Tom DeLay indicted

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Thomas Andrew Daschle (born December 9, 1947), known as Tom Daschle, was a U.S. Senator from South Dakota and the Senate Minority Leader. A United States Democratic Party, he was narrowly defeated on November 2, 2004, by the Republican candidate, John Thune, in his bid for re-election.

---

Hmmmmmm.....Got that rabid republican fervor to get rid of democrates, Shane?

Are you sure you don't mean, Tom Delay?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

[:"blue"] Micah 6:8

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?[:"blue"] To act justly and to love mercy [/] and to walk humbly with your God. [/]

---

Quote:

---

Yes, and that is why I believed the Senate should have convicted Bill Clinton of his impeachment. He was guilty of purgery and obstruction of justice. The Republicans in the House of Representatives took great risk in following the rule of law and impeaching him. The Republicans in the Senate decided to go with public opinion polls. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich lost his job because of his brave stand for the rule of law. If we are going to take doctors' medical liscense away from them for doing the same thing, the Prsedient shouldn't be able to get away with it either.

---

It seems to me that justice requires to know the motive for the perjury. By lying, did he fail to protect the country of the UNited States? Did anyone die due to his lying? In lying, was he attempting to save himself alone? Or was he attempting to keep his family together? However you look at it, and however wrong he was in the way he was attempting to keep his family together, it was a family problem that was eleveated to national status to embarrass Bill Clinton. It was NOT a national problem.

That is why Gingrich lost his job...His rabid approach to law without mercy lost him his seat. That and the divorce of his wife also....

The American people want leadership that is compassionate, and wise. They want people who will lead in the direction that is best for the country as a whole. As it is, they currently see the leadership for sale to the highest bidder with the republicans favoring the economic élite.

[Derrell M]

Doesn't appear that the prosecutor's motives are clean, and the foreman of the grand jury said that his vote for indictment was not made on the merits of the evidence but on preconceived dislike based on some advertisements. He came into the courtroom knowing that he would indict. Howerever, if Delay's indictment brings them closer to gridlock I won't be shedding crocodile tears. Democrats AND Republicans do more to us than for us, and gridlock just tends to slow them down. It is my opinion that congressional gridlock is our friend.

[Derrell M]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversy_over_statements_of_first_DeLay_grand_jury%27s_foreman

Quote:

---

October 6, 2005

In an interview on October 5th, the foreman of the Travis County Grand Jury which indicted Representative Tom DeLay, William Gibson, told Mark Caesar of 590 KLBJ that he had already made up his mind about Delay and his grand jury actions were not based upon evidence. Gibson told Caesar that he had felt there was illegal activity surrounding Delay, the PAC "Texans for a Republican Majority," and the "Texas Association of Business," long before he was tapped to serve on that grand jury.

Gibson said a friend, James Sylvester, was a Democratic candidate who had been defeated by an ad campaign run by the Texas Association of Business in 2002. Sylvester worked at the Travis County Sheriff's Department, where Gibson used to work. Another grand jury member, Don Rios, is a Travis County sheriff's deputy.

Gibson's grand jury also returned 128 felony counts against TAB. Gibson said his decision was based upon newspaper stories about TAB and relationship with TRMPAC, not evidence in the grand jury room.

Referring to the Texas Association of Business ads, Gibson said: "And all this came out way before I was ever on the grand jury, these mailers were in your paper, in the Austin papers, everybody else's paper. They were flooding the market around here. That those were way before I ever went on the grand jury, my decision was based upon those, not based upon what might have happened in the grand jury room."

But Gibson also said the grand jury was "presented with the best evidence."

---

[Dr. Shane]

Bill Clinton lied because he was being sued by Paula Jones for flashing her and asking for oral favors. He was trying to prevent her lawyers from finding out about Monica because it would have helped establish a pattern. He was trying to obstruct justice. He was trying to deny Paul Jones the justice available through the court system.

He was cited in contempt of court and lost his lisence to practive law for a couple of years because of this. He was guilty. Only a far left partisan would even want to continue to defend him. It was never about sex. It was about a person of power using his power and postion to obstruct justice. He was trying to deny Paula Jones her right to justice.

[Neil D]

I betcha if you ask anyone on the street why Clinton was impeached, they will tell you it was over Monica, not Paula...

Quote:

---

Lewinsky admitted that her relationship with Clinton involved oral sex in the Oval Office. This was documented in the Starr report, which eventually led to President Clinton's impeachment on the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice regarding the affair. Clinton had previously been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, most notably in regard to a relationship with singer and former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers and an encounter with Arkansas state employee Paula Jones (née Corbin) in a Little Rock hotel room in which Jones claimed that Clinton had exposed himself to her. These affairs occurred during Clinton's term as Arkansas governor. Lewinsky's name actually surfaced during legal procedings connected to the latter matter, when Jones' lawyers sought corroborating evidence of Clinton's conduct to substantiate Jones' allegations.

---

Monica Lewinsky

[Bravus]

Feh, I really wanted to avoid getting onto Clinton - so I apologise for introducing him. It's ancient history, people, let it go!

We'll see what happens with DeLay... and I'm going to hold off on talking about it until we do. In other news, Rove is back before the Fitzgerald inquiry today, apparently...

[Neil D]

Updated: 7:55 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney’s manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

To one legal scholar, ‘an ominous sign’

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times. Gillers said the prosecutor’s legally required warning to Rove before Rove’s next appearance is “an ominous sign.”

“It suggests Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose,” Gillers said.

“It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after Miller’s testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame’s identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove,” Gillers said.

No target letter, so far

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Before accepting the offer, Fitzgerald sent correspondence to Rove’s legal team making clear that there was no guarantee he wouldn’t be indicted at a later point, as required by the rules.

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said Thursday he would not comment on any ongoing discussion he has had with Fitzgerald’s office but that he has been assured no decisions on charges have been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted.

“I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl,” Luskin said.

He said that Rove “continues to be cooperative voluntarily” with the special counsel investigation and “beyond that, any communication I have or may have in the future are going to be treated as completely confidential.”

High threshold for proving crime

For almost two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA officer for political reasons. Dozens of government officials were interviewed and boxloads of documents collected.

Reporters have been called before a grand jury to testify about their conversations with Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.

Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly, and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high. Fitzgerald could also seek charges against anyone he thinks lied to investigators in the case.

The Plame affair

The leak investigation stems from a July 2003 syndicated column by Robert Novak identifying Plame as a CIA operative. Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who says his wife’s identity was disclosed to discredit his assertions that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear capabilities to build the case for war.

Miller spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify before the grand jury, after her source — identified by the newspaper as Libby — released her from her pledge of confidentiality.

Rove, Bush’s top adviser on political strategy and policy, has known the president for three decades. He worked for Bush as far back as 1978, when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress. Rove orchestrated Bush’s campaigns for Texas governor and president, then brought his political skills into the White House.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I betcha if you ask anyone on the street why Clinton was impeached, they will tell you it was over Monica, not Paula...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am sure that is correct. And who says the mainstream media doesn't have a liberal bias? Most people do not even know why President Clinton was impreached. There were no counts of adultry brought against him by Congress. It was all about obstruction of justice, abuse of power and purgery.

It is interesting to see how things are going now that the shoe is on the other foot. I see hypocrits all over on both sides.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Schmidt said:

All I have to say about that is that it is pure bollocks. Back in '52 we faced a very similar situation that resolved itself. Washington works the same way today, and that is something that the younger generation should notice.

Lloyd Schmidt

---

I doubt that McCarthy smear campaign against supposed communists in the American political landscape and Bushs smear campaign against those who said that WMDs were bogus and therefore there was no need to go to war, is the same.

First off, McCarthy worst incident, eith the exception of sucide, was jail time...not the death of our kids. Jail time on trumped up charges can be overturned. Sucide by your own hand is your own choice. But to send OUR kids to thier possible deaths, with NO justification for the war, except politics with bogus 'facts' is nothing short of crimminal...at least in my mind.

And second, McCarthy was interested in the limelight for posssible presidency. When his "reality" showed mothing more than an evil man attempting to gain what he wanted at the expense of others, well, [:"blue"] As one journalist, Willard Edwards, pointed out: "Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway." [/]

3rd-Washington works a bit different now than it did back in '52, although the greed that runs it is still there. And the younger generation has noticed....many are coming back to the disolutionment caused by Bush's politcal path the last 5 years.

Maybe the reporters need to take a lesson from history with McCarthy....Unfortunately, every paper likes a good scandel.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bushs smear campaign against those who said that WMDs were bogus

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Who said WMDs were bogus? Clinton, Kerry, Boxer and Dashle all believed Saddam had WMDs. Perhaps some far left kooks didn't believe it but I don't even remember them voicing doubt before the invasion. The Left wanted to give Saddam more time to lead the inpsectors in a game of cat and mouse but they voted to authorized the use of force in Iraq because they believed WMDs were there.

[Neil D]

Shane,

please keep to the topic...or start a new thread if you want. Please...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

please keep to the topic...or start a new thread if you want. Please...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

McCarthy was interested in the limelight for posssible presidency.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

What is this thread about again? McCarthy? Clinton? Bush? Delay? Or are these all intertwined?

[jasd]

QR window:

Some might enjoy a quick peruse of the following URL…

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

as it may explain Delay and the Earle of ‘ethics’; or --why it is desirable for the opposition that DeLay be neutralized.

“Extreme Centralization. The power to write legislation has been centralized in the House Republican leadership. Concretely, that means DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, working with the House Committee on Rules. (Hastert is seen in some quarters as a figurehead, but his man Palmer is as powerful as DeLay.) …” [/snip]

[jasd]

>>I doubt that McCarthy smear campaign…<<

That so-called “smear campaign” began with a 100-page report form the FBI -- concerning security matters in, among other places, the US State Dept. Incidentally, that same report prompted McCarthy’s famous Wheeling, West Virginia speech, which initiated the entire shebang.

The first two days of the 1950 Tydings Committee saw McCarthy able to testify for only 18 minutes because the Democratic Senators were so abusive in their hostile heckling (things never change for some, do they?). It was so bad that it elicited protest from Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

The hearings were so prejudiced, so unprofessionally conducted, and in such bad light --that significantly, almost 40 pages of the Official transcript were ‘deleted’.

>>…against supposed communists in the American political landscape…<<

I suppose those “supposed communists” are somewhat akin to ‘supposed WMDs’, eh? Okay. So,

howzabout _Hiss-State Dept-Yalta_ where half of Europe was turned over to Uncle Joe/communist exemplar at the end of WW II?

Here’s an interesting…, as it was Murrow that was most bruited, because of his television show, to have caused McCarthy’s investigations to be scuttled. And, oh, Annie Lee Moss who Murrow hyped to discredit McCarthy, --turned out later she was card-carrying…

“The following is part of an exchange between Harris and Senator John McClellan …

McClellan. Here is what I am concerned about. In the first place, I will ask you this: If it should be established that a person entertained the views and philosophies that you expressed in that book (being Harris’ book King Football wherein he advanced the horrors of early communism as preferable to [then present] America), would you consider that person suitable or fit to hold a position in the Voice of America which you now hold? [ed. parenthetic:mine]

Harris. I would not.

McClellan. You would not employ such a person, would you?

Harris. I would not, senator.

McClellan. Now we find you in that position.

Harris. That is correct.

Before shedding any tears for Mr. Harris, who resigned his post in April 1953, be advised that when anti-McCarthy hysteric Edward R. Murrow took over the U.S. Information Agency in 1961, he hired Reed Harris as his deputy.”

Never underestimate the influence of the media; that is why Intelligent Design provided us with a gimlet eye

>>…and Bushs smear campaign against those…<<

Please, I’m probably amiss but -- could you expand upon how or where, exactly, has Dubya “smeared” -- other than certain Iraqis?

>>…is the same.<<

Not even.

>>But to send OUR kids to thier possible deaths, with NO justification for the war, except politics with bogus 'facts' is nothing short of crimminal...at least in my mind.<< [ed]

Thanks for the qualifier to the above; otherwise, it seems to assure that its author had access to contents of govt intelligence briefs when framing that opinion… yes?

>>…showed mothing more than an evil man attempting to gain what he wanted at the expense of others,<<

It seems selected branches of govt anticipated Tailgunner Joe by discharging over 300 individuals for matters of loyalty between the four years preceding ’52 (and though not enough, many, many, afterwards). Too bad our govt failed to eviscerate the State Dept, as well -- but then, that would have eviscerated the Democratic Party, wouldn’t it? [/kiddin’] :-)

JFKennedy seems also to have anticipated McCarthy by a year by deploring the fact that our State Dept, diplomats, and their advisors were uncannily adept at frittering away the sacrifices our young made during the years of WW II. Mebbe,

there were reasons aplenty that McCarthy was a personal friend of/to the Kennedys.

>>[:"blue"]"Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway."[/]<<

Sometimes one must assume that the great dailies and those that survive on feeders have prescribed or foregone agendas that may or may not coincide with facts or truths. Per the following…

“The 1932 presidential campaign strategy was very simple: "big business" wanted Roosevelt, but ran him as an "anti-big business" candidate. Hoover was "anti-big business," but the media convinced the American people that he was "pro-big business." ”

And ipso…, the resulting entrenchment of universal communism.

>>Unfortunately, every paper likes a good scandel.<<

Scandals, I can live with; what I cannot abide is their treachery.

Recommended:

McCarthy and His Enemies --William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell

and the many other 'clinical' books written of the era...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That so-called “smear campaign” began with a 100-page report form the FBI --

---

[sigh]...and ended many carreers and blacklisted many people thru the "horror" of communism...which turned out to be against many intellectuals/free thinkers of our society. It is a sad blotch on our history and it's called fear of communism...which turned out to be, generally speaking, a hoax. Oh sure, there were a few, but not to the extent that McCarthy took it.

But this subject is digressing from the thread.

Quote:

---

>>…and Bushs smear campaign against those…<<

Please, I’m probably amiss but -- could you expand upon how or where, exactly, has Dubya “smeared” -- other than certain Iraqis?

---

You have missed NPR collective soundbite of the lead into the war with Iraq...W, along with Cheny, and Rice, became a united choriagraphed front in thier public speeches.... along with all the other public releases that these people put out..It went like this-

We suspect...

There is historical evidence that...

We know that he may have WMDs...

"We KNOW where those weapons of mass destruction are."

"We KNOW WHERE those wmd are at..."

"We suspect they are around Baghdad..."

Couple that evidence with the Downing Street memo, and you can see where the Bush Administration "fixed" the evidence to the public.

And guess what? No reports of WMDS,..

But I am digressing again....

Quote:

---

Scandals, I can live with; what I cannot abide is their treachery.

---

Well, guess what? The current administration is full of it.

/tic

[jasd]

I don’t intend to beat this thing to death -- I’m simply offering a minor glimpse into the McCarthy phenomenon from the less bruited perspective.

>>...and ended many carreers and blacklisted many people thru the "horror" of communism...which turned out to be against many intellectuals/free thinkers of our society.<<

Read what ‘Ronnie’ Reagan, onetime Democrat turned Republican and sometime Prez of The Screen Actor’s Guild, had to say about some of those “intellectuals/free thinkers” --in Hollywood.

“…It took seven months of meeting communists and communist influenced people across a table in almost daily sessions while pickets rioted in front of studio gates, homes were bombed and a great industry almost ground to a halt.

…

I remember one of their group reciting the Soviet Constitution to prove “Russia was more Democratic than the U. S.” Another said if America continued her imperialist policy and as a result wound up in a war with Russia he would be on the side of Russia against the U. S.

…

The “seven months” of meetings I mentioned in the first paragraph or two refers to the jurisdictional strike in the Motion Pic. business. There are volumes of documentary evidence, testimony of former communists etc. that this whole affair was under the leadership of Harry Bridges and was aimed at an ultimate organizing of everyone in the picture business within Mr. Bridges longshoreman’s union[:"red"]*[/].

…

How can I make you understand that my feeling now is not prejudice born of this struggle but is realization supported by incontrovertible evidence that the American Communist is in truth a member of a “Russian American Bund” owing his first allegiance to a foreign power? [ed:underline]

…

I say to you that any man still or now a member of the “party” was a man who looked upon the death of American soldiers in Korea as a victory for his side. For proof of this I refer you to some of the ex-communists who fled the party at that time & for that reason, including some of Mr. Trumbo’s companions of the “Unfriendly 10.” ” [ed:underline -- shades of Iraq?]

[:"red"]*[/]Though it’s not been irrefutably established that Bridges was himself a communist, he did provide the entrée, or working platform, of the communist party (which had been trying since the 20s to organize the west coast) by working hand in glove with them.

And so on…

>>It is a sad blotch on our history and it's called fear of communism...<<

It was neither a “sad blotch” nor were we amiss to fear communism _given the ‘proof of the pudding -- communism’ and our subsequent relations with that ideological disease_. What is “sad” is that international communism is not yet quit of us --but very much interested.

>>…which turned out to be, generally speaking, a hoax.<<

Not, generally, true. And, it may be apropos here -- to point out that except for the few, McCarthy, despite prompting to name names by various inquisitors referred to most individuals under discussion by case number. McCarthy’s allegations against _those named_ were afterwards -- corroborated.

>>Oh sure, there were a few, but not to the extent that McCarthy took it.<<

By factors, more. That said,

there were so many and so entrenched in ‘sensitive areas’ that even the Manhattan Project was forced to relocate to NM for restructuring of its ‘personnel’.

>>But this subject is digressing from the thread.<<

In that it relates to the subject of ‘smearing’ -- it is on track.

>>You have missed NPR collective…<<

“collective” How revealing of NPR.

>>W, along with Cheny, and Rice, “…”<<

I believe I asked for an expansion where Dubya “smeared”…

Quote:

---

-- other than certain Iraqis? --jasd [ed]

---

>>Well, guess what? The current administration is full of it.<<

That may be so; however, we empowered it through the electoral process and should the electorate be dissatisfied there is the impeachment process. However "full of it" our govt may be, they are not the ones who promulgated the

"Americans at Gitmo are throwing the Quran in the toilet and flushing it..." and as many other egregious foments -- aimed at diminishing America and her citizens.

I submitted a post anon wherein I declared that [paraphrased] “…my trust in either party is almost nonexistent…” I stand by it. However,

I submit that inasmuch as Dubya is forever being portrayed as simianesque and near-bereft of faculties, it is somewhat of a disconnect to then further pronounce upon ‘his that’, ‘his doin’s’, ‘he said’, ‘he will’ …, etc. If the man is an idjit, one must assume that he has risen to the highest office on earth by means of other’s doin’s and therefore those same others must be still wielding extraordinary influence (how much? and is that good or bad?);

or, the man though coming across as “heh, heh, I knows y’all’s just eating this blep-blep up, so I’ll just keep dishin’ it” -- is in fact, both brilliant and acting upon intel not available to the average Joe Clueless -- me (is that good or bad?);

or, pundits and talking heads whose grade level does not indicate a ‘need-to-know’ --overreach (is that good or bad?);

or, Gd has seen fit to raise him up -- for such a time as this.

Now, per Gd raising him up… (is that good or bad?).

[Bravus]

...or, most terrifying of all, a majority of Americans share his opinions and ideological commitments...

[jasd]

>>...or, most terrifying of all, a majority of Americans share his opinions and ideological commitments...<<

Sorry, Bravus, the above is just a bit too opaque. Does “his opinions and ideological commitments…”

refer to McCarthy or to Dubya? If to McCarthy, revisionism -- to more reflect verity is in order, if to Dubya,

what do we know of his opinions and ideological commitments? It’s being forwarded that

Dubya’s an idjit. Do idjits really have formulated opinions and ideological commitments? If Dubya is the referent in the above quote, and he’s not the idjit lefties and their wingnuts make him out to be -- perhaps the majority of Americans ought, rightfully, to share a few of his opinions and ideological commitments, that is, for example, ‘the interests of America supersedes all other considerations’. That's Holy Writ Not, however,

his lackadaisical attitude regards our Southern Border (the stuff of civil disorder), his commitment to ‘can’t we all just get along’ with the opposition, etc… Yeah, right, --get along with the sorts? Fer cryin’ out loud, Dubya allowed Kennedy and fellow Democrats to put their own imprimatur upon the Education Bill, yet, did they display any graciousness? Nyet! Ptew. Dubya pushed for a Prescription Bill that the Demos have been making noises about for years, and years, and years. Were they pleased? Tchah! And so it goes, that sad refrain, repeating in darksome madness.

To your tents, O Israel!

[Bravus]

Sorry, yeah, I should have been clear that I meant Dubya. I do not think the man is an idiot. I think he is dangerous in the extreme, due to his opinions and ideological commitments, which he has expressed clearly in both words and actions.

[jasd]

>>I do not think the man is an idiot.<<

Nor do I.

>>I think he is dangerous in the extreme,<<

I think that one might legitimately confess being chilled by every president since Jackson for reason(s) this or that.

I’ve already provided a snip on FDR. Are you familiar with Eisenhower’s ‘Other Losses”? or

“The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” --Bill Clinton

“You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” --Bill Clinton

There is a catalog of these ‘chilling’ statements by Ol’ Bubba (never mind the 40-45% slashing of our military capability, or the China ‘embarrassments’, or…), yet those of the media out-stooge the three Stooges in their tripping and fawning over him.

Dubya, yeah, he’s a wheel on an eighteen-wheeler being double-clutched and downshifted to take the upcoming curve --too fast. All that said,

the USState has legitimate concerns having vectors at all points geographic... per example:

Eighty percent of world recoverable manganese is in South Africa. It is indispensable in steel production, used to slough dross; otherwise, the molten steel will be brittle -- not having tensile integrity.

Colban, is vital to the manufacture of advanced mobile phones, jet engines, air bags, night vision goggles, fiber optics and capacitors, as well as the components that maintain an electric charge in a computer chip. We can’t just stroll into a region of the US and extract it; it is mined in the Congo, Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Namibia.

Chromium is primarily located in the old USSR, Turkey, and South Africa (almost the entirety of the platinum group, most of the world’s industrial diamonds, etc, have been deposited by nature --in South Africa). Without chromium, which makes up approximately 30% of stainless steel, our technological capability would kick back 75-100 years; no more satellites, jet aircraft, and all that other stuff that goes into our military readiness and thence --our very lives.

And so on…

So, one sees…, that no matter how much one desires peace and all that other fuzzy stuff, sometimes we need to kick fundament and break things to ensure that Wal-Mart will be able to provide the American consumer all that cheap trash that keeps him/her happy and spending, and spending, and…

I can’t complain about Dubya, as the alternative would have been Kerry. Sheesh! nuff said. Anyway, the future is here and there are other things more immediate to concern oneself with.

>>…due to his opinions and ideological commitments,<<

I suspect that Presidents answer to ‘forces’ that are hidden from us.

>>…which he has expressed clearly in both words and actions.<<

Oh, I don't know, can’t rightly say. I find that he’s kinda coy and hard to pin down. I mean, he, in so many ways, embraces so much of the agenda of traditional Democrats. Sometimes,

I think he’s a stealth Democrat. But I s’pose a half Republican is better than a whole Democrat -- Oy Vay! [/sigh]