posted 06-16-2003 02:00 PM            

I sincerely believe he will.

And, YES he WILL go down as the worst President in history, once the world learns of his role in the sept. 11th attacks and the TRUE intentions of invading Iraq...plus the UN-constitutional legislation that he passed.

How to Impeach Bush

June 15, 2003

Leave it to the constitution to screw up a perfectly good conspiracy.

When the US Congress abdicated its warmaking powers to the White House (the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002), it retained as a meagre figleaf for its institutional nakedness the requirement that the President issue a Determination stating why we were going to war.

That determination was duly issued on March 19, with an attached report.

Think of it as the stained blue dress, impregnated with the unique, unmistakable, and unremovable DNA of the Bush campaign of deception.

Think of it also as a how-to manual for impeaching George Bush.

The determination had to state that force was against Iraq justified by 1) the national security of the United States and other countries against Iraq’s development and use of WMDs 2) and in order to compel Iraq’s compliance with UN resolutions. In addition, the president was supposed to satisfy Congress that Iraq adventure was consistent with the international “War on Terror”, and not a distraction.

The report stated grandiosely that the US had not only the authority but “indeed… the duty” to invade Iraq, adding as a lagniappe that the “use of military force to remove the Iraqi regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of, the international war on terrorism”. (Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law 107-243, 19 March 2003).

The weakness of Bush’s writers for the seductive, intensifying clause may come back to haunt them.

The argument for all three has collapsed.

Key factor is the inability to find WMDs (not WMD programs, Mr. Bush; that argument is irrelevant). No clear and present danger to the US from big, bad Iraq.

And none of the WMDs claims in the Powell report to the UN have proven out.

It looks like Iraq was complying with the UN, but the Bush administration simply refused to acknowledge it.

With the absence of WMDs, Bush can’t claim he was just carrying the UN load in enforcing its resolutions against Iraq in breach. Now the burden of proof is on him to justify his usurpation of the UN mandate.

As for consistent focus on the war on terror, the Bush administration’s citation of the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed inadvertently reveals the weakness of the terror connection in the case of Iraq.

Leaving aside the fact that his capture quite possibly occurred in 2002 but was only announced in 2003 to serve up a much-needed success in Bush’s campaign against the al Qaeda boogyman (a suitable topic for investigation in itself, see www.complete911timeline.org/main/essayksmcapture.html), “KS” reputedly stated in his interrogation that al Qaeda had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Another al Qaeda top honcho in custody, Abu Zubaydah, made the same assertion last year, certainly before the determination report was written. (No links to Saddam, al-Qaeda pair claim, Sidney Morning Herald, June 10, 2003)

No, Bush did not drop the ball on the war on terror. He dropped it and then kicked it aside in his eager pursuit of Saddam Hussein and whatever else we were looking for in oily, dusty Iraq. The result was bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and, the Egyptians tell us, the creation of “thousands of bin-Ladens” out of the rubble of Iraq that previously harbored not terrorists, but the vicious but locally-minded thugs of a police state.

Bush is feeling the heat.

He’s on the hook for an illegal war of choice.

One way out is to claim he was misled by faulty intelligence. In other words, let the CIA take the fall. That’s why George Tenet is now shopping for the most appropriate instrument of self-immolation at Swords ‘R’ Us.

Investigate away and try to pin this one on the CIA. White House and Cheney/Wolfowitz fingerprints are probably all over the intel, and disgruntled spooks are already leaking the news.

The second is to claim that even if the WMD pretext was spurious, the Bush administration was on safe ground by claiming it was enforcing UN resolutions, and 1440 had declared Iraq was in breach. In other words, treat the Determination like a Chinese menu. If a justification from Column A, WMD, doesn’t work, try one from Column B, UN resolutions.

However, the case for UN resolutions is inextricably linked to the WMD assertion. The supposed breach we were responding to defined by Powell in his Feb. 5 presentation—rejected by Iraq—that it had not satisfactorily accounted for its WMDs and was not only misleading the inspectors but engaged in an active WMD program.

If the UN was misled in its deliberations by false US evidence, not only to the Security Council but to UNMOVIC, the issue of whether or not the deception was deliberate may not be relevant—the UN justification is irrevocably tainted in either case.

America’s failure to seek a second UN vote in favor of invasion now becomes a suitable topic not only of speculation but also investigation. Did we avoid a vote because we “wanted to avoid the embarrassment”? Or did we already know that the WMD case was so shaky that a UN vote against force would leave the US without a single viable legal pretext for the war under the Congressional authorization?

That’s the nub, since Bush’s final line of defense will be that it was an honest mistake—that in good faith the Administration took the safest, most conservative take on the mare’s nest of intel it was handed.

And that brings us to the wonderful issue of intent. Did Bush’s desire to remove Saddam predate the intelligence?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one. But proving it takes us down a long and interesting path, by demonstrating the Bush administration was committed to regime change in Iraq before the UN process began.

Delving into George Bush’s statesmanlike utterances on Iraq, we can investigate the provenance and accuracy of statements attributed to him such is March 2002’s “Fuck Saddam—we’re going to take him out”.

And the closest thing to a smoking gun boring old Hans Blix might reveal in the whole Iraq mess might be Congressional testimony along the lines of his interview with El Pais in April 2003:

"There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the (weapons) inspections. I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place, which is why the United States and Britain are now waging war on Iraq. Today the main aim is to change the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein." (Quoted in the Balochistan Post Iraq War Planned Long in Advance, Says Blix, April 11, 2003)

In a nutshell, a bad-faith effort in order to mislead the world, the UN, Congress, and the American people by selective and deceptive presentation of intelligence data in the service of a pre-existing policy of regime change in Iraq.

Imagine what a partisan, Ken Starr type prosecutor would make of this, with a brief to make the case as damning as possible.

Imagine what a bipartisan investigation would do.

Now consider what the Republican-controlled Congress is planning to do—zip.

The Bush administration wants to repackage the Iraq war as a noble war of choice. But that’s not how they sold it. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives were consumed based upon the determination stating that this was a war of necessity, to protect America and the world from a regime armed with WMDs.

The road to Bush’s impeachment is open. All we need to do is follow it.

Copyright 2003 Peter Lee

posted 06-16-2003 02:28 PM            

There is no impeachment movement afoot. There is no grounds for impeachment. The latest CBS poll shows Bush at 66 percent job approval rating. This is extremely high considering the attacks he is undergoing…

In fact, the people screaming loudest for Bush impeachment (radical leftists all) are some of the most unpopular people out there...

posted 06-16-2003 02:42 PM            

Then like FLKOOK mentioned, we have to make damned sure no more globalist satanic ZIONIST SCUM get back in the top DOG position. Lieberman ESPECIALLY!

This has been a good thread 'Mech.' Idiots like Fast talker / REALLY slow thinker showing their mental midgetness yet again.

And sorry Proud Veteran, but the only reason you aren't seeing Bush's COMPLICITY AND INVOLVEMENT in 9-11 is because you've got your eyes closed! He like Roosevelt IS A TRAITOR!!!

posted 06-16-2003 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

Bush Jr. Sr. and Klinton should ALL BE TRIED AND EXECUTED FOR HIGH TREASON!! PERIOD!!

---

Exactly why we don't like to put crazy people like yourself in positions of power.

quote:

---

Then like FLKOOK mentioned, we have to make damned sure no more globalist satanic ZIONIST SCUM get back in the top DOG position. Lieberman ESPECIALLY!

---

Anti-Jewish. We can see the resemblance to actual Nazi or the fundamentalist Islamic mentality here. Exactly why Crazy Larry should be institutionalized and kept away from sharp object for his own safety and the benefit of society.

quote:

---

This has been a good thread 'Mech.' Idiots like Fast talker / REALLY slow thinker showing their mental midgetness yet again.

---

Uh...yeah...I'm an idiot because I stay within the realm of reality. Crazy Larry is actually the intelligent one here...yeah that's the ticket. I'll let others be the judge of this though...

quote:

---

And sorry Proud Veteran, but the only reason you aren't seeing Bush's COMPLICITY AND INVOLVEMENT in 9-11 is because you've got your eyes closed! He like Roosevelt IS A TRAITOR!!

---

Rational people realize that Bush was not complicit in 9/11. A president is blamed for the economy. What incentive would Bush have for destroying the economy? If Larry wasn't insane....he'd be asking these questions. Odds are he will ignore them as he ignores the rest of reality.

quote:

---

The FACTS are there and I wouldn't believe a poll these days from anybody.

---

What facts? The ones you make up? Of course you won't believe polls. If the reality doesn't fit your fantasy world, you just ignore it. This is what I've been saying....Thanks for helping me illustrate my point Crazy Larry!

posted 06-17-2003 08:13 AM            

Again for the slow of thinking.... there is a BIG difference between REAL JEWS and ZIONISTS!! This post is probably one of the best I've seen yet. And again SLOW thinker, it's about REAL jews BY REAL JEWS whom I AGREE with. Not the phony bloodthirsty ZIONISTS like the ones that INFEST the Bush admin. banks, media etc.

But then you show such a limited understanding or PROPAGANDA on this issue as you do on most issues.

Heh, heh... he said 'bush' he heh he....

Click the URL for more info and photos. VERY GOOD POST here!

Jews Against Zionism - The Hidden Protest http://www.realnews247.com/spec_rpt_jew_against_zionism.htm

03 SPECIAL REPORT Massive Media Cover-up! Jews against Zionism: The Hidden Protest Anti-Zionist orthodox Jews protest against Israel "On Sunday, June 1, 2003 at 5th Ave. and 59th St. in Manhattan, NYC a group of anti-Zionist Jews demonstrated against Zionism and the Zionist State celebrated by marchers in the so-called Israel Day Parade." As improbable as it may seem to the uninformed, there are a significant number of Jews in the United States, Great Britain, Israel and elsewhere who oppose Zionism, Zionist oppression of the Palestinians and even the very existence of the State of Israel itself! We say hidden protest because this tangible opposition has been totally ignored by the news departments of the major television and radio networks, magazines and newspapers (in the last source, some papers, such as The New York Times, may make very brief mention of the protests, but even then they bury articles so far enough away from the front page that they are less likely to be seen). Jews: Zionism is cause of instability in the world "The Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews will proclaim their loyalty to pure Judaism and their opposition to Zionist heresy, which violates every principle of the Jewish religion. These people believe that the idolatrous Zionist ideology has nothing to do with Orthodox Jews, and that Jews are obligated by Judaism to live in peace and harmony with all other nations throughout the world, including Palestinian natives of course." According to one website, the reasoning behind the opposition is Zionism's disobedience to God's plan: "The Creator gave us the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Yet, when we sinned, He took it away and sent us into exile. Since that time our task is to wait for Him to send the Messiah." In the minds of these Orthodox Jews, the Zionists sin by attempting a return to the Hold Land before the Messiah comes, instead of waiting patiently in exile.

Jewish anti-Israel/anti-Zionist demonstrations have taken place from New York to Jerusalem (photos right and bottom, respectively), but this opposition has been effectively covered up by the controlled news media. Why is this? The very premise of an anti-Israel/anti-Zionist Jew is highly newsworthy by virtue of its uniqueness. The answer is twofold. First, by ignoring this phenomenon, they are better able to perpetuate the myth that all Jews support Israel, so that Americans are conditioned to subconsciously respond: Jew=pro-Israel, without considering the possibility of exceptions to this synthetic universal). Secondly, by establishing this false premise, the Israel Firsters within the journalistic community are able to stifle any and all criticism of the Israeli government. They are able to do this by cultivating in the public mind the falsehood that to oppose Israel is tantamount to opposing all Jews, which, by extension, makes one an anti-Semitic, "Holocaust"-denying bigot. The Zionists fear that if the general public were to become aware of Jewish opposition to Israel, many people would see through the myth and cease giving that nation the unconditional knee-jerk support (and huge annual foreign aid package) it currently enjoys.

And the pro-Zionist media and their handlers have also manipulated Jewish opinion. In an article, "Judaism is not Zionism," the Jews United against Zionism website states:

The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda. They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media. Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger. (Emphasis added)

Zionist oppression of Jews in Iraq Naeim Giladi, an Iraqi Jew, on the Zionist influence in that country: "I am writing this article for the same reason I wrote the book: to tell the American people, especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate even more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.…I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called 'cruel Zionism.'…I write about it because I was part of it." Some Orthodox Jews also have conclusively shown that before and during World War II the Zionists cut deals with Nazis and even left some of their coreligionists to perish in the camps, when they could have aided in their rescue.

It should be noted, should the Zionists attempt to pigeonhole such sentiments to an ultra-Orthodox fringe, that a number of liberal Jews have also sounded their disapproval. Just to mention a couple, the late Jerusalem University professor Israel Shahak wrote scathingly about the religious and cultural underpinnings of Zionism in Jewish History, Jewish Religion and Norman Finkelstein (left), author of The Holocaust Industry (a look at the cynical financial exploitation of the "Holocaust" by certain Jews), has written a book, Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, and articles critical of the way the Palestinians are mistreated by the Zionist government of Israel. A special term of reproach has been created by Jewish power brokers for Shahak, Finkelstein, the Orthodox mentioned above and other critics of Israel/Zionism—self-hating Jews. But such scorn only demonstrates how effective is their criticism. However small in size, the importance of this Jewish resistance to the aims of the Zionists should not be underestimated. The news blackout of their activities is continuing proof of this.

See also the Special Report: Hitler, Nazism & Zionism

posted 06-17-2003 08:56 AM            

Bush A Revisionist Aggressor?
By Bob Barnes
voguy@kconline.com
6-17-3

The following is from a Reuters story currently topping the headlines on the Yahoo homepage...

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein... was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

The president did not mention Iraqi unconventional weapons in his remarks, although accusations Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were central to his prewar campaign to build support for an attack. No such weapons have yet been found.

I happen to be of the ilk who believes we were right to take powerful action against the Hussein regime. But from the start, I said President Bush was giving the wrong reason to the American public and the world. Saddam simply wasn't doing what he agreed to do at the end of the '91 war and that was MORE than enough reason to take him down. I couldn't believe that GWB could hang a war WE started on a reason that didn't exist. But what he said today makes it look very much like he did just that.

Now, our president publicly chides his critics for "rewriting history" while in the same breath he rewrites his reason for going to war in the first place--a reason to which he has steadfastly stuck until today. Bad move! He is now--by his own definition--a "revisionist aggressor."

One of three conditions exist. Either: 1) the intelligence was right and there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in which case he should stick to his guns until they are found... 2) The weapons are NOT in Iraq and he knew it, in which case he should admit he lied to America and the world and take the beating he deserves... or 3) He really was proceeding under false intelligence, in which case Bush could simply not announce it--we the American people would be left with an insecurity this nation has never felt before. All faith in our government's ability to protect us--especially in matters of foriegn relations--would surely be lost beyond hope. If we can't trust our own messengers, how can we possibly stand behind any strategie drawn as a result of the messages?

I have exercised what is (for me) an extraordinary patience in this matter. So much hinged on either Saddam using or the US finding those weapons that I believed, if there really weren't WMDs in Iraq, by now (dispicable as it seems) we would have simply planted some and then "found" them to save face in the eyes of the free world. The fact that we've gone this long WITHOUT finding them made me believe all the more that Bush was right--the weapons were there. Until today. Now my faith in an American I respected and trusted is seriously shaken.

I believe that George W. Bush sealed his politcal fate today. If the story isn't capped off by tomorrow morning's newscasts (and that will be difficult due to the fact that such a sensational statement was made in a public speech,) many of the Bush faithful will be taking a much closer look at ALL of the politcal hats now coming into the ring.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

~~Bob Barnes

posted 06-17-2003 09:42 AM            

Boy, I got this in the morning NYTimes and I couldn't believe it. Check out what happened in Congress when Congresscritter tried to get money appropriated for border protection against terrrorist incursions into the US across our borders and it was
shut down by the Committee Chair.

Whats more amazing is that the Press actually covered it. Wow, wonder why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/o.../17KRUG.html?th

Text
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

June 17, 2003
Dereliction of Duty
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.

Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.

Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security — though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed.

But it's not just a matter of money. For one thing, it's hard to claim now that the Bush administration is trying to hold down domestic spending to make room for tax cuts. With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security wouldn't make much difference to the tax-cutting agenda. Moreover, Congress isn't pinching pennies across the board: last week the Senate voted to provide $15 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, even on the military front the administration has been weirdly reluctant to come to grips with terrorism. It refused to provide Afghanistan's new government with an adequate security umbrella, with the predictable result that warlords are running rampant and the Taliban are making a comeback. The squandered victory in Afghanistan was one reason people like myself had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq — and sure enough, the administration was bizarrely lackadaisical about providing postwar security. Even nuclear waste dumps were left unguarded for weeks.

So what's the explanation? The answer, one suspects, is that key figures — above all, Donald Rumsfeld — just didn't feel like dealing with the real problem. Real counterterrorism mainly involves police work and precautionary measures; it doesn't look impressive on TV, and it doesn't provide many occasions for victory celebrations.

A conventional war, on the other hand, is a lot more fun: you get stirring pictures of tanks rolling across the desert, and you get to do a victory landing on an aircraft carrier. And more and more it seems that that was what the war was all about. After all, the supposed reasons for fighting that war have turned out to be false — there were no links to Al Qaeda, there wasn't a big arsenal of W.M.D.'s.

posted 06-17-2003 11:55 AM            

Good thing Israel has been given the official nod and green light to destroy Hamas and all terrorists, by an ingenious plan by President Bush to let Hamas hang itself (cloaked as the “roadmap to peace”) If nutcases like Crazy Larry, who side with terrorist homicide bombers and Hitler had their way, well let's just say, so would the Palestinian terrorists. Israel would be destroyed...Ain't gonna happen.

posted 06-17-2003 12:16 PM            

The TARES shall be BURNED and this includes YOU, Bush's, Klintons and ZIONISTS!!

posted 06-17-2003 01:07 PM            

US SOLDIERS RAPE MOSLEM WOMEN
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rumsfeld_9-11_involvement/message/6
(THE VEIL IS OFF NOW, AMERICA. ARE YOU HAPPY?)
Zionists (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger etc.) in a frameup, murdered over 2000 New Yorkers and Pentagon military personell on September 11 -- so they could do this.

Iraq Chaos, Anarchy Part Of Bush/NWO Global Scheme http://www.rense.com/general38/why.htm

Globo-cop to the rescue…President Bush sends U.S. Marines to Liberia http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054966110968&p=1012571727102
A US marine expeditionary force was heading for the strife-torn west African state of Liberia on Friday night after Washington came under increased pressure to deploy troops in what would be its biggest military engagement in Africa since the early 1990s.

This TRAITOR keeps making U.S. weaker while bringing in FOREIGN troops. Can you feel them knocking at your BACK DOOR 'Fartknocker'??

Oh, you WILL! Your GAY lovin pres. has a special FEMA camp just waiting for ya!

Same with your TALMUDic SATANIC ZIONIST buddies like the gay loving ADL!

Yep! You'll FEEL the love allright!

ROTFLMAO!!! Enjoy MORON!

posted 06-17-2003 01:15 PM            

Here's a link that just popped up at the bottom exposing the TRUTH about daddy 'POPPY' Bush and Skull and Bones.

Here's another bit in the MOUNTAIN of EVIDENCE that morons like Fartknocker ignore:

BBCNews UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm



Poll suggests world hostile to US


People around the world take a dim view of the US, poll suggests
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an international poll for the BBC say they have an unfavourable opinion of George W Bush.

The survey of 11 countries - for the television programme What The World Thinks of America, to be aired this week in the UK - revealed that 57% of the sample had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President.

The figure rose to 60% when discounting the views of the American respondents.

The survey - conducted for the BBC by ICM and other international pollsters - gauged opinion towards US military, economic, cultural and political influence.

COUNTRIES POLLED
Australia
Canada
Brazil
France
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Russia
South Korea
United Kingdom
United States
Over half the sample felt that the US was wrong to invade Iraq - this included 81% of Russian respondents, and 63% of the French response.
Thirty-seven per cent thought it right to invade - including 54% of the UK response, 74% of the US response and 79% of the Israeli sample.

Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%).

America was also rated more dangerous than two countries considered as "rogue states" by Washington.

It was rated more dangerous than Iran, by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria by respondents all the countries, except for Australia, Israel and the United States.

Unloved?

The survey groups were also asked whether they felt that the American military did enough to avoid civilian casualties during conflicts.

Bush cannot expect much comfort from the French
Seventy per cent of the group as a whole thought the US could do more - with the majority in each country bar the United States saying that more could be done, including 73% of respondents in the UK, 74% in France and 57% in Israel.

However 70% of the American respondents said other countries did not appreciate how much America does to avoid civilian casualties.

The sample of over 11,000 respondents also showed negative attitudes about American initiatives, such as the war on terrorism and US efforts in the Middle-East.

Attitudes towards America as a whole, however, were a lot more favourable, with 50% expressing fairly or very favourable views, as opposed to 40% of unfavourable views.

That figure excludes Americans polled.

All interviews were carried out during May and June 2003.

What The World Thinks of America will be shown on Tuesday 17 June, BBC TWO, 2100 BST (2000 GMT).

_____________________________________________________________________
"At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell
_____________________________________________________________________
"I am only one, but I am one.
I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do."
---Edward Everett Hale

MOLON LABE!

God Bless the Republic Death to the new world order. Long live the Fighters!
******************************************************************************************
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the
drums of war reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has 'closed', the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the
citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. AND I AM CAESAR."

--Julius Caesar

posted 06-17-2003 02:41 PM            

Laugh it up fuzzball!

You won't laugh in HELL with your Bush SATANIC PAEDOPHILLIC buddies!

IT WAS ALL LIES.... http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/14/1055220803630.html

posted 06-17-2003 04:50 PM            

Democrats may be worried that George Bush is unbeatable in 2004, but President Bush’s strength is good news for progressives. No president since LBJ has been as successful in expanding government and increasing the size and scope of social programs as this president.
Presidents Carter and Clinton didn’t even come close to matching President Bush’s accomplishments in expanding government social programs. George Bush increased government size and spending more in his first two years than Bill Clinton did in his first six years. By the end of this year, he will have expanded government more than Bill Clinton did in his entire eight-year administration.

To be fair, Bill Clinton had to fight the conservatives in Congress who threw up every roadblock they could muster to thwart his progressive agenda. George Bush has not only silenced the conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has ground them into pulp and made them toothless tigers.

There is no longer any serious talk about making government smaller or eliminating government departments or programs. Smaller government used to be the bedrock principal of the Republican Party. President Bush changed that and is pushing Republicans in Congress not just to accept bigger government, but to embrace it.

Instead of eliminating the Education Department, George Bush almost doubled its size and pushed through the largest increase in funding the department ever enjoyed. He and Ted Kennedy worked closely together to make sure that the federal government also has more power over local schools than ever before.

The testing mandated by the education bill, and the mandate that schools meet minimum standards is a brilliant maneuver that will demand the standards and the tests be controlled centrally from Washington. No one will be able to oppose national standards and a national testing system. Without national standards, testing is subjective and worthless. National standards and a standardized national test will require local schools teach to the test. That means Washington will be dictating the curriculum in every school in America. Bill Clinton and Al Gore couldn’t even dream of accomplishing this much progress.

In other areas President Bush also out performed President Clinton. He expanded other programs the Contract With America targeted for elimination. He expanded Americorps, the Peace Corps, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Head Start.

Working closely with progressive Republicans and Democrats, George Bush passed the farm bill that dismantled the Freedom to Farm Act that conservative Republicans pushed through Congress, and President Clinton signed, in 1996. This new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. President Bush’s farm bill not only increased old subsidies, it created new subsidies our farmers never had before. No Democrat president could have pushed this legislation through a Republican controlled Congress. The conservative wing of the party still holds some powerful positions in Congress, especially in the House. They were proud of the Freedom to Farm Act and would have fought tooth and nail with a Democrat president to keep it in place. They caved in to President Bush without even a hint of a fight. President Bush effectively cut the conservatives in Congress off at the knees on this legislation and on most of their domestic agenda. He rules the Republican Party with an iron fist and conservatives are unable to out maneuver him.

President Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law. Conservative Republicans in Congress are still quietly seething about how he steamrollered them on this. President Bush is also leading the fight to expand Medicare, add prescription drug coverage and mandate mental health coverage. Conservatives kept Presidents Carter and Clinton from adding these entitlements to Medicare. With President Bush pushing the agenda, they aren’t even pretending to oppose these additions.

The president is also leading the fight to extend the child tax credit to low income families excluded from the latest tax cut. He figuratively bitch-slapped Tom Delay and his conservative cohorts who threatened to derail the expanded credit, urging the Republicans to pass the bill quickly and send it to him for his signature. While progressive Republicans like to claim President Bush is following President Reagan’s vision for America, he is actually following President Nixon’s agenda to the letter. President Nixon never tried to eliminate any government program or agency. He expanded government as much as he could. Few people remember that it was President Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Endowment for the Arts. Fewer still remember that it was President Nixon who tied Social Security benefits to the cost of living. President Bush is surpassing President Nixon in advancing progressive social policy.

President Bush is also making talk radio safe for progressives. Hosts who would have railed against President Clinton, or any Democrat, for pushing the progressive agenda President Bush is implementing, excuse this president for it. Many of them attack any conservative who calls to point out that President Bush is a progressive. Even Rush Limbaugh is leery of taking on this president. While he occasionally offers some mild criticism of the president, he always follows that criticism by offering excuses for the president’s actions and progressive domestic agenda. This is partially due to the attacks that come from the Bush cultists any time anyone is anything but worshipful of their guy. Like Democrats who refused to believe that President Clinton was capable of doing any wrong, there is a group of Republicans who would support President Bush no matter how far left he governs. They attack anyone and any group who points out that President Bush is not conservative. Many of these people are domestic progressives who like big government and benefit from government programs. They call themselves conservatives; many of them really think they are conservatives. In fact, they support progressive social programs and most benefit from them. They are critical of the poor who receive government help, but enjoy generous government subsidies of their own lifestyles. Many talk show hosts fall into this category themselves.

The other reason even real conservatives are leery of voicing anything except the mildest criticism of President Bush is they fear retaliation from the administration. They fear being cut off from the information loop. They fear being dropped from the administration’s fax and E-mail grapevine. Their professional status is greatly enhanced by access to administration sources and President Bush is not shy about diminishing or eliminating that access for anyone who puts their principals ahead of support for his agenda.

All things considered, progressives are much better off with President Bush in office than they would be with any of his Democrat challengers. No Democrat on the scene today can come close to matching President Bush’s ability to advance the progressive agenda and marginalize the conservatives in the Republican Party. Four more years of a Bush administration will produce progressive gains that are only matched by FDR’s accomplishments. Rather than being disappointed that they don’t have a Democrat in the presidency, progressives should be thankful they have an ideological soul mate in office. For progressives the cry should be “FOUR MORE YEARS!”

posted 06-18-2003 03:03 PM            

Your article there does have a point...however….as whacko as you may be..

Let me summarize what I think Bush's strategy may be with the government expansion;

The purpose of the current strategy is to take Democrat issues off the table, so that a much larger majority of Republicans will be elected in the next elections. I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, because when you expand government like this by giving into what Democrats and liberals want, these things become irreversible, and you run the danger that Republicans become what they are trying to defeat.

But...I think it is a move Bush is making because he realizes we are on the precipice of socialism right now.…(ironic as the prospect of increasing the size of government may seem), and if nothing is done to take the Democrats out of power, well will go past the point of no return down this path. So why increase the size government? Well, it's not Bush's desire to increase government....he's simply giving into some of what the Democrats want (all powerful government) to take their issues from them. In this way, Bush increases the Republican voter base by getting moderate and crossover votes. And the final objective then is to get a Republican super majority elected to Congress to help get Bush's conservative judicial nominees appointed.

This is critical because the Judiciary is the way Democrats have traditionally forced a socialist agenda down the throats of Americans. This is the way Democrats circumnavigate the constitutional process....They legislate from the bench. This is why Democrats are so opposed to each and every one of Bush's judicial nominees....because they KNOW that this is their path to power.

Bush's objective then is to give the liberals some of what they want in order to take their issues from them so that Republicans will be elected to traditionally Democrat held positions, so that they can get Bush's judicial appointments nominated, and the process towards real government reform can begin. In essence then, Bush is taking a few strategic steps backwards to remove the liberal roadblocks (by ironically, having to appear to move left). It's a bit like how a vaccine works...you shock the body’s immune system by introducing it to some of the disease (liberalism), in order to build up immunities (Republicans), who will help the body become resistant to future attempts of the disease to take over.

posted 06-20-2003 02:27 PM            

In fact...I'd like to see all of Congress go right along with them and start over from scratch under full CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.