like Al Gore's earth-tone sweaters, trumped serious policy debates, like global warming, health care for citizens, prudent fiscal policies and a responsible foreign policy? How could George W. Bush, who was born with a shiny silver spoon in his mouth, sell himself as a populist everyman?

Even taking into account the controversial outcome of Election 2000 - which saw Gore win more votes than Bush - why was the margin close enough so Bush could snatch the White House away with the help of five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court?

And why did the nation - after the 9/11 attacks - so willingly follow Bush into a radical divergence from traditional U.S. foreign policy and into violations of longstanding national principles of inalienable rights and the rule of law?

Why did the institutions designed to protect U.S. constitutional liberties, including the press and Congress, crumble so readily, allowing Bush to seize so much power that he could entangle the United States in an aggressive - and costly - war in Iraq with few questions asked?

Perceptions of Reality

Part of the answer to this historical mystery can be found in the complex relationship between the American people and mass media. The multi-billion-dollar stakes involved in selling commercial products to the world's richest market also made the American people the most analyzed population on earth.

Controlling their perceptions of reality and eliciting their emotions became more than just art forms; they were economic imperatives.

Just as Madison Avenue ad executives got rich selling products to American consumers, K Street political consultants earned tidy sums for using the false intimacy of TV to make their candidates appear more "down-to-earth" or "authentic" and their opponents seem "weird" or "dirty."

By 2000, the Republicans also had pulled far ahead of the Democrats in the machinery of political messaging, both in the technological sophistication of the party apparatus and the emergence of an overtly conservative media that stretched from print forms of newspapers, magazines and books to electronic outlets of radio, TV and the Internet.

Nothing remotely as advanced existed on the liberal side of American political life. Conservatives liked to call the mainstream news media "liberal," but in reality, its outlook was either corporate with a strong sympathy for many Republican positions or consciously "centrist" with a goal of positioning the news content somewhere in the "middle."

In Campaign 2000, the Republican advantages in media guaranteed a rosier glow around George W. Bush's attributes and a harsher light on Al Gore's shortcomings. Many voters said they found Bush a more likeable fellow - "a regular guy" - while viewing Gore as a wonky know-it-all, who "thinks he's smarter than we are."

That was, at least in part, a reflection of how the two candidates were presented by the dominant news media, from Fox News to The New York Times. [For details on this media imbalance, see our book, Neck Deep.]

The talented Republican image-makers portrayed Bush as a refreshing alternative to the endless parade of consultant-driven, poll-tested candidates - though, in reality, Bush's image was as consultant-driven and poll-tested as anybody's, down to his purchase of a 1,600-acre ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 1999, just before running for the White House.

Post 9/11

After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington less than nine months into Bush's presidency, the American people immediately invested their hopes in what the press portrayed as Bush's natural leadership skills. The Democrats also granted Bush extraordinary deference.

But that wasn't enough. Bush's political advisers and the right-wing media sensed the opportunity presented by the 9/11 crisis to strengthen their ideological hand. Karl Rove, for instance, saw the possibility of locking in permanent Republican control of the U.S. government.

With the nation gripped by fear and jingoism, an enforced unity took hold. Bush declared a "war on terror" and oversaw a fundamental transformation of the U.S. constitutional system, asserting the "plenary" - or unlimited - powers of Commander in Chief at a time of war, making him what his advisers called the "unitary executive."

But the "war on terror" was unique in American history because it knew no limits either in time or space. It was an endless conflict on a global battlefield, including the American homeland.

So, under Bush's post-9/11 presidential theories, he could ignore laws passed by Congress. He simply attached a "signing statement" declaring that he would not be bound by any restrictions on his authority. As for laws enacted before his presidency, those, too, could be cast aside if they infringed on his view of his own power.

Bush also could override constitutional provisions that protected the rights of citizens. He could deny the ancient right of habeas corpus which requires some due process for a person to be locked away by the government. All Bush had to do was designate someone an "enemy combatant."

He also could order warrantless searches and wiretaps, waiving the Fourth Amendment's requirement for court-approved search warrants based on "probable cause."

Bush even could authorize U.S. interrogators to abuse and torture captives if he thought that would make them talk. He could order assassinations of anyone he deemed a "terrorist" or somehow linked to "terrorism." He could take the nation to war with or without congressional consent.

Former Vice President Gore asked in a 2006 speech: "Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is ‘yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"

The answer to Gore's rhetorical question was clearly, "no," there were no boundaries for Bush's "plenary" powers. In the President's opinion, his powers were constrained only by his own judgment. Bush was "the decider."

End of Rights

Looking at Bush's arrogation of powers, the troubling conclusion was that the nation's treasured "unalienable rights," proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, no longer applied, at least not as something guaranteed or "unalienable."

Under the Bush theories, the rights were optional. They belonged not to each American citizen as a birthright, but to George W. Bush as Commander in Chief who got to decide how those rights would be parceled out.

The only safeguard left for American citizens - and for people around the world - was Bush's assurance that his extraordinary authority would be used to stop "bad guys" and to protect the homeland.

Patriotic Americans would not feel any change, he promised. They could still go to the shopping mall or to baseball games. Only those who were judged threats to the national security would find themselves in trouble. That list kept growing, however, to include terrorist "affiliates," "any person" who aids a terrorist, and government "leakers" who divulged Bush's secret decisions.

To comfort Americans who feared that Bush was accumulating powers more fitting a King than a President, Bush's supporters cited previous examples of presidents suspending parts of the Constitution, as Abraham Lincoln did with habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in incarcerating thousands of Japanese-Americans after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at the start of American involvement in World War II.

But those conflicts were traditional wars, definable in length and with endings marked by surrenders or treaties. By contrast, the "war on terror" was a global struggle against a tactic - terrorism - that had been employed by armies and irregular forces throughout history.

Administration officials acknowledged that there would be no precise moment when the struggle would be won, no clear-cut surrender ceremony on the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the conflict the "long war," but it could be dubbed the "endless war," a struggle against elusive and ill-defined enemies.

At times, Bush expanded the scope of the conflict beyond defeating terrorism to eliminating "evil."

Yet, since there was no reason to think the "war on terror" would ever end, a logical corollary was that the American political system - as redefined by Bush - had changed permanently.

If the war would last forever, so too would the "plenary" powers of the Commander in Chief. With the President's emergency powers established as routine, the de facto suspension of American constitutional rights also would become permanent. The democratic Republic with its constitutional checks and balances - as envisioned by the Founders - would be no more.

Pushing Back

But the emergence of an imperial presidency did not occur without some resistance. Despite residual fears about another 9/11, many rank-and-file Americans, both liberals and traditional conservatives, grew uneasy over Bush's power grab. Their voices, however, were rarely heard in the major media, confined mostly to Internet sites and alternative radio outlets.

Then, in 2005, the administration's incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans awakened more Americans to the emptiness of Bush's promises about protecting the homeland. With Bush's Iraq War also going badly, his approval rating sank below 50 percent on its way to the 20th percentiles.

In November 2006, American voters returned control of Congress to the opposition Democrats, and in November 2008, voters stripped the Republican Party of the White House, too.

Barack Obama's election represented a stunning repudiation of George W. Bush's radical concept of unlimited presidential power, but many of the factors that enabled Bush to get as far as he did remain in place to this day.

The major U.S. news media, which either cheered Bush on or looked the other way, has changed little. Indeed, in the days before the Inauguration, President-elect Obama made a point of courting the favor of right-wing columnists, such as Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and of the mainstream press, like the Washington Post's editorial board.

Obama also has reassured the Washington Establishment that he doesn't intend to shake things up too much. He's kept on one of the insiders' favorites, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and has appointed other officials to manage foreign and economic policy who have had a hand in many of the dubious decisions implemented by the Bush administration.

The incoming President also has been paying heed to Establishment voices urging him not to hold Bush and his subordinates accountable for the many crimes they committed. Don't listen to those American citizens who are demanding that the nation's laws be enforced against high-ranking officials, Obama is being counseled.

Yet, beyond the issue of accountability for lawbreaking, there is another even more daunting challenge, how to replace the political and media institutions that aided and abetted the Bush administration's assault on the nation's constitutional principles and on reason itself.

After all, one can only solve the mystery of how George W. Bush became President -- and inflicted so much damage -- by taking into account the collaboration of Washington's political and media Establishments.
by Robert Parry
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/20-5

and thrown shoes at Bush

If there was a god we would never have had a George W Bush

We will never forget.

Actualy its verry little time thomas its so damn easy. I do it between my Job my kids and my house and cat and cooking and lady friends. It seems you spend an equal amount of time defending the war criminal, with a 22% approvale rateing I think your the one wasteing your time. A great injustice has been done to our country and the world by these criminals and shame on us if we let it slide.

I think it is the vaccines

Israel's Immigrant Absorption Ministry says it is recruiting an "army of bloggers" in the aftermath of the military operation in Gaza.

According to Haaretz, the team will consist of Israelis who speak a second language -- English, French, Spanish or German -- to represent Israel in "anti-Zionist blogs".

The aggression against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the Hamas resistance movement left at least 1,300 people dead, and thousands others wounded.

According to the Gaza-based Palestinian center for human rights, only 95 resistance fighters were among the casualties of the 23-day war.

The massive number of civilian casualties in the densely-populated coastal sliver sparked worldwide condemnation.

A fierce controversy was also provoked over the alleged use of white phosphorus, also known by the military as WP or Willie Pete, by the Israeli army in Gaza.

According to the Israeli Immigrant Absorption Ministry, Tel Aviv has sought to negate the bad publicity of its actions in Gaza with the help of an online team.

"We turned to this enormous reservoir of more than a million people with a second mother tongue" to contribute to this campaign, the ministry's director general, Erez Halfon, said.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=82951&sectionid=351020202

The grandchildren of Jewish holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany.

Photo Essay: Jewish Holocaust and Gaza
http://uruknet.info/?p=m50995&hd=&size=1&l=e

To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine... and those who don't.

As Ben Franklin said: In wine there is wisdom,
in beer there is freedom,
in water there is bacteria.

In a number of carefully controlled trials, scientists have demonstrated
that if we drink 1 liter of water each day, at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. coli) - bacteria found in feces. In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop.

However, we do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer (or tequila, rum, whiskey or other liquor) because alcohol has to go through a purification process of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.
Remember:
Water = Poop,
Wine = Health.
Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid,
than to drink water and be full of poop.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information: I'm doing it as a public service.
__________________