Important questions for a Friday

Well, on this Friday, the embarrassing news for the administration just keeps coming. However, as each story breaks, new questions are raised, old ones remained unanswered. With that in mind, I'd like to offer a few more questions, ones I'd love to know the answer to.

1. A few months ago, the administration's excuse for its warrantless wiretapping was that they weren't simply spying on everyday Americans. This assertion, of course, was proven inoperative Thursday. Despite the news, President Bush soldiered on, saying, "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." If yesterday's revelation was the other shoe dropping on the earlier story, how long do you think it will take for the other shoe to drop on this scandal? How long do you think it will take before we find the president defending the legality of mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans? Six months? Three?

2. Taking Question No. 1 in another direction, how long until the administration panics and attempts to change the story by, say, attacking Iran? I mean, we know they won't try to fight off criticism by tackling the most pressing issues. But I'm afraid that their usual tactics - flag-burning legislation, gay-marriage bans, immigration crack-downs - won't work this time. Nor will renewed rhetoric to combat high gas prices despite never following through. Nope, none of that will do. And, unfortunately, I'm afraid Bush has some shock-and-awe up his sleeve.

3. If the government is so interested in my calls for Chinese delivery, why, then, can't we obtain complete logs of Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House? Or details about the now-infamous Vice President Cheney energy policy meeting? Or who was originally responsible for the Valerie Plame leak? Disclosure for me but not for thee? Buy the way, President Bush, the General Tso's Chicken was fabulous, but I'd equally recommend the Chicken Lo Mein.

4. How long will Bush's claims that each new revelation further threatens our ability to fight the war on terror fly? Can you honestly tell me that, until yesterday or until a few months ago, those hoping to attack us didn't know they would, in one way or another, be surveilled? Will the president keep up this line of reasoning until the Bill of Rights is a "quaint" relic of the past better left to history classes? I'd like to know, because the double-standard regarding leaks from this administration is staggering. Especially considering that Plame's job was to track the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iran. But that's a good leak compared to this one? Please.

5. Bill O'Reilly has quickly jumped to the defense of the administration in the wake of Thursday's revelation. If he's so unconcerned about a spy agency maintaining a history of everyone's phone calls, why was he so concerned about his phone calls to Andrea Mackris seeing the light of day? I'd be interested to see how O'Reilly would bloviate about this blatant hypocrisy. I'll even give you the final word, Bill.

6. Care to guess what Tony Snow's first question will be? Think it will be about how he's settling into his new job? Or, more to the point, if he's not grilled about Thursday's news, then we'll know the media has completely abdicated its responsibility to the American people. That unless, of course, something worse happens before next week. Given the course of events, that's a 50/50 proposition at the very least.

7. The latest polling has the president at 29 percent. How low do you think he can go before talk of impeachment isn't scuttled any longer and instead becomes widespread activity? Many Republicans have clearly begun abandoning Bush's ship, a trend I expect to continue. How long until one of them calls for the president's resignation?

8. Anyone think that Qwest's stock won't be up today? Better get it now, people!

Is there evidence that anyone in congress knew the extent of this program (the NSA phone tapping)? I ask because my sister (sigh) who watches Faux (sigh) says that Nancy Pelosi and others knew about it. Is this true?

They told her the bare outline of the program without any hair-raising details, and then told her that it was Top Secret, and that she couldn't discuss it with any colleagues, staff, media, or even her family, upon pain of prosecution. That's just how BushCo operates.

My sister is in the "I'm a Dem, but I attack Dems first crowd," and continuosly pisses me off. She called a while ago and the first thing out of her mouth was to start railing about the Dems for not revealing this. But given the MO of this regime, your assessment is most likely accurate.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

to resemble a Fellini flick. By the way, the Kung Pao chicken at my local place is wonderful.

If the polls say 29% it's probably really 2.9%. We cannot survive 3 more yrs. of this BS. Given what we already know just imagine what we don't know!!! I personally don't think the Corp/Religious fascists ever intend allowing anyone else ever hold power in this country. They have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to hold onto power legal or illegal.

I think the likelihood of Bush trying to rally support to "the commander in chief" by launching another war, this time with Iran, is huge.

Given that his administration is making all the same noises about Iran that they did about Iraq, there is little doubt they are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming they couldn't take the risk of not attacking.

Any news coverage of the war will reduce the amount of coverage of his failures. He is commander in chief, so he will garner some support simply because we aren't going to want him to fail or more troops to die. People genuinely do feel it is wrong to criticize the president during war.

War is hugely profitable for the corporations that run the Republican party.

The only negatives are that this will damage the Republican congress, short-term, but Bush isn't really their man anyway; he can't run again so he has nothing personal to lose politically. His usefulness to corporations and the ultra rich will soon be over, so they will want to extract maximum benefits from his position while he still has it.

And it massively feeds his swaggering ego. Helps overcome those feelings of inadequacy from being a male cheerleader in college.

From all of these twisted perspectives, attacking Iran makes perfect sense.

Welcome to DU!! :toast: