Bush Gov’t involved in Sex and Drugs

the Bush administration screws the american public one more time,,,,http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERIOR_OIL_TRYSTS?SITE=VTBRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

Actually they were screwing the oil companies. That should make you happy.

 

I like this quote:

"Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., urged Democrats to reopen a House investigation of the Minerals Management Service that was initiated in 2006 by House Republicans. "Looking into and fixing these problems would have meant highlighting the enormous revenues that domestic oil and natural gas production contributes to our treasury. This just didn't fit into their anti-drilling campaign," he said."

Wonder why the 2006 investigation was stopped?

 

Love this shot!

 

You make it sound like Bush told them to go fuck and take gifts. All it proves to me is a lot of people are dirty and out for themselves, also money in the wrong hands is bad. I dont think GW would approve of what went on.

 

Oh my God, sex and drugs at parties for millionaires.

Does anyone in here think that Lockheed-Martin didn't do shit like this back in the Martin Marietta days of multi-billion dollars Defense contracts. What about Boeing, etc. etc.

This shit is wrong and more rare these days but to even remotely suggest that the Presidents have anything to do with it is just crazy.

Hell, try some of the silly shit that goes on at various conferences throughout the years for related fields(ie, Industrial Hygiene associations, Health Physics associations, etc.). Drunk professionals on expense accounts playing with sales people get drunk and do wild shit. :up:

 

The Olympics, that was a huge orgy this year. IOC giving away condoms, morning after treatments. Damn Olympics! That must be GW's fault too.

 

Bill, on the other hand...

 

Bill would be the one running the karaoke machine with the party hat on.

 

Another case of Blame Bush! Wonderful!

 

As long as we are going to play partisan games, here is a quote from the cited article:

I have no idea if the culprits were appointed by Bush I, II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter or Nixon. I seriously doubt any of them would have known what was going on at that level in the organization.

 

Acree, you're a wet blanket!

 

Does this mean I shouldn't have used you as a reference on my application to fill the pending vacancy?

 

Come on dude. Don't you know Bush is not responsible? Not for anything actually.

 

Not for the bullshit in this thread.

 

Nobody's blaming him for the bullshit in this thread.

I bet if this had occured during the Clinton's years in office you right-wingers would be all over it

It all comes down to accountability. It's really amazing how little some of you guys find there to be wrong with the shit that goes on. Over a third (1/3) of employees in the department had taken bribes and it takes years for the rot to surface. In any given organization, managers set the standard for employees to follow in regard to what is appropriate and what is not and there being such a large number of department employees practicing such behavior should tell you lots about the management and how the place is run. Sure, it's not like Bush was managing these guys directly but it's likely that all working there are political appointees and we know how friendly the current administration is with "big oil".

An event like this is something a cabinet head should lose his job over and perhaps even be prosecuted; I guess we'll see if there was anything that Bush learned since Katrina, in which case mind you, his appointment of a personal buddy to head a major federal agency had resulted in disaster ("Browny" was really not to blame). Many of you see nothing wrong with that though, so to continue this discussion is in many respects moot.

 

Bush is out in a little over three months. His screw-ups are becoming legendary and he seems bent on adding to the list. At thispoint it isn't a matter of whetehr or not I think it was wrong, it was. It is more WTF do you do? Who is going to take over a cabinet level position for 90 days? Senate approval is part of the process.

Were they all political appointees? I don't know. Some probably, but usually ony the top one or two levels. Hell some of them could date back several administrations.

 

Before you track me down and go out of your way to dispute me read the entire thread and keep things in perspective.

I was responding to steeltoe who was being sarcastic with his Bush is not responsible for anything comment. Bush is not responsible for what is being discussed in this thread. Never said he was being accused of it... prior to steeltoe's sarcastic statement.

Now, if you don't think these things happened in Clinton's administration you are sadly mistaken. It's no different with Bush. Not different with Reagan, Bush I, Carter, and so on. This kind of shit has been going on since defense contracting and other multi-million/mulit-billion dollar contracts. Similar to Halliburton getting no-bid contracts during Clinton's administration. Not sure but probably got them during Bush I's admin too. This shit has nothing to do with the President. It's lobbyists, legislators and large business owners. You can bet your ass that there have been stippers, drugs, etc involved with the Pharm companies and FDA representatives over the years. Massive amounts of money and greedy men leads to drugs and women.

Of course I think this shit is wrong as do most if not all in here feel the same way. We just don't see the need to blame this shit on the President. Hell yeah prosecute the people that break the law.

The FEMA fuckups were Brown's fault but it's also Bush's fault because he's the boss. This is post Katrina I'm referring to, not the evacuation phase. That's not FEMA's fault.

 

What I was addressing is the belief that some here have of Bush having some kind of an "impunity aura". If you hold no such opinion then you were clearly not part of the target audience of the comment. And while steeltoe had made a sarcastic comment, it carried a clear message. I just took it a step further

First off, I don't know where you might have gotten the idea that I think crap like this did not happen during the Clinton years, if that is in fact what you are suggesting. My reference to Clinton had but one purpose and that's to point out the double standard. For all I'm concerned Slick Willie should have gotten his share for his abuse of public trust. And I couldn't disagree more with you about FEMA's Katrina response or this particular spiel.
In regards to Katrina, Bush's failure and stupidity lies in the fact that he hired a personal friend, as opposed to someone highly qualified to manage a critical department on which folks' lives depend. That act in itself could be considered criminal if the situation was different (not about the office of the President)...it sure as hell would not meet the due-dilligence standards which leaders responsbile for those under them are legally expected to uphold. "Browny's" only mistake was to accept Bush's offer knowing full well that he was not the man for the job.
Finally, regarding this latest flop with the mineral rscrs. dept., the fact that so many f*ck-ups have happened, during which Bush has failed to hold anyone accountable (in some cases despite publicly & repeatedly stating so - remember Plame scandal?), why would you expect any of his subordinates to follow the rules when clearly the message being sent from above has been if you f*ck up we'll cover your hind? I heard on the news this a.m. that the responsible culprits for the latest flop are being removed from their positions and "reassigned"
I'd love to hear more details because if one of those dumbshits who did coke, and had sex with those he/she was suppose to watch over while on the job is just being moved to another postition/department, then I rest my case.

Bottom line: we elected a f*ck up, let's recognize him for what he is and not try to defend him because we hate the other side so much. When Dems are in the office and they do something stupid, which assuredly they will, I trust you will be all over that one (and rightfully so) :up:

 

The first difficulty is getting some folks to admit that which you acknowledge above.

From a political standpoint, you're correct. Where we stand at this point there is but one option left and that is the Kucinich way which needless to say is somewhat controversial (rightfully or wrongfully so depending on your viewpoint).

It's difficult to speak from the sidelines but the record has been quite clear and since actions speak louder than words, it's something quite reliable to go by. I wouldn't be surprised if George Tenet was the only leftover from the previous administration and I suppose that was the case because he learned who the new boss was and was willing to walk the line?