Life and Liberty

Because of the latest outrage from the Liberals – the one’s who want the entire Bush administration tried by foreign or extra-national courts for war crimes – over the CIA’s destroying a bunch of interrogation videos the whole issue of President George W. Bush’s handling of the War on Terror in a post 9/11 world is back – yet again – in the limelight.

As expected, people’s responses to the situation break along ideological lines. The Liberals are calling for blood and vengeance and the Conservative are claiming that there was no wrongdoing at all. So, the hatred and polarity of the two sides increases to little purpose and the moderates are forced to choose a side or be reviled by both.

As is also expected – at least by my few regular readers 😉 – my opinion is somewhat skewed from the normative values of Liberal, Conservative or Moderate.

Did the Bush administration violate US law during the War on Terror? In the case of the warrantless wire-taps, I would say “Yes.” In their handling of the various illegal combatants and terrorists, I would say “No.” Bush’s people were very careful to stay outside  – as opposed to either within or in violation – of the letter of the law in those matters.

Did the Bush Administration violate the US Constitution? My answer is forced to be “Maybe.” The sworn duty of the President to defend the American people in times of strife may or may not trump the other rules set forth in that document. It could certainly be argued that it trumps other lesser laws. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that President Bush was required to act as he did by our Constitution itself.

Please remember that our Constitution was written in a totally different age and doesn’t direct address a great deal of the things that happen with disturbing frequency in these sadder days.

A large part of what concerns me is the total vilification of President Bush by the Liberals and their propaganda machine, more commonly referred to as the ‘Main Stream Media.” The only motive ever ascribed to President Bush has been variations on the the theme of abject evil. This seems very wrong to me.

Let’s look at this from a very fundamentally American perspective for a moment. What viable seeming choices did President Bush have in the wake of the Islamist-wreaked terrorism of 9/11? What is a POTUS expected to do when presented with an extreme circumstance that pits our own Declaration of Independence against itself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What is the President of the United States, sworn to defend our people, to do when the precepts of Life and Liberty are in conflict? When he is faced with the proven risk to an unknown number American lives, is it intrinsically evil to abrogate the Liberty in some measure of a few?

Understand – I am not saying that President Bush made the right decisions in every case, but is it right to decide that he made those decision do to some evil motive?

Tags: | | | | | | | |

27 Responses to “Life and Liberty”

  1. aAkira Says:

    Of course the MSM had many things about Bush completely backwards, either because of stupidity or deviousness.

    Just as one example, they constantly tried to portray him as some sort of fanatical Crusader and enemy of Islam. As far as I’m concerned his administration promoted Islam and Jihad more than any other in history (Obama will surely surpass Bush).

    And of course Gore [Baptist of the Year 2006], Clinton [Methodist preacher], Carter [Baptist preacher] and Obama [faux messiah] all invoke whatever twisted version of God they worship more than Bush ever did.

    To be clear, even though I find Bush’s record appalling in many ways, I agree with you: “I am not saying that President Bush made the right decisions in every case, but is it right to decide that he made those decision do to some evil motive?”

    And I am absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt convinced that this disaster incarnate Obama will make most Americans pine for a return to “the good old days” under Bush.

    A national disgrace:

    George W. Bush:

    “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

    “The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.”

    “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

  2. chiefopiner Says:

    Bush will always be condemned by the liberal left for his presidency. Had we had a president of Obama’s caliber in office at 9/11 one must wonder if we would have had a repeat of the inaction we got from Carter when the government backed Iranian students took over the US embassy in Tehran in November of 1979 (personally I think we would have).

    The left has waited a long time to find a conservative president they could love to hate through history (and always point to the way Carter is pointed at). While I was not happy with everything Bush did I give him credit for making the hard decisions and taking the heat for the decisions without backing down.

    Some issues need to be cleaned up – like the warantless wiretapping (now allowed in revised FISA law) but I don’t recall hearing that Obama is desiring to rollback these changes to restore constitutional standards. Maybe I missed that speech?

  3. jonolan Says:


    In all truth, while I intensely dislike Obama as POTUS, a Carter-esque response to 9/11 is a failing that I would not have expected him to make. He has always spoken a hard line against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and so far has backed those words up with actions.

    Remember that Obama was the 1st one to call for “unilateral” strikes on the terrorists within Pakistan, a technique that worked but was considered to politically volatile for many US politicians.

    The rest of what you say I fully agree with.

    BTW: Thank you for commenting and welcome aboard. 😉

  4. Akira Says:

    Why Obama MUST be defeated:

    Henry Kissinger:

    “There is a need for a New World Order, but it has different characteristics in different parts of the world. … We have to bring about, together with other countries, a different consciousness of what a World Order is. Now you have, on the one extreme, globalization, in which the nation is weakened. On the other extreme you have religion. … At the end of this [Bush] administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next [Obama], we might actually witness the creation of a New Order…even in the Islamic World.

    “The president-elect [Obama] is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously. You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.

    “The alternative to a new international order is chaos. … The extraordinary impact of the president-elect [Obama] on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a New World Order.”

    Barack Obama:

    “We’ve got to win over hearts and minds. We’ve got to invest in countries that have no educational infrastructure, have no means for young people to get ahead. We’ve got to give them a stake in the kind of World Order that I think all of us would like to see.”

    Gordon Brown, Washington, 2009,03.03:

    “Look, there is the possibility in the next few months of a Global New Deal that will involve all the countries of the world. There is the possibility of all the different countries of the world coming together. The special relationship is going global. President Obama and I will discuss this week a Global New Deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York. As America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society.”

    David Rockefeller:

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

    Jeremy Bentham:

    “The groundwork of mischief is this. A man fancies that he knows what is best for other men; that he is better acquainted with their sources of happiness than they can be; that he has more appropriate knowledge, and having more power, that he can turn his knowledge to good account on their behalf. He has formed his own estimate of good he is thoroughly persuaded that such and such a thing is good, and being good, he will compel others to receive and to adopt it, because it is good, and because he knows, from experience, it is so.

    “Yet despotism never takes a worse shape than when it comes in the guise of benevolence; and is never more dangerous than when it acts under the impression that it represents beneficence.”

    Saint Luke:

    Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”

    Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

    And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

    And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”


    “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

    “But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.”

    Bob Dylan:

    “Counterfeit philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts. Karl Marx has got you by the throat, Henry Kissinger’s got you tied up in knots. When you gonna wake up? When you gonna wake up? When you gonna wake up and strengthen the things that remain?”

  5. jonolan Says:


    I’m not sure exactly where you we’re headed with that comment; Given it is almost entirely quotations and Christian scriptural passages, it could have many meanings.

    Could you distill it down to what your concerns are?

  6. chiefopiner Says:

    Thanks for the welcome. I’m enjoying your writings and look forward to more.

    I agree with your statement on Obama and Al-Qaeda, I poorly stated my intended meaning.

    I should have been clearer in that I consider that the type and depth of any response(s) he would have taken towards Al-Qaeda would not have been as stark as Bush’s. For Obama to have even considered the Taliban government in Afghanistan to be no different that Al-Qaeda (as Bush did) would fly in the face of Obama’s worldview of nations. That fact alone would have, IMHO, altered the course of any action by the government.

    For the record – my humble opinion and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at your favorite working class restaurant. 🙂

  7. gnomestrath Says:

    Its now quite clear that Bush/Cheney acted in breach of the US constitution without justification. They broke the law – they need to be brought to book. If the US doesn’t it will have no credibility with the rest of the world.

    The issue is really much more sinister – Bush/Cheney were trying to create the politcal fear climate that persuaded the electorate that terrorism is the most important issue facing the US when it patently isn’t.

  8. jonolan Says:


    How is this “now quite clear?”

    Is it the memos in which some of the highest ranked attorneys and law enforcement personnel gave their opinions that extreme measures were allowed under the law?

    If so, you might want to remember that Bush & Cheney chose to NOT use most of the extraordinary powers that they were told that had by the Attorney General and the White Counsel.

  9. KBM Says:

    I don’t believe Bush is a bad or evil man at all (Cheney is another matter), nor do I think he isn’t intelligent in his own way. However, it is clearly spelled out in the Constitution that the Executive Branch is only able to oversee the execution and implementation of the law. It has the power of veto and judicial pardon to balance the Legislative and Judicial branches. However, the entire reason for not allowing the Executive Branch to DECLARE laws independent of the other two branches is to keep checks and balances in effect.

    It can – and is – argued that the legislature approved the Patriot Act, and that even in 2006 (when there was already clear dissention over the issue) it renewed the act. If I recall, there was a magnificent fanfare and speech accompanying Bush’s signing of this bill. However, little attention was focused on the ‘signing statement’ the administration quietly added after the cameras left laying out HIS interpretation of the new law, an interpretation which left him unaccountable to Congress. It is this kind of blatant evasion of the fundamental checks and balances system implemented in the Constitution that allows some to allege Bush broke the law.

    The question of whether or not a President has the right to cherry-pick which laws he will follow ‘in the interest of protecting the people’ should be a moot one. This is, of course, the reason behind the checks and balances system. This isn’t even taking into account international laws and treaties which have been enacted since the drafting of the Constitution. In a democracy, a President or Prime Minister does not independently enforce unprecedented law, foreign or domestic. Simply because he states it’s for our own protection does not automatically let it trump the Constitution.

    If you are claiming that Bush received his authority from the judiciary, please remember that they are also under investigation and facing indictments. I don’t think they were exactly playing on opposite sides here. It has become clear that there was Executive interference in the Judicial system. If you doubt this, read a newspaper. Simply because a ‘bought’ (for lack of a more couth word) judiciary gives the executive branch unprecedented leeway does not make it Constitutionally legal. After all, this concerns judges and Cabinet members appointed by the Bush administration.

    As to your previous poster’s references to Jimmy Carter, they certainly are self-contradictory. However, there is a parallel to be drawn between Carter and Bush in the sense that they both faced the enormous problem of stagflation in regards to the petroleum trade. Would Obama have handled it differently? Why does that matter? If we hadn’t been dependant upon foreign oil in both the ‘winter of discontent’ of ’78-’79 and also last year when we saw gas prices jump to over $4 per gallon, then in all likelihood the stagflation would not have been a problem and thus Bush’s response probably would have been different. But the point is not to think of what would have happened; instead it is to question what IS happening. And there has been an awful lot of ambiguity concerning the Bush administration’s actions emerging over the last few years…not just with the coming of Obama.

    I really respect your involvement in our political system even if we do disagree ideologically. Keep up the blog – dissention is good for progression!

  10. jonolan Says:

    I’m not actually saying that Bush derived his authority from the judiciary. Such a thing is impossible.

    I am saying that it is possible that Bush, faced with an unprecedented circumstance, queried his Attorney General and his White Counsel for how far he could legally go in defense of the US. We have now seen – at least part of – their opinions on that matter.

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting, KBM. As you will find, if you read more posts here, we agree that dissension and debate are needed things.

  11. Arym Says:

    Keep watching Fox news, dipshit. I’m sure you’ll find some answers there.

  12. jonolan Says:

    Hello, Arym. that was a pithy, if plebeian “comment.” Have you been reading the San Francisco Chronicle of the Village Voice online a bit too much lately? LOL

    You’re right though; I’d be much more likely to be able to get answers from FOX News than most of the MSM. Of course that’s a relative statement, since none of the MSM is any good for answers anymore.

  13. Phil Says:

    First, can we stop with the whole “liberal media” whining. Between Fox News, CNBC, Fox Business, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and several prominent conservative radio personalities there is a LARGE conservative presence in the media. This is before you even count syndicated conservative columnist in prominent media publications like Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Ann Coulter.

    At this point, anyone who complains about the liberal media is just stupid. Period.

    Second, this line of thinking is deeply flawed.

    What viable seeming choices did President Bush have in the wake of the Islamist-wreaked terrorism of 9/11? What is a POTUS expected to do when presented with an extreme circumstance that pits our own Declaration of Independence against itself.

    There’s no brightline test to determine when the country is in a extreme circumstance and when it is not. The Bush administration didn’t even attempt to create one. Unless you believe that the executive branch is able to unilateral ignore the constitution whenever it deems its necessary, this argument doesn;t hold much weight. After you strip all the decorative wrapping what you really have is the “well 9/11 happened so now i’m allowed to do whatever I want” argument.

    2. Even if I bought your “the country is in imminent danger” argument its still the responsibility of the executive branch to provide proof that the country is in imminent danger. Anytime people questioned the Bush administration on their evidence they invoked executive privilege. Contrary to the belief of George W. Bush, we don’t rely on the honor system when it comes to potential violations of the constitution.

  14. jonolan Says:


    You have your opinion of the MSM and I have mine. Given that the NewsCorp outlets are the only mainstream (CNBC? Please!) news presence that presents a less than completely Liberal spin, I’d say that my opinion is closer to the facts than yours – but again, that’s my opinion, a thing that carries little weight overall and almost none among the Leftists.

    Proof of danger? Hmmmm…You see, there’s still this big hole in my city where a few large buildings used to be. That seems like enough proof to me and any other rational being. But I suppose that there are those who didn’t think Pearl Harbor was proof either…

    It would amaze me how the Leftists continue to hate President Bush and ascribe evil motives to all his actions except that I can see the political usefulness for such propaganda.

  15. Phil Says:

    You have your opinion of the MSM and I have mine. Given that the NewsCorp outlets are the only mainstream (CNBC? Please!) news presence that presents a less than completely Liberal spin, I’d say that my opinion is closer to the facts than yours – but again, that’s my opinion, a thing that carries little weight overall and almost none among the Leftists.


    You’re mistaken. You have an opinion, an assertion without fact or merit, and I have facts. The listings of several prominent conservative voices in the media. By the way CNBC has seen its ratings increase 210% since 2005.

    Also, Newscorp is the largest media corporation in the world owning hundreds of newspapers and cable channels across the globe. Saying conservatives ONLY have newscorp would be like Moses saying he ONLY had God on his side. (And no, I don’t equate Newscorp with God)

    It would amaze me how the Leftists continue to hate President Bush and ascribe evil motives to all his actions except that I can see the political usefulness for such propaganda.

    When did I say either of these things? I assume you’re referring to me unless you decided to randomly bring this up in a post that was a reply to me.

    Proof of danger? Hmmmm…You see, there’s still this big hole in my city where a few large buildings used to be. That seems like enough proof to me and any other rational being. But I suppose that there are those who didn’t think Pearl Harbor was proof either…

    9/11 isn’t proof of an imiment future danger, its proof that an attack occurred in the past. You can’t indefinitely extend the danger of a past attack into the future, which is why we can’t drop a bomb on Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor during WWII.

    Even If I buy your argument, there has to be a guideline for the using expanded powers by the executive branch instead of the “I feel like it” approach of the Bush adminstration.


    Where’s the proof of an upcoming attack that can only be averted by these actions

    How far into the future after an attack do these powers extend? Can Obama use 9/11 to invoke these expanded powers? Can the president in 2012? 2016?

    How far do the expanded powers of the expanded executive branch extend? What constitutional rights can he ignore?

    If the President was right, and I’m more than willing to listen to this argument, then he should have no problem laying out the evidence and saying this is why I did what I did. (or better yet, this is why im doing what i’m doing) But to date, I haven’t heard the former President or you make such an argument.

    I’m waiting…

  16. jonolan Says:

    “9/11 isn’t proof of an imiment future danger, its proof that an attack occurred in the past.”

    The attack occurred and the – too be polite – people who masterminded minded it were, and to a large extent, and still are alive and walking free upon the world. It is reasonable to believe that future attacks would be planned.

    I somehow doubt that any assertion would satisfy you or the Left, and I admit that predictive methods are somewhat hard to prove in any case. What we do know is that there have been no successful attacks upon the US since these measure were taken.

    As for evidence, you’ve been provided with all the evidence necessary for any of the domestic actions. If you’re actually asking for the evidence to support the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that’s a different matter.

    Were all the steps taken absolutely necessary? We’ll never know.

    As for your concerns about how long such “extraordinary powers” could or should be allowed to be used, you’re quite right to be concerned and I share that concern. A dramatic increase in the powers of the Executive is something to be feared in all cases.

  17. Phil Says:

    No offense Jono, but that post is shallow and nonresponsive to the counter arguments I’ve made.

    I await a sufficient reply.

  18. jonolan Says:


    You will await in vain for what you would consider a sufficiency of response; I have no desire to sink to your level of “nitpicking” over the specifics of your own comments – which we’re only tangential in nature to the core point of the original post.

    Suffice it say that you believe President Bush was wrong and you imply that his motives were unsavory. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

    Have a nice day.

  19. Phil Says:


    This is exactly what your typical conservative does when presented with a substantive fact based debate. If you can’t give A SINGLE ARGUMENT for the President’s tactics that speaks volumes about both you and him.

    For the record, I can think of several arguments, arguments not assertions like the ones you use, to defend Bush’s tactics. I personally don’t agree with them, but they’re a lot more persuasive then the “nu uh” and “uh huh”‘s that you provide. I’d be more than happy to switch sides and properly defend his actions with words, evidence, and analysis if you’d like to see how its done.

    I’m serious.

    Because unfortunately for you, stereotypes about liberals and leftists, neither of which I am by the way, don’t validate or defend the “point” you initially made.

  20. jonolan Says:

    I say again, Phil, that this is off-topic and that is why I’m not entertaining your arguments.

    I too could raise arguments in defense of Bush’s actions. I see no point in doing so, however in the comments of this post – which was focused on why evil motive is the only thing ascribed to those actions instead of simple failing or making a choice that many disagree with.

    You can and will of course hold your opinion of the matter and of me. That is your right, as it is mine to discount such things when taking into account their source.

  21. snaggletoothie Says:

    gnomestrath and phil
    You say Bush/Cheney broke the law. What specific law? Maybe FISA. Well, let the AG deal with that as he should or would with anyone. Granted they stretched the Constitution. But the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach them. Congress lacked the balls to do it at the appropriate time. For them to create a whole new semi-judicial apparatus when the Dems finally have a crippling majority in an attempt to restore their manhood is cowardly and unconstitutional. Let them admit they didn’t do their job and, based on everything seen in the past few years, let them admit they will continue to not do their jobs. Let them quit wasting our time with temper tantrums and use their time to read some the recent legislation they have passed without knowing what it was. Because come election time they’ll be swearing they didn’t know what the Messiah put in that bill.

  22. gnomestrath Says:

    Actually none of this really matters. The global economy including the US will be is a state of massive recesion/depression for about 3-5 years. Unemployment ( the real numbers) will hit 20%+ for a sustained period in the US. Large portions of the population (more than the 33 Million now) will become dependent on food stamps. Healthcare will have to be extended in some way to most of the population because otherwise many will die.

    The solution will be a massive quantitative easing ( printing of money) which will lead to significant inflation. There is likley to to be major patches of civil unrest. The voting population will continue to polarise. Long memories in the electorate will blame the Republicans and then also Obama for failing to fix the unfixable. In the end everyones standard of living will fall via inflation by between 10 and 30%. There is then a major chance that some form of demogogery will emerge particularly from the Right along the Palinesque relogio-anti-science wing.

    The US and Europe will pull up the free trade agreements and go down a protectionist road. This may well re establish some levels of industrial activity as the emerging markets retreat into chaos.

    One of the consequences of this is that climate change activity will be largely ineffective and the worst case of spiralling self generating warming will occur. This will become noticeable and start to affect the populations around 2015. (latest forecast is no snow in Artic in 2013 summer). The human population will start to decline around 2020 as the worlds food supply gets droughted out.

    Many many politicians already know this. Thats why they are trying to do the climate change stuff even though they know it will have no political benefit to them.

    Buy a self sustaining agricultural plot next to the sea or a major river in the next ten years.

  23. snaggletoothie Says:

    The topic is whether or not to put Bush on trial and you will not look at the legal aspects because Mad Max is coming to get you in September of 2027. Your response is truly amazing. Or maybe you’re one of those people who’s humor is seldom funny to anyone else (I hope so, ’cause then we’ll have something in common).
    It has been my experience that most lefties will refuse to look at evidence because of some silly technicality, e. g., “That’s not what wikipedia says” or maybe “It’s not an earmark unless 57% of Democrat superdelegates and the president’s bodyman say it is.”
    And they tend to not give evidence beyond, “Everybody knows that . . . ” And if pressed for actual proof of something they will accuse someone else of something or repeat the last gratuitous accusation. Thus the party whose president claimed during the election that he will be bipartisan sends out endless surrogates to engage in spiteful and dishonest personal attacks on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Bobby Jindal.
    Good luck with your paranoid apocalyptic fantasy. Check back in with us if you ever encounter reality again.

  24. jonolan Says:


    My purpose with this particular post was to ask the question, “why are some – the Liberals mostly – so eager and singleminded about denouncing President Bush’s motives for his actions after 9/11 as being evil.” It wasn’t about defending the rightness or legality of actions, whether or not he should be tried and by whom. or what might happen with the world economy or the environment.


    Any thoughts on why they – or you in some of your cases – seem unwilling to entertain any other motive for Bush than some form of evil intent?

  25. gnomestrath Says:

    They want to keep the people of the US fearful of terrorism ( and God) such that this would be the primary decision making factor in future elections. I believe the Right in the US has an agenda which involves a small wealthy elite keeping the rest of the population downtrodden using these kind of messages. Note the lack of improvement in the standard of living of middle income households in the last 8 years and the increasing divergence in the top and the bottom. That was the motivation. Fortunatley for the majority of Americans it didn’t work because they became demonstrably corrupt (e.g Iraq war contracts) and incompetent at execution (e.g post Iraq reparations).

  26. gnomestrath Says:

    Snaggl – actually I was not trying to be humerous. There is as much Republican earmark as Democrat in the bill. There is significant evidence of illegality already emerging about the Bush period already.

    The Republicans had the opportunity to be bipartisan on this and rejected it 100%. The idea that Rush L could be bipartisan is a joke – do you really think he wants to be bipartisan.

    My vision is not apoclyptic its actually based on the current trends. I will check back in before the net goes down.

    The Republicans are in a hole because they know the country may have got terminally damaged on their watch.

  27. The Right just can’t see it in balance « Gnomestrath - observations on being governed Says:

    […] Right just can’t see it in balance 8 March 2009 — gnomestrath I wrote this on somone elses blog – although on the right the blog author is thoughtful and deserves respect. The global economy […]

Leave a Reply