There is an investigation going on. We need to see if there is an indictment filed and what crime it is for reguarding Mr. Rove. It may be only for perjury which should still be pubished, but it isnot the same as leaking classified information.

Let’s see what happens. I want the legal process to work. And with Mr. Fitzgerald as the prosecutor it will because he has already done wonders in Illinois. There have been several indictments against high ranmkii8ng officials in Mayor Daley’s administration. My point: If Rove or anyone else is wrong Fitzgerald will us and then we call for heads. Lindsey will support ouster if the legal process demands it. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I think all of Bush’s wars are related to gaining control over Middle Eastern oil reserves. Many people have accepted that we invaded Afghanistan for the right reasons, to oust the Taliban. I also am glad to see them gone. However, I’ve read some things that suggest Bush & Co had other motives.

Apparently, Clinton stopped a deal between Unocal (I think) and the Taliban to run a pipeline across Afghanistan to carry Caspian region oil. Apparently, the deal was blocked because of the Taliban’s human rights abuses. Can you imagine how angry the oil guys were? They had to elect a president who would do their bidding. Bush has proven to be the perfect guy.

Then, remember, Bush offered the Taliban $50M in aid, or something like that. I think it was spring 2001. I remember wondering why we would give these scoundrels any money. I don’t know if the aid ever went out. Then, after the Afghan war started, I read something about a book written by a couple of French guys. (Not in the US mainstream media. The French suck, after all.) In the book, they wrote about an oil pipeline deal between Bush and the Taliban that fell through. Bush told them either they take the deal or we will invade, or some such more inflamatory words. They told Bush to shove it. A couple of months later, 9/11 happened.

So, what do we do? We say that Osama was responsible, so we invaded Afghanistan where the Taliban were protecting him. A few months later, I read an article (from Britain?) that reported a new Unocal pipeline across Afghanistan. I have read nothing about this since. (Notice also that the Bushies never mention oil when they talk about these wars. How ridiculous to think that oil has nothing to do with the actions of this administration.)

Two years later we invade Iraq, which has the second largest known oil reserves.

Then, I saw a recent interview of Kenneth Timmerman on the Daily Show. He has written a book, stating that Osama met with the Iranians to plan the 9/11 attacks. I suspect that the Bushies had the same intelligence.

So, to sum up. Iran has lots of oil also. The US has hated Iran for a long time. Now, we have more reason to hate Iran. Iran is not an easy target. Iraq and Afganistan are easy targets, relatively. We are closing in on Iran, and if we can overtake them, we will have control over a large portion of Middle Eastern oil. The plan is coming together nicely. Eggcellent!

Whattya think?

What will we tell the children?

That a senior trusted advisor the The President has betrayed their future by revealing national security secrets relating to WMDs?

What do I tell little Johnny when he asks if the bad man got caught and sent to jail?

Do I say: “No Johnny, he’s still the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House.” ?

Many of them are Christians. They have been taught to follow blindly their leaders (the Bible, Bush). They believe that the Earth is only ~6000 years old. They believe that the theory of evolution is completely contrary to the creation story in Genesis. Even though Genesis gives no details whatsoever, we should not be curious enough to try learn more about how God went about making the Earth and us. They believe we should just shut up and accept things the way we are told (by uneducated men 2000 years ago, or by Republican politicians today).

How can we argue with people who are not willing to listen to alternative points of view or learn different things that might conflict with their current view?

We’re talking about a guy who was too sleazy even for George Bush the first, and that’s saying something.

Smearing his reputation? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha His reputation was already that of a greasy slimeball, and now he reveals himself as a traitor who puts “partisan politics” above the nation’s security.

Perhaps there is such a thing as karma. I’ll wait to decide until I see if any of his own slime sticks to him for real.

I served in the USMC, Mr. Rove is a piece of self-serving gargbage, who has endanged the people he has taken an oath to protect.

‘deliemma’ implies he served, never answers anyone who diusagrees with his facts, and just calls ‘Liberals” names.

There is one thing about all true statements on any subject; the facts contained within it or implied are ACCURATE, you liars.

As for liberals, A CRTICISM: Why don’t you try looking up the definition of a Political Liberal. It is not a hard word to defend. Its only seven words long; Concise Oxford English Dictionary “for democracy and the abolition of privelege”.

By inspection, Deliemma and Abbe Buck are not for either, are they? They are against democracy for that implies free, open to all, critical, debate conducted by people who respect the FACTS, and who seek the truth whereever the debate leads.

These people are pathological liars who only seek power over others.

‘abolition of privelege” implies no special breaks for ‘themselves’.

Now my ‘liberal’ friends, being willing to hear all sides of an arguement, only means you let these pathological creeps express their vicious lies so you can expose them for what they are; enemies of democracy and seekers of special priveleges for themselves = a new aristocracy.

Dan Alter

Sorry, as puerile as that sounds, that is what they understand.