The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:36:39 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"john" wrote in message
news
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

believe that the USSC would deliberately throw a case without legal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
justification with the whole world watching.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would recommend that you read the book:

Supreme Injustice: How The High Court Hijacked Election 2000

by Alan Dershowitz.

It might be an eye opener for you.


Dershowitz can hardly be cosidered objective.

So?

Does that mean there was no conflict of interest?

Why were no questions being raised by Congress regarding the ethics

of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom had family

members working on the Bush campaign?


Probably because there were no questions to be raised.

Banana republic?

It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed? Just
like the generals in Brazil during the military regime. They were
"elected" too, BTW.

All in the family...

Silly me, I always though this was called corruption. But why it gets you
the results you need, you love it, right?

You call this democracy? Sorry folks, but I'll bring back the bananas.