The left's hatred of George Bush is blinding them

Great article! Just one question: given the type of President Bush is and given what the Democrats are offering, how can you be intellectually honest and say you don't know if you will vote for him??!! Really, what Democrat candidate has a single policy that you or me or anyone who leans to the right, would be comfortable with? Your piece summed up multiple reasons why we all should and will vote for him next year.

- R. Oresteen

There are other candidates. Sure, only Republicans and Demos have a chance. But a vote for a libertarian or other conservative party, if in enough numbers, might bring the Republicans back a bit to the right. Our children are going to have huge taxes now thanks to that prescription drug "benefit". And Bush is the one pushing for it. Not to mention massive deficits are back.

I'm not american, but i think there are many valid reasons for anyone to seriously dislike or hate bush. Mainly my problem with him after watching for a couple years now is that he bows to the polls day in and day out. You can watch his so-called policies shift with every new media event. But that is only what he says of course... which apparently doesn't have much to do with what he will actually decide. Ample of evidence of that is in his accouncement is which he declared that he was running for president (i know thats old news but its still the most black and white example of my statement). I could see how terrorism-related atrocties could change one's mind, especially for someone who is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world.

I believe that his decision making process is severely hampered by the people who helped him get elected to office; mostly right-wing hawks and pundits. You can basically tell whos personal mouthpeice he is for the day easily. I figure he owes much to these guys that got the funding and support of the republicans. Mainly Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz use him to grab whatever power they feel like. I would mention John Ashcroft, but he seems more like a tool to appeal to the so-called Christian Conservatives. Of course this is my opinion, but it seems apparent that once these guys got him to office and had the chance (major terror attack) they made sure he was doing the job they intended to have finished at the end of the first gulf war. These guys were seriously pissed at GWB's father. Of course for leaving iraq way too early (which i believe as well). Anything social of political they have contributed to is at a contrast with any of the values bush said he shared. I mean most of these guys waited 10+ years after having a plan to be able to carry it out. By that i speak of the book i think is called "America's new role in the 21st Century". Which is basically a vertex of the goals the extreme right-wing hawks and the values of a french philospher ( i again forget his name but i will look it up if anyone here does not know of which i speak) who inherited his views from the nazi's failed attempts of capturing europe. He did not support the genocide or anything like that but argued for control of the media and propaganda and ideas that only an elite few can know whats possibly good for all people. Thats were the idea of pre-emptive strikes come from. If you read the "America's new role in the 21st Century" you will see extreme parallels between the ideas of Wolfowitz and the historical documents of the nazi party in mobilizing a country into an offensive powerhouse. Now if you look at the measures the white house is still trying to get through congress the issues that they push the strongest are the same issues that Wolfowitz is trying to absolve of in his literature.

Now for bush, if you eliminate the specific ideas that come directly from wolfowitz, take out bush's ideas on military budget and defence spending based on what Pearle has lobbied on for the last 2 years you dont have bush ponying up for many strong issues with his own voice. Now i know that someone of his importance has to make sacrifices and comprimises. But does he have to comprimise to to the hawks, or bow out to the money every time. His biggest moral stance that i have seen was when he asked that the country pray. He seems to flip flop to much to hate him for any good reason but that reason itself. If you hate him your actually just hating the people that lobby to him, his military advisers, and the guys that got him there in the first place.

In my opinion if it wasn't him it could have been any other down-home sounding boy with a shit-eating grin and a couple dollars in the piggy bank. Also i dont think much of anything wrong in the states is much of his own fault since he obviously hasn't learned disipline or responsibilities from his upbringing. I believe it is more a shortfall of the democractic/capitalism ideology. Also i thought republican were all about making money and saving it, not blowing it on whatever will get the polls in their favor.

PCP, I think your comment is strengthening Draginol's stance. I wasn't able to follow any argument at all that you put forth for hating Bush. When you talk about "the people who put him there", I guess you are talking about his cabinet members. I think he has the best staff there could have been. Cheney, Powell, and Rice are incredible minds with diverse backgrounds. I think more highly of them than of GW.

When you say he waivers to polls, what example do you give?

I don't think all that highly of GW as a man. He is one of those guys I would have stayed away from in school. Rich, irresponsible partier. He seems like a good family man these days. He has a job that I would never want in a million years. People used to hope their child would grow up to be president. I certainly hope mine don't. Too many crazies out there with hate in their hearts that want to destroy or even kill the president.

I say again, as I say to most US issues, put up or shut up. If Americans don't like Bush, give us a better alternative. I don't see anyone doing that currently. They can whine all they want but it won't do a darn bit of good. I still think that people should respect their president whether they like him or not. By not respecting him, you disrespect the majority of your country too. Show how you feel at the polls, see how it turns out, if you don't like the result, do something to change it next time. In the meantime, be respectful.

As a non American I have a very different view of Bush. What I see in particular are his international policies and in this area he is particulary weak. Let me give some examples

- Terrorism - This has been Bush's major foreign policy, but many countries feel it's been lost. The war against Iraq was not about terrorism. There was NO link ever proven between Iraq and terror. Terrorism is now being used as an excuse. It's sad when you look back at old news reels and see the arguments changing month by month. There were many good reasons to invade Iraq, but terrorism was not one of them. If Bush was serious about Terrorism he would have finished the work in Afganistan and worked on a middle east peace plan first instead of diverting resources to Iraq. I do agree that this is a war that has to be won, but Iraq will now seriously lengthen this war by creating years more hatred to overcome.

- NATO - Bush blocks every attempt by the EU to form a defense force. Why? Because he does not want it detracting from NATO. It makes European countries feel like they are states of the US with no right to their own defense policies. Maybe he should accept that the EU has a right to have it's own defense force and just ensure that it's well integrated with Nato?

- Economics - Whatever about internal American economics (which doesn't affect me), Bush's international economic policies have been very protectionism and anti-free trade. Bush is days away from a major trade war on steel tariffs, and only 2 months away from an even bigger Government tax incentive trade war. These policies are likely to cause severe damage to the world economy. I do agree with you point about China though, it's doing the same thing worldwide. The US needs to band together with the EU and submit a complaint to the WTO. That's what it's for!

- Rule of Law - One of the major causes for non Americans to dislike Bush is his polices on global emissions and the Kyoto accord. Over 100 hundred countries have ratified this accord but the US refused to either ratify or be bound by it. The US agreed to international laws on these issues and then just flaunts them when they don't suit. How can anyone every trust the US when they know that the rule of law means nothing to the US on the international scene? The same is true for the international court of human rights. Not only does the US refuse to accept it (despite being a signatory to treaties which should force it to accept it) it actively tries to bribe countries to exempt US servicemen from prosecution.

I have no reason to hate Bush. But his international polices generate a complete lack of respect. I have no respect for someone who thinks the world is their personal sandbox and makes no effort to get along with other nations.

Maybe Bush is jsut what America needs. I don't care, but if his international policies don't change America will suffer from major backlash in international opinion.

Paul.

Terrorism:
The war in Iraq is about terrorism. Just not in the way you're thinking. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, true. But the "root cause" of terrorism is Islamic extremism coming from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, an Egypt. What country is right in the middle there? Iraq. IF the United States can put together a stable democratic country with liberal (classic liberal) ideals then it may serve as an example to other countries in the region on how their people might find a better way to live rather than wanting to kill westerners.

NATO: I don't think Bush or the US would have a problem with a seperate EU force IF the NATO members were pulling their own weight. But as it is, the US is the one pulling almost all the weight so it's kind of insulting for the EU to go and try to have a second military force. The EU should either support NATO or get rid of it and pay their own damn share of the military cost.

Economics: This is propaganda. Bush put a modest steel tarriff up. How can any European complain about that when Europe has the most protective farm policies in the world?

Kyoto: Failed before Bush become President. Same with the ICC. These are two examples of where people are grasping at excuses to hate Bush. Neither Kyoto or the ICC would have passed congress and the ICC would have been illegal to boot. Kyoto would have damaged the US economy while exempting the world's largest growing polluter - China. Kyoto was, simply put, a joke.

There is no such thing as international law in some binding sense unless a country willingly signs over to it. The US didn't ratify Kyoto or the ICC. Therefore it is not bound to them. It's as simple as that. Given the experience of the UN, the US is smart to work to ensure that its people are not affected by the ICC.

I don't see any way for the United States to "suffer" international backlash because I don't see Europe as being actually serious on these issues. Just chattering. And realistically, it's basically Europe that's leading the anti-Bush nonsense.

Jill User : he obviously did not get help from the 3 you mention to get him elected. I am talking about where his fundraising comes from and people who wrote his speechs, devised his war-strategies, and spread through propaganda through his public office. Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz. All neo-conservatives in their late fifties that have been bitter and hostile since Bush Sr. Left office. Even before that.

hey! george bush is doing a good job. what if you bacame prez and the 9-11 thing happened??? what would you do? i think that he did a good job with all.

Draginov : as for economics go , the first thing they did after iraq was "successfully" captured was change the oil trade dollar from the euro to american dollars which iraq had changed 2 years ago. I'd actually say that withstanding the economy is probably better for iraqi's then it has been in years.

But on a global scale of economics this is bad for every single country but the united states and possibily any of those within nafta. A huge economic problem that has yet to be payed due attention is america's problem with writing blank cheques. Basically after WWII American Currency had become the stablest currency from lending much money and raw materials, weapons of war to countries throughout europe. America's help in the war was not without a fee. (thats the reason for the so-called Pearl-Harbor conspiracy in which the general in charge of the fleet that was later destroyed by the japanese was told to either keep his ships there or resign. Any good navel commander would see that keeping their ships in such close proximity to japanese planes' range was a surefire way to attract an attack. Especially less thes 10 days after cutting their oil supply. Before this time many american's at home did not want to be involved in a war. But the easy attack of the japanese gave the pro-war people in the us a good reason to enter the war; and now they could begin to establish the military-defense powerhouse and drop a few nukes to show everyone who was in charge. Now as i said earlier, after the war thanks to the help they received much of europe was in debt to the USA. Either way to stop the nazi's europe needed canada and american's help.

So now with America being the only dominant country that wasn't a dictatorship they had the stablest economy in the world. A position that before WW2 was held in europe. Now fast-foward to the formation of OPEC in 1972 and they people had to decide on what i believe in called a De-nero currency which is should be based on the stablest currency. So then oil was traded in American dollar. A dollar is basically just a cheque that says the (american) tresury owes you one. If all oil is to be sold in american currency, then of course the rest of world is going to sell their products for that same currency. This produces an ease of trade. Now if everyone is always buying and selling products using the american cheques, that means the cheques are not going to come back to the united states. Now add that to the emerging competition coming from countries due to globalisation and couple that with the horrible state of the stock market 2 years ago and the USA has a major problem on its hands. The treasury theoretically could print any amount of money between 1972 and 2000 and not have to worry about the ramifications of that. If read a fine paper like the economist or any other global money mag you'll find that american money could inflate in value and virtually have no consequence to the domestic economy there.

Now in 2000/2001 the European Union was gaming steam and soon they had their own currency, which was deemed ok to use as a standard with opec. Now this leaves the states in a very precarious position. What is going to happen with all this money thats been floating around the globe for the last 30 or so odd years? We'll its going to come back. That begins with deflation of the value of the dollar - which has been going on since about halfway through 2001. This is only 1 major reason for the economical problems the US is now facing. Now myself and many other foreigners believe that economics are the main reason for most stuff. It's sad but outsiders seldom are able to see attacks on iraq and afganistan as only revenge attacks. We see revenge on terror everyday in israel. It is not the same thing going on in iraq.

With iraq back in the oil trading game with the american dollar as its trading currency the US is once again in the power position. Venezula (sp?) is a good example of what i am talking about. Soon after the formation of a new european currency venezual's president soon announced they, they 3rd (i believe) largest oil producer in the world would swtich over to it as well. Now what do you see in the American media after this guys statment? You see major strike-ups and protest's against him with nbc and cnn broadcasting the opinions of the unions down there as true. Now the unions that led these people to strike against a president that was elected by 60% of the people (the poor) were union leaders based in the states. In any other part of the world you could see this was obviously bogus. The south amerian countries need to do anything they can to get their countries out of poverty and political corruptness. Now if you take the idea of the millionare corporate strategist's in washington trying to sway their power over this relatively small oil producing country you could see what was at stake in iraq. Now if these guys are contributing the funds to bush i wonder what they want in return? Now im not a sucker for the democrats either (which are not left-wing at all), cause they are willing to bend over backwards for so much as a dollar in their name. Just look at Dennis K. ties with the e-vote companies for info on that.

Now even if you dont beleive any of the shit about the american dollar and european dollar fighting for control of the market look at this so-called defence spending being done under GWB's good name. Do a favour for yourself and find the top contributors to GWB , and the companies that the neo-conservative's run as well as their ties to various forgein and domestic factions of mercanaries. If you look at the correlations between the people that pay money for these guys to run for office, the companies they represent and the kind of defense solutions such as guns, new forms of mobile artillery units, and he money that is spent on these programs. It's a little to close for comfort between all of these guys. Richard pearle is a great example of that. If you dont know who he is or what his background is, and you're arguing about this topic i suggest you go and read so right and left wing publications about him. But stay away from anything conrad black owns such as the Jerusalem Post and so forth because they both sit on the board of directors of many of the same publications and companies. Take a look at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/26/perle/index_np.html for a good read on him. Now try and find other any non left leaning papers against him and express an opinion of himself. Kind of funny that he works on the Defence Policy board but also is the chairman of a company that produces weapons that are recomended by the DPB. That's just another example of how bush doesn't represent himself.

Now as far as "Cheney, Powell, and Rice" being superb people to run a country i suggest you are joking, or maybe ill-advised. Now rice has been reduced to a job of denying, denying, denying. NO bush didnt do that, no we arent responible. She had a chance to be great but now she will just be remembered as another beurocrat afraid to stand on her own two feet for feer of falling to the bottom. Cheney is a pure business man and if you find any examples of him doing actual good with his job then state it here. Now i really feel sorry for powell forced to wreck every alliance he has ever created with the foreign powers. He says he "can't read this bullshit", but i think he has shown time and time again that he is very good at reading bullshit, especially term papers based on the posilbility of yemen selling iraq uranium. A report that was reported as false by the IAEA within a day of him stating that. Now you think the white house could have found out of that at least a day before they went to the UN with that 'damning evidence'. But no, they dont care if people know its real. Thats all you can really say for what powell has done in the last 2 years. Could have been a great president, but with his relations in tatters would you want him to represent america to foreign powers?

Now i think the best reason to really hate bush, especially if i was american aside from all his help in letting people like his good friend kenny lay get away with fleacing an entire cities (ok enron) pension plan away from the people on the bottom who earned it, aside from all of that shit that so easy to pin on him. The reason to really dislike or hate him is that he is a traitor. He gave away an american diplomat's wife's identity as that of a CIA agent. Now that fighter for democracy and all that is good (i hold a very high esteem of your cia, and fbi) has his wife and anyone else in his family at risk. Now this is an issue that no one will like, the right or the left. But it isn't going to go away soon. If you dont know what im talking about in this last paragraph you should feel morally obligated to read about it if you support this man. He betrayed one your own and didnt so much as think a second thought about it. Throw away all the corporate misfunding, his youth hoolaganism, his mismanagment of the tax breaks and poor if any kind of handling of economic policies and even his view on the war or anything do with terrorism, and you still have left the one valid reason to hate him. His betraying of a Diplomat and his CIA-agent wife.

if you dont want to read that entire comment just read the last paragraph. thats all that really matters.

The hypocrisy of this is astonishing. Because right-wingers didn't care for Clinton's personality, they decried him as being a terrible president, even though crime rates and unemployment went down, terrorist plots were foiled, and our economy boomed. My father, a lowly blue collar man, even enjoyed his first pay raise in 12 years. But for a left-wing to dislike Bush's personality, and decry him as a poor president because crime rates and environmental pollution have been driven up, while major oversights lead to the success of the attacks on 9/11, and the middle-class becoming but a vapor due to the tax cuts... well thats just too much, isn't it?

Draginol,
to reply to your response.

- terrorism. As I said there were many good reasons to invade Iraq and setting up a stable democracy in the middle east is definitely one of them. Pity Bush wouldn't admit that as the truth instead of WMD excuses and terrorism links, my respect for him might then increase a bit. It's the lies and constant alterior motives to those stated that leave no trust (even if those alterior motives may be good ones).

- Nato. Bush clearly stated in the UK last week his opposition to a EU defence force. He felt it detracted from Nato. The problem with Nato is that the US and the EU have totally different views on what it's size and strength and use should be. Many countries in the EU want a force of their own design which they can then send on whatever peace keeping missions they see as important. We all know that the US spends more on defense and has a greater military focus to diplomancy than the EU. Why should the EU have to meet the US's requirement of 'support' for Nato. This is the exact problem and your comments on this just enforce the point.

- economics. How can you say this is just propaganda. What planet do you live on? Do you honestly believe that China, Brazil, India, Russia and the EU are all overreacting. The steel tariffs of 30% are only the tip of the iceberg. That's but 2.2 billion dollars in tariffs from the EU. The US is looking at 40 billion US dollars in WTO approved relalitary tariffs worldwide by the end of next year over a wide range of seperate issues. Wake up, there is a world outside of the US and it's very angry with Bush.

- Kyoto. Kyoto has not failed. Over 100 countries have not only ratified the treaty but are trying hard to meet the goals (various levels of success and failure). Same with the ICC, it is up and running.

- Law. By international law (which the US has indeed ratified within the auspices of the UN) both the Kyoto acccord and the ICC are legally binding on ALL countries once ratified by agreed upon majorities. The ICC has reached this level and is in place, the Kyoto agreement is awaiting on the US or Russia to ratify to come into force. For the US to ignore these but still abide by the same laws giving it a security council seat and veto rights, not to mention trade agreements is hypocracy. These laws exist. Go read about them.

Bottom line is no-one on the planet can trust anything Bush says as he's willing to ignore international treaties when it suits him. I had not realised how sheltered you are in the US to honesty believe that the economic issues are just propaganda and that the US has no internation law obligations. Wow.

Paul.

"Throw away all... and you still have left the one valid reason to hate him. His betraying of a Diplomat and his CIA-agent wife."

And where the hell did you find out that Bush himself leaked this information (which, whoever did it, was harmless anyway since the woman is an analyst at CIA headquarters--NOT AN AGENT)? It's pretty sad that your "one valid reason to hate him" is a beaten//dead horse that never panned out to anything, and eventually dropped from the news because THERE WAS NOTHING TO IT to deserve all the damn fuss.

good job assgfdss, i have no idea where pcp got that info but he must be high.

um. your commander and cheif shouldn't be such an ingrate that he even has to deal with problems like the one i mentioned about the cia agent.

I think that this atricle, whilst well written makes a few assumptions that I see coming from the right.

Firstly "More and more I read blogs that just spew so much hatred towards Bush ", this is not a phenomenon that is confined to the dems. Just look at the hatred that the Clinton name brings up and its obvious that there are lots of people out there that simply hate people that have differing views to their own. Thats is a simplistic way to put it but its accurate, this 'hatred' issue is only an issue as it is being used as a defense tactic by the champions of political hatred - AM Radio talk show hosts.

Next assumption 'and out of touch with the American people' . Who sir are you to define what the American People think and feel. I don't know everyone in the US and I'm fairly sure you don't either. Opinion polls, whilst fluctuating, show a country pretty evenly divided on the issue of politics so lets not fall into the trap of making the 'American People' statement. To your credit you didnt fall into the more offensive use of the term 'Real Americans' which is more and more being used to describe people that support the President.

Final assumption 'Howard Dean who seems to be totally devoid of any geopolitical thought whatsoever and have zero interesting economic proposals other than raising my taxes'. Nowhere in your article do you address the effects that the current unprecidented level of spending is going to have on your taxes.

Currently 25% of tax dollars go to paying down the interest only on the national debt, this figure will have to rise as the record budget defecits get added to the debt. You have fallen into the smoke and mirrors tax argument, this admin is basically stealing from peter to pay paul and this is not sustainable in the long term.

Taxes unfortunately will have to rise as it is unlikely that government spending will decrease. Of course the next democractic President can trim billions of dollars of corporate pork from the current spending and still look like a hero whilst really only returning us to the status quo we had under Clinton when a Republican Congress pushed hard for a balanced budget - but now forgets why that was important.

Dean has excellent views on Iraq, Israel and the budget but I wont get into those in detail in this comment as I dont want to be here for too long. Listen to him with the blinkers off.

So to sumarise, the hatred has always been there and probably always will be. Talking heads are focusing on it now simply becuase it is being used as a sympathy vote tactic.

There are legitamate proposals being put out by the democratic contenders for alternate paths to the bush admin's policies and they are worth listening too. If you dont listen please don't then say they arent there.

Finally I want to say that the war in IRaq has nothing to do with the war on terror, the Taliban are on the rise again in Afganistan and Al Queda recruitment is up, so your statement of ') Zero tolerance of terrorism. We will stay in Iraq and win that war. ' which compares one with the other is as misleading as the 16 words in the state of the union.

'Either way though, the left needs a positive message. ' They are doing so, but partisan people are not listening.

911 Victim's Wife, Ellen Mariani, Files RICO Act

Press Release

News Conference - Wednesday - 11/26/03 - 12 Noon
5th & Ranstead Streets, Philadelphia
[corner of Bourse Building with Independence Hall in background]

911 Victim's Wife, Ellen Mariani, files RICO Act
[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]
Federal Court Complaint against President Bush
and Cabinet Members

(Philadelphia, PA - 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg that they:

1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or take steps to prevent;

2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and

3. have therefore violated the laws of the United States; and

4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

Berg stated: "I will be detailing the charges against Bush and others and handing out copies of the:

1. Amended Complaint;

2. a Letter from Ellen Mariani to President Bush that sets forth her beliefs that President Bush knowingly and willfully failed to act and prevent the murder of her husband on 911 and the ongoing obstruction of justice; and

3. a Sworn Affidavit that the United States government twenty-eight [28] years ago undertook a study to prevent the very events of 911.

Mrs. Mariani was the first victim family member to bring civil action regarding the events of 911 against United Airlines. Since then, the "truth" of 911 has not been forthcoming and Mrs. Mariani, for the good of her country, now seeks the truth via this courageous action under the RICO Act.

Berg said: "The events surrounding "911" to date have yet to be uncovered.

While America was under attack, for approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

Plaintiff, with her amended complaint intends to expose the truth to remember the dead and to prevent continued deaths of American military personnel due to President Bush's "failure to act and prevent" the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor.

Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.

Defendant GWB has purported to the American People and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.'

Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks.

Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit Defendants both financially and for political reasons.

There are significant business ties that will be proven between Defendants and OBL's family which raise serious conflict of interest and other matters wherein "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks have benefited Defendants.

Reports have emerged and will be confirmed through discovery that the Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defense contractor until recently employed Defendant and former President GHB. Hence, the "Bush Family" and other Defendants financial profiting by war goes to the heart of Plaintiff's RICO Act claim.

Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein, personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911."

In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and financial gains.

Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas.

///////

** Copy of sixty-one [61] page Amended Complaint available by e-mail" - contact Phil Berg at [email protected]

///////

[Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA.]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/120403mariani.html

Re: IN-SANE. Ask them why and the reasons usually in a gurgle of profanity and crazy talk.

This is because you would have to be crazy and more than likely uneducated not to like G.W.
Before I got to know him, I didn't like him either. I voted for Al Gore. I was outraged at the way he weaseled his way into office. I swore up and down that his brother Jeb rigged the Florida vote to help his brother win the state.

Now that I have gotten to know him and see him in action. I can only say, "Thank God he is in there." I wouldn't want anyone else. I feel much safer with G.W. in there than I ever would have with Al Gore. (I must have been a IN-SANE to have voted for him.) Regardless of how G.W. got into office, I'm glad he got there. Regardless of what the true excuse was for going to war with Iraq, I'm glad that G.W. found one.
Let the crazy and uneducated think and say what they want...
I Love G.W. and feel that he will be doing America a great service if he gives us another four years.

The TRUTH is relevent, www.evidencenet.com

First of all I gotta say i really like this article and it is something that went through my head at a time. Why is there so much hate against Bush? But there's total reasons for this. The main reason I choose is the war on terrorism. Many people don't like war, and in a new age of war planning strategies and spies, fbi, mindcontrol, terrorism, etc. The war fare we're using is just damn right stuped. Bombing Afghanistan to quicken the destruction of terrorists lead to homeless people and many deaths and gave the terrorists an advantage:
The work better in chaos with society weaker which after the bombs were dropped left society crippled. Also terrorists down have huge bases they work in small cells so the bombing didn't do much in destroying them at all. What it did do was leave a place for American troops to walk through.

Then came Iraq, as statistics show as you can check Afghanistans security is crumbling as we left it saying it was "secure".

Why did we leave so fast and go to Iraq? What ever the reason since i'm not going to blame Bush for wanting to help himself and our countrey to oil resources which we need badly (unless we decided to use cleaner burning hemp) it was a bad idea. Did you know that the UN supported the Taliban to help set up a stronger Afghanistan? When we left we left the Taliban out of rule and the Al-Qeada stronger. There was a quote from the people that said somethoing along the lines of "Under Taliban there were regulations they be enforced law and we fealt safer under there rule then now"

I think wars fucked and the way in which we did it was totally wrong, I would have used a different strategy just as Kerry would have:
>Stay in Afghan and set up a strong self governed area there
>Work with the UN more, they have been helping create a safer middle east way bfore we came
>Stop working with drug lords (yes we do) and start working with Taliban
>Don't take away freedoms that give power to the government (all the laws being passed with the undefined word "terrorist")

I can find hundreds of reasons to hate Bush,
But you know what?
I can find hundreds of reasons to hate anyone...
If it was up to me Badnarik would be president (liberal) but since it's not it seems the world has voted for Bush. In my total opinion Bush hasn't really doen anything bad to "take away our freedom" since I feal my life hasn't ever been effected by what he's doing. Also I understand the reason for war and why he declared it. I rather not be in this war but now that we are, even though I think Kerry would have doen a better job, Bush hasn't been doing a bad job I guess? We got suddam (by luck) and I don't think the worlds that much worse off with Bush leading America.

Eather way Canada pawns all.