ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
For someone who says he believes in God, Bush sure doesn't believe in following the Ten Commandments. Of course, when he says God speaks to him, he means the god of Darkness, his god.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2007 02:49 AMto put winston churchill even in the same sentence with that fraud is a truly gross injustice..george thinking he has any advantage over churchill is a true indication of his own delusions...he is one sick individual
Posted by dennis at March 8, 2007 03:13 AMRE: John Edwards gave the finger to Fox News and refuses to participate in a Democratic presidential candidates’ debate that inexplicably has Harry Reid’s support. Good for Edwards. All of the Democratic candidates should tell Fox News to go to hell.
All of the Dem candidates should tell Harry Reid to go to hell! He's taken a mid-term Ticket To Ride and blown it.
Posted by Pete at March 8, 2007 03:16 AMBush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.
And Laura, Barney and Jeff Gannon.
Legislation is being written and will be introduced later this month requesting troop withdrawal by the Fall of '08. My question for the Democrats, why are you waiting until the Fall of '08???
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2007 03:40 AMRe: the Cheney note. Assuming your assessment about who "this Pres" refers to is not snark, I disagree. Indeed, I sent out this LTE about a NYT story yesterday (note, I can't seem to get the HTML strike tag to work):
"Dear NYT Editor,
"In “Questions About Cheney Remain,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg accurately summarizes the Vice President’s role in exposing Valerie Plame. However, she inaccurately cites evidence introduced by Mr. Libby’s lawyers, quoting a handwritten note by Mr. Cheney as reading “’Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others.” The note actually reads “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who this Pres was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others.” The striking out of “this Pres” reveals a classic case of shifting from active voice (“the guy who [sic] the Pres asked”) to passive (“the guy who was asked”). Ms. Stolberg owes it to her readers to cite the evidence fully, especially since this note suggests the President was actively involved in sacrificing Mr. Libby."
Question: does anyone know where I can get an image of the actual note? Folks talked about it on FDL but I can't find it now.
Posted by JVictor at March 8, 2007 03:58 AMMy question for the Democrats, why are you waiting until the Fall of '08???
Oh, maybe because of war profiteering in the Congress or because half the Senate is running for president or because the Iraq war is such a good issue for Democrats to run on in a general election.
"Impeachment is off the table," Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Completed original: "the guy The Pres asked to stick his head in the meat grinder ..."
Posted by AlanDownunder at March 8, 2007 04:03 AMDon't tell Nancy Pelosi but,
George McGovern has attained the elder statesman status that is afforded politicians who held or sought the presidency.
"I think this is the most lawless administration we've ever had," he says of the Bush-Cheney team. That's a strong statement coming from a man who tangled in 1972 with Nixon, and then saw Nixon's presidency destroyed by the Watergate scandals. But McGovern says there is no comparison.
"I'd far rather have Nixon in the White House than these two fellows that we've got now," said the former three-term senator from South Dakota. "Nixon did some horrible things, which led to the effort to impeach him. But he simply was not as bad as Bush. On just about every level I can think of, Bush's actions are more impeachable than were those of Nixon."
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=121907
Posted by Christopher at March 8, 2007 04:16 AM"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said.
No military solution to Iraq - U.S. chief
Huh.
JVictor, Truthout had something on it, I think.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2007 05:24 AMI told y'all Harry Reid was a fink. The '06 election victory was hollow. I told y'all that Bush gets everything he wants and isn't stopped by anybody. Walter Reed will pass into oblivion, like Katrina; soldiers will continue to die in Iraq and no-talent drug-addicted actors will continue to get into scrapes that will provide entertaining coverage by blovating "news" reporters on fascist corporate TV networks to hide the real world's disasters from being shown to Americans or whoever we have living here in this madhouse.
Posted by Mal Feasance at March 8, 2007 05:47 AMMy question for the Democrats, why are you waiting until the Fall of '08???
Of the 286 Democrats in the House, only 71 are members of the Progressive caucus and only 74 are members of the Out of Iran caucus. That means that roughly three-quarters of the House Democrats can be counted on to vote for corporate interests over individual interests, and war over peace. The Dems may vote differently from the Repubs on one or two symbolic issues, but there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on most issues that involve money, and war involves tons of money.
The two major parties have structured the national and local election laws so that third parties are virtually not allowed. This means that, because no one represents their interests, half the citizens don't vote and the half that do vote might as well not have.
There is no hope. We can (and do) rant and rave but corporate dominance of the government and the media makes any meaningful change highly unlikely.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 8, 2007 06:07 AMMake that Iraq.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 8, 2007 06:08 AMThanks for highlighting the Cheney scribblings, but I think I have to agree that the note actually is a record that Nero Jr deployed Libby as cover for Rove's leaking.
Isn't this exactly what Libby's lawyer told the jury in his opening argument as well?
It's also interesting that Cheney crossed out the identity of "speaker" even in his own notes. He wants to keep things secret even from himself! That's HIS personality trait.
The evidence is starting to build that Nero's religious mania is "real" and not just a faked show. Great. God has got to stop telling Nero to do things like attack other countries. It's not funny, God.
(modified joke based on comment seen on another blog) :)
Posted by euzoius at March 8, 2007 06:24 AMthere is simply no way in the world that Bush was not front and center on Plamegate. He absolutely hates anyone to cross him and has been, historically, totally intent on destroying anyone who does. Plamegate is 100% Bush, with Cheney the "yeah, lets screw him" sidekick.
Posted by T2 at March 8, 2007 06:35 AMCheney & Rummy, both the micro-managers who never have time to notice the buildings are burning around them; and Bush who listens to voices from above. Hey, Mr. Bush, those voices you hear, it's common knowledge that's the devil whispering in your ear. Mr. Churchill, as an agnostic recognized that God gave him a brain and expected him to use it. Never in anyone's wildest dreams could it be argued that God plays the role of Bush's fallguy.
Posted by mainsailset at March 8, 2007 06:55 AMImpeachment now. Who cares about the personalities of these war criminals?
Posted by angel at March 8, 2007 06:58 AMThanks, Seven of Six. You're right, Truthout has images of two Cheney notes.
Posted by JVictor at March 8, 2007 07:07 AMDon Bacon,
You write well and I agree that not enough congressional Democrats understand that the Reagan era is over. Bush's incompetence has made it "safe" to be a progressive in America again. One nitpick, I wish that there were 286 Democrats in the house, we would be close to the 2/3 rds needed for impeachment with 286. However, there are really 233 D's in the house plus the 51 in the senate equals 284, about where your figure of 286 is.
Fortunately, the GOP will not be able to run away from Bush next year. I don't think that we can get to 286 next year, but if we can pick up the the roughly 20 seats that we were within three points of winning last November it will go a long way towards passing the reforms needed post Bush.
Since this is an O.T., I'd like to take this opportunity to say...
Gasoline in L.A. County has gone up $0.25 in the past 4 days! WTF?!?
herbal tee,
Thanks for the "nitpick." Dumb mistake on my part.
Make that 237 Dems in the House (according to congress.org), so we're talking roughly two-thirds of the Dems in the House who are not members of the Progressive or Out of Iraq caucuses. The Blue Dogs (Repub-lites) are bragging that the new Dems elected in November, being from Red districts, will join them.
Reforms? What reforms are being proposed by Democratic presidential aspirants? In the last presidential election Kerry's platform was a virtual mirror of Bush's, and it is unrealistic to think that this election would be any different. The blossoming campaigns so far have been full of meaningless fluff.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 8, 2007 09:42 AMMy recollection of the image of the Cheney notation was that the stricken wording was "this Pres", not "the Pres".
If so, it would seem to mean that Cheney was referring to himself, not Bush.
That I think is why most people report the stricken phrase as "the Pres"; because that's the grammer most would use if describing someone else, and they presume Cheney must have mant Bush. Whereas "THIS title" denotes the self.
So yes, I think Cheney meant himself, and caught his own hubris.
.
Posted by MFA at March 8, 2007 10:00 AMDr. Yueh,
Regular unleaded gasoline in my area was $2.10/Gal three weeks ago; $2.26 two weeks ago; $2.46 last week; and $2.59 yesterday.
Apparently a decent interval has passed since the November elections.
Posted by at March 8, 2007 10:04 AMSo Mr. Five Deferments gets incensed over an op-ed threatening to expose the falsehoods used to launch a deceitful war of aggression?
And he decides to coverup the fixed intel with another crime that itself requires a coverup but only draws greater attention to the larger original crimes?
Greater men have climbed the gallows for just such crimes...and blunders.
Stay healthy, Mr. Last Throes.
Your actions have been widely recognized and will soon be suitably rewarded.
MFA,
I disagree. It is not uncommon for santimonious assholes like Cheney to speak with aires about officialdom. Cheney writing, "...not gonna sacrifice the guy this president asked..." while referring to Bush is understandable. By referring to Bush as "this Pres" he elevates to perceived importance of what has been requested of Libby. It wasn't just a request from Bush, it was a request from the office of the President. In otherwords, many presidents have requested many difficult things from their underlings and 'this president' has asked this of Libby. At least that's my take on it.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2007 10:29 AMCheney marked out "the Pres" because he does not want the focus to be on the 16 words in the State of the Union address.
The desire of BushCo is to push the timeline to the June 2003 coverup, when in reality the argument over the Niger forgeries began in December 2002.
* * *
ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council (NSC) in December 2002, warning senior officials he thought the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs.
Sixteen days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/19157
Again...since this is O.T., here's a funnie that's also depressing:
(BTW, the company that builds and maintains these ATMs? DIEBOLD!!!)
Posted by Dr. Wellington Yueh at March 8, 2007 01:00 PMDon,
I admit to being a bit of an optimist, mostly because of long term demographic trends .In terms of reforms, we indeed may have to think more long term. Just as the GOP persued a fairly "moderate" approach such as refroming Social Security rather than trying to abolishing it, in the early Reagan years, so it is that our representitives will be bolder once they realize that 2006 was a watershed and America is looking for a new direction. Granted, that direction cannot really be set upon until after the presidential election in 2008, but I don't see how the GOP can run away from Bush and Iraq next year.
It may take some time to get there, but triangulation will be a Republican strategy for survival in a few years.
Posted by herbal tee at March 8, 2007 03:44 PMBush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.
Bush is a psychopath. It's easy for psychopaths to make decisions, because they literally don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions. Many deaths, disastrous quagmire of a war, a major American city drowned - he doesn't give a shit, because in his own mind he's anointed by Jeeeeezus and perfect in every way. A thinking person would be rightfully racked with guilt if they had such a terrible record of mismanagement, but Chimp lives happily in his solipsistic bubble of self-delusion, fiercely defended by his bootlicking courtiers.
Posted by Mike G at March 8, 2007 09:03 PM