10 soldiers wounded today in attacks in Iraq.

Bush needs to be impeached; his damned cowboy routine is getting our troops killed.

Go to http://www.votetoimpeach.org.

Classic chickenhawk bravado.

Why do people like Bush and Reagan have such teflon coatings where the media is concerned?

That’s a good question. I think part of it is perception. They seem to be Teflon coated to us because we’re hoping they’ll screw up enough to warrant their removal. I’m sure Clinton’s opposition wondered the same thing about him at times.

Les and David,

I think the teflon characteristic has has more to do with the oposition than with the target.  “Conservatives” by definition are less prone to consider viewpoints alternative to their own (i.e. the status quo), and therefore find it easier to mobilize their cohorts and cadres into homogenous juggernauts of concerted political and social action - like the relentless persecution of Clinton.

The very term “liberal”, on the other hand, relates to a social strategy by which conflicting viewpoints are considered, debated, and ideally accomodated - eventually - accounting for the image of the liberal American political sphere as wishy-washy and disorganized.

In short, despite the insistance by Limbaugh and Coulter to the contrary, there is no strong liberal “party line” and very few strong movements from the left that do not degrade due to entropy. 

This is why the often overt crimes and moral outrages of which our current leadership is guilty are not pursued with the same fanatical monotony as were Clinton’s slip-ups (Travelgate?  the Lincoln bedroom?  How do these stack up against sending American servicepeople to their deaths for personal profit?)

Clinton�s little slip-ups???  Impeachment? Perjury?  Releasing ballistic missile technology to the Chinese?  Pardoning a convicted cocaine dealer because Daddy was a big time contributor to the party?  Bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan?  An extended bombing campaign against Iraq in �98 for almost exactly the same reasons Bush did this year?

Clinton did a hell of a lot of good things when he was in office, but overall the man was an embarrassment.  I was in the military during all of his �slip-ups� and you know what burned me up more than anything?  The Monica Lewinsky nonsense!  Clinton, as the Commander in Chief, was the guy who would have decided the rules to court-martial me if I was accused of adultery.  That little �slip-up� with the perjury and making false statements, would have bought me an extended �vacation� at beautiful Ft Leavenworth, Kansas.  It just chaps me that the lowest Airman in the Air Force or the lowest Private in the Army is held to a higher standard than the CINC.

I could list many idiotic things Bush has done (and he is an embarrassment much of the time), but come on�don�t make like Clinton just had a few �slip-ups�.  Neither Bush nor Clinton mows my lawn or pays any of my bills, so I can be objective in my criticism of both.

Liberals accommodate different viewpoints??!!  Paaaa-leeez,  liberals can be just as narrow as conservatives.  From the way I see it, liberals are floundering these days because they don�t have an agenda.  �George Bush Sucks!� is not an agenda.  Where the hell is John Kennedy when you need him?  Actually much of what John got credited for was accomplished by LBJ and to a greater extent, Bobby Kennedy.  Give me a Bobby Kennedy any day, but these wishy-washy liberals�paaa-leeez.

Ooops, I�ve put a bull�s eye on my back again

I think the ability to be narrow minded is limited to any one classification, be that liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, Budweiser or ‘Bud Lite’ drinker. It is easy to sometimes allow yourself to get so annoyed with what you see wrong about a situation that you inadvertantly become a little narrowminded without really meaning to. That’s part of being human.

I’m not proud of everything Clinton did, but a lot of the Lewinsky stuff probably wouldn’t have happened had it not turned into such a desperate witch-hunt by the Republicans. That isn’t to say that Clinton’s actions in response to it are defensible, just that to me this was more of an inssue for his wife than for Congress to be pursuing. Clinton had his fair-share of fuckups, but he was doing incredibly well in the polls and the Republicans were looking for anything they could use to try and bring him down.

By my personal code of ethics I have to admit that the Lewinsky affair pales in my mind to Bush’s rushing into war with Iraq without much of a basis. Again, not saying that the events in the former are unimportant, just ranking the seriousness from my viewpoint.

Les

Since you are accustomed to being beat up, I think I�ll have to open up a can of wupass on ya right now.  A guy getting a hummer is no big deal (Hummer Good).  A guy lying under oath about getting a hummer is a big deal (Lie Bad).  A guy lying under oath about ANYTHING is a big deal.  If that guy is the CINC of the military, that makes it a bigger deal.  Some people think the adultery laws in the military are outmoded, but I can definitely understand why they have them.  What if one of my superiors decided he took a liking to my wife?  What if this superior were to sign orders for me to deploy somewhere so he could smooze up to my wife?  What if he told my wife that things would go better for me if she was a bit �friendlier� to him?  That sounds crazy, but it has happened.  An American general in Turkey was doing it with some of his subordinates and their spouses.  The concept is that if the troops thought that guys that could order you to your death in combat had ulterior motives, it would erode the trust between superiors and subordinates.  Adultery generally isn�t used as the only offense when trying someone; it�s usually an ancillary charge.

Some of the actions of Clinton could be said to be even more �criminal� than Bush�s.  If he pulled a �Wag the Dog� and killed innocent people in the Sudan, I think that�s a big deal.  If he ordered the 1998 bombing of Iraq to distract attention from his personal issues, that�s a big deal.  I don�t recall anyone falling all over themselves when Clinton bombed Sudan or Iraq.  Another crazy thing Clinton did was that idiotic �Don�t Ask Don�t Tell�; in fact it was his first official act after he was elected.  Now get prepared for this, get a diet Coke and sit back�I am not going to say what you expect!

I know full well that there are gays serving in the military and I personally do not have a big problem with them.  What Clinton did for them by his idiotic, politically motivated gesture, was to screw them even harder than they ever got screwed!  Gays thought they could come out of the closet because of this new administration�s �progressive� approach in dealing with gays.  What really happened was they came out of the closet and were discharged or court-martialed because homosexual �conduct� is unlawful!  The key word there is unlawful�who makes the law?  The President?  Nope, the Congress does.  To effect any real change in the status of gays in the military would take a LAW, not an Executive Order.  Clearly Clinton knew that�he�s a lawyer!

Did you ever see the film of Clinton at Commerce Secretary Ron Brown�s funeral?  I have never seen anything so duplicitous or dishonest in my life!  Clinton is leaving the funeral service with an unidentified man at his side.  They began laughing like somebody told the joke of the century.  Clinton looks up briefly and notices the camera�just for an instant.  He immediately stops laughing, starts pouting, and then starts feigning tears!  The real kicker is that the guy he was joking with didn�t see the camera and is still cracking up!  Does that maybe show something about his character?

George W. has done some idiotic things, which I believe this Iraq thing is, but I can�t just sit idle and listen to a bunch of nonsense about Clinton�s little �slip ups�.

Gosh, I guess I wasn�t as rude as I could have been�how �bout this�when you get to Hell, you Godless sinner, don�t turn the AC all the way up (I�ll need it to cool myself down too).

Wow, this one sat on the back burner for a while!

Let me clarify some of my previous points, in light of some of Mild Bill’s justified criticism.  To start with, I must point out that some of this criticism (re: difference between liberals and conservatives) avoids facing the rationale by which these opposite poles were originally labeled: Conservative = status quo/ liberal = progressive/changeable.  Although I did not clarify this, I discuss these poles as opposites only in the abstract - in reality our political spectrum is a continuum, on which individuals fall in some position.  No one lacks all of one quality and possesses a full dose of the other, but there are noticeable differences, which manifest themselves in political affiliation. 

As for Clinton, you are correct on certain points - the man was in many ways an embarrassment and disappointment to his party, whether they recognize the fact or not.  His much-vaunted “sincerity”  was pure cheese.  His few foreign military adventures were of the same sordid, criminal nature that have characterized most of America’s thumpings of weak peripheral nations throughout the 20th Century.  This really irritates me.
However, lying about a blowjob under oath is still just lying about a blowjob!  As for your example of the General in Turkey pulling the old David/Bathsheba/Uriah ploy - that was a cold-hearted criminal act with real victims. However, I didn’t hear Rush or the rest of the vast right-wing conspiracy bitching about it every time I turned around.  You don’t mention the fate of this General - was he disciplined?  If not, why not? Different standards?

Clinton was blown by a dumb whore who got a decent job in return - sleazy and unscrupulous, but not worth talking about. 

If the Republicans had managed to give legs to some of the other more serious allegations you listed (particularly the missile attacks), I might have gotten on board.  However, the fact that the millions spent trying to peg Clinton with ANYTHING failed to turn up anything other than sexual patronization suggests to me that most of this stuff was rumor and wishful thinking.

The observation that politics can be expressed as a continuum is an outstanding point!  That is exactly what I was taught in one of my �warmonger� US Government classes.  At the far ends of the continuum, where left and right meet, the results are equally negative for the citizenry.

Everyone misses my point about the BJ.  I like BJs.  I think whoever invented them should get The Congressional Medal of Freedom and have a high school named after them!  The point of the matter is lying about anything under oath is intolerable.  If a Private in the Army perjured himself, he could receive a dishonorable discharge and 5 years confinement.  There are numerous inane reasons for that same Private to receive a death penalty including:

- Desertion (leaving duty with the intent to stay away permanently)
- Cowardice Before the Enemy (being afraid and running away)
- Sleeping on Duty!!!
- Forcing a Safeguard (I don�t even want to try to explain that)

These laws and punishments are established by the Congress and the President, but of course, they don�t have to follow them. 

It�s interesting that you brought up the incident with the general, because in my estimation, officers can also get away with all kinds of crap.  Ohhh� you really had to bring that up didn�t ya!!!

Complaints were filed against the general by one or more of his victims, but he was allowed to retire honorably with full pension!  That caused an uproar and the Secretary of Defense pulled his ass back on to active duty and they court-martialed him.  He didn�t get any jail time from what I remember.  His punishment was to receive reduced retirement pay, some paltry amount equal to what a colonel would be paid ($60,000 + a year).

In 1994, I was stationed in Germany.  I recently transferred from one squadron to another on the same base.  Three months after I left my old squadron, they managed to shoot down 2 US helicopters over Iraq and kill 26 Americans and allies.  The pilots were not charged with negligence, but received �career-killing fitness evaluations�.  One was the commander of the squadron, the other an experienced captain.

A year later, at the same base, an F-15 aircraft crashed at the end of the runway and the pilot was killed.  The crash was blamed on faulty connection of some rods on a flight control assembly; the rods were criss-crossed.  When the pilot pulled back on the stick the aircraft would not ascend, but roll.  Any way the pilot tried to correct it would have been futile during the brief transition to flight.

That assembly was worked on by two enlisted guys, one of which I knew.  The way this component is installed in the aircraft makes it extremely difficult to visually inspect proper connection.  Numerous suggestions had been submitted by maintenance troops to color code the rods or somehow clearly identify them; they went unheeded.

These two enlisted gentlemen were charged with negligent homicide!  The prosecutor used several unscrupulous methods to persecute these guys; laying autopsy photos of the dead pilot around when she interviewed them.  She was also accused of intercepting their mail, a federal crime!  I don�t know if charges were ever brought against her.  On the first day of their trial, one of the accused did not show up.  He was later found shot to death by his own hand.  He had a wife and a couple of kids.  His note said he couldn�t take the pressure and the humiliation anymore.  This incident caused an incredible stink throughout the entire Air Force.  The charges were dropped against the remaining defendant and he left the service, with 19 years in, one year away from retirement, with no pension.

The exact same commanders that decided not to charge the officers in killing 26 people, decided to charge the enlisted guys in killing one person.  In the F-15 crash, the pilot and the ground crew should have realized the problem during a ground check.  The pilot moves his stick in certain directions and the crew chief on the ground tells him the flight control positions.  So is there a double standard�I�ll let you decide.

I forgot to tell you something about the helicopter shoot down�the pilots claimed they thought the helicopters were making �offenses gestures� towards them.  In aerial combat, the F-15 is the baddest thing in the sky.  In service with us, the Israelis, the Japanese, and the Saudis, it has achieved over 90 aerial victories in combat with 0 losses!  There isn�t a helicopter made, and arguably few fighters planes, that could touch the thing. 

I believe if you are given a great deal of responsibility and trust, you should receive greater sanctions and punishment for betraying that trust.  I was a senior enlisted guy with a few dozen troops under me.  I was expected to maintain integrity, and yes, that crazy thing called honor, both on duty and off duty.  The fact that the Republicans were �gunning for� Clinton should have been well known to him and does not in the slightest mitigate his responsibilities.  He did the deed!  Clinton decided to place his own gratification before the position of his office.  If I did that, I�d be spending time in the �crowbar motel� (Ft Leavenworth, Kansas). 

PS
Don�t insult my girl Monica� a �dumb whore� indeed!  You need girls like that for troop morale in the barracks

Some good points made, but they all (with the exception of the general discussed previously) involve people dying.  As far as I know, Clinton’s dalliance with Monica and his subsequent lying under oath have not resulted in anyone’s death - certainly not an ongoing quagmire in which we lose ca. 10 servicepeople a week.

Its true that the courtroom oath is an important linchpin in our legal system - its also true that the prosecution of perjury is pursued very selectively.  Only those lies that truly effect important cases are even considered for additional prosecution - otherwise our court system would be ridiculously swamped.  The only exception to this is represented by cases in which the prosecution really has a hard-on for the perjurer, which is what we had in the Clinton impeachment. 

I initially entered this discussion to point out the discrepancy between the hounding of Clinton and the seemingly free ride the neocons are getting in their murderous exercise of multiple conflicts of interest.  The family and business connections of people in our administration to corporations and mercenary outfits (AKA “military consultants”)that are raking in fortunes on our foreign policy are clear and undeniable, yet its a topic our “liberal” mainstream media shies away from every time it comes up.

We are, however, about to get an earful as to the Saudi connections to 9/11, and a raft of bullshit from our administration excusing the deletion of relevant elements from the recent senate report. I don’t think that the Saudi connections will be revealed as having been strong or direct, but members of the senate committee have alluded to the previously surmised fact that they vastly outweigh the non-existent Iraqi connection which was used as a major rationale for this war. 

Remember:

Saudi Military = Northrup Grummond/Vinnell

Iraq (prior to March 2003)= weakened pain in the ass that hasn’t made wealthy Americans any richer for a long time.

Clinton was and is a sleazy politico, but at least he didn’t fabricate a war to enrich himself and his friends.

Ken

Since you are so good with the math…check this out:

51 dead GIs since May 1=

51 dead/13 weeks=4 per week not 10.

Your math abilities would make you a natural to run Bush�s Department of Statistics (that�s a joke dammit).  He wouldn�t want you because you estimate too high!  Maybe he could have you do the economic data, (GDP, etc.), but definitely not unemployment statistics

Clearly ONE is too many, so there is no reason to exaggerate the number.

I don�t understand the Northrup thing, so you�ll have to elaborate.  From what I know, Lockheed and Boeing make most of the major equipment used by the Saudis.

I really don�t need to see the report about the Saudis; I�m pretty sure they aren�t our buddies.  All the guys I know who have deployed there say the Saudis are arrogant and hate our guts.  I so much want us to get off the damn Middle East oil�how much does a barrel of oil cost?  I think it�s currently around $30 a barrel.  Well when you add 4 aircraft carrier battle groups, three Army divisions, 12 fighter squadrons, and 6 bomber squadrons, it�s probably closer to $1,000 a barrel.  It is despicable!

I guess it�s OK for a President to launch attacks to divert attention from his personal problems (Bill C), but not OK to do it to �enrich himself and his friends� (George W).  I also guess that pardoning a big time drug dealer and a fugitive financier (Mark Rich) because their relatives are major campaign contributors, does not count as personal enrichment.

And clearly the people who died in Kosovo, Sudan, and the 1998 Iraq attacks are still dead.

It was ten dead a week for a couple of weeks there, and we’re working on it this week.  But maybe if you stretched out the accounting for six months it would look even better!

Northrup Grummond and Vinnell corp. have trained segments of the Saudi military for years, and have supplied intelligence, tactical and logistical consulting for them as well. This is the same kind of stuff that these and other mercenary companies are now doing for our military - since privatization is the newly revealed word of Jesus and all.  Paul Bremmer - current U.S. viceroy of Iraq - is called “ex-embassador”, but he is also “ex-Vinnell executive”.

I’ve said all this before on this site, but I don’t remember where:

The neoconservatives in this administration have been pushing a set-up that links privatized consultants and services providers directly to the decision-making offices of this country.  This may sound like old hat, but the level at which this is all going on is unprecedented.

Under Bush Senior, Cheney had Brown and Root do a feasibility study of privatizing ancillary military activities.  Then Bush lost (they couldn’t believe it! they had to wait eight years for the payoff!), and Cheney went to work for Haliburton (who owns Brown and Root). After buying the Bush family lock, stock and barrel, Cheney made it back into the White House (along with his old conspirators Wolfowitz and Pearle), and waited for some excuse to start a war. 

I could go on, but I don’t want to.  Look up some of this stuff yourself.  And for Christ’s sake get over Clinton!  People like you sit around bitching about penny-ante Arkansas graft while we have a fucking capitalist Fourth Reich brewing in Washington.  Mark my words, these guys are dismantling everything good about this country for their own (oh yeah, and for Jesus, if you ask June-bug or Ashcroft).

Oops, I forgot the word “good” at the end of the last sentence.  Maybe I could get a job as one of Bush’s speech-writers?

Ah, the vast right wing conspiracy.  I can�t reasonably say that you�re wrong on any of your points, though it appears you are quite passionate.  As far as �getting over� Clinton, I have no idea where you are coming from.  In my previous posts, I pointed out some of Clinton�s questionable conduct, like launching unwarranted attacks against countries to divert attention from his personal problems.  You never responded to those statements, so I guess it�s OK to blow people away to hide your crimes, but not OK, as you say, to do it to line your pockets.

Neither Clinton nor Bush pays my bills, so I can look at them objectively.  You have absolutely no doubt that Clinton did not take immoral actions to divert attention from his legal problems because no one �caught� him at it.  You are positive that Bush has lined his pockets with the blood of our troops, though he passes the �Clinton Test� that no one has �caught� him at it.

My first involvement in this conversation was after I read about how �Clinton�s little slip-ups do not compare to Bush sending American service people to their deaths for profit�.  Had I not read that statement, I probably would not have entered into this discussion.  So tell me, is �Wag the Dog� a justifiable and moral strategy to use???  I have not yet heard a response to that question�still waiting�

Once again, I excuse nothing illegal that Clinton did, and - due to his character - give reasonable consideraton to any unproven allegations.  However, Clinton is not in office.  He used our military in questionable ways on occasion, but he never started a war that - by his own admission - will not end in our lifetime!  The reason I got irrate in my last message was my impression that you have been justifying current misbehavior by Bush et.al. by saying “but look what Clinton did.“  There is no comparison in scale and scope in the malfeasance of these two administrations (the current one being worse, in case you’re wondering).

Mild Bill,

I hope you don’t mind, but I’m double-dipping.  The reason is that I realize that I failed to directly respond to your question regarding “wagging the dog”. 

No, wagging the dog is not a moral or acceptiable activity - my dog Carl fucking HATES it!  However, it is an extremely difficult charge to prove.  A president has multiple problems facing him at any time, and must develop appropriate responses that sometimes appear to be in conflict.  But where, in any scenario, is the paper trail linking any president’s particular action to a particular desire to get the press off his back?  If you find a memo, or even a credible witness who can lay out these conections, then sure.  Otherwise, its an easy charge to make, but a bitch to support.  Its an opinion - possibly right on the mark in Clinton’s and others’ cases, but there are just far too many extenuating circumstances and “plausible deniabilities” for this to become a serious issue without more data.

Now when you have a dad, an VP, and key members of your cabinet financially linked to private contractors who are given sweetheart deals on the war that will never end - and strong evidence that outright lies were extended by these people to justify that war - well then you have a case.

I think anything Bush or Clinton did pales to the offense you made�that of double dipping!  It is an abomination in the eyes stupidevilbastard.com to double dip!  Though stupidevilbastard.com has never told me directly, I received �spiritual discernment� on this issue, so I know it�s true.  Even if Les himself denies the fact that double dipping is a SEB sin, I will not believe him and assume he has been taken over by dark forces.

I do not believe Clinton did a �Wag the Dog� in Iraq and Yugoslavia, I merely stated that IF he did, it would have been a pretty immoral thing to do.  I�ll also give him the benefit of the doubt on the attack against the aspirin factory in Sudan.

You obviously do not like Bush and that is understandable; I also don�t care for many of the things he and his administration do.  I will, however, give him the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Clinton.  It is entirely possible that he made those �Chicken Hawk� statements as part of a psychological warfare strategy, sanctioned by the military.  If he did not, then he is quite worthy of criticism.  The military used psywar tactics during the combat phase of the Iraq operation.  Our guys went around with loud speakers shaming the Iraqi fighters by calling them women!  I guess it got them so pissed off that they tried all those mindless suicide attacks. 

As to the charges about the �sweetheart deals� with defense contractors and administration officials, you know more than I do.  IF it is so, then yes it is quite immoral.  I don�t know where you get your information, so I wouldn�t know where to begin trying to explain it.  I�ll tell you honestly that you may be allowing your dislike for Bush to skew your thinking about his motives for action.

Is there no �plausible deniability� for Bush or is that only for Clinton?  Are there memos and witnesses that could display Bush�s �nefarious� links to defense contractors?  I have mutual funds that I�m sure have defense contractors� stocks in their portfolios, so perhaps I am part of the conspiracy?  I use to work with people from the �Big Two� Lockheed and Boeing, so perhaps I am the criminal mastermind behind this war�I�m trying to get my mutual funds to appreciate so I can get a �vette, a wad of dollar bills for the girls at Cheetahs, and a stay at Caesars Palace for a week.  Muhahahahaha!

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445“>

Mild Bill,

Are you guilty? I don’t know, Bill: In pursuit of the luxuries and riches you describe did you tweek crucial security information, enabling you to send somebody’s kid off to die on false pretenses?  If so, then YES! Please report to the Hague immediately!

But from what you have mentioned regarding a major portion of your adult history (i.e. military service) it is clear that you are in no way connected to this administration.  Therefore, any professional affiliations you might have had are unlikely to directly influence the ongoing formation of our national policy.

As for this administration - they have recieved the benefit of the doubt and they have failed!  People in America just have to start giving a shit.

If you a truly interested, check these stories out: 

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445
http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20020730085550-68379.asphttp://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14221

Ken

My goodness, those evil neoconservative globalizers are at it again huh?

In the 1970s, Hillary made a $1,000 investment that turned into nearly $100,000, a one hundred-fold increase!  I believe she did this in a one month period, so multiply that by 12 to get the annualized rate.  I only have a 32 bit computer, so it can�t represent numbers that high   Now if she did that because she is a shrewd investor, I�m voting for her!  She could easily turn our $10 trillion economy into a $732 begazillion economy, which would make up for Congress� pork barrel expenditures   I�ve been investing for over 20 years; the largest return I ever made was 40%, and I was exceptionally astounded and pleased by that!

The most incredible example of investor savvy I ever heard of was with DNC Chairman Terry McCauliffe.  He turned $100,000 into $18 million!!!  Now that�s a knowledgeable investor!  Oh yeah, that profit was made with a now bankrupt company called Global Crossing.  My old boss, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, was on the board of directors.  Wow, just another coincidence.  Where do you think McAuliffe�s profits came from?  Could it be�let me see�from the little guy??  Now that is a prime example of something that should have been investigated, but was it investigated?  Should it be investigated?  Hell yes!

In contrast, Cheney might have done something wrong�well under the law�might have done something is not a reason to investigate someone (that�s not an opinion�it�s fact).  If someone came up with evidence that Cheney probably committed a specific crime, Hell yeah�roast his ass.  My understanding of the law is you have to have probable cause, not just strong dislike, to investigate someone.  I think that method went out with J Edgar Hoover.

Being a political �Independent� is quite liberating.  I don�t have to choose sides and offer slanted opinions to make my side look superior. I don�t engage in apologetics for conservatives or liberals.  I can just look at �what is� and make rational judgments based on that.  When you become an ideologue, the ideology takes over and your primary purpose becomes proving the ideology right, not proving what is right.  If you honestly believe that �Hills� and McCauliffe are just savvy investors, please sell me some of the stuff you are smoking.  Their investment successes would make even Warren Buffet look like a small time player.

Bill,

Believe it or not, we are on the same page!  I am unaware of the specific deals you mention, but I accept that their dexistence is certainly feasible. This kind of profiteering is not to be countenanced in our government!  Believe me, I write the same letters to Lieberman and McAuliffe that I do to Republican malefactors.

You have to admit, however, that it makes more sense to start fixing things with those in the seat of power.

Finally we�re on the same page!  It�s not a conservative problem or a liberal problem, it�s an �everybody� problem.  You have to concede that your rhetoric is significantly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.  I can�t believe you never heard of the deals I described in my last post! I can not for the life of me understand how they weren�t investigated.  I think Bush and the DOJ are doing well, from a historical perspective, by cracking down on these business scumbags.  It makes me ill to think of their many abuses of trust.

That Tyco CEO, Dennis Kozlowski, was a particularly sleazy bastard; one of his homes had a $6,000 shower curtain and he threw a $1 million birthday party for his wife!  Hey if he earned it outright, more power to him.  I think it�s immoral to piss away more money than most people will earn in a lifetime, but that�s his money.  That the greedy bastard defrauded people to earn that money is what I take exception with.

The Enron/Ken Lay thing is interesting.  I get the feeling that he may never be indicted, not because he bought anyone off, but because he actually didn�t know what was going on!  I don�t know what�s scarier, a crooked CEO in charge of a multi-billion dollar company or an incompetent CEO in charge of a multi-billion dollar company.  I think that if that bastard was telling employees to buy Enron, while he and his buddies were selling, he should be roasted!  What a system; some idiot kid robs a 7-11 with a pistol and gets 20 years.  The Boeskys, Milkens, Lays, and Kozlowskis of the world can rob thousands of people and essentially get away with a slap on the wrist.

I don�t have any problem with rich dudes; I wish I was one of them.  I do have a problem with greedy bastards, who aren�t satisfied with their billions, screwing me and all the other little guys.

I thought you would take exception with my Dick Cheney rant!  I was all prepared to fire back and�nothing

Belated response to Cheney rant:  repeat same rant, but insert name “McAuliffe” and you have a “balanced” argument that could continue forever.  We are on the same page, just reading from different angles.  Mine, I think, is the more carefully considered - I’m sure your feel the same of yours.

You say you despise crooked fat-cats, and yet you are willing to let the current fiasco slide because you feel that Democrats in the past got a free ride.  I say - start demanding accountability of all of our representatives!  No one will investigate and punish Terry McAuliffe unless partisanship is thrown out the window and George Herbert Walker Bush (among others) is investigated for his part (ca. $800,000) in the same Global Crossing scam.  I call that fairness - lock them both up.

I may seem partisan, but that is because Democrats statistically adhere to populist principals to a greater gegree than do Republicans.  However, if you can show that one is defrauding or exploiting the American people to a greater degree than any available alternative, I will turn on him like a starving dog.

A starving dog with angry weasles up his butt, or just a starving dog? :?