Andy Card's Resignation (Open-ish Thread)

This morning's announcement that White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has resigned just begs for an open debate.

Why did Card resign now, on this particular Tuesday morning? Like Scooter Libby found himself in the middle of the Plame affair, "Andy Card is in the midst of another scandal -- warrantless spying," notes georgia10 at Daily Kos, saying that the resignation is proof of the weakness of the Bush presidency.

Card will be replaced by Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and another Bush insider. Thoughts on Bolten? At the Coldheartedtruth blog, the feeling is that Bush should have gone outside his circle to find "some new blood."

Is this just the beginning of a major administration reshuffle?

Go to it, Debaters.

(I'll try to update as I come across interesting opinion on the resignation, and by all means, please provide any good links you find.)

Dear editor,
Please forgive me for going off topic. How could I not?

By Emily Messner |  March 28, 2006; 8:26 AM ET  | Category:  Debate Extras
Previous: Patriotic Assimilation (Go Patriots!) | Next: Senate Delays and Presidential Politics


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Don't think it's a reshuffle of that magnitude. He may have wanted to leave for some time, anyway. Much like other Administration officials.

Unless more is revealed (from credible sources <-- something that seems in short supply these days), things are up to speculation.


Posted by: SandyK | March 28, 2006 09:57 AM

Well that explains it...

5 1/2 years of boiler room politics is enough to make anyone want to leave. No conspiracies needed.


Posted by: SandyK | March 28, 2006 10:14 AM

Little attention has been paid to the fact that Bush's main support has come from social conservatives who have their own massive propaganda apparatuus on both political and religious talk radio combined with a conservative intelligentisia that has considerabal access into the mainstream media.

This broad network of support that Bush, or any other conservative President gets, would not be available to anyone perceived to be moderate or liberal. Thus, Bush knows that the normal rules that the Washington press corp applies to presidents in trouble, do not apply to him. He knows that he doesn't have to do the normal things that were expected of Presidents past who got into trouble in their second terms.

Thus, we have this bizarre situation where one day, a secret memo is released describing Bush and Blair actually discussing camoflouging US military aircraft with UN colors to provoke a potential assault by Hussein thus giving a pretext for war; and even more stunning, discussion of potentially assassinating Hussein--then, the next day, Andrew Card resigning in what has to be the latest attempt to change the subject, and you have this complict mainstream media dutifully following along while predictably this afternoon's talk radio will dwell on how the liberal media out to get the Bush administration.

Amazing! Utterly amazing! Bush can quite literally get away with discussing the murder of the leader of another country with the leader of Great Britain. Can you possibly imagine what talk radio, Congress and more importantly, the mainstream media would do to Al Gore or Hillary Clinton if such a secret memo were uncovered in their administrations?

Posted by: Jaxas | March 28, 2006 10:40 AM

Emily--given Bush's near categorical statement of support for his staff last week, I am quite certain that the impetus for this action has to do with the NY Times revealing that secret memo yesterday describing Bush and Blair cavalierly discussing assassination and subterfuge in oder to provoke a war.

That is why Card is out early this morning--to head off any news about that memo. And, it will probably work. No other President could ever hope to get away with what Bush is able to get away with.

It is disgraceful. It is shocking and demoralizing that any talk of impeaching or censoring this criminal in the highest office in the land is looked at as extremist or radical. If Bush cannot be impeached for this sort of high crime, then maybe we ought to just amend the Constitution to make it legal for American Presidents to go about assassinating heads of state who disagree with us.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 28, 2006 10:53 AM

I am surprised how openly, candidly, and frequently President Bush addresses criticisms of his administration. The only public voice for the administration seems to be that of the President. The persona that then gets beat up the most is that of the President. I'm hopeful that the next chief of staff will put other representatives of the administration "out there" to carry the message. I'm also hopeful that there will be much better presidential speech writing. It is dull and uninspiring now.

Posted by: Irene | March 28, 2006 11:09 AM

My immediate thought was that this is definitely related to the NYT secret memo release. According to the article, Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security advisor; Dan Friend, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andy Card, the White House Chief of Staff were present during the meeting. I am wondering if it was Mr. Card's idea to get out now. What does anyone else think?

Posted by: Lois L | March 28, 2006 11:27 AM

I can't help linking the resignation of Andy Card and the coincidental announcement that Fitzgerald is ready to issue more indictments. Does anyone else think there is a link?

Posted by: Sharen | March 28, 2006 11:32 AM

Emily, but I wanted to point you to this article by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ:

She describes how the rulers of India around the time the Raj was ending had no idea the subcontinent would explode in racial violence. It's an old story -- there are countless examples in the past couple of hundred years of people who thought they were living in a "post-racial" society of some sort, only to see racialism reassert itself at some point, often in a time of crisis or change.

What I'm trying to convey is that the casual attitude you have as a young, relatively inexperienced person in the world towards the ugly possibilities inherent in multiethnic nations leads you to quickly dismiss concerns of those people who say it's not a good idea for the US to become a multiethnic, unassimilated mix. California is now about 33% Mexican and 42% white, and will probably be majority Mexican in the next 20 years or so.

Given that human history is basically a list of ethnic conflicts, I don't see where your confidence comes from that everything will work out great. Forgive me for saying so, but I suspect it's the ignorance of youth, which is why I question your qualifications to moderate this debate -- you were a summer intern at the Post last year, and now we're trusting your take on something as vital as the ethnic makeup of our nation? Doesn't work for me.

Maybe California won't wind up Balkanized and full of ethnic conflict -- but if you look at the state's prisons, high schools, and neighborhoods, you'll see they're segregated and engaged in low-level ethnic conflict already. It's way, way, scarier than you know.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 28, 2006 11:57 AM

that the dipshatzle, "your president elected by scam" is attempting to address the calls that he address the situation that he lied to the United States as a-way-of-doing-business

Is moving a glass on the table, to show you that there is going to be a new meal served...

But it's the same course as before, no change...

It's like someone up for a felony charge is charged and fined for a misdemeanor, as a way of letting the media steam off...

an attempt to defuse the situation with appearances of responding to what is being put forward.

Posted by: It would appear... | March 28, 2006 12:06 PM

Eh, who cares. Go Mason!!!!

Posted by: Lucretia Borgia | March 28, 2006 12:07 PM

that "ethnic conflict" is really conflict for services on some level

the peasants are being pitted against each other, for a limited supply of goods and services...

I don't think it's about race, I think it's about assimilating and being used by the wealthy to undercut existing citizens in thier search for a livable life situation.

Posted by: I would presume that on some level.. | March 28, 2006 12:12 PM

DC Dude,

I am a little troubled by what you're implying. Forget the personal attack on the moderator and let's focus on your assertion: immigration by non-whites will cause balkanization of America...or at least California.

That is a pretty scary proposition, and fear I think is what you are working towards. Perhaps if you want to show the wisdom of age you would want to go back to when the Irish and Italians came to this country by the boat load. I think you will find that the same things were said about them...and no, not all of them came here legally. There was nothing more balkanized than downtown Chicago, New York and other major cities.

Finally, there is NO SUCH THING as a native American...except the Indians...and how do you think THEY feel about immigrants? America, by design and evolution is nothing if not multi-ethnic. Unless you want to lump everyone of European origin into one category, then we have ALWAYS been multi-ethnic. It is what has made this country great.

Our nationalism has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our religion or tribe that we belong to, but on the unique ideals of America that are above the social structures of humans. If it does not work here, then it will NOT work anywhere.

If it is our ideals you wish to defend, then first I challenge you to define them to the point where you would even get a plurality of agreement and then I would suggest that you find a way to integrate the NEW Americans into said ideals.

I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the unique American experience and way of life, but that has nothing to do with your skin color, language, religion or ethnic heritage. It has to do with an understanding that we are in this together in SPITE of those things and that hard work and attention to the rule of law - laws made by the people for the people - is what makes this country a success.

Crime, expecially violent crime, is still the domain of the "American Citizen" in this country. Sure, every mass imigration brings criminals and thugs, why should this one be any different? But, I dare say that the vast majority are here to work and find a better life.

Perhaps if "we" stopped framing this debate as an either/or proposition we could work on finding a solution to some very real problems; most of which have to do with economics and logistics and not culture. Hell, a new influx of culture keeps us interesting.

Let's not allow 9/11, terrorists, immigration and fear turn us into xenophobic nationalists just when the world needs to seriously work through the problems of global integration. We should be leading instead of reacting. We cannot lead because our "leaders" care only about the next election and profit and not leadership and problem resolution.

There are answers to this issue, but they will NOT be found on either extreme.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 28, 2006 12:41 PM

As for Card's resignation...please...staff members on Bush's staff are as interchangeable as Barbie's clothing. They are hand-picked for loyalty, not competence. When your policies and inability to apply critical thinking are as lacking as they are with BushCo et al, the LAST thing you want is someone with "fresh" ideas. Faith-based government does not need ideas, it needs believers.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic indeed. Bush isn't looking for a mechanic to fix the boat, he's looking for more band members to play happy music while the ship sinks.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 28, 2006 12:51 PM

what are you? stupid?

if the United States orchestrates something to take us into a faux "war" and that causes people to be alittle jumpy around others, as well as the homophobia thing, baby-killer rhetoric, and gawd using antichristians...

well you created it buddy, you fix it.

chill on...babble boy.

Posted by: let us not allow 9/11? | March 28, 2006 01:04 PM

Afghan Vet,

Believe me, I hope nothing ever happens in the U.S. Southwest like what happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, India, Indonesia, the dismantled USSR, or myriad other multiethnic countries that were torn apart along racial lines in the end. Maybe the salve of wealth will keep it from happening.

But the preconditions are there, and it's frightening. You've no doubt read about the racial segregation and conflict between blacks and Hispanics in California high schools, neighborhoods, and prisons, and whites are fleeing Calif. for whiter states like Nevada, Oregon, and Utah in droves (California now has a yearly net loss of whites of about 100,000). There isn't much assimilation going on to speak about.

Your analogy of present-day California to 1880s New York City is inapt for many reasons: the overall number of immigrants is larger now; they mostly come from one country; irredentism was lacking in the case of Irish and Italian immigrants (see the "this is stolen land" signs held by Mexican protesters in recent days); the assimilationist ethic has been largely dismantled in favor of multiculturalism; and so forth. I think it's difficult to take an honest look at California in 2006 and be anything but worried.

BTW, I'm not against nonwhite immigration to the U.S. But I think it should be done legally, in assimilable numbers, and with an assimilationist ideal. What we have in California is the opposite: most of it is illegal, the numbers are too large to encourage assimilation, and multiculturalism is the reigning ideology. Hence the many problems.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 28, 2006 01:18 PM

It's remarkably simple - someone had to be thrown overboard. As someone with very little actual power in the White House, Card's number came up. The distraction value was only icing on the cake. Stop trying to make it complicated.

I confess I don't understand the point of the post that starts out "what are you? stupid?", but I would respectfully point out that this is not a good lede sentence to get people to adopt your point of view.

It's been the essential MO of the Bush White House for five years, and you see how much good it's done them, don't you?

Someone - perhaps Dowd or Ivins or their ilk - said several years back that, "it's not how stupid Bush is that matters - it's how stupid he thinks we are."

Resonate any with anyone on here?

Posted by: Rich Miles | March 28, 2006 01:26 PM

There was enough of them because he was elected for a second term. He sure didn't blind them with brilliance but he sure baffled them with is Bull S...

Go Gaters

Posted by: LabRat | March 28, 2006 01:45 PM

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the elephant (Iraq War and Rumsfeld) in the room.

I'm sure they think it worked in the White House, but the rest of America just regards them as deadenders who are desperately flailing around, and most of us have stopped listening to them.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | March 28, 2006 01:46 PM

Hey, Em,

Could you run down the hall and ask Jim Brady when his testicle implant surgery is scheduled? He needs to update the before it gets stale. Sorry to ask you to do this for us, but his phone seems to be off the hook.

As for the subject of this blog: Card's resignation is simply not news (okay, maybe a couple of lines to note the event). You have plenty of important topics to be presented to the bloglidites. High crimes and misdemeanors, and such. Conspiracy to commit murder of a foreign head of state and/or blatant fraud in the run-up to the "war" in Iraq. When the REAL washington Post was investigating Watergate, Deep Throat urged Woodward and Bernstein (before Woodward became Dearth Vader and Bernstein became a mid-level manager), to "follow the money". Why is no one following the money this administration is throwing around?

As they say in WV: the washington post is "eat up with it."

Posted by: Smafdy | March 28, 2006 03:09 PM

He must have been doin' "a heck of a job", to be 'allowed' to resign at such a convenient time.
I agree with many of the previous posters, that the content of presidential speeches has been lacking, uninspiring and in a word "repetitive". Does the staff have some one to count how many 9/11's, war on terrors's, democracy in the middle east's and other catch phrases in the proofread? They also must be doin' "a heck of a job".
Godspeed, War Eagle, Auburn University Men's and Women's NCAA National Swimming and Diving Champs AGAIN!!!!!

Posted by: smokinq72 | March 28, 2006 04:00 PM

Andy Card has been a real class act as Chief of Staff. His job is to loyally serve his boss, The President, by directing the White House staff in their tasks, organizing the decision process the president wishes to follow, seeing to it that all sides he wishes to hear from are heard from, and coordinating with the cabinet departments. He does not make policy. The President makes policy, often enough, bad policy.

Andy Card has played his role with apparently perfect integrity, without self-promotion, without abuses of power, with neither animus or malice, without self-aggrandizement, and with no apparent self-interest. He has been a model of public service as we should want it to be. He represents the kind of idealized service we somehow expect from New Englanders, but only rarely get. I, for one, wish him well and am grateful for his service, and even more for the example of it.

I live in California. I don't know the exact split between white and brown folk in our little valley but it is probably pretty close to 50/50. Oddly enough, we don't have anything like the problems you paint in your imagination. I admit I am some irritated that the grocery store, 5 miles down the road, has replaced its superb rotiserie cooked beef short ribs with burritos, but I can understand the business reason. But we don't have Latino gangs, and actually most of the petty larceny/burglery around here traces itself back to older backwoods family white teenagers supplying their meth habits. And around here, pot is an export business, not a drug habit. We don't have a lot of corruption here either, certainly nothing approaching the scale of what we see in DC. :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 28, 2006 04:21 PM

It's lonely at the top, I can accept that, but some leaders think loyalty is all important.

I worked for a boss who, like Mr. Bush, put loyalty above all else and in the end, it did not work because the quality and the performance of the loyal people he put in the top spots were sub-standard. They were loyal, everyone of them ready to fall on their sword for the boss. Phones were tapped too. What fun it was.

But in reality, success is not easy and IMHO you really need smart dedicated people, not just loyal people, unless you are running a criminal enterprise, which my boss was. Bye Bye Boss. You lost your job. Oh my.

Just my opinion,
Richard Katz

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 28, 2006 05:20 PM

I second Cayambe's comments about Andrew Card being a class act who performed his job as Chief of Staff in the highest traditions of public service. Six years of 18-hour weeks for the former Transportation Secretary, running the White House Staff and carrying out his bosses policy wishes with few leaks, no scandal, with perfect integrity.

No use of his powerful position for self-aggrandizement. No internal "Card" mafia established. Card took a big pay cut.

He evidently began getting tired after the 2004 election and wanted to resign then. Bush asked him to stay on and perhaps historians may reflect on that and say it was a mistake - that Card should have been allowed to go and re-invigoration of staff done...because the White House itself went into a real or perceived period of slowness, insularity, stale mantra repitition. Katrina repsonse was one sign. The selection of Harriet Miers another, as people in each other's constant company only saw one another as the only talent and energy to draw on, rather than look nation-wide.

That is a Bush problem of reluctance to reinvigorate, not one of his troops.

Too often, we have had partisans and the media try making public service a moral crime - and tolerated the antics of Senators claiming the Andrew Cards, John Roberts, Sam Alitos would only be exposed as the rotten, evil bastards they are with more prosecutorial questioning and smearing. What was done, and seen in it's entirity by the public and media, in the Alito hearings, was clearly a disgraceful "show" by Senate Democrats on puppet strings pulled by their special interest donors.

I think we have crossed over to where we do discourage some talented people from public service. Unless they have perfect lives...worry that the Senate DNC staff of Smarmy camera-loving Chuck Schumer or similar "attack research centers" the Republicans have will uncover a essay written as a Junior in college taking a "non-PC" position on something.

We should first congratulate top-talented people for rising to a place with the right temperment - where they can be given the power by the American People to craft or execute high national policy. Now, it seems they are thrown to an Inquisition. There is a polite way to do "advise and consent", a polite way for the media to question credentials without digging for a minor personal flaw to pillory in the name of "gotcha!"

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 28, 2006 08:45 PM

Still SPAMMING away, 'ey CHE???

Emily Messner has asked you to refrain from pasting whole copyrighted articles on her Blog and just link and give a synopsis. She has edited you - but you continue to defy her wishes.

The LA Times owns the last article you posted in it's entirity. Common Dreams pays to license it for publication. Theoretically, both could go after the WP, if mutual publication agreements don't exist, for not regulating their Blog publishing and allowing it to be a vehicle for copyright infringement.

Other Blogs that have run into trouble from commentors pasting copyrighted material - have simply decided to eliminate commentors in the wake of those incidents.

I don't want that to happen.

Stop being a little c**k**cker, CHE.

Do the following:

1. Obey the Host's rules and requests.
2. Post on topic
3. Link any articles germane to the debate, with a brief synopsis.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 28, 2006 08:57 PM

Twenty years from now you'd be able to pick up a history and read what I'm telling you. While the presidential campaigns (particularly G. W. Bush's) have been filled with references to "leadership", it's really a corporation. There's a CEO figurehead and a corporate agenda. The CEO's got a contract and a "golden parachute" at retirement in 2 more years. The idea is to keep the corporation going after that.

It doesn't make much difference what needs to be told the American public; there seem to be enough to buy the line to keep it in power. All the evidence of malfeasance, of dirty tricks, of deception in pursuit of corporate goals can't seem to derail the juggernaut. But the coverups go on and on and still we have arguments. Don't look with a partisan eye, because it really, really isn't partisan politics in the way it's most often painted.

Why do people say that the American Democratic Party doesn't have a plan? Because, unlike the present Republican Party which focuses on self-protection and the "Party" first, the Democratic party continues to try to represent people and cleaves to an idea of populism. We have a contest between two ways of viewing government's mission. They're not equal organizations, at least not at this time in history.

So Andrew Card overboard? Lighten the plane to clear the mountains ahead! Jettison unnecessary baggage!

Posted by: Jazzman | March 28, 2006 11:08 PM

DC Dude wrote:
Given that human history is basically a list of ethnic conflicts, I don't see where your confidence comes from that everything will work out great. Forgive me for saying so, but I suspect it's the ignorance of youth, which is why I question your qualifications to moderate this debate -- you were a summer intern at the Post last year, and now we're trusting your take on something as vital as the ethnic makeup of our nation? Doesn't work for me.

Maybe California won't wind up Balkanized and full of ethnic conflict -- but if you look at the state's prisons, high schools, and neighborhoods, you'll see they're segregated and engaged in low-level ethnic conflict already. It's way, way, scarier than you know.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Spot on!


Posted by: SandyK | March 29, 2006 12:07 AM

I'll expand on the above comment.

What's also evident is the economic segregation. As soon as Emily is home (or one of those think tank scholars) all of society's ills are shut out. They don't live in the multi-national environment, meeting the very ills of a multi-national community, either. Other folks do, and their life experience draws them to different conclusions.

What makes this whole debate on immigration a farce is Emily proclaiming XYZ from think tank material that's so far away from day-to-day reality, it hurts just to read the whitewash (Emily, if you think what I or others say hurts your feelings, it hurts others to read this disregard of the realities outside our own doors everyday. We can't run to a mostly one colored neighborhood (nor would I because that's escaping one sorry state for another); or socialize with the Elites to fill our heads of an non-existent Utopia. We live in reality, day-to-day in the very environment we're talking about).

How is this environment? Just the other day I went to a store to pick up some Cokes. And in the parking lot was a lady who pressed, "Why don't you talk to me?" And her automatic conclusion was, "Oh, because I'm not your kind, huh?" (no, it's I don't talk to strangers, idiot!). Besides that thought, I came across the institutional racism up close, again. Right in my backyard, and with not provoking anything on anyone. Now if I said to her, "why are you a discredit to your race?" what do you think the response would be? That ***I'm*** racist? The Xenophobe?

Folks get sick of it. They don't want anymore Balkanization. They don't want this in-your-face-institutional-racism. I could setup a race relations committee, but it wouldn't help when folks WANT to believe they'll always get the short end of the stick -- and take measures to prove it on nothing but their own biases. I didn't know that lady from Adam, but she assumed the reason I didn't say "Yo, Hi!" is because she's some Black lady. She didn't even bother to conclude she was already talking to her friend; didn't think that drinking alcohol in public discourages conversation with that kind; didn't bother to consider I was in a hurry to get home, and that I don't engage in conversations with strangers (of any race or gender). Her first thought was, "racism".

It gets old. It makes folks tired of all this "[insert ethnic group Pride". It makes folks detest even more of it, as they'll just come into the neighborhood and insert the same beliefs again and again and again. Been there, hurt it, and completely turned off of IMPORTING more.


Posted by: SandyK | March 29, 2006 12:28 AM

Chris Ford wrote:
Still SPAMMING away, 'ey CHE???

How about everytime he spams, post this link...

:evil grin:


Posted by: SandyK | March 29, 2006 12:47 AM

As all good dealers know, just because you shuffle the cards, it doesn't mean you have changed the game. As long as bush prefers people who are loyal to him over people who are loyal to the nation, nothing will change.

Since so much is still being written on immigration, can i ask why so many people have so much difficulty in seperating into the two quite seperate issues that it so clearly is.
Firstly what to do with the 12 million illegals that are already here.
Secondly how to stop more from comming in.
Frankly you lose the ability to be real when you mix these two together.
By all means build as many walls as you wish to stop new illegals.
However, does anyone really understand what would be involved in rounding up and deporting 12 million illegals. Your jails, would need to double in size to hold those awaiting deportation. You would need ten times as many judges and court rooms to hear all the appeals. The papers would be awash with the most heartbreaking stories of families broken up,kids denied needed hospital care, communities destroyed, companies forced to close through lack of labour. All this happening in an atmosphere of increasing ethnic unrest and probable violent reaction. Isn't the nation devided enough already?
On a lighter note, you could compromise by voting to build a wall but then authorise someone like "heck of a job Brownie" to build it. This should quarantee that A it never actually gets finished, B it would only be 5 foot high (asumes mexicans to be short).

Posted by: mooneyc | March 29, 2006 01:22 AM

Andy Card seems to have been a fine manager who was civil and trustworthy in his professional relations. His desire to leave at this point is normal and prudent human behavior for someone with his accomplishments.

If one compares government to a large corporation, the peaceful departure of a top executive often is promptly followed by some large reorganization or restructuring to focus on new products or objectives. Don't ask me why, it just happens this way.

With 2 years plus remaining, what's going to be the new mission statement from this administration? That's the thing to speculate about, rather than names and job slots. To each president, a place in history beckons. What's the final ambition for this one?

Posted by: On the plantation | March 29, 2006 08:00 AM

Massachusetts Republicans are not super conservatives. In an environment such as that of Massachusetts, they would become so battered and bloodied that they would simple end up moving. This is why I could never understand how Andy Card ended up in this particular White House. Given his past career, I think Card has had a difficult five years. Perhaps Andy just wanted to come back into the light.

Posted by: booktrisha | March 29, 2006 10:35 AM

The company eventually plead guilty to one count of criminal consquiracy. General Counsel, who had been involved in a similar situation twenty years earlier, retired just as the effort got underway remarking out loud for everyone to hear: "Those guys down the hall think they can do anything they want as long as they do it the right way."
About three years later the FBI came knocking.

That's all I am saying.
Richard Katz

Posted by: Richard Katz | March 29, 2006 10:37 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Still SPAMMING away, 'ey CHE???

Emily Messner has asked you to refrain from pasting whole copyrighted articles on her Blog and just link and give a synopsis. She has edited you - but you continue to defy her wishes."

Keep up the good work Che, never let them silence you. Especially the ones that are spamming with personal attacks on you. Freedom of Speech!!!!!!

Crass Ford, who made you the pc police?

Posted by: Jamal | March 29, 2006 01:55 PM

Perhaps this has already been said, but Card's resignation and Bolton's appointment are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: | March 29, 2006 02:04 PM

sometimes freedom of speech is misunderstood.....bigtime

Posted by: Dr.Q | April 4, 2006 04:38 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.