Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.

"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.

Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.

Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.

Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.

In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.

"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.

Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.

The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests - not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.

Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.

Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.

Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.

"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.

Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.

Gads, I think he's a slow learner. This sort of stuff doesn't go over well, IMHO. Might make people think he is a big phony.

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. This is an important time, Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you..

According to TSO who was at the �Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball�, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that�s 14 Inaugurations).

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation�s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower�s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

So where was our new President instead of honoring Medal of Honor recipients who by some miracle are still alive? According to Huffington Post, this was his schedule for Inaugural celebrations;

Later that day, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will host 10 official inaugural balls:

� Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

� Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

� Africa on the Potomac inaugural celebration at Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va.

Mr. Wolf from Blackfive sends along this link to which Inaugural Balls Obama actually attended last night.

Blackfive, which I read occasionally for military pieces, confirmed that President Obama did not come to the inaugural ball. So I became curious because the only two sources were two blogs and one source that consisted of initials. Therefore, I did what any rational person would do: I contacted the American Legion to get the straight story from the people who would know. I was put in contact with a very pleasant gentleman named Craig Roberts who is the American Legion's Media Relations Manager and after our conversation he e-mailed me this statement which I will include in its entirety:

The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year�s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.

President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President�s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or �snubbed.�

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for taking my call and taking the time to compose this statement so that I can share it on behalf of the American Legion. So to those fellow Obama supporters that think this ball did not happen, it did. It was omitted from the media outlets it was omitted from because of logistical challenges due to the extraordinary number of people that flooded Washington D.C. to see Barack Obama be inaugurated as the 44th president and it is not yet on the American Legion's website (as I type this at 8:30 A.M. on 1-23-09) because of some difficulties in updating the website. However, there will be media coverage of the event forthcoming.

I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?

The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C.

Update: It would appear that, according to Stars & Stripes that Obama had some Medal of Honor recipients at an inaugural ball that he attended. This gives the number of living Medal of Honor recipients as 99, but I believe that two have passed away since that number was compiled leaving 97. There are 7 in this picture and there were 47 at the American Legion inaugural event. I'm curious if there were more at the event this photo was taken at.

Further update: I received an e-mail from Mr. Roberts today (which I would have gotten yesterday if I had not miscommunicated my e-mail address to him) with his original statement along with a new statement. I will include both statements in their entirety:

"The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th . The quadrennial event is co-sponsored by fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year's event. President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear."

"We extended an invitation as we always do. There are numerous Balls and we know he can't attend them all. Of course, we would have loved for him to make an appearance, but he didn't. It's a logisticalnightmare. He did meet with the troops at the Commander In Chief's Ball, and we are grateful for that. Our Ball wasn't about the President; it was about the Medal of Honor recipients and the veterans and families who were there. We are grateful that the Vice President appeared, and our guests were very appreciative.

"That having been said, there are much more important issues to dwell on, which we intend to do. We look forward to working with the new administration on ensuring full and guaranteed funding for VA health care services, and the very best treatment for our service people who have been wounded, and on the quality of life of all members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as the maintenance of a national security force that will deter any enemy from considering an attack on America."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! "Honor" and "dignity" are NOT words that would come to mind to describe Bush.

What is INCREDIBLE to me is that Bush's "memoir," "A Charge to Keep" is referenced here. The original ghostwriter (and long-time Bush family friend) for that memoir was fired and his reputation tarnished (in usual Bush fashion) because Bush talked TOO much during his interviews with the writer, including how he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999 -- 2 years before 9/11. I've posted that link on here before, but here it is again:

Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.

Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.

Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.

No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.

The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."

One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.

On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.

President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.

Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story

How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?

Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

and plans that don't and won't work can be presented eloquently and there certainly will be people dumb enough to believe that those ideas and plan will actually work. This is all a bunch of fluff to get elected. Obama does give hope....it is called FALSE HOPE!

The Worst President in History?

One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a failure. Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's pursuit of disastrous policies. In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about the current crop of history professors than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.) Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (IPS) - Despite all the claims of improvements, 2007 has been the worst year yet in Iraq.

One of the first big moves this year was the launch of a troop "surge" by the U.S. government in mid-February. The goal was to improve security in Baghdad and the western al-Anbar province, the two most violent areas. By June, an additional 28,000 troops had been deployed to Iraq, bringing the total number up to more than 160,000.

By autumn, there were over 175,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. This is the highest number of U.S. troops deployed yet, and while the U.S. government continues to talk of withdrawing some, the numbers on the ground appear to contradict these promises.

The Bush administration said the "surge" was also aimed at curbing sectarian killings, and to gain time for political reform for the government of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

During the surge, the number of Iraqis displaced from their homes quadrupled, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent. By the end of 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that there are over 2.3 million internally displaced persons within Iraq, and over 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled the country.

Iraq has a population around 25 million.

The non-governmental organisation Refugees International describes Iraq's refugee problem as "the world's fastest growing refugee crisis."

In October the Syrian government began requiring visas for Iraqis. Until then it was the only country to allow Iraqis in without visas. The new restrictions have led some Iraqis to return to Baghdad, but that number is well below 50,000.

A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.

Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.

One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.

The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that eight out of ten refugees are from Baghdad.

By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels. Similarly with jobs and oil exports. Unemployment, according to the Iraqi government, ranges between 60-70 percent.

An Oxfam International report released in July says 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to safe drinking water, and 43 percent live on less than a dollar a day. The report also states that eight million Iraqis are in need of emergency assistance.

"Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, healthcare, education, and employment," the report says. "Of the four million Iraqis who are dependent on food assistance, only 60 percent currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

Nearly 10 million people depend on the fragile rationing system. In December, the Iraqi government announced it would cut the number of items in the food ration from ten to five due to "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation." The inflation rate is officially said to be around 70 percent.

The cuts are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, and have led to warnings of social unrest if measures are not taken to address rising poverty and unemployment.

Iraq's children continue to suffer most. Child malnutrition rates have increased from 19 percent during the economic sanctions period prior to the invasion, to 28 percent today.

This year has also been one of the bloodiest of the entire occupation. The group Just Foreign Policy, "an independent and non-partisan mass membership organisation dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy," estimates the total number of Iraqis killed so far due to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation to be 1,139,602.

This year 894 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the entire occupation for the U.S. military, according to ICasualties.org.

To date, at least 3,896 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defence.

A part of the U.S. military's effort to reduce violence has been to pay former resistance fighters. Late in 2007, the U.S. military began paying monthly wages of 300 dollars to former militants, calling them now "concerned local citizens."

While this policy has cut violence in al-Anbar, it has also increased political divisions between the dominant Shia political party and the Sunnis � the majority of these "concerned citizens" being paid are Sunni Muslims. Prime Minister Maliki has said these "concerned local citizens" will never be part of the government's security apparatus, which is predominantly composed of members of various Shia militias.

Underscoring another failure of the so-called surge is the fact that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad remains more divided than ever, and hopes of reconciliation have vanished.

According to a recent ABC/BBC poll, 98 percent of Sunnis and 84 percent of Shias in Iraq want all U.S. forces out of the country. (END/2007)

Can someone explain to me please why in all communications about the war in Iraq, both for and against, they never speak of how many Al Qaeda are being eliminated during this continued fighting in Iraq? Considering that this would be the ONLY plausible reason why we should continue with it, if we were actually making headway against Islamic extremism and the Al Qaeda network? Furthermore, why in the last six months or so has the media started referring to the "insurgents" as Al Qaeda with no clarification whatsoever?

This is very telling isn't it? If we are not fighting the terrorists anymore, why is our military still putting their lives on the line?

I believe this is because they are no longer there, considering that there was a very small faction there to begin with.

Considering that the Bush administration is losing what is left of their reputation continuing this war against AL Qaeda in Iraq, is it so far fetched to see media manipulation in the fact that now all of a sudden the American media is sprouting headlines about Al Qaeda being the cause of Bhutto's death without any proof whatsoever but based on wishful thinking and supposition? When in reality Musharraf has the most to gain from her death? Especially if it is lauded that Al Qaeda is behind her death, this lends to solidity that Bush will not withdraw US funds from Pakistan if it is thought that Al Qaeda is behind Bhutto's death, perhaps Musharraf asking for MORE funds and getting them from the Bush administration to fight Al Qaeda (supposedly) in Pakistan.