home

Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go?

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 31, 2005 at 07:54:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post reports today that many in both parties believe President Bush has spent his political capital.

The series of setbacks on the domestic front could signal that the president has weakened leverage over his party, a situation that could embolden the opposition, according to analysts and politicians from both sides. Bush faces the potential of a summer of discontent when his capacity to muscle political Washington into following his lead seems to have diminished and few easy victories appear on the horizon.

Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese argue in the Boston Globe, that it's time for the "I" word.

The Downing Street Memo campaign could make things significantly tougher for Bush.

And here's a bit of news...Think Progress reports the Bush Administration was for Amnesty International before it was against it. Step back to March 27, 2003.Here's what Rumsfeld said about Iraq:

We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…

He did the same on two other occasions. The ineluctable conclusion:

So the rule here appears to be: Amnesty is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.

< Arthur Anderson Conviction Overturned | High Court Rules for Inmate's Religious Freedom >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    The "War" President has become the "Wheedling" President... Is anyone catching this "press conference?" Blaghdaddy can't figure out if he's got the right channel or if he's watching "Comfy Couch...." Someone give the man a pacifier (and no, Blaghdaddy doesn't mean firehoses and dogs...hmm...but a good idea)... He's now reduced to begging and pleading with the public via microphone to "make them listen to me!!!" Answer: Fozad, Mr. President... "Fozad..."

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Oh- and Mr. President, it's "dissemble," not "disassemble, which is what you do to the English language... And if the people accusing the U.S. of torture are, as you state, "dis-assemblers who've been imprisoned by America and hate America..." Good point, Mr. President...but how many of those "dissemblers" were released without charge after years in your gulags? Any numbers on that? And what does that say about America's credibility? "We locked him up for three years in solitary confinement, without charging him, and now he's saying he was tortured..." You think???

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Just the idea of Impeachment will motivate the left more than ever. Just imagine we win back both the House and the Senate in 06. Then we will have two fun years to have our way with them! First Cheney then we go after the big Slug Bushbag himself. How about we throw in a few appellate Judges for good measure. Hmm maybe the Nuclear option will turn out to be a Democratic WMD. Ya Gotta Believe!

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    If ever a President deserved to be removed from office, it is the present occupant. Will it happen? No. Is it worth agitating for so at least the idea is on the table? No. The sensible thing is to work to build a solid second party to challenge the Republicans because even if Bush were impeached, indicted, and sentenced to life for war crimes, the problem is not Bush but the lack of a credible political party to challenge the GOP. If Bush goes down, someone just as bad, if not worse will replace him. Impeaching Bush would feel good, but it's meaningless unless there's a real second party that can confront and defeat Republican hegemony. At present, there is no national party that can do so.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    Blagh, it was indeed a bit surreal and funny, but I have a dark sense of humor. Tristero- Give that man a kewpie doll. We have a winner! Watching W. whine about the Amnesty International reports (who are only accurate, apparently, when talking about N. Korea, Iran, and when it doesn't interfere with cheap good purchases, China), I was left with one thought... "I think thou doth protest too much". IMO, he looked like a 5 year old with his hand caught in the cooky jar.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    On the Amnesty International report, Bush said, "It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of the allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America."
    This is qualitatively different than the Indonesian court's discounting the defendants claim of innocence HOW EXACTLY??? Add Amnesty International to the groups of people that are not "with" BushCo so must be "against" America. Impeachment...just a wet dream for now...

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    Blag - If you can't stand the strain, don't listen. And Bush speaks Texan, not English, and certainly not Canadian. But at least 52% of Americans understood what he had to say in 2004. et al - I love Nader's inaccurate/incomplete/out of context quotation: " Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." What it said was: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Note by not showing the previous sentence, they remove the use of "fix" as "focus." And, of course, they don't mention that the writer would have used "and" instead of "But," if he wanted to say that intelligence was being created. BTW - The "Downing Street Memo campaigh website has the "But" sentence underlined, which lends it a sense of importance. Since it was not underlined in the original, I find this to be quite dishonest.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    PPJ sorry to see your grasp of the English language has not improved. Must be those damn public schools.
    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
    This what Bush wanted. If the claims of WMD and terrorism were true he would have had a case. Now for the famous "But" But the evidence was fixed to support the policy. So everything was backwards.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    SD - Everyone knows that Bush thought Saddam had WMD's. That's old news. So is the fact all of the Demo leaders also thought so. And the sentence, with the "But" means this. Bush wanted to invade, but before he could, intelligence gathering was being focused on Iraq. An And! An And! My kingdom for an And!

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    PPJ - you're funny. Now you are really off base. What everyone now knows is that Bush knew he didn't have a case. We've known that for a long time. There are classes in remedial English at your local CC I suggest you partake. If you have time, I would also suggest one in morals, ethics and honesty.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    Jim you sound just like Clinton.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    I see progress. Jim is relegated to defending Bush's BUT and whether he was crooked or stupid.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#13)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    But, it depends on what your definition of "but" is Now, Clinton's qoute always made sense to me, as the question was of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety. Saying that Bush honestly thought that we were invading Iraq over WMDs is up there with an honest belief in the Easter bunny, which can be quite cute in children.....

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    SD`writes - " What everyone now knows is that Bush knew he didn't have a case." Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Che - Heart be still! Oh well, Monica is selling purses, or something. Roger - Actually it depends on the meaning of "fix." And the fact he didn't write "And." But hey, don't let facts get in the way of an outlandish claim.

    Re: Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    "Posted by tristero: "Will it happen? No. Is it worth agitating for so at least the idea is on the table? No. The sensible thing is to work to build a solid second party" Wow, tristero, you have a head full of nonsense. HUGE muscles without a single attachment to real action. The impeachment case against Bush has grown to the point that it is inevitable. Secondly, the effort it will take to fight for that inevitability is EXACTLY what we need to be doing. The idea of forming a 'real' second party is HILARIOUS. Let's have the figures on how many third party leaders there are, waiting in the wings. OK, you didn't list ONE, much less a party's worth. You must be having fun playing with your toys, little boy. But thanks for the alternative reality version of the facts -- good for a laugh.

    Bush Capital Spent, Is it Time for Him to Go? | 15 comments (15 topical)