The Decider is Delusional

posted by John Nichols on 03/21/2007 @ 11:04pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (45)

Subscribe Now

Is George Bush delusional?

No, that question is not an attack on his intelligence.

Nor is it a criticism of some bizarre new position he has taken with regard to the affairs of state--although, as it happens, he has.

Rather, it is a serious question about whether the president understands what is going on around him.

After he announced Tuesday that the White House would not make a serious effort to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the firing of US Attorneys who would not politicize their prosecutions, the President was asked about several of the attorneys who had been removed.

"I'm sorry, just frankly, it bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the US attorneys involved," answered Bush. "I really am. These are --I put them in there in the first place. They're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now, they're being held up in the scrutiny of all this. And it's just--what I said in comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, DC, for you. You know, there a lot of politics in this town."

Here's the troubling thing about Bush's response.

It appears that he might be unaware that his firing of the US Attorneys – who, as he notes "serve at the pleasure of the president" – took the situation "to where it's got."

Does Bush think that these US Attorneys are under attack by the Senate?

Does he not understand that the Senate is trying to figure out why Bush and his aides went after the fired prosecutors?

Does he not understand that the US Attorneys in question will be testifying about wrongdoing by presidential appointees?

That's where the question about the President's awareness of what is going on around him arises.

Indeed, the only comment more delusional than his expression of sympathy for the US Attorneys was Bush's suggestion that he and his aides have the authority to refuse to cooperate with Congressional requests for information and testimony regarding wrongdoing within the White House.

After bluntly stating that he would fight efforts to have White House staffers testify before the Judiciary Committee, he said of the Senate: "I hope they don't choose confrontation."

The Senate is not choosing confrontation. Bush is.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, is operating entirely within its Constitutional mandate. Leahy has consulted closely with Republicans on the committee and respected their requests to give the White House time to do the right thing. Now that his White House has refused to respect the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, Bush says of members of the Senate: "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials, when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."

Let's be clear: The suggestion that the President is delusional is the most respectful assessment of what was said during Tuesday's press conference.

After all, if he is not delusional, than the President of the United States is deliberately attempting to deceive the Congress and the American people about high crimes and misdemeanors that may have been committed by his aides and by himself. In his comments Tuesday, the President made reference to what the framers of the Constitution "understood" when they were "developing the separate branches of government." In fact, what the framers understood was that, in order to assure that the executive branch would cooperate with the legislative branch in disputes over federal affairs, Congress would need the authority to sanction presidents who attempt to avert appropriate checks and balances. This was a matter that the framers of the Constitution took so seriously that they outlined specific remedies for so sanctioning lawless presidents and their aides.

For the President's reference, they are found in Article I in the sections dealing with the power of the Congress to impeach and remove presidents and their aides. It is sobering reading for royalists, so sobering in fact that it could cure a nasty case of presidential delusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (45)

George Bush also said that the "...People will get the chance to hear the Truth."

How will that be possible if the hearing (interview) will be held in closed session.

Heck the "people" will not only NOT get the chance to "hear" the Truth, they won't even get the chance to "read" (transcripts) the Truth.

What is the Truth?

Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/21/2007 @ 11:27pm
From the NYT - - -"Democrats angrily rejected Bush's offer to grant a limited number of lawmakers private interviews with the aides with no transcript and without swearing them in. Republicans counseled restraint. - - -" Really ?! If I remember correctly, that is exactly what the republican majority in Congress did for the last six years; in fact, "restraint" to them meant 'rolling over and playing dead' to the irresponsible extent of having no oversight in the 'wheeling & dealing' of this administration which consequently grew more and more arrogant, abrasive,deceitful,'above-the law' and unaccountable !! "Dubya" is acting like a thoroughly spoiled four year old, (who was used to having his way all the time for six years, thanks to the spineless,complicit and compliant republican majority at that time) and is now throwing TEMPER TANTRUMS, after being told to BEHAVE !!!!!!

Posted by bsbuster at 03/22/2007 @ 12:53pm
It has been pointed out at TPM that throughout the speech, W referred to the "resignation" of the US Attornies.

This is either delusion, or Rovespeak, or both.

Posted by drhammer at 03/22/2007 @ 12:54pm
"Is George Bush delusional?"

I though that was a fundamental property like gravity or thermodynamics...a universal "given"

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/22/2007 @ 12:54pm
Bush isn't delusional, he's just pathologically dishonest. And you're right, Mr. Nichols; Bush is the one provoking this confrontation, not Congress.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/22/2007 @ 12:59pm
Bush has an amazing talent for trotting out the most absurd self-justifications and non-answers, and making it sound to the untrained ear like he's actually saying something meaningful.

But now that he has some legally empowered opposition, it won't fly. Just as the first independent prosecution plucked away his VP's chief of staff for lying, his attorney general is about to go down as well. They'd be fine if they'd just stick to the truth. Unfortunately, that's something they just don't know how to do.

I don't think he's crazy or a liar. It boils down to incompetence. He keeps talking, he just doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/22/2007 @ 1:08pm
If there's nothing to hide, why not testify under oath, on the record?

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/22/2007 @ 1:22pm
I'm sure hsuB thunk:

"When Bill Clinton was being hauled over the congressional coals by the Republicans, his men also argued that there was a show trial and that executive privilege was being abused.

But the subpoenas rained down like cherry blossom and more than a dozen Clinton officials testified no fewer than 47 times under oath.

The bar has been set.

The White House will probably have to comply and a furious president may be force-fed humble pie. Spring is definitely here."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6478533.stm

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/22/2007 @ 1:26pm
Ok, next question...who here on this blog is a constitutional lawyer? I know Mr. Nichols isn't, and neither am I. So, I can't even begin to assess what's going on with those lawyers..(I guess it's a trust issue....hehehe) But, tt would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on the separation of powers clause relating to this matter.

Here's a different question(s)...what if both parties are just plain wrong, then what?

Posted by ACook at 03/22/2007 @ 1:28pm
It is difficult to conclude that Bush is delusional from analysing his words, because he is detached from his own words as often as his words are detached from reality.

Posted by BlueSpark at 03/22/2007 @ 1:31pm
I'm sure the congressional leaders understand that the many lies already told will only lead to other lies and thus have to lie about the lies in order to avoid exposing other lies:

Thursday, March 22, 2007

We're going to need a bigger fan There's a lot of shit coming.

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said."

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2007/03/ were-going-to-need-bigger-fan.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/22/2007 @ 1:32pm
er, ha, should read:

I'm sure the congressional leaders understand that the many lies already told will only lead to other lies and thus hsuB/heney/ove have to lie about the lies in order to avoid exposing other lies:

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/22/2007 @ 1:34pm
A Cook-Nixon tried to do pretty much what bush is doing,but failed because there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent them from testifying under oath.When Roosevelt was asked to send his man to testify under oath he sent him.Guess you only have to do this if you have something to hide.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/22/2007 @ 1:35pm
THE COMING ASS AGE March 21, 2007

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me -- we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint -- have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester -- or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying -- which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

Posted by looneylefties at 03/22/2007 @ 1:40pm
We're going to need a bigger fan There's a lot of shit coming. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/22/2007 @ 1:32pm

Ah, spring is in the air. The fruits of the Turd Blossom are everywhere.

Posted by nathanhale at 03/22/2007 @ 1:41pm
looneylefties must be looking for attention.Only an attention seeker would keep posting the same adolph coulter post on here.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/22/2007 @ 1:42pm
"If there's nothing to hide, why not testify under oath, on the record?"

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/22/2007 @ 1:22pm

Because no one has been charged with a crime....there are only accusations (my oldest brother told me that and he's a retired police detective).

Also, Rove and company can take the 5th.

Posted by ACook at 03/22/2007 @ 1:46pm
Also, Rove and company can take the 5th.

Posted by ACOOK 03/22/2007 @ 1:46pm

Can't take the 5th if there's "no crime?" Right? What's there to take the 5th about if nothing incriminating has occured?

Posted by BlueTexan at 03/22/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/22/2007 @ 1:46pm

Scooter Libby testified under oath before he was charged with a crime.

Posted by nathanhale at 03/22/2007 @ 1:54pm
ACook-The vast majority of people who testify under oath aren't charged with a crime.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/22/2007 @ 2:05pm
A-Cook - Brilliant analysis....just refuse the order to testify and let the Supreme Court sort it out after the end of the term!

Damn I wonder why Clinton didn't think of that when he and his aides were compelled to testify 47 times or why Reagan didn't think of it and instead used the "I don't recall" defense while having Ollie North take the bullet for Iran - Contra!

All future Presidents should now always do as they damn well please and invoke Executive Privelege when their shit starts to stink. (You listening Hillary?)

Posted by freedomplease at 03/22/2007 @ 2:06pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/22/2007 @ 2:06pm

There are two big lessons for future President:

1. Don't lie.

2. Don't let anyone in your administration use email.

Posted by BlueTexan at 03/22/2007 @ 2:15pm
3. Be articulate and clean.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/22/2007 @ 2:23pm
Blue,

Is e-mail today's equivalent of Nixon's tape recordings????

Posted by freedomplease at 03/22/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/22/2007 @ 2:27pm

Are you referring to the 18-day gap in emails?

Posted by nathanhale at 03/22/2007 @ 2:34pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/22/2007 @ 2:27pm

I think so. It goes for everyone, not just Presidents. Emails last forever.

Also, isn't there a story out now about a "gap" in the emails? Sounds, Nixonian.

The biggest bone I have to pick is that the emails they have produced thus far aren't internal, only exchanges going in and out of the WH. The WH emails should and will be produced, once a court makes them.

If this is all above board, as the WH claims, why so much hiding? Aside from the ridiculous executive priviledge mumbo jumbo.

Posted by BlueTexan at 03/22/2007 @ 2:36pm
Nathan / Blue,

I am indeed talking of the "gap". Did you see what Tony Snow said when a reporter asked him about the "gap". He didn't want to cover for them any more so he said....go ask the justice dept!!!

Can't blame Snow though after he took the full frontal on the Harriet Miers lie!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/22/2007 @ 2:39pm
Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/22/2007 @ 1:40pm

Why you bother posting the rantings of that trailer-trollop "Coultergeist" is a mystery? Its not as if she had two adjacent factual thoughts to deal with, just rampaging lunacy and gut-reaction, far-right "idiot points"

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/22/2007 @ 2:40pm
From "Rawstory.com"

[quote] The gap covers the days between November 15 and December 4, 2006. So far, only one email has been found dated within that 18 day period among those released in Monday night's document dump. The lone email, from November 29, 2006, was one forwarded by Justice official Michael Elston to a fellow staffer asking for an attached review document to be printed.

"The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th," notes Marshall. "So those eighteen days are pretty key ones."

Politico reporters Mike Allen and John Bresnahan also picked up on the gap. They surmise that the missing communication covers "a critical period, as the White House and Justice Department reviewed -- then approved -- which U.S. attorneys would be fired, while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings."

The gap, specifically because of its length, is an eerie reminder of the infamous eighteen-and-a-half minute gap in the Nixon tapes. As one blogger writes, "The Bush Administration is working overtime to make this attorney scandal look more and more like Watergate by the day."

[end quote]

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/22/2007 @ 2:44pm
Mr. Corn-- Bush has been delusional for a long time. Questioning his intelligence is valid however, since he has botched-up every initiative that he touches. His "ideas" are the stuff a teenage boys. But, as you are well-aware, there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Bush has political "street-smarts" and is willing to tear our nation apart by playing corrupt games-- but no one with integrity would dare call him wise (not by a long shot).

This new development, whereby Tony Snow (representing Bush & Rove) says that Congress has no right of oversight, is truly frightening. Clearly the Bush administration represent a neo-con type of proto-fascist regime, grabbing as much dictatorial power as the American people will let them get away with... Bush wants to be King, and my goodness, he is enabled by the opportunists- jackals- war-mongers- and oil-whores who surround him.

Bush and Rove, using Tony-boy Snow as their brain-dead mouth-piece, are simply saying that they will make a pretense of showing-up providing that they can lie with impunity- that it's behind closed doors with no transcript- and that once finished, no more questions will be asked (i.e. no follow-up)... This is so outrageous as to border on treason.

Executive Privilege does not permit Bush to commit any act with impunity. Bush does not have the right to commit crimes. Bush is not a King-- and indeed the Founding Fathers set-down clear provisions to ensure that Congress could (and should) take actions to censor and/or impeach a president who decided that he wanted to be King of the U.S.

High crimes & misdemeanours are, in fact, the justification, according to the U.S. Constitution, for impeachment of a president.

In other words, Bush cannot violate his oath of office- he cannot commit cover-up crimes- he cannot order crimes to be committed- and, he cannot violate or order the violation of our laws.

Why some neo-cons are trying to twist the meaning of "executive privilege" into a cloak for Bush to avoid being held accountable to "We the People" is obvious, but we should reject such sophistry and demand that Congress impeach this criminal Bush regime.

Posted by epv at 03/22/2007 @ 2:51pm
The Democrats still haven't issued the subpoenas.

Let's see if they have the Courage to do so.

Justice needs Courage as a partner.

Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/22/2007 @ 3:52pm
Justice needs Courage as a partner.

Posted by BOHDAN YURI 03/22/2007 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person

this must be new. I've never seen courage represented of any of the statues depicting the blindfolded justice.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 5:08pm
Panel Authorizes Subpoenas for Administration Officials

By William Branigin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 22, 2007; 4:40 PM

The Senate Judiciary Committee today authorized its Democratic chairman to issue subpoenas for top White House officials as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, joining its House counterpart in spurning President Bush's offer to make the officials available under strict limitations.

The 19-member committee approved the subpoena authority in a voice vote after more than an hour of debate in which minority Republicans urged the panel's Democratic majority to avoid the prospect of a constitutional confrontation with the White House over executive privilege.

In debate before today's Senate Judiciary Committee vote, Democrats rebuffed GOP members' arguments that the panel should accept Bush's offer and postpone the subpoena authority for White House officials.

"We can always issue a subpoena . . . if we don't like what we get," Specter said. "Why not take what we can get, in the interest of finding out. . . ."

Leahy interjected, "No. What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing. We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing."

"Why waste our time bidding against ourselves when they've already said no?" Leahy asked. "All the things you've suggested might make sense, but they've already rejected it."

Referring to Bush, he said, "I know he's the decider for the White House. He's not the decider for the United States Senate."

Instead of an offer to negotiate, Leahy said, "we were told, 'You will do it this way or no way.'" In his 32 years in office, he said, "I've never heard the Senate take an ultimatum like that."

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) told the committee, "It is clear to me that we have been misled from the very beginning in this situation. To this very day, nobody knows who ordered these firings or what the reasons for them were."

Although the Justice Department has provided more than 3,000 pages of e-mails and told lawmakers they have received everything they need for their inquiry, she suggested that some messages might have been withheld because they show Bush's involvement in the matter.

"There is a suspicious period of time where there were no e-mails, from around the 16th of November to the 7th of December" last year, Feinstein said. "The belief is that that was the time the president was traveling and people wanted to get presidential approval, which apparently, some people say, came forward on December 4th." She added, "I don't know whether that's true or not true."

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/22/2007 @ 5:48pm
"Also, Rove and company can take the 5th."

Posted by ACOOK 03/22/2007 @ 1:46pm

"Can't take the 5th if there's "no crime?" Right? What's there to take the 5th about if nothing incriminating has occured?"

Posted by BLUETEXAN 03/22/2007 @ 1:53pm

BT it doesn't matter what the allegations are, if you have not been charged with a crime, then no court or Congress can force you to incriminate yourself. And so the burden falls back on the Senate to prove malfeaseance was committed within the DOJ.

So, if you don't tesitify under oath, the most they could do to you is hold you in contempt. And with contempt charges (which, btw, is considered a misdemenor), they still can't keep you in jail for long.

It's a choice Rove and company could take.

Posted by ACook at 03/22/2007 @ 6:13pm
"ACook-The vast majority of people who testify under oath aren't charged with a crime."

Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/22/2007 @ 2:05pm

That's because they don't know their rights under the law and a lot of innocent people get thrown in with the lions (or is it under the bus?!!) Anyway, don't let anyone convince you of that. I think it's a dirty scare tactic. The innocent are more effected by that crap than the crimanal element is.

Sidenote: Did you know the SC ruled that law enforcement can lie to you by any means so as long as the confession is not coereced? Know your rights under the law.

Charge the party first, then get them to testitfy under oath, not the other way around.

Posted by ACook at 03/22/2007 @ 6:23pm
Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"

By Paul Kiel - March 22, 2007, 2:59 PM

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/22/2007 @ 7:01pm
COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/22/2007 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.... Good one Looney! You should have saved that for April 1st.

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonoparte (1769-1821)

Posted by COProgressive at 03/22/2007 @ 9:11pm
To answer the question, yes.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush

Posted by COProgressive at 03/22/2007 @ 9:13pm
you can refuse to testify against yourself, but not against others. and they can lock you up for contempt for as long as the grandjury's term lasts, which can be up to a year. pay no mind to Cook, who is most uninformed, and that's putting it kindly.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 10:20pm
it is my pleasure to parrot Mr. Bush's words, which he used during the furor over warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, back at him: "if you have nothing to hide, why are you so afraid" of taking an oath, Mr. bush?

Posted by robthomaseyes at 03/22/2007 @ 11:50pm
Charles Krauthammer has a column "Gonzales Must Go" over on nationalreview.com. I disagree with his reasoning of course, but I'm quite pleased to see this archconservative side with us.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/23/2007 @ 09:15am
Yes, Bush is delusional.But Rove is not. Both are dangerous whether delusional or not. Regards, Carl W. Lundquist, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) Boston.....

Posted by purplescarf at 03/23/2007 @ 11:10am
Carl, whom did YOU vote for in 2000 and 2004?

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 11:14am
WASHINGTON -- Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice, becoming the ninth person and the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

howsweetitis.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 1:22pm
Abramov, say it soft and it's almost like praying.

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 10:37pm