Reply #28: Focus: Once again we witness writers naming Bush. I think we

[peacetalksforall]

all know in our heads that George is a front man. He is not capable of or interested enough in learning enough to plan something like this himself. We know who did. But writers always have to say Bush should be impeached. I gues we have to go along with it. But why leave Cheney and Rumsfeld and PNAC and the barons plus boards of directors and stockholders out of this? We still don't have enough people laying the blame where it belongs.

George is an invalid. An intellectually deficient psychological (sociopathic?) egomaniacal invalid with a heavy reliance on revenge (and probably physical properties), but a good fund raiser. That's why he is only a front man. Exactly what are they going to hang on him when it's all put in legalaties that will stick?. Are they going to get him because his signature or voice is on a crucial piece of evidence and they can prove that he totally understood what they were trying to get him to formalize and he fully agreed? His dependencies require support and outside support. He was perfect for the role because the true culprits seem to be getting away with it all - so far.

I'm writing because I think they can slither him out of the blame and the truly guilty will get away. Slithering him out of the blame may have been an initial criteria in his selection - they knew that they could save themselves an impeachment because he wasn't a decision originator or authorizer, therefore the Republican Party is safeguarded. They didn't get Nixon (formally impeached), they did get Clinton, but they're not going to get Bush, the Jr. because of his lack of depth and understanding? Have you imagined what the lawyers can come up with?

But a writer like this knowledgable person has no choice.