Comments on: Bush Doesn’t Know Abramoff?

By: VirusHead

VirusHead — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:48:58 +0000

Don - thank you for that comment. Better than anything I’ve managed to express here, it presents a wider angle and a better-connected view of the evidence. Deeply appreciated.

The people’s questioning has to go even beyond the people and structures directly involved in the scandals, and even beyond the Party (what are they anyway? not Republicans) corruption.

I really think that a system that can allow these things is a broken system. I don’t think campaigns should be run on contributions of any kind, at all. This has not only allowed personal corruption to thrive, but has also hurt us as a people. Money shouldn’t be able to buy legislation, not money from people or groups or corporations. Maybe we could have a lobbyist idea exchange - in a public forum. Let arguments be made, not deals struck.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:46:41 +0000

The crucial aspect of Abramoff’s relationship to the Republicans is that he was the point man for Tom DeLay’s K Street Project, which was reponsible for getting lobbying firms to hire to and donate exclusively to Republicans in order to cement Republican control of Congress. In return, the Reps would pass all the lobbyists legislation. This led to legislation written by and for lobbyists. And let’s remember that Bush never vetoed any of it. This was his Congress to lead - and regardless of how well he personally knew the guy, Abramoff was, UNDENIABLY (they’ll deny it, anyway, the liars) one of the key parts in the Republican machine under Bush. Challenge any Bush supporters look into that and chew on it for a while. Bottom line: doesn’t matter how well W knew A of how many times they met. Abramoff is radioactively dirty and admittedly culpable, and all that he did was DIRECTLY AND UNIQUELY for the Republicans under…Dubya.

By: VirusHead

VirusHead — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:52:12 +0000

Tell me why the investigation into the prewar intelligence has been blocked by the Republican Congress then. Explain the testimony related to Bolton then. Tell me about the Downing Street memo. Wake up.

In your mind the two alternatives for thinking are either “conviction” or “nonsense”? What about pattern recognition, deduction, basic curiosity and research?

It’s a sad argument that has to wait until criminal convictions are attained before the most basic questions can be asked - and that in the face of some pretty extraordinary events and behaviors.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:23:10 +0000

The deceit you are speaking of is exactly what I have been talking about in all of my posts. President Bush has not deceived anyone and if you were filled with so much hatred of President Bush you would see it. He was simply wrong about the WMD’s and that is all there is too it. He didn’t deceive anyone about the Intelligence and I would just love to see your evidence that he did deceive anyone. Just because the Democrats and MSM are claiming he deceived us doesn’t make it true. Several different committees have made inquiries into whether Bush or anyone in his administration altered or urged anyone in the Intelligence community to alter the intelligence that was used to justify the War in Iraq. The head of the CIA said he no one in the Bush administration pressured anyone to lie or alter the intelligence. So where is the deceit you speak of and please don’t bring up Libby or Rove since nothing has been proved as of yet. As a matter of fact nothing has even alleged against Rove. All of this nonsense has been created by the Democrats and MSM and until anything is proven it is all NONSENSE.

By: VirusHead

VirusHead — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:28:56 +0000

I’m quite aware of the difference between a simple case of being mistaken and this administration’s consistent policy of deceit. There is ample documentation.

For me, it’s not a matter of “choosing” to believe. I would prefer to believe that I could trust the President of the United States and his administration, even if we don’t agree on policies or viewpoints here and there. I would prefer to believe that my country wasn’t being pulled apart by power mongers and control freaks. I would prefer to focus on my own intellectual interests and creative projects.

“Vile hatred” is not only inaccurate but also crosses the line from valid discussion into insult and - worse still - purple prose. If you expect me to continue to post your comments on my domain, you must at least insult me with some panache.

Finally, if you have to go that far for an explanation, you’re not doing enough reading. It’s not really that hard to understand why I think like I do.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:09:39 +0000

You appear to be mistaking being wrong for lies (of course it is the first time; WMD and President Bush) Just because someone is wrong doesn;t mean they are intentionally deceiving (definition of a lie) .

I am still trying to understand why you chose to believe everything that turns out to be wrong is a lie being told by someone in the Bush Administration. That is why I chose to use vile hatred, because that would make it ieasier to understand why you think like you do.

I chose to comment on your posts becuase I like to discuss the topics with someone that holds an opposite point of view.

By: VirusHead

VirusHead — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:22:07 +0000

Jon - I don’t care if they are godfathers for each other’s twins. I care that the spokesman went out of his way to say he didn’t know him, and that statement is getting modified from day to day - and I think it will continue to do so. This is the pattern.

I care about whether the administration is again hiding things, being deceitful, covering things up - and if they are, why. In case you’ve forgotten, the administration works for us. This administration is extremely secretive and it’s not that big of a stretch to think that there may be reasons for that.

If all you are going to do is engage in personal attacks, I don’t really understand why you continue to read or comment on this blog.