sport shoes The usquebay dichromatism of the road to Ronsdale was seventy-five-millimetre and hilly. Its stronger nike shoes snat

Gannon is just another whore paid by the repugnacans.

Last paid whore was monica.

(at least they keep the same criteria: ugly)

You wrote, “CIA’s regard for Plame is enough to cast doubt on Bushco.”

Fine, doubt’s cast. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my points. My point is that you are misstating the historical record by saying Bush changed his standards for firing someone. Casting doubt is not the same thing as proving beyond some reasonable degree of doubt that a person broke the law, and/or engaged in something shady (I’ll try to stick to the words you understand from now on).

Don’t bring up abortion with me, either. Just stick to this argument, and don’t project your frustrations with other people onto me.

The only idealism I have on this matter is the belief that rational people can look at evidence and come to conclusions which are not, ultimately, the result of premeditated ideological beliefs. That’s what you do. You aren’t concerned about justice or truth; you just want to see Bush screwed. That’s fine – it’s a free country – but don’t think you can simply make shit up in the meantime.

I strongly encourage you to read very closely the 2003 URL posted above (twice) in my earlier posts. There is nothing about an intention to address the situation. His words are very clear – he says he’ll fire the person who has broken the law. And I would add the conjecture that until very recently, the public always understood him to be referring to a criminal activity.

Now if you are acknowledging (it’s not clear from your post that this is the case) this, then I will drop it. I am not interested in being an apologist for the adminstration. The context of all my posts have been to challenge the claim that Bush has changed his stance from a general firing of “anyone involved in the leak” to firing the criminal leak.

You wrote, “The anger here is because of a paradox. Bush knows the situation and is waiting to see how the cards fall, or he is being lied to and he hasn’t the power or desire to get to the bottom of this on his own.”

That’s a conjecture on your part. You know absolutely nothing about what the special prosecutor knows – you only know various items reported in the press. Again, it is entirely plausible that Bush is giving Rove and Libby the benefit of the doubt and simply waiting to see. There is nothing that has happened that requires one support your conspiracy theory.

As for whether there was malfeasance at all, and whether Bush should respond to it by firing the interested parties, as a citizen, I need to know precisely what happened, having seen something official from a neutral, non-partisan source, like the special prosecutor. Nothing on Think Progress even remotely fits that bill, nor do your politicized rants. In fact, I think you’re hatred of Bush and Rove make it impossible for you to carefully and thoughtfully evaluate any of this. Like I already said, you strike me as an ideologue, blinded by your worldview which eliminates certain lines of thinking and facts ex ante when they do not fit the grid through which you interact with events within the political realm.

The fact that Bush is saying he will fire the person based on the conclusions of the special prosector strikes me as responsible. And the fact that he hasn’t fired anyone yet doesn’t prove your case that he is unethical.

The anger here is because of a paradox. Bush knows the situation and is waiting to see how the cards fall, or he is being lied to and he hasn’t the power or desire to get to the bottom of this on his own.

I don’t even give a shit if Plame is classified or not.
She was brought into this at a minimum in yet another game of propoganda by a piece of shit unloved by his absent father and dead, selfish mother.

This is the root of the anger by people who are unhappy with the administration. It is not about your goddamn minutia.

You know, on a different note, you’re no different than a hard right-winger. You’re what Hoffer called one of the “true believers” – an ideologue, in other words. From where I am sitting, there’s no real difference between extreme right-wingers and people like you. You both are so committed to an ideology that you cannot rationally explore any issue in a non-partisan sense. The fact that I am pointing out a fairly obvious counterexample, yet you can only spew venom and ad hominem in response, is a testimony – not the left’s bankruptcy mind you – but rather, to your own shallowness.

If a person only listened to people like you and concluded that Bush had changed his position, then I could forgive the person for simply having been exposed to misinformation. But I’m having a hard time giving you or Ryan or even the authors of this blog the benefit of the doubt, when there appears to be a conscious suppression of the facts when making these claims. The 2003 press conference appears to be the context from which we should interpret the 2004 question from a journalist about whether Bush was going to stick to his “original pledge” to fire the leak. Bush said, in essence, that his original pledge hadn’t changed – he will fire the person who broke the law, and in 2004 qualified this even more by saying that the special prosecutor’s job was to get the evidence he would need to do so.

So it’s always been the case that Bush wanted rigorous, non-partisan investigation by a special prosecutor. If he’s going to be firing someone like Rove, who clearly has Bush’s confidence, loyalty and friendship, don’t you think it’s rational for him to want there to be absolutely no doubt that Rove is actually guilty? I don’t care what you say – it’s completely rational for a person in this position to want this vetted thoroughly before taking an action. Anyone, liberal or conservative, would follow this.

Put it into a private context – say that there was evidence that emerged that your wife (or my wife) had had an affair with another man. But there also existed a plausible defense by the wife. Since you and I both love our respective wives a great deal, we’d want to be fully convinced that she had broken our trust before we divorced her (assuming we had made a pledge to do so). Rove is an old, trusted friend – regardless of what you think about him and Bush. If you try to look at this from non-partisan eyes, I think you can see why it’s not necessarily a sign of poor ethics that Bush is saying publicly, “Rove has my confidence,” while simultaneously insisting that everyone cooperate with the special prosecutor, and furthermore, refusing to act until the prosecutor has completed his investigation. His actions are in no way a sign of poor ethics or shady dealings – they are also consistent with a narrative of a man wanting to give his administration the benefit of the doubt, yet also taking justice seriously by insisting on an impartial, nonpartian investigation.

I’m only pressing this because I think that some people are being misinformed about what Bush has actually said (some people on this very blog, too, it looks like), and it’s an incorrect assertion which is easily corrected by anyone interested. But I am getting the sense of apathy among critics – many people (like Ryan and possibly yourself) seem genuinely uninterested in separation truth from conjecture and falsehood. They only hate Bush and want to see him and his administration tarred and feathered. And that’s fine – if I believed everything most progressives believed about Bush, I’d too want to see him out of office. But I would hope that I wouldn’t resort to distortion and deceit in publicly advocating for it, and since this blog is a part of the public square, I figure it’s important to correct the record.

I’m not sure where the hostility towards me is coming from, since all I’ve done is note a factual error that Ryan had made. How does actually showing you the quotation from the 2003 press conference imply anything about me? It’s right there, clear as day. Bush has said, from the very beginning, that if anyone in his administration committed a crime, then that person would be fired. Now maybe you and other think that he should expand that criteria beyond mere criminality. That’s fine and dandy. But just say that. Don’t say that he’s changing his position, as that’s factually incorrect. His position is the same as it’s always been. Read the URL I posted, and particularly the section in which the press ask him about the leak and he states he’ll fire anyone found to have broken the law. I’m not sure how it is that my “pea brain” has no room for the facts, when I’m showing you the facts and you’re just ignoring them, and launching into ad hominem attacks. Usually, it’s the inability to calmly and rationally discuss a topic that indicates low intelligence, not a willingness to.

Bush’s apathy, regardless of the details, shows his complicity. And yours. You’re a traitor.

Scott (#62) is like most CONservative – he has a preconception and an opinion, so his pea brain has no room left for facts…