More Bad News for Bush

[Gemini Cricket]

When it rains, it pours!
A prominent Republican fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in Ohio has been charged with illegally funneling money to Bush's re-election campaign, a federal prosecutor said on Thursday.

A federal grand jury in Toledo charged Thomas Noe with making illegal contributions in the names of others to the Bush campaign and with making false statements to the Federal Election Commission

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051027/pl_nm/crime_campaign_dc)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Mmmm, mmmmm. That's good scandal!

[Gemini Cricket]

Let's see: Katrina, Miers, DeLay, possibly Frist, maybe Rove, maybe Scooter, maybe Cheney... Wow! AND there's three more years to go!

[innerSpaceman]

We are not prognosticators; we are merely liberals. And yet most of us saw the precise situation in Iraq coming a mile away, and also the scandal-ridden uselessness of the 2nd Bush Administration. It's like watching a movie we've seen before. We cannot be outraged, we cannot be shocked. We foresaw all of it with a certainty that conservatives mocked but which the actual events have only confirmed.


Stock tips, anyone?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Buy low, sell high. See: what a marvel is my extra-sensory perception.

I cannot be shocked but I *can* be outraged. I used to listen to NPR and NPR only, but I had to go back to the almighty CD because the news was making me newseous. Now it's making me feel delight at the misfortune of others. Schadenfreude strikes again... but is it truly Schadenfreude if the misfortunate are getting just desserts?

[Nephythys]

Naw iSm..I still mock liberals ;)

come ON you guys- as if campaign money scandal is new? You may not want to hear it- but Clintons anyone???

A little perspective.....

[scaeagles]

C'mon, nephy - those Buddhist monks are ancient history! So is changing US policy to allow missile tech to go to China for campaign donations (we don't want to mention accepting foreign money for a campaign is illegal)! And not to mention other non-campaign cash issues, like the book by Louis Freeh telling how the former President basically blackmailed the Saudis into donating to his Presidential library so that the US wouldn't investigate to Kavor towers bombing. And turning 1000 dollars into 100,000 in cattle futures. And....well, I don't want to get off topic here, do I?

I predict a post will be here shortly saying that that was in the past and this is the present, and we can't justify current actions by pointing to things in the past. Those are true, certainly, but it's so much fun to talk about those things that were so much more offensive (at least to me) than funneling domestic money illegally into a campaign.

[Nephythys]

^I predict that your prediction will come true.

[Alex]

So, if someone thought the Clinton scandals were scurrilous and/or insignificant then they should also think that many of the Bush ones fall into the same camp (though not necessarily all of them).

However, if you thought the Clinton scandals are huge and of great national signficance and should be persued criminally then you must think the same of the Bush ones.

The hypocrisy of switching sides on issues when the sides switched ownership of the Oval Office goes both ways. Instead, both parties do a big square dance so that they are always on opposite sides and spend much energy pointing at each other and saying "hypocrite!"

[Nephythys]

lol :D

[innerSpaceman]

Anyway, I will not be one to defend Clinton or any politician about campaign finance scandals ... and you'd hardly have needed a crystal ball to predict those ... or any of the constant future ones of, hmmmm, lemee see - - 98.6% of elected officials.


And I'm sorry that we weren't around to hear anyone's predictions about Clinton's second term .... but the point NOW (without denying the past, just HAPPEN to be talking about the present) is that the situation in Iraq and the situation the 2nd Bush Administration finds itself in were predicted accurately by the left.

Do you deny that fact, or are you simply going to change the subject again?

[Alex]

Well, first I would need to know which predictions about the war, made before the war, you are talking about? There were a lot of predictions made that didn't come true, so to a certain degree it may just be that if you throw enough darts that some of them will hit a target.

Personally, I don't think the Iraq war is going all that badly. It isn't going as well as the administration hoped (and I think they have made some huge gaffes) but it also is progressing along. I think it is more a perception that the war is a debacle than a reality, strengthened by the fact that somehow we have reached the conclusion that 2,000 dead soldiers in a war is a lot. It is unfortunate, but spread out over two and a half years it isn't really that many. In fact, I would argue that the small number of deaths makes it look worse than is the reality since it allows the news to focus on individuals rather than the larger picture.

But really, if you predicted something that I agree has come true, then I have no problem giving mad props for it. Unless it was in this string of logic that was common before the war: we can never topple Iraq, they'll keep us out in the dessert, but if we do topple Iraq we'll never be able to leave, but if we do create a government that allows us to leave it will just be a puppet state, but if it isn't just a puppet state it will be an Islamo-fascist state that is worse than what we had before, but if it isn't an Islamo-fascist state we'll come up with some other reason to be disatisfied by then.

As for the indictment of Libby, it is hardly a stretch to predict that in an era where politics is being criminalized that indictments are hardly unlikely. Once again it looks like an administration official will be charged for covering up a crime that didn't happen. It was wrong when it happened to Clinton administration officials and it was wrong when it happens to Bush administration officials.

Richard Clark gave an interesting interview to NPR the other day (and Clark is no fan of the Bush administration or Karl Rove) about why this type of investigation is terrible for America. I'll have to see if I can track down audio for it.

[Alex]

Here's the NPR interview with Richard Clark:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4973952

I think the specific comments are about 10 minutes into it, but the whole first part of the interview is about the Plame case. He makes several very good points, in my opinion. The key being that when it comes to such investigations we only have one tool and therefore everything looks like a hammer. He suggests there needs to be some kind of investigative process that isn't inherently about criminal investigation (like the Truth Commissions in South Africa) that simply produce findings of fact. Those can then be used for criminal persuits if judged appropriate.

[Gemini Cricket]

Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies' is a good read.
:)

[scaeagles]

I also do not think that the Iraq war is going poorly - or at least as badly as some would have us believe. I won't bother to go into why. As far as predictions, like Alex said, if you make enough, some are bound to come true. I remember supposed experts, prior to invasion, telling the public that we'd lose tens of thousands of troops in the initial invasion.

The difference to me as of now isn't that one scandal is greater than another or that one party is worse than the other, but I don't recall Hillary or Bill being indicted. Bill for his perjury and assisting Monica in filing a false affidavit, and Hillary, if I recall, was found to have made false statements during the Rose Law Firm investigation.

I remember predicting prior to Bill Clinton's first term that there was no way we'd be getting a middle class tax cut. That prediction certainly came true. I don't recall making too many others.

[Name]

I seem to remember Bush I predicting that any action in Iraq would be followed by a lengthy stay, and many casualties..... One of the main reasons he didn't go in and oust Saddam himself..... And also, turning out to be a true prediction by the current administrations father.

[scaeagles]

Yes. 2.5 years. What an eternity thus far. 2.5 years from invasion to passage of a constitution. Let's see.....we declared independence in 1776, and our constitution came in 1787. 11 years. I'd say our time table thus far is looking pretty good.

I don't recall any time tables being set for being out. I recall a time table for the interim government to take over, and that was met. I recall a time table for the first election, and that was met. And I recall a time table for passage of a constitution, and admittedly, that was a couple weeks past the original date set.

[Scrooge McSam]

Hehehe I have seen it all.

[Name]

Yes. 2.5 years. What an eternity thus far. 2.5 years from invasion to passage of a constitution. Let's see.....we declared independence in 1776, and our constitution came in 1787. 11 years. I'd say our time table thus far is looking pretty good.

I don't recall any time tables being set for being out. I recall a time table for the interim government to take over, and that was met. I recall a time table for the first election, and that was met. And I recall a time table for passage of a constitution, and admittedly, that was a couple weeks past the original date set.
Umm, we declared independance in 1776, and immediately went under the articles of confederation.... which the US was governed(if you can call it the US being governed, as it was nothing more then a loose agreement between the different States) under for those 11 years, until the delegates came together those 11 years later(for different reasons then to write a constitution and revamp the governmental system, but I am sure you knew that) and wrote, signed, and ratified the constitution.... so the 11 years is a bit of a fallacy argument, it just took us those 11 years to realize that the governmental system that was set up wasn't working as well as it could and that we wanted something different then a confederation as a form of government.....

But even with the Iraqi constitution, it will still be a very very very long time before we are out of Iraq completely....... In my opinion anyway, tis the nature of the beast that we have unleashed....

Still, you mentioned nothing about how Bush I was right about what he predicted would happen..... because the reasons he gave for not removing Saddam have happened.

[Gemini Cricket]

Speaking of bad news. I saw this and thought it was right on the money:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/db051023.gif

:D

[scaeagles]

Still, you mentioned nothing about how Bush I was right

I disagree with the definition of long. I don't think, in the grand scheme of things, that we have been there a long time. We very well may be. And actually, he would have taken Saddam out, except the UN had not sanctioned such action. That was his primary reason at the time.

[innerSpaceman]

How can you say what was his "primary" reason at the time? Surely, you're not going by public pronouncements? That would mean that Baby Bush really did "regretfully" accept Meier's resignation of the Supreme Court nomination, rather than the truth that she was asked to drop out by the Bush Administration.

Sorry, but I'll believe what Daddy Bush wrote in his book some years later when candor was permitted.

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, have you read Bush's book or just quotes?

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahahahahahahaha, oh, um, sorry. No, I haven't.

[Gemini Cricket]

I heard Bill Clinton's book was a pop-up book.

:Ba-dum ching:

:D

[Name]

Out of curiosity, have you read Bush's book or just quotes?
Not yet.... haven't made it down to the library to check it out yet.....

Not about to give Bush my hard earned money.....

I am probably below the poverty line and all....

BUt out of curiousity, aren't quotes supposedly straight out of the book, thus fulfilling the definition of a quote??? and since the quotes are out of the book that Bush I wrote, then they would be his words, pretty similar to reading the book, just the readers digest condensed version style.....

Or did Bush not say that he did not want to oust Saddam because he knew there would be insurgents and all, and that there was no way to come up with an exit strategy for such an event.....

If I am wrong about what Bush I wrote in his book, please, enlighten me with text from his book on the subject.

[Alex]

Accidental double post.

[Alex]

I have not idea if the quotes are accurate, as I haven't read Bush's book either. I'm sure any quotes presented are accurate. But then so are all the quote on movie posters.

The problem with quotes, particularly if they're shorter, is that they lose their context within a larger statement and nuance. I don't know that what you've seen mischaracterizes or misleads, just that it is more likely if you are only relying on secondary sources.

In A World Transformed, Bush's diary entry about why and how they needed to end the Persian Gulf War is presented. Here is the full entry (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679432485/ref=sib_vae_pg_482/103-5316304-2265456?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=my%20view%20that%20Saddam%20Hussein&p=S0EC&twc=5&checkSum=PYT6xwibS06T8140inSzICPHK41HLQgd12%2BkFUj h3%2Fw%3D#reader-page) (with some cuts by me for space):

It is my view that Saddam Hussein is trying to put us in a box. He wants to get his troops out, perhaps, then turn to us and say, what are [you] doing in Iraq and turn world opinion against us...We have no evidence that they're quitting, but we're not going to let him bring victory out of the jaws of defeat...The problem is that if he has his forces out of Kuwait, we'll be the ones that are trespassing...with our troops in Iraq. So we're pinning our demands on all the U.N. resolutions.

In another diary entry (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679432485/ref=sib_rdr_next3_ex484/103-5316304-2265456?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=my%20view%20that%20Saddam%20Hussein&p=S0EE&twc=5&checkSum=WH75JgLsvnUYzFsxtcmB8EDiYeVY3i%2BajFu0HU2 IuwY%3D#reader-page) a few days later:

It's surprising how much I dwell on the end of the Vietnam Syndrome. I felt the division in the country in the 60s and 70s - I was in congress. I remember speaking at Adelphi and Yale was turning its back. I remember the agony and the ugliness, and now it's together. We've got to find a clean end, and I keep saying, how do we end this thing?

There may be other more damning quotes that directly equate going into Iraq with entering an endless quagmire but at least this personal recounting of the end of the war suggests his primary concern was that the coalition would break up if they persued the war into Iraq and that prolonging the war beyond the specific U.N. resolutions would break up the new found unity in the United States.

In this book, most of the mentions of "getting bogged down" are descriptions of opposition to the use of any force, that is to not even kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Here is a final quote (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679432485/ref=sib_rdr_prev2_ex428/103-5316304-2265456?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=bogged&p=S0CU&twc=4&checkSum=W27nhfEJ4Cw0nmlJrqOGmb3zcasu6HZbLdxdPWYyR BI%3D#reader-page) on how Bush felt about Senator Byrd's concerns:

What worries Bob Byrd the most, and this worries the American people and other members of Congress and indeed all of us, is a ground war where we get bogged down. He talks about "mounting casualties"; other call them "body bags." He points out that if there is a high death count on the Arab side, even in winning we'd lose. In fact, he says, "Even a quick knockout of Iraqi forces might well unleash a cascade of outcomes and reactions that would reduce our long-term ability, and influence events in that region." However, I he's also underestimating the prestige that would go to the United State for being willing to stand up and support the United Nations resolutions fully, and I think he's underestimating the support we would get from many in the Arab world for getting this brutal dictator. I have it in my own mind that Saddam Hussein, in decline, will be like Causcescu was in decline. There will be dancing in the streets, and they will say that he was brutal and a bully, and they will rejoice when he's gone - I'm confident of that - but I don't think Bob Byrd is.

The bolding is mine. It doesn't sound like Bush pere thought going into Iraq would be an endless quagmire. That said, if you point me to specific quotes otherwise I would love to read them. Amazon's Search Inside feature is a wonderful thing that allows us to easily see full context without getting to the bookstore or library (on the scanned books, anyway).

I think the quotes are within fair use limits, but if whoever decides such things disagree I can go along with that.

[scaeagles]

Alex, what an outstanding post. Unfortunately, I cannot give you mojo again at this time.

[jdramj]

Alex, what an outstanding post. Unfortunately, I cannot give you mojo again at this time.


Ditto.....but on the mojo, I'll loan ya some. ;)