Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (66901)	8/4/2006 1:52:01 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 93284

There is no proof of that. Tammy Phillips was GW's Houston stripper mistress.

To: American Spirit who wrote (66901)	8/4/2006 1:57:01 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

youtube.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (66901)	8/4/2006 2:00:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 93284

Adding Insult to Expulsion ___________________________________________________________ By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Thursday, August 3, 2006; 1:02 PM President Bush's cheeky, newsless visit to the White House briefing room yesterday was an appropriate sendoff for a press corps that has been unable to get much if any advantage from its physical proximity to Bush's inner sanctum. Reporters, who for decades have occupied a decrepit warren of cubicles in the West Wing just beyond the briefing room, are being relocated to temporary quarters across the street to enable a badly needed renovation. But the fact that the press corps dwelled just a few yards from the Oval Office was deceptive. Any reporter actually trying to take a step beyond the press secretary's office into the rest of the West Wing would have been wrestled to the ground by Secret Service agents. And whether journalists are caged in a centrally-located pen -- or in one a little further away -- doesn't really matter so long as this White House continues to treat the establishment press with thinly-disguised contempt. The spin, the secrets, the non-answers and the unprecedented lack of access are an insult not only to journalists, but to the public that depends on us to fully inform them about what's really going on in the White House. So there was something entirely appropriate about Bush stopping by the briefing room yesterday not to answer (or even be asked) a single substantive question -- but to insult pretty much everyone in spitting distance. Here's the transcript ; here's the video . Spotting Marlin Fitzwater among the visiting luminaries, the president razzed his father's notoriously homely press secretary: "Marlin, you're looking as pretty as ever." Tweaking his own press secretary, Tony Snow, Bush said "I want to thank the former spin meisters for joining me up here. Tell my people how to do it, will you?" When Cox Newspaper reporter Ken Herman responded with a quip to Bush's question about how long the renovation was expected to take -- "We're setting no timetables, Mr. President," Herman said -- Bush responded by calling him a "crackpot." All in good fun, of course. "It looks a little crowded in here. And so you want to double the size?" Bush taunted the audience. "Forget it." He needled the television personalities in the audience: "The last time I had a press conference in here, it felt like it was outside. As a matter of fact, some of your makeup was running." Asked a sycophantic question about the press corps itself -- by chief briefing-room bootlicker Raghubir Goyal, who represents an Indian newspaper I'm not even sure really exists -- Bush responded sarcastically: "It's a beautiful bunch of people." And when former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson, famous for shouting out important questions to Ronald Reagan, asked Bush an idiotic one -- "Mr. President, should Mel Gibson be forgiven?" -- Bush responded: "Is that Sam Donaldson? Forget it. You're a has-been. We don't have to answer has-been's questions." Even a press corps used to chuckling and guffawing at Bush's frat-boy towel-snapping responded with what the White House transcribers recorded as an "Ohhhhh!" over that one. All in all, an appropriately ugly and useless sendoff to a room where both respect and self-respect have been in short supply. -- more here: washingtonpost.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (66901)	8/4/2006 2:31:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Voting Iraq War Up or Down _____________________________________________________________ by Helen Thomas Syndicated Columnist Published on Friday, August 4, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer The political fate of Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman will be on the line in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Connecticut, an election that has become a referendum on the war in Iraq. Lieberman, an all-out supporter of President Bush's policies in Iraq, is being challenged by an anti-war political novice who is giving Lieberman -- a three-term senator and his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000 -- a run for his political life. If Lieberman loses, it would send a loud signal to other hawkish Democrats that the American public has become deeply disillusioned about the war and is going to hold them accountable at the polls. Lieberman has threatened to run in November as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary. Pollster John Zogby of Zogby International said his latest national poll in July showed only 35 percent of those surveyed said the war has been worth the loss of American lives. More than 2,500 American military personnel have been killed in Iraq. The pompous senator has been called the White House's favorite Democrat because of his unquestioning support for Bush's militant policies. This stance puts him at odds with Democratic congressional leaders who only recently urged Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by the end of the year and to move on to a "more limited mission." In a letter Monday to the president, a dozen key lawmakers including Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, leader of Senate Democrats, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, leader of House Democrats, told Bush that "the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained. We need to take a new direction." The Democratic leaders are finally getting the message from rank-and-file voters who are far ahead of them in seeing the impact of the Iraqi quagmire on their lives and the nation. Lieberman's opponent in the Connecticut Democratic primary is Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman. Most polls in the state show a close race. Lieberman was former Vice President Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential race, but there appears to be no love lost between them now. Gore opted to support former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. Nor has Gore supported the beleaguered Lieberman this time around as he seeks re-election to the Senate. Nevertheless, Lieberman, who once served as chairman of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, has the backing of several centrist party leaders, including former President Clinton, who campaigned for him, and his wife, Hillary, the senator from New York. Although once criticized by Lieberman for his liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Clinton told a rally last month that the Connecticut senator is "a good man, a good Democrat, and he'll do you proud." The senator has voted with mainstream Democrats on many issues, including tax cuts, the environment, gun control and abortion rights. Like other mainstream Democrats, he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. When those weapons turned out to be non-existent and the death toll of American military personnel has continued to mount in the face of a tenacious insurgency, other mainstream Democrats began to question the war. Not Lieberman. He wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 29, 2005: "I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead." I hope there is a grand awakening for the senator when he learns that voters do care why we got into the war and, better still, how we can get out.