Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

Originally posted by hitman:
prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.

So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.

Nice!!

Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?

ggw: Our very own Senator McCarthy.

Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm

Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.

On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting â?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:

1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?

2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?

3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?

4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?

5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?

6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton – $44 million for five year's work – you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?

7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."

8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it – "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?

9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?

10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm

Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.

On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting â?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:

1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?

2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?

3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?

4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?

5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?

6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton – $44 million for five year's work – you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?

7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."

8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it – "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?

9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?

10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?

<img src="http://www.johnsbit.com/b3ta/images/My%20b3ta%20pix/are%20we%20there%20yet.gif" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by hitman:
prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.

So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.

Nice!!

Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?

I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

Once again you show your bias – Kids from yuppie homes are spoiled. And, by it's glaring absence, we are left to assume that all the kids from poor homes are unspoiled little angels.

Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?

Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

So you're looking for a career change?

Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
So you're looking for a career change?

Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?

i think he's trying to help tweaky out.

I thought art teachers were artists who were tired of waiting tables, and weren't lucky enough to have a trust fund or rich spouse to leech off of.

Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?

Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

I missed the hippie craze by a few decades. What about jaded 20 somethings? What's the career of choice for them?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
So you're looking for a career change?

Originally posted by econo:
I missed the hippie craze by a few decades. What about jaded 20 somethings? What's the career of choice for them?

Web design

Cubby Bear is one of those people whom I would so love to make teach for at least one year in a typical school with all the crap that teachers have to deal with. I can guarantee that he'd be a changed man! This is the kind of stuff that is so hard to explain to outsiders partly because there are so many variables involved that are compounded on top of each other making it such a toxic work environment. It also is not in the best interest of any student who is not entirely self-motivated, which most aren't when it comes to education. That's normal. They are only kids who are very immediate thinking in their life scope as of yet and just want to have fun. (If you don't believe me, read some developemental psychology books. And don't try to point out the exception. There are always a small few.)

One thing that most people don't understand and usually prefer to play the denial game over is that so many things in this country have been de-institutionalized which has had a very negative effect on the public schools. There are a vast number of students in the regular classrooms now who, at one time, would have been in some other learning envirnonment from special education classes, pull out for special resource classes, reform schools, psychiatric institutions, hospital type learning envirnonments to any number of other types of schooling. While it's claimed to be in order to mainstream the students into the 'real world', we all know that it really has everything to do with not wanting to spend the money on them even though tons of money is still sent to the larger school districts itself yet doesn't reach the classrooms for a multitude of reasons. A lot of it in Baltimore Shitty has been mismanaged and even embezzled by administration…but that's another story yet a reality that effects the classrooms. (This is why I'm against increasing funding in education in many cases until the people at the top get their shit together. I got tired of my taxes being increased, the entire systems budgets increased, yet every school and classroom, expecially my very own, had budget cuts!!!)

Once these kids are placed in a regular classroom, they are then labled and considered 'regular' students though they still have all of the problems that would have otherwise previously placed them for some sort of special services. It is now quite common for a dangerous schizophrenic to be sitting next to that student that Hitman mentioned while little GGW sits on the other side. Odds are, there are lots of other extreme differences and problems in that room that the teacher now has to work around that often makes it so fucking hard to reach every student everyday at their maximum potential.

Did I address extreme behaviorial disruptions yet that are now ignored my administrators and some parents? No. What about all the insane amounts of excessive paper work that has been recently thrown on teachers that wasn't required years ago? Work that really doesn't help the teacher or the class in the least bit but administrators now seem to put more stock in that than what is really going on in the classroom. And what about all the extra concepts and subjects within one freaking subject area and class period? "Oh, you are an art teacher but you didn't teach language concepts in this class today." If you did than they pick on you for not including math, science, geography, or whatever they choose to pick on you about…and they will. In the meantime, you end up sneaking a little art in there around all of the other crap. This is how it is in all subject areas, not just art. Oh, and I forgot about all of the feel good brainwashing crap that they now demand. Most of you have no clue what is going on in these classrooms at everybody elses but the teachers' insistance but it's only the teachers who get any of the blame when things don't work out no matter how hard they've bashed their heads against all the brick walls that are built around them.

Have I even begun to scratch the surface? HELL NO!!!!

Think about this for a moment. Almost all school districts now are having a very serious problem with retaining teachers at all levels of the career ladder. Though the pay is bad, it's much better than it had been meaning that there's a whole lot more to why they are quitting. If a field can't retain it's employees, something must be horrid about that field. In fact, they could now offer me $200,000/year to come back and there is no way I would ever consider it. You wouldn't believe the insane chaos that has been going on in the district I worked for. Just in the past couple days there have been a number of shootings and arsons. Yesterday, the last school that I taught in, the kids had some kind of protest and the principal ended up being put on suspension. (Have no clue what the story was but knowing that place, they always blame the teachers and/or principals when the students go completely crazy. Almost never, ever the students! But they do have a lot of insane principals too.) Today, the kids tried to burn the school down. This is the kind of stuff that has become par for the course lately in Baltimore Shitty. And this is only the crap that has made it to the news media. One thing that I've learned over the years is that little offences in many other districts across the country will be publicized yet tons of very serious offenses, such as things involving guns, assaults on teachers, etc, in Baltimore will be swept under the carpet as though they are trying to hide how bad and corrupt they are.

NCLB is yet another one of those government programs that sounds wonderful in bullshit political speeches and quick fix scams to those who have not an inkling of the inner workings but has absolutely no real working substance in practice.

Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.

Ahhhhh….kindred spirits.

I'm not the typical hippie art teacher. I'm only 29 and not burnt out from reefer (never touched it) and never owned a pair of Birkenstocks. Most of the time, people meet me and are amazed that I'm an art teacher because I just don't fit in the typical mold. BS in Art Ed. from Towson, MA in Art Ed. from MICA (but would never fucking do it again). Nor am I an artist who got tired of doing bullshit jobs. I barely have any time or drive when I do have free time, to do any of my own work. I would much rather go to shows. As a kid I was just good, and figured to keep up on it, and was very inspired by some great art teachers I had to go into the profession, figuring I could do some good by bringing some culture to the masses before it all got burned down by Guiliani (i.e. Brooklyn show) or card carrying NRA members who think Elvis on velvet is art.

I guess it is time to step on my rose colored glasses.

Can I be part of the club as well?

Originally posted by Jaguär:
Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.

Originally posted by econo:
Can I be part of the club as well?

Originally posted by Jaguär:
Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.

To ggw's dismay, there is no discrimination here. Sure come on in.

Originally posted by hitman:
Elvis on velvet is art.

i wholeheartedly agree. . .that and the drug trade is what keeps ciudad juarez in business. . .oh, and i suppose prostitution too, but i wouldn't know anything about that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?oref=login

Ignorance Isn't Strength
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 8, 2004

I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.

This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.

As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.

In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)

The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)

Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.

But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.

How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)

The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.

Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.

Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.

The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.

I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt. And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."

Originally posted by hitman:
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt. And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."

Exactly. Best line by Kerry (paraphrased) - "The military won the war, the president lost the peace"

Now, back to the internets…

<img src="http://img5.exs.cx/img5/2088/gwbushtxt.jpg" alt=" - " />