Whoa! This is not a comforting sign!

Pretty interesting. I suppose this means that within a week or so Card will be indicted.

Card's Departure

leaving to play a significant role in the presidential campaign of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. This announcement will not be made for several months; perhaps not until after the 2006 election

He is a great guy, knows his stuff and could be an asset to any campaign that he works on.

I feel badly about this, I like him a lot. He has done an awesome job.

Bush’s house of CARDs (Ha Ha) is falling. First Norton and now Card and with statements like this from Rumsfeld "If I were grading I would say we probably deserve a 'D' or a 'D-plus' as a country as to how well we're doing in the battle of ideas that's taking place in the world today," he told his questioner. "I'm not going to suggest that it's easy, but we have not found the formula as a country" for countering the extremists' message. he might be next, or maybe Rove? This from http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove3.htm The sources said Mr. Rove has been high-handed and out of touch with the interests of Republican constituents.

"There's been increasingly greater ego and less substance in this man," a senior GOP source said. "He's caused so much needless friction between the president and Congress."

Nah, nah, nah, nah....hey, hey, hey....GOOD BYE! Don't let the door hit you in the A** Andy Card on your way out!!! 1 down and 2 to go. Once Fat Mole Boy Rove is wacked, all that is left are impeachment proceedings for Imperial Idiot Bush.

DL moonbats are enjoying watching republicans tear themselves apart. It is quite funny actually.

Imperialism? Imperialism??? You can't handle Imperialsim!!! What a joke, read history Mr. Imperialism and you will learn what it is.

What is up with the lefties on this thing today?

Moonbats here is the message from your ???leader???,

President Bush announced a desperate move to salvage his presidency

"Josh Bolten is another Rove-Bush-Cheney insider who represents more of the same, not the fundamental change that the American people are demanding.

November is looking better and better with each passing day. Bush has more problems than a pregnant nun!!

But booting Andy Card is like Charles said, "Getting rid of Card, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Who cares and what’s the point. Americans have had enough of republicans. So replacing Card does nothing to stop the inevitable, Bush is going to be a LAME DUCK President.

...Bush is going to be a LAME DUCK President... Looks to me like he has been, at least since the SS debacle.

Laura Ingraham skillfully shattered the leftist mainstream media's smug complacency and smarmy self-satisfaction by doing what President Bush had failed to do: confront the mainstream media that has been sabotaging his efforts to democratize Iraq and, by its example, other Middle East nations, and castigate them for undermining America's noble efforts in Iraq by depicting the war as a failure and a quagmire instead of telling the whole truth about the situation in Iraq.

To be sure, none of the four actions she encouraged you to take "will encourage inside-the-beltway reporters to give [you] a fair shake." BUT, you need to do what is best for America, not what the inside-the-beltway reporters and the leftist mainstream media manipulators want. You are NOT going to get a fair shake from them, so stop courting them and count on the American people instead! The American people elected and re-elected you, not the mainstream media. They did so, despite the mainstream media. Remember Dan Rather?

Now what did Clinton do with his lame duck time? How do you spell "Self Satisfaction", while terrorist were planning their next attacks, and the Clinton economy was about to burst?

Treason? DL please put the cookoo back in its clock! Bush said that it would be up to future presidents to decide the future of the Iraq catastrophe. So military operations in Iraq will continue throughout his presidency. Which is to say that George Bush knowingly recognizes the Iraq war is his legacy. In spite of his demonstrated incompetence in a range of domestic issues Social security, environmental protection, the Medicare drug prescription drug program and the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it is the Iraq war on which Bush will die historically. And historical death seems certain. Conclusion: The worst president in the history of the United States of America.

But Bush is tenacious. He will not admit defeat, although one very prominent and leading conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr. has asked President Bush to do just this, admit defeat. Says Buckley, “One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed…. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.” But with his life and legacy on the line, will George Bush admit defeat In Iraq? The answer is never. He, and his despicable culprit in crimes against humanity, Dick Cheney, have invested too much of themselves in this horrific disaster to back down now. For them there is no turning back. It’s human nature.

Regrettably, it’s up to Congress to take first action—that pathetic and weakling body that has caved in to every Bush wish. But failing Congressional action, which we all expect, the real power lies in the American people, whose sense of decency, justice and human dignity can in the end triumph over this horrific Bush administration travesty. Never forget that the president serves at the will of the American people. We live in a democracy. The president is not king or monarch. He answers to you and me. In November we will have the chance to cast our ballots, our only real democratic exercise. This election must not be about local issues. There is too much in at stake for the future of the world. This must be a referendum on the presidency of George W. Bush.

Very off topic here. My congressman (Lane Evans d)just decided not to run for health reasons. He has parkinsons. Primaries in illinois were 2 weeks ago. My question is, do the dems get to pick somone to run? How does this play out?

Wanker, don't you have some little lads to chase?

Um, just in case the rest of you moonbats are too young to understand, presidential staff and cabinets rarely stay intact for all eight years of a two-term administration. But if you want to read your usual conspiracy theories into everything the President does, so be it. Check any president's term(s) out; they've all undergone personnel changes. Even your messiah, Slicky Blue Dress, didn't keep his staff intact for eight years.

Speaking of Slicky Blue Dress, I may owe some of you moonbats an apology, and I may have Barney to thank for it. I was talking to my boss today, and he told me that the venom fired at Bubba was just as bad, in some cases worse, than the venom being spewed today. For personal reasons, my memory between 1992 and 1997 is rather cloudy. No, it wasn't drugs or booze. My boss is a Republican, and he and I agree that Slick could've been a great president, had he taken his position more seriously. Now, if someone can give me an objective answer on this, I'd surely appreciate it. What say you, Matt? Mark?

Sorry for the poorly organized paragraph--ADHD...

For Keefer it WAS about the drugs. Thorazine to be exact. Also could you please stop refering to me as this wanker person. Yes everyone knows that presidents change staff personel. But jerk-off Bush would rather drink piss then to ever admit he was wrong or be told to make changes.

But back to B4B's yapping about the lefties railing against Bush, conservatives are calling out Bush as well. Kevin Phillips, a former Republican strategist who helped design the party's Southern strategy, predicted the coming ascendancy of the G.O.P. In the decades since, Mr.Phillips has become a populist social critic, and his last two major books were furious against the Bush family's "blatant business cronyism," with ties to big oil, big corporations and the military industrial complex.

And Fukuyama(another Neo-con)came to the conclusion that invading Iraq was going to be a gamble with unacceptably long odds. Then he watched with dismay as the administration adopted one wacky policy after another that was bound to make the odds still longer. The White House decided to ignore any useful lessons the Clinton administration might have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo, on the grounds that whatever Bill Clinton did for example, conduct a successful intervention, Bush wanted to do the opposite.

There was the diplomatic folly of announcing an intention to dominate the globe, and so forth all of which lead Fukuyama, scratching his head, to propose a psychological explanation. The neocons, he suggests, are people who, having witnessed the collapse of Communism long ago, ought to look back on those gigantic events as a one in a zillion lucky break, like winning the lottery. Instead, the neocons, victims of their own success, came to believe that Communism's implosion reflected the deepest laws of history, which were operating in their own and America's favor, a formula for hubris. This is just my shrewd observation...

Keefer I am sure will come up with some cute adjectives, but will say nothing of substance. To Keefer, if someone doesn't believe as he does, he says they are moonbats, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now he can't shoot us.

For Keefer it WAS about the drugs. Thorazine to be exact.

There you go again, Wanker, making crap up again.

It's good that you can cite these anecdotes and celebrate the "collapse" of the GOP. I call it healthy debate within the party. Check your party out sometime; you'll find that they're not singing in perfect harmony, either.

Have a good day, Bushwhacker...

The Nutty White House doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the term "fresh blood." Which usually refers to new blood that is introduced into an anemic entity, not blood taken from one organ of an unhealthy body and placed in another organ of that unhealthy body.

But that's what the inept surgeons at the White House have done in the transplant operation that removed Andrew Card, who to no surprise, was a former lobbyist for the automobile industry, as White House chief of staff and replaced him with Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director.

Bush obviously did not select someone who might have a slightly different perspective on his administration. Bolten has been in the White House since Bush was first inaugurated, oh the horror! Moreover, he has overseen one of the larger disasters of the Bush presidency, its fiscal policy.

Here's the situation. Bush has presided over a 46% increase in the federal debt, from about $5.6 trillion to about $8.8 trillion. By contrast, during Clinton's two terms, the debt grew from less than $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion, a 28% increase and during the last few years of his presidency, Clinton’s actually began to pay down the country's "real" debt.

Bush has managed to rack up more new debt during his five years in office than the entire debt amassed by the United States through 1988. And there is more to come. The president's budget envisions the debt rising to $11.5 trillion by 2011. This means that an increasing share of an increasingly tight budget must be devoted simply to paying interest an estimated $220 billion this fiscal year alone. Remember, this is the president who entered office promising to pay off $2 trillion in debt held by the public over the next decade. That is the joke of the century!

As the debt ceiling approaches $9 trillion, it's time to pause and consider the unabashed recklessness of the Bush administration's fiscal policies and its unwillingness to alter its tax-cutting course to accommodate new budgetary realities. "Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed,” Bush said in March 2001. "We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren." Where in the hell is that responsibility now Bush, Keefer, B4B?

Of course, Bush is most responsible for that lack of responsibility. But sharing the responsibility for being that irresponsible is Bolten. And his office has done its best to hide the true impact of Bush's budget decisions. Great choice! Way to shake things up!

A lot of moonbats can and do say a lot of bad things about George W Bush, our fearless leader.

But one thing they must admit, and that they are not proud of. As many mistakes as they claim were made by this administration, they have yet to come up with anything that they can pin on GWB. Try as they might, to root for terrorist and aid them on the verges of treason. They cannot beat him, and they know it.

If we could repeal the 22nd amendment, he'd get re-elected over the very best canidate they could muster. Name one person that can stand a chance?

The entire democratic party has been beaten by itself and the wreckage and dead bodies laying around remind me of Katrina with a democratic mayor, and democratic govenor, they must find someone else to blame.

For they are not responsible, like the rest of the democratic party for anything. Only our leader George W Bush will come forward and take the responsibility that democrats run from.

Run democrats for that is all you have become, a party out of power, usless and undeserving of the jobs that you were elected to do. Don't you feel shamefull for collecting your salaries and benefits and doing absolutely nothing but obstructionism.

To treat a wartime president, and a country this way, at this time in our history, is treasonous.

Rise up moonbats, create a new party, for the democrats have nothing to offer this country any more. No plans, just a party of defeated has beens, they are desperate for a real leader, cindy (momma moonbat) was what led for many months. Sad to say, even Cindy is doing better than some.

DL again please put the cookoo back in the clock. Nice fantasy land you live in. Repeal the 22nd? DL are you deaf, dumb, and blind? Bush has a 37% approval rating, he couldn't beat Timmy from South Park! Stay away from the Kool-aid DL, your brain is on fire!

"If we could repeal the 22nd amendment, he'd get re-elected over the very best canidate they could muster. Name one person that can stand a chance?"

Bill Clinton - he's twice the leader Dubya could ever dream of being. He wiped the floor with Bush I, and he'd steamroll Bush II even more.

IIS & MAF - Bush could beat anybody including Clinton easily.

Talk as you may, he has easily beaten the best you could muster in 2000 & 2004. Gore & Kerry were your picks, not mine. If you'd picked better Maybe, just Maybe you could have stood a chance.

But, today you cannot get a canidate as good as Gore was, or Kerry was. Clinton was the last one that you had, and his wife isn't going to be anything to contend with. She has no agenda, just like the rest of the democrats, her "anti Bush" was the best she had.

See, that's not going to work in 2008, you would need solutions, not just more bashing. Thats why you can't win, no canidate you have can do any more than bash Bush, and that's a loser in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008.

Prove me wrong, don't bash Bush, and maybe you could win, but --- you can't help yourselves. Rove wins you lose again.

When your house is burning down, before you can build it back up, you've got to put the fire out first.

Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
George Washington
First president of US (1732 - 1799)

Let the Cards fall where they may....that scum will be indicted soon, to join his butt buddy Scooter. Cheney will follow. Perhaps we should send them all out on a bird hunting trip and see who comes back alive.

This criminal administration will be bought to justice. Their acts of war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay have been exposed, the war lies revealed.

Nothing can save these bastards now....the ship is sinking and everyone but some of the pathetic morons writing "blogs4bush" knows it.

The scumbags will finally get what they deserve...every day more people wise up to the fact that Bush is a lying war criminal that will do and say anything....the worst kind of filth imaginable.

We can only hope that Bush, in an effort to prop up his sagging poll numbers, will decide to visit "liberated" Iraqis personally and mingle with them in public so that they can let him know how much they appreciate him....any idea how that photo op would end up? Let me guess....the Iraqis would ummm....yeah, they would throw flowers at his feet!

cookiecrap, You are living in a frothing liberal fantasy world. I almost feel sorry for you.

Stupid: "We live in a democracy."

No we don't. We live in a representative republic.

Stupid's shrewd observation: "The president is not king or monarch."

Um, a monarch is a king.

You like to use the word "Neo-con". Please indulge us. What does that term mean?

"Pretty interesting. I suppose this means that within a week or so Card will be indicted."

either that, or maybe a new job as a lobbyist with J.Ashcroft.

"If we could repeal the 22nd amendment, he'd get re-elected over the very best canidate they could muster. Name one person that can stand a chance?"

you must be joking? Hahahaha! And I thought conservatives didn't have much of a sense of humor!

NDinformer King and Monarch are different you halfwit.

King - one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life.

Monarch - a person who reigns over a kingdom or empire, as a sovereign ruler.

Yeah that sure seems like the same thing.

Neo-con - are pro-bombing, pro-empire, evil spawns of Satan and should be exterminated.

NDINFORMER - A goofy right wing hack Nobody who should also be exterminated.

Stupid,
"King - one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life."

rules over what? A kingdom or empire?

Damn, you're stupid.

I meant it the other way around. A king is a monarch... The definition of monarch includes kings, not the other way around. My bad.

Neo-con - are pro-bombing, pro-empire, evil spawns of Satan

So Clinton was a Neo-con because he liked to send bombs to distract from the Monica fiasco. Remember him sending cruise missles into an emtpy tent? Neo-con!

Pro-empire: So was Thomas Jefferson a Neo-con because he approved the Louisiana Purchase, almost doubling the size of the United States?

And you must be a Neo-con because you are an evil spawn of Satan? hahahahaha

I take it you're joking in your definition of Neo-con because you just don't know what it means. It is simply a label to you. I'd still like someone to define that term for me though.

ND, they use it as a label--we're all neocons to them. Wanker is an idiot, not old enough to vote, most likely. He's a freakin' parrot, just like the rest of 'em...