March 10, 2006 journal, ports deal dead, war no more defended, general speaks bashing. Some fancy words confirms all I have been saying about a bloody George the high traitor. Jesuit army, the Bible contains the Word of God. It is up to the individual to receive the interpretation from God. The Apocalyptic art book completed today. Everyday is history. "Well -- Child-In-Chief got a load of Congressional buckshot up
his lame duck but" <abc news.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1708751> yesterday. "President B*us*h still faces bipartisan rancor in Congress over te*rr*orism vulnerabilities at American ports even though an election-year veto battle over a Dubai-owned company's U.S. port plans has been defused. Legislation on the issue has piled up in both the House and the Senate in the weeks since the flap over DP World erupted and divided B*us*h from the GOP-led Congress. Before the United Arab Emirates-based company's announcement, the House and Senate appeared all but certain to block DP World's U.S. plan despite B*us*h's veto threats a message that GOP congressional leaders delivered personally to the W*h*ite Hou*se. Facing a disapproving public in an election year, a House committee overwhel-mingly voted against the plan Wednesday. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., warned the president in a private meeting Thursday that the Senate inevitably would follow suit..." ABC News <http:// www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1708751>. Bet ole CIC was wondering where was Dick-himself to supervise the *use of fi*rearms* when he needed him? Haha!
*more* <http://karenmcl.blogspot.com/2006/03/like-shooting-fish-in-barrelor-lame.html> posted by Karen McL @
8:22 AM <http://karenmcl.blogspot.com/2006/03/like-shooting-fish-in-barrelor-lame.html> 0 comments himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. B*u-s*h's policies, but of his personal qualities, too. Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a con-ventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's some thing praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by B*us*h's deceptions, even thou-gh the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning. According to this view, if you're a former Bu*sh supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you are a brave truth-teller. But if you have been saying that since the early days of the B**h administration, you were un-pleasantly shrill. Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George Bu*sh who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no prin-ciples," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when B*us*h had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by B*us*h h-a-t-red. If you are a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned 3 years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist. The truth is that everything the new wave of B*us*h critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts. Mr. Bartlett's book is mainly a critique of the B*us*h administration's fiscal policy. Well, the administration's pattern of fiscal dishonesty and irresponsibility was clear right from the start to anyone who understands budget arithmetic. The chicanery that took place during the selling of the 2001 tax cut- obviously fraudulent budget projections, transparently deceptive advertising about who would benefit and the use of blatant accounting gimmicks to conceal the plan's true cost was as bad as anything that followed. The false selling of the Iraq war was almost as easy to spot. All the supposed evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program was discredited before the war and it was the threat of nukes, not lesser W.M.D., that stampeded Congress into authorizing Mr. B*us*h to go to war. The B**h administration's nonsensical but insistent rhetorical linkage of Iraq and 9*1 was also a dead giveaway that we were being railroaded into an unnecessary war. The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence. But as I said, better late than never. Born-again Bu*sh-bashers like Bartlett and Mr. Sullivan, however churlish, are intellectually and morally superior to the Bu*shist dead-enders who still insist that Saddam was allied with Al Qa*e*da, and will soon be claiming that we lost the war in Iraq because the liberal media stabbed the troops in the back. And reporters understandably consider it newsworthy that some conservative voices are now echoing longstanding liberal critiques of the B*ss*h ad-ministration. It's still fair, however, to ask people like Mr. Bartlett the obvious question: Why so long?" Paul Krugman (NY Times nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10krugman.html>.