More Bad News for Bush
 

When it rains, it pours!
Source

Mmmm, mmmmm. That's good scandal!

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

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?

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?

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.....

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.

^I predict that your prediction will come true.

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!"

lol :D