Fuck you Mr. Bush you are an asshole

Learn more about Peak Oil at Energy and Capital .
Authentic leadership is in short supply. Republicans would have it that the president provides it. I don't see it. This is a purported regular guy who is the scion of privilege and whose resume owes more to the family tree than the grindstone
The most important step you can take today is call your two senators at 1-202-224-3121 or 1-800-839-527 Bother the fuck out of them!
Learn how to take the power back, protect yourself from the insane, foolish, idiot and crazy! Join Destroy the the machine, right now! Do it, do it, do it....... www.destroythemachine.com
Subscribe to the blog and get the news right at you myspace door. Help smack Bush and his criminal friends down the deep hole!
Please post a comment speaking out on what wrong you think is taking place or maybe just a Fuck you to the portion of idiots running government
- Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553, [email protected]
- Senator Dick Durbin, (202) 224-2152, [email protected]
- Senator Russ Feingold, (202) 224-5323, [email protected]
- Senator Tom Harkin, (202) 224-3254, [email protected]
- Senator Jim Jeffords, (202) 224-5141, [email protected]
- Senator Edward Kennedy, 202/224-4543, [email protected]
- Senator Patrick Leahy, (202) 224-4242, [email protected]
.http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://www.loc.gov/
http://www.house.gov/house/mediagallery.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ Contact Congress
Links:
Online "streaming radio" news that hold your values.: http://www.airamerica.com
Current News with a spin on the missing information main stream media cancels facts and throws many things out of context: http://www.commondreams.org
Read more facts about "Bush" the Govenrment, what they actively practicing while under the Bush administration. http://www.americaforsale.org/
Impeach Bush; doesn't get to much more clear now does it? Cast your vote now, it does matter!: http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
http://www.opensecrets.org/
____________________________________________________________ ______________ ____________________________________________________________ ______________
Please Help promote "Fuck You Mr. Bush You are an Asshole." http://profiles.myspace.com/users/12732205
Why is Bush such a dumb ass when his wife is a teacher?
I am the many that will not buy the Governments bullshit scam that is probably, more then likely a criminal activity; Bush is a crook, a terrorist and everything that is bad about the human race. If Jesus was alive he would have been protesting Bush, fighting bush. In fact when Jesus spoke out it was about crooks like "Bush" and his mob of "End Times" looneys. They're back; the crazies from the 80's. I am no bible basher But Jesus was anti Government, corrupt business. He wasn't for taxing people or blowing them up in anyones name.He stood for love and coming together as different cultures.Force is criminal act, it down right irrational just maybe even a bit crazy minded. What I have to say to you Mr. Bush is... FUCK YOU in the biggest way possible. That goes for all you Millennialist. If you read the bible at all you would know that it reads, No Man Shall Know When the coming of the Lord will happen." Your the criminal with a criminal mind that doesn't have the guts or courage to think for yourself. You are to ignorant to learn Your own faith to back up the writing of your lord to see if someone like G.W.B. is actually lining up with its teaching. If you did you might just want G.W.B. the electric chair. I know that there must be a better system for the people to vote and monitor every Government action or bill! We should be the ones that control the Government not the people that are elected. They should be accountable and they are not. It has become big business not serving the people of the USA. I truly apologize to all the world that the crooks still remain in office. We will never know if Bush really won or Kerry really lost. It was done on machine with no paper trail. I think it is time for a revolt. Time for the people to stand up for their rights.
You are the good, the innocent. Yet, throughout history, you have been defrauded of your earned prosperity and happiness. You have been victimized by the politicians, bureaucrats, theologians, pseudo intellectuals, and the white-collar hoax. For they live off your efforts, repaying you only with falsehoods, unearned guilt, and demands for sacrifice. In your innocence, you have unnecessarily accepted their frauds, usurpations, and abuses. Don't take another minute. They don't even care about you. They don't even know you exist, well maybe at tax time.
Consequences of the fall of the dollar
It was not the main thing on his mind when he launched the attacks three years ago, but Osama bin Laden has played a large role in undermining the U.S. economy. The dollar's decline to record lows is partly his work.
If you haven't noticed the dollar's fall to record lows (and the rise of gold to a 16-year high), you will. The dollar is a bigger worry for economists than the rise in oil prices, though the two are related. With world oil prices denominated in dollars (for now), oil producers must raise prices to counter the dollar's slide.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan spooked markets last month when he admitted he had no idea how far the dollar would fall. Speculators took his speech as good reason to bid the dollar down still more, and it's now at an all-time low against the euro, having lost a third of its value since 2001 and nearly as much against the British pound.
So what, you say? Christmas is here, consumers and government are spending like mad, and Washington's deficits will balloon still more when President Bush privatizes Social Security. Not to worry. With more tax cuts coming and the never-ending Iraq war, which Bush wrongly connected to Sept. 11, we'll just charge everything.
The question economists -- even the prudent Greenspan -- ask is this: How long can we get away with the binge before something really bad happens?
The dollar falls because foreigners are inundated with them and charging more to take them. Nobody has a clue how much more they will charge. Predicting the dollar's path, Greenspan told Frankfurt bankers, is like "forecasting the outcome of a coin toss."
Making monetary policy by coin toss does not exactly inspire market confidence.
Economists are in two camps over the dollar's future, and neither camp is optimistic.
Camp 1 says the world will tolerate a sliding dollar another few years because it has no choice. America's $500 billion annual deficits will be financed by China, Japan and other Asians because they need our markets, and a collapsed dollar would wipe out U.S. purchases of their goods.
But Asian central banks already have cut back on support, which is why the dollar is falling. Still, Camp 1 believes that though Americans will face rising prices, interest rates and debt as the dollar falls, these adjustments, though painful for Americans, will be manageable.
Camp 2 sees a far more dramatic future for us, both economically and politically. One strong voice in this camp has been Paul Volcker, Greenspan's predecessor at the Federal Reserve, who sees a 75 percent chance of a dollar collapse within five years.
Under such a scenario, America under Bush would be facing worse economic problems than under Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, when exploding trade deficits, plus the Vietnam War and rising oil prices led to import and exchange controls and cut the dollar loose from gold.
The effects would be worse than under Nixon for two reasons: Because our trade deficits are larger this time, running at a record 6 percent of GDP; and because America was a net creditor in Nixon's time, whereas today it is the world's largest debtor.
Camp 2 puts our present problem in stark terms: America absorbs 75 percent of the world's savings today, that is, the savings of nations like Germany, China and Japan that run trade surpluses. One reason those nations send excess dollars back here (instead of investing in developing nations) is because a dollar collapse would mean a collapse of their currency reserves, which are held mostly in dollars. A collapse also would raise bond yields, cutting the value of their vast quantities of U.S. Treasury bonds.
With the euro, however, a new alternative to the dollar exists, and surplus countries have lately been diversifying into euros, another reason for the dollar's decline. Camp 2 economists see the dollar falling by another 40 percent or more, which would leave no sector of the U.S. economy untouched, including bond yields, inflation, consumer spending, employment and the stock market.
Beyond economics, Camp 2 sees an international political problem looming, mainly with China, with which America will run a trade deficit of some $150 billion this year (look for the "made in China" label on the bottom of your Christmas presents). That is about twice the U.S. deficit with Japan, once our largest creditor.
Trade deficits normally lead to currency adjustments, which is why the dollar is falling. China, however, pegs its yuan to the dollar, meaning that even as other Asian currencies rise (yen, won and Singapore and Taiwan dollars), the yuan is falling along with the dollar.
A falling yuan is irrational because with China's strong trade and reserve surpluses, the yuan should rise.
Stephen Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley, predicts that if China doesn't cut its currency away from the dollar, it risks political retaliation. The sooner China "prepares the world for a transition to a new and more flexible currency regime," he writes, "the better its chances of neutralizing geopolitical risks."
China will act on its own interests, as will other nations. How far and fast the dollar falls is out of America's hands.
Links:
http://www.airamericaradio.com
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.americaforsale.org/
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.boycottbush.net/
IF you have any valid links please send them to me and I'll put them up for all to see. If you have any news about G.W.B. and the Administration or any government fraud please forward that to me and I'll post it.
Why Bin Laden Fears Kerry More Than He Fears Bush
Many observers have thought for some time that Bush's words and his administration's deeds have helped the Al Qaeda effort to gather new recruits to terrorism throughout the Muslim world. Bush began by calling his war on terrorism a crusade, setting the Christian vs. Muslim tone that remains today in the mind of the Muslim world. Bush went to war to remove imagined terrorists from Iraq, and today there are more terrorists in Iraq than ever before. As Slate's William Saletan writes:
"Osama Bin Laden has finally repaid his debt to President Bush, who has spent the three years since the Afghan war doing everything he could, inadvertently, to help Bin Laden. He let Bin Laden get away, turned our attention to Saddam Hussein, and conducted both prewar diplomacy and the postwar occupation of Iraq in a manner perfectly calculated --or rather, not calculated-- to discredit the United States and piss everyone off. Bin Laden couldn't have scripted it better."
Naturally, Bin laden would want to have Bush continue as President, given his failed anti-terrlorism policies that produce more terrorists, so it was not surprising to see a new Bin Laden tape scant days before the election, a tape in which Bin Laden renewed his threat to attack the U.S. because it has not changed its ways. Kerry, on the other hand, has proposed policies designed to put greater heat on Bin Laden, and Kerry has made clear that he will not continue Bush's failed anti-terrorism policies. As we know by now, Bin Laden and the men around him are not dummies. (U.S. ex-anti-terrorist head Richard Clarke to Ted Koppel On ABC's NIGHTLINE: "Bin Laden's a smart guy. If he attacks Bush, it moves the American people toward Bush's side.") Bin Laden knows how the tape would influence the election. So do the Bush and Kerry camps.
Should it come as a surprise that Democrats believe that Bin Laden has harmed Kerry's campaign? Should it come as a surprise that Republicans believe Bin Laden's tape is helping Bush? Americans know that a last-minute focus on the threat of terrorism favors Bush because his poll numbers are strongest as an anti-terrorist leader. Bin Laden knows that, too. It comes as no surprise that Bin Laden wants Bush to continue as President. --Jerry Politex.
Ten Reasons No One Should Have Voted For Bush (Administrative) 1.Bush, 2. Cheney, 3. Ashcroft, 4. Rumsfeld, 5. Rice, 6. Rove, 7. Wolfowitz, 8. Norton, 9. Goss, 10. DeLay
Fifteen Reasons No One Should Have Voted For Bush (policy) 1. Corporate State, 2. Wars, 3. Massive Debt, 4. Payoffs To Wealthy, 5. Civil Repression, 6. Conservative Judges, 7. Pro-Theocracy, 8. Anti-Environmental Protections, 9. Anti-Social Services, 10. Cultural Desert 11. Anti-Minorities/Poor, 12. Anti-Workers/Unions, 13. Anti-Health Patients, 14. Anti-Energy Consumers 15. Governing Through Fear And Lies
Ten Bush Flip-Flops 1.WMDs, 2. Nation Building, 3. Al Qaeda-Saddam, 4. 9/11 Commission, 5. Free Trade, 6. Homeland Security, 7. Same-Sex Intervention, 8. Winning War On Terror, 9. Campaign Finance Reform, 10. Gas Prices
Meet The Neocons; the dirty little evil bitches of the world Neocon 101 Some basic questions answered. What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security. What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
The Bush shows his Bumb assness
Bush "dumb ass remark" .1 Bush Vows Harm To U.S.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," he said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington, D.C. 08.05.04
Bush "dumb ass remark" .2 Bush Has Steadfast..."It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America."— George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003
Bush "dumb ass remark" .3 "You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will."—-G. W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003
Bush "dumb ass remark" .4 "Perhaps the biggest problem is that we have passed children from grade to grade, year after year, and those -- child hadn't learned the basics of reading and math." —Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 2003
This page will be updated soon. Check back to see what we add. Email us to add your own. If you want to defend GWB. Go away he is a crook and a dumb ass. Lets put it this way. If I did one thing GWB did you would not be my friend any longer. So why should you support him?
Christian Nation or Medieval Coup to Overturn Our Constitution? Or Both?
Antonin Scalia believes that America is officially a Christian nation.
John Ashcroft has declared that God is our King. George W. Bush believes that a Christian God chose him to become President and lead the nation in killing tens of thousands of people.
The Bush right wing religious base firmly believes, with few exceptions, that America was founded as a Christian country.
This is not hair splitting about "moral values." This gets to the heart of whether America was created, as Jefferson pronounced, with "a wall of separation between church and state" or whether we have an official state religion.
The Scalias, Ashcrofts, Bushes, Falwells and Robertsons are not just talking about a Christian nation; they are talking about THEIR vision of what a Christian nation should be. And a vengeful one it is.
There are many Christian denominations and interpretations of the Bible, and most of them are not radically extremist like the Bush hard core base. The Methodist Church, for example, to which Bush nominally belongs, opposed the War in Iraq, as did, it appeared, most of the major Christian groups in the United States. So the Bush religious contingent is a splinter group of fundamentalists.Not only do the Bush religious zealots believe that there is no wall between church and state -- in contradiction to our Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers -- they believe in a radical interpretation of the Bible -- and that they are literally on a Crusade.Jefferson foresaw the dangers such an outlook held to the Republic: "Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the era of reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged."As Mark Crispin Miller notes in his brilliant one-act monologue on the Bush administration, "A Patriot Act," the right wing Republican religious base doesn't want America to return to the status quo before the Civil War; it wants to turn America into a nation founded on a religious outlook that preceded the Enlightenment.John Leland, a Baptist minister who voted to ratify the Constitution, observed that "religion is a matter between God and individuals, religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government nor in any way under its control."Much of the debate on issues leading up to the Constitution played themselves out in Virginia, where many of the founding fathers lived and were involved in politics. In response to a Virginia bill that would have provided governmental stipends to the clergy, Madison vigorously objected in a lengthy "Remonstrance": "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."Madison knew that a just government need not cloak itself in the robe of religion in order to be perceived as credible. And that a religion too intertwined with government runs the high risk of being used to achieve political goals, thus corrupting the religion itself.We don't know what Constitution the Bush fanatics are looking at when they assert that we are a Christian nation, but it's not the American one. They aren't "Strict Constitutionalists." To the contrary, ideologues such as Antonin Scalia are, in reality, radical Constitutional revisionists.They don't want to restore us to the America built by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. They want to change the very foundations of the Constitution; in this case, the separation between church and state.Some time after the Revolution, a Unitarian minister from England, Richard Price, wrote a treatise praising the separation of church and state incorporated into the creation of the American nation. It was a wise step to take, Price noted because: "Civil establishments of formularies of faith and worship are inconsistent with the rights of private judgment. They engender strife. They turn religion into a trade. They shore up error. They produce hypocrisy and prevarication. They lay an undue bypass on the human mind in its enquiries and obstruct the progress of truth."What's clear to BuzzFlash is this: In 2005, the right wing has so twisted the psyche and Constitution of this nation, our founding fathers would have been considered radicals. And they wouldn't have gotten a minute of airtime.Those 1776 guys were more concerned with principles than sound bites.People would switch channels in a New York minute if one of THEM started talking.
by Juan ColeThe implication is that Bush and Cheney took partGeorge Stephanopolous dropped a bombshell on his show on Sunday. Toward the end, as Judd notes, he said,' Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions. ' The implication is that Bush and Cheney took part in discussions with Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and other administration spinmeisters about what to do about that pesky Joseph Wilson IV, former acting ambassador to Iraq who had stood up to Saddam in fall of 1990. Wilson had gone to Niger in spring of 2002 to check out the stories circulating in intelligence circles that Saddam had bought uranium there recently. Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney (when people are in legal trouble the tradition is to drop the nicknames) had asked the CIA about the stories. Wilson had found that the structure of the uranium industry in Niger (which frankly was in French hands) made the purchases implausible. What Wilson did not know at the time was that the stories were generated by actual documents, a set of clumsily forged letters generated by Italian military intelligence officer Rocco Martini (who claimed he was the tool of "higher powers.")Wilson wrote his report and assumed it was passed by then CIA direct George Tenet and thence went to Cheney, who had initiated the inquiry. Wilson watched with amazement and outrage as the Bush administration went on relentlessly to hype Iraq's alleged nuclear program as a basis for the Iraq War that they got up. By May of 2003, Wilson had had enough, and he went public with an editorial in the New York Times, in which he told his story.The whole point of Bushism is to punish dissidence within the ranks immediately and ruthlessly. Wilson, a former State Department official, had to be destroyed for having stepped out of line. Everyone should remember that when former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill decided to come out with a tell-all memoir about being in the Bush cabinet for a year, he proclaimed, "I'm old, I'm rich, and there is nothing they can do to me" (or words to that effect). Then all of a sudden the Bush administration was finding signs of classified documents in O'Neill's book, implicitly threatening him with spending the rest of his life in jail for having revealed government secrets. O'Neill feebly protested that he had not had access to classified documents. But all of a sudden he disappeared from the airwaves. He had discovered that there were, too, things that could be done to him. He must have been astonished that the Bushes of Kennebunkport would behave like Vladimir Putin. Everyone always underestimates the malevolence of the Bushes of Connecticut.So the Bush team ordered an investigation into Wilson. It quickly emerged that he was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (though the government documents the White House could get hold of just called her Valerie Plame), and it transpired that Plame worked on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at the CIA.Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Richard Bruce Cheney, and the Department of Defense mafia considered the CIA an open enemy and not a team player. Richard Perle, their guru on these matters, viewed the CIA as a hotbed of wimpy "liberalism" that especially underestimated the depravity of dark-skinned peoples in the Third World. In short, the CIA was impervious to the Likud lobby and unimpressed with the crackpot theories of far rightwing gadflies like Perle.So in the hothouse atmosphere of the White House in 2003, when the awful truth was dawning that there was no WMD in Iraq, Rove, Libby, W. and the big Bruce huddled together with others in the administration to think how to discredit Wilson. They care only about image, not substance. It didn't matter to them that Wilson had been proved right. In their world, you only lose if the public sees the truth. The mere discovery of the truth in some obscure quarter is irrelevant. They had to prevent the public from seeing Wilson's truth.So they would leak it that Wilson's wife was CIA and moreover had had something to do with having him sent on his mission. Apparently among the peculiar tribes that inhabit the press offices in Washington, this information would be enough to tag Wilson as unreliable, as, indeed, a flack for a CIA populated by Walter Mondales who wouldn't recognize a uranium shipment to Iraq if a caterpillar lift truck accidentally dropped it on their toes. In short, Wilson would be not a good-faith witness but a secret agent with a hidden (pinko) agenda, and so safely dismissed.Rove and Libby were chosen as the hatchet men who would actually talk to the reporters and put the information around. But of course Bush and Cheney were part of the deliberations that set the plan in motion. It involved outing a career CIA operative (and likely getting her contacts in the third world killed). It was very serious business. Bush would have had to have signed off on it, at least orally.As long as the Republicans control both houses of congress, Bush is probably safe. I'm not sure a special counsel like Fitzpatrick could by himself bring down a president. But if the Democrats can take the Senate in 2006, this scandal could turn into an impeachment trial.I have long been frustrated by the US press's tendency to talk about Bush's cabinet officers as though they were independent agents, and to put Bush on a pedestal. Let me just follow through on some further assertions in the spirit of Stephanopoulos's remark.It is fruitless to speculate about who dissolved the Iraqi army in May of 2003, and why. (This move contributed to the rise of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement). Bush did it!Who ordered the Marines, against their better judgement, to launch a reprisal attack on Fallujah after four Western private security guards were killed and their bodies desecrated there? Bush did it!.Who authorized torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Bush did it!Who appointed Michael Brown, a man with no experience in emergency management, head of FEMA? Bush did it!Who let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora? Bush did it!Who completely destroyed the fiscal health of the US government and forced us into massive debt, squandering Clinton's surplus and endangering social security? Bush did it!.Bush is the president. He makes the decisions. If there has been a major bad decision, it has been his.Who outed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative? Bush did it!Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan.......