A PRESIDENT DRUNK WITH POWER

[Mrs. Sharon B. Hodge]

A PRESIDENT DRUNK WITH POWER

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dikkday48yahoocom/2... I pedge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America: It is NOT just a piece of paper! You got that, Mr. Bush?

Craig Crawford-CQ:

What makes a lousy president? At least three factors were shared by some of our worst chief executives, according to the university study -- the paranoia of Richard Nixon, the poor ethics of Warren Harding and the faulty judgment of Herbert Hoover.

Bush combined all three. His administration was marked by a paranoid obsession with secrecy, a dismissive attitude toward ethics and a lack of competence highlighted by an ill-conceived invasion of Iraq that led to a miserably managed occupation.

In law school we spent a lot of time on hypothetical situations.

Assume a man has 10 martinis and gets into his car and attempts to drive home. His BAC is .24, three times the limit set by the Feds, and therefore all 50 states. On his way home, he proceeds through a stop sign, and hits a pedestrian with his car, killing the pedestrian. He is charged with vehicular manslaughter under a special statute dealing with drunk drivers and the resulting death of a fellow citizen.

His defense is as follows:

1. The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing and it was a moonless night.

2. The pedestrian was also drunk.

3. The stop sign was not properly installed and there should have been no stop sign at that particular corner pursuant to the municipality's own traffic regulations.

4. The defendant had been traveling at a 'safe' speed within the speed limit posted at the scene.

5. Another car had proceeded through the intersection without stopping just minutes before the accident.

6. Over thirty thousand other drivers had been cited for drunk driving with the state over the previous year.

7. The defendant is a model citizen, works fifty hours a week, has a clean criminal record, and regular contributes to local charities with money and by donating his time.

8. The defendant is a model parent of three children ages 5 to ten years and is an active leader in the local PTA.

9. The pedestrian was not only a drunk, but a worthless man on welfare and someone who had never contributed anything to society.

You can add other elements, points to this list. But bad things happen to good people and even worse things happen to people who drink ten martinis and attempt to drive home.

In the end, I conclude as follows:

THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN.

Now we all know the story of OJ and the fact that everyone is presumed innocent and blah, blah blah.

THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.

Now, is it right to repeat the culpability line, over and over and over before a jury or the public in general through the media?

Assume you are constantly barraged with pleas from the defendant's family as a prosecutor, or the defendant's friends, or from the public in general. I would be prone to just keep saying:

THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR

Should a reporter or a pundit counter the reality of the situation by continually saying that the accusation is stale, that it is made too often, that it is not fair to ignore all the other variables involved in the accident?

I don't think so because THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.

The outgoing president and his vice-president have made the following arguments with regard to the American invasion of Iraq;

1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Well they didn't but ALL the intelligence said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and ALL the other countries in the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence operations in this country and in ALL the other countries in the entire world believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

2. Iraq had been developing a nuclear program in order to produce a nuclear bomb for years, and Iraq was on the precipice of being able to deliver a nuclear strike and Iraq had the ability to develop a missile delivery system for those nuclear bombs and even if Iraq had not developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system for that bomb, Iraq had the capability of developing a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system. And all the intelligence operations in every country in the world knew this and the intelligence was wrong except that it would have only been a few years and Iraq would have developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system and therefore Iraq was a nuclear threat to the Middle East in general and to the United States of America.

3. Iraq had conspired with terrorist organizations in the past and had conspired with terrorist organizations at the time of the American Invasion and was a threat to the Middle East and the United State of America when America invaded Iraq.

4. Iraq had sent an emissary to Austria to meet with a representative of the organizations responsible for the 9/11/01 attack on the United States prior to that attack. There is no evidence of that, but there is no proof there never was such a meeting. And, anyway, there was intelligence indicating that meeting and anyway the intelligence was wrong and what is a mother to do?


There was a reporter who reported that w wished to invade Iraq in 1999 while he was still governor of Texas.

Rummy and Cheney were participants in a conservative think-tank advocating and planning an invasion of Iraq before 1999 and continuing.

Bill Clinton has reported that on the date of w's inauguration, w stated that one of his first acts as president was going to be to invade Iraq.

Paul O'Neill was a conservative Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. He has testified on television and written in his best selling book (with Ron Suskind) that O'Neill was present at the first meeting of the National Security team in January of 2001 and the President of the United States said at that meeting:

WE ARE GOING INTO IRAQ, FIND A WAY.

As Rummy surveyed the mess at the Pentagon following the 9/11/01 attacks, he turned to an aide and said "Well I guess he found a way."


w has been called a good family man, a good citizen, a man of honor, a man with a good record as a businessman, a governor of Texas, a reader of a lot of books, a friendly and affable man, a good husband, and a lover of golf.


GEORGE W. BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2001, DRUNK WITH POWER AND WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, INVADE IRAQ.

GEORGE W. BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE MADE UP EXCUSES FOR INVADING IRAQ, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO INVADE IRAQ ANYWAY.

Everything, and I mean everything else about Iraq is irrelevant.