John Dean? Do you mean Nixon's John Dean the master manipulator of watergate?

Yes.

And he knows a thing
or two about abuse
of Presidential power.

and being behind bars.

Yes, he went to prison
for helping cover up
the crimes of the
Nixon Administration,
along with the Plumbers,
while Nixon got pardoned
by Ford.

He has written
books on this
administration.

One was
'Worse Than Watergate'
about the Bush and
Cheney Crime Family
and it's abuses
of power.

Don't you think the man had an axe to grind with Republicans?

Maybe with some Republicans
who tried to tell lies about
him like G. Gordon Liddy and
probably the neocons who
hijacked the party and used
it for their own personal
Ponzi schemes (Tom Delay and
Robert Reed are perfect examples).

Ethics seems to be a problem
for many of these neocons.

Bush Jr. has taken a surplus
and turned it into a massive
deficit in just 7 years while
Richard Cheney runs the secret
government with no oversight.

I hope there is more oversight
on the Executive Branch in the
future, since this office seems
ripe for abuse.

Perhaps one day honor will be
restored to the Presidency.

The impeached Clinton presidency didn't do much for the honor of the office either. If you want to point out flawed presidents why don't you try to do it a little more even handedly. Abuse of power was most definately in play when he(Slick Willy) ordered the bombing of Belgrade. And don't tell me it did not happen, I was there. Now my question to the left is this: where were you when Clinton bombed Belgrade? Where was the criticism when our men and women were sent into Kosovo? Clinton bombed Belgrade unilaterally against the wishes of the UN, the French and the Russians. Where were you? Where was the criticism in '98 when Clinton bombed Iraq? How about when we went into Somalia and our soldier's bodies were dragged through the streets? Where were all of you? Very few of you were critical, most were the hypocrites that you truly are. Clinton did not have a 9/11 to deal with either. That problem was foisted upon Bush precisely because Clinton could have had Bin Laden in the mid nineties. Read Posner's book wherein he lambasts Clinton for not grabbing Bin Laden when UBL was detained at a border when he was trying to go to Pakistan. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he refused to take him. Yes, that's right folks, Clinton passed on grabbing the guy that already was complicit in many bombings up to that point. Posner, a long time supporter of Clinton puts 9/11 squarely in front of Clinton's door. The inept Clinton administration viewed each bombing as a crime rather than a war. Wasn't this the same nonsense we heard from the left after 9/11? Let's punish the individuals involved and not the countries and people that harbor and fund them? Read the link below and be enlighted.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514131/posts

Typical of a Bushwacker,
pointing back to Clinton
for the failed policies
of the lame duck President
they so ardently support.

It's like misdirection in
a magician's trick:

Don't look there, look
over here.

It doesn't excuse the failings
and crimes of the Bush Administration,
two wrongs don't makes a right and
you can't make a silk purse out
of a sow's ear.

Every word of my previous statement is 100% true. You can't dismiss the truth so easily. You might not like it... but it's still reality. Bush has made mistakes but not to the degree that Clinton did. Impeachment is something you just can't dismiss. The atrocities I wittnessed with my own eyes in Belgrade can not be denied. mnhiker... you sir are in denial of the facts and can only counter it in the tone of the snake you are. No smoke and mirrors will you find in my words. The hatred in your words is apparent for the truth I speak. THAT more than any point I have made, makes your diatribe less credible. You complain about the circumstances this country is in today, so I show you the road that got us there and you deny the road exist. But it is there, in front of you as I laid it out. I am done with the point/counter point with you. It is not productive and I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way.

mnhiker...... In reference to your post, "And the judges are
also free to disagree with Edwards' arguments."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Many times when a lawyer, representing the plaintiff, asks for a judge to render a decision, rather than have a jury trial, it is because the lawyer is aware of the particular judge's leaning and is fairly certain that the judge will render a favorable verdict to his client. I used to be a paralegal and my expertise was litigation. Therefore, I am aware of how the system works. I am not saying that the judges are dishonest, but that certain judges are conservative or liberal in certain areas and one can figure out the judge's thinking. So, sometimes a lawyer can guess with almost certaintity that the judge is going to rule in favor of his/her client.

Isn't that what people are talking about when they complain about judges that legislate from the bench?

mrtxstar ..... Yes, and my point is that when mnhiker made the statement that "judges are also free to disagree with Edwards' arguments" is that the judges are not always rendering an honest decision, they are, as you put it, legislating from the bench.

Note: I edited this to show that not all judges are in this category.

mrtxstar,

I respect the fact that
you've been in the military.

I'm former military myself.

And I agree with you that
mistakes were made by
Bill Clinton when he
was in office.

Clinton did no honor
to the country or his
family when he had
the affair or tried
to lie about it.

But I think too much
was made of it by
the Republicans.

They should have
just censured him
instead of the expenses
incurred by hiring a special
prosecutor and subjecting
the country, including
it's children, to daily
news reports of the
President's sex
life.

This caused far
more damage than
either his affair
or the charge of
perjury.

By the way, he was
acquitted by the Senate
on February 12, 1999.

The expense and
loss of life encountered
in Belgrade or Kosovo
was far less than what
has occurred in Iraq.

After Bush Jr. got
into office, and
9/11 happened,
I supported the
President in going
after Al Quaeda in
Afghanistan.

But then Bush Jr.
declared war on
Iraq, which made
no sense at all
in going after
Al Quaeda, since
Saddam Hussein
loathed Al Quaeda,
perhaps more than
the United States,
and had no reason
to share power with
them.

But the neocons
wanted to go into
Iraq for a long
time, and they
got their wish.

I think if cooler
heads would have
prevailed, we
could have stayed
out of it, and let
the U.N. and
IAEA do their
jobs (there was
no weapons of mass
destruction and still
aren't today).

Instead we let
Donald Rumsfeld
make an absolute
mess.

They didn't account
for the insurgents,
which was a fatal
mistake.

We could have
avoided having
to have a 'surge'
by better decision
making at the start
of the war.

Which is why I believe
and I'm sure historians
will agree that this
President is one
of the laziest,
most inept,
most incompetent
Presidents in the
history of this
country, even
including Bill
Clinton.

mnhiker...
Thank you for your service to this country. Thank you for your more balanced presentation of events. I even agree with much of what you say. What's done is done. Where do we go from here? The coming presidental election is critical. Do we get change or more of the same? I would argue the trend of Bush, Clinton,Clinton, Bush, Bush, needs to be broken. Hillary is not the path to change. Obama... honestly I don't know what to make of him. I just want someone that will keep us safe and promote America's best interest. Who? I'm undecided.

mrtxstar,

I consider myself and
Independent Progressive,
so I could vote either way.

I'm also somewhat undecided,
though I'm leaning toward
John Edwards, even though
I like Barack Obama.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton
for several reasons:

She's not genuine.

She'll say anything to get elected.

Another reason is that Bill would
have a say in her decisions.

He has already made decisions
as President so why should we
give him the power to influence
Hillary's decisions as
'First Gentleman' or
whatever he'll be called?

Also, I don't believe in
Presidential dynasties.

I like Mike Huckabee most of
all the Republicans, though
there are some doubts about
his record in Arkansas.

Even so, he seems more
human and genuine than
either Mitt Romney and
Rudy Guiliani.

John McCain would probably
come a close second.

I think Ron Paul makes
some valid points, though
I don't think he's electable.

What do you know of Huckabee's record in Arkansas? I want to believe he would be a good choice. Has he done a good job in Arkansas?

mrtxstar,

I read this article on the internet,
though I cannot confirm the validity
of the claims:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/

That said, I don't think any politician
has a spotless record, Republican or Democrat.

I'm a skeptic, and I don't believe in
conspiracy theories.

But I feel a candidate's record is important.

To me, it often comes down to who stinks less
than the other candidate.

Call it the 'Stink factor.

What do you think,
a Huckabee-McCain
or McCain-Huckabee
ticket?

I'll have to do may homework and get back to you. I won't rule is out either way until then.