host

Lebell, I think that I correctly perceive what you are trying to accomplish here, and I don't think that it will work....because it doesn't change anything. Bush marketed himself, along with Cheney, as the "war president", the "if you vote for Kerry, we'll get hit", ADMINISTRATION. (Insert whatever threat most alarms you, after the word "hit".... another anthrax attack, bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Zarqawi....whatever.

The hurricane blew away Bush's facade. Exagerated "reports" of crimes that allegedly took place in NOLA, a few days after Katrina and the levee failures won't change that. While we were at war....the nation finally is discovering that it was "business as usual" at the Bush white house, incompetent crony appointments to responsible positions that potentially impacted the safety of our citizens, insider profiteering while we are a "nation at war", and the news of a thirty percent poverty rate in the area affected by Katrina, left Bush with the lowest approval rating of his presidency, as the flood waters receded. People may have "bought" Bush and Rice's "no one could have predicted that highjackers would fly airliners into buildings", pronouncements, four years ago, but Bush's attempt to use the same "no one could have known that the levees.....blah blah blah" diversion, did not seem as convincing this time......

I don't owe Bush an apology. He should resign, or at least appoint a non-partisan investigative body to make an honest assessment of the failure to provide timely federal relief, that he and the officials that he appointed, presided over, and that he supposedly accepted responsibility for.
It's already been attempted....the discrediting of news reporting from the right, by the right....and it isn't working. Here's a lame example:
Are you accusing the BBC of "Bush bashing"? Do they owe Bush, "an apology" for this NOLA report? Do you think that their editors had some sort of an agenda that included a goal of distorting their reporting to somehow make Bush "look bad" ? How do reports this week that there were exaggerated press reports of violent crime in NOLA, around Sept.2 , influence a conclusion that vindicates Bush?

Since then, we've learned that the white house appointee in charge of FEMA disaster spending oversight, is an indicted suspect, accused of lying to GSA investigators and has strong ties to indicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. We've seen reports that a Bush appointee who sat a few offices away from the president, in the white house, Susan Ralston, who held the title of special assisatant to both Bush and Karl Rove, Bush's most influential political and policy advisor, screened all of Rove's calls, and submitted the names of Rove's callers to a non-government republican party official, Grover Norquist, also involved in questionable business deals with Abramoff, and that before her appointment by Bush, in 2001, she was a key assistant to Abramoff himself, and that she testified before the grand jury investigating the Plame CIA leak.

We've read news reports that a Mr. Flanigan, a former key white house associate who reported to then white house Alberto Gonzales, is nominated for the number 2 position in the justice dept., and that he authorized payment of large sums to Abramoff, when Flanigan recently worked for TYCO, because of Abramoff's influence with high ranking white house and other powerful Republican politicians. The latest on the Flanigan appointment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092701593.html
It should also be noted that as assistant Atty General of the US, Flanigan would oversee Plame leak investigator Patrick Fitzgerald, and he would have the authority to fire Fitzgerald, because Gonzales has recused himself.
The following are three more Fox News produced segments that reinforce my point that the American news network that inarguably is most sympathetic and supportive of the Bush administration, the network whose news reporting was endorsed by VP Cheney for it's "accuracy"....could not avoid reporting how "bad it was", because it was "that bad".
The BBC and Fox had no agenda other than to report about the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, in NOLA. Bush is not somehow vindicated to the point that he deserves an apology. The MSM reports show that he stacked top FEMA management with unqualified political appointees, that he is still making appointments of unqualified or of persons of questionable character to key postions, (Flanigan as asst. atty general, and Julie Myers, niece of Gen. Myers, as director of immigration and naturalization) and that Bush and Rove have ties to indicted former lobbyist Abramoff that include appointing his former key assistant, Susan Ralston, to a position with duties that include sharing the names of callers to Karl Rove, with Norquist, who has no security clearance and is not a government official. Please provide full disclosure, Mr. Bush, or resign immediately. Our country cannot take too many more of your appointees, or your policy judgment and your "leadership".