Fox News Pushing “Criminalization of Politics” Talking Point
Fox News Pushing “Criminalization of Politics” Talking Point
Conservative defenders of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have settled on their No. 1 talking point: the grand jury investigation into the CIA leak scandal represents the “criminalization of politics.”
In other words, they say, the outing of a covert CIA agent in a time of war to punish a whistleblower is just everyday “politics” — nothing out of the ordinary, certainly nothing criminal. In fact, according to conservatives (as articulated by the National Review), the “criminalizing of politics” is actually “the most dangerous fire of this ordeal.”
To spread this talking point across the nation, the right has received a major assist from Fox News. According to a database search, every single television reference to the CIA leak scandal as the “criminalization of politics” in the last 30 days has been on Fox. Even more stunning: on every occassion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest.
Below, a compilation of clips featuring Fox anchors Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney, Bill O’Reilly, and correspondent William Kristol:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
211 Responses to “Fox News Pushing “Criminalization of Politics” Talking Point”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nice work, Nico.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:33 amFortunately, the phrase is ambiguous. Esp. to typical Fox watchers who think the term means GOP is criminalizing politics.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:35 amThey're just being fair and balanced: since no real reporters are using that phrase, Faux's faux reporters use it to balance the coverage for our less-than-perceptive citizens on the right.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:41 amCriminuhlizashun? we don't take kindly to your fancy words here mr. fancy tv man!! go back to talking about that lewinsky person!!
October 18th, 2005 at 10:42 amYou can spin any topic to your benefit, but by any standard outing covert agents for political gain should be anything but standard operating procedure.
And by the way, they didn't mention this when they went fishing on Whitewater, couldn't find anything and decided to try and impeach Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual transgrssions. Now talk about criminalizing politics !!
October 18th, 2005 at 10:44 amFox sures knows how to take orders.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:45 amMy how they mislead.
They may be over-playng their hand this time.
It becomes obvious and even the believers catch on.
OSAMA BIN LADEN IS PLANNING TO KILL YOU -- RIGHT NOW! The CIA knew where Bin Laden was and was trying to KILL him. Bush knew too, and he pulled the troops OUT -- then he LIED about it! Now the LEADER of the CIA operation to kill Bin Laden is trying to get that story out, and he is being CENSORED! Wasn't bush's daddy the Director of the CIA??? Which crony did this bush appoint to this un-important job?!?! WHY DOES BUSH-THE-DRAFT-DODGER HAVE OUR TROOPS TIED UP IN IRAQ AND NOT HUNTING DOWN BIN LADEN -- THE TERRORIST WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US ON SEPTEMBER 11TH????????????????????????
"Osama was there, we were aware he was there, and we were doing everything in our power to capture, kill him, and destroy his forces," says Bernsten, who was the leader of a secret CIA paramilitary unit pursuing bin Laden.
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=593756
Remember what Bush-the-draft-dodger said!!!!
The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
(Why the HELL isn't this news? What the HELL does Iraq have to do with this??? Why the HELL aren't our troops hunting Osama? OSAMA BIN LADEN IS PLANNING TO KILL YOU -- RIGHT NOW! WHY IS HE STILL ALIVE AND OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?)
October 18th, 2005 at 10:46 amTo put it in perspective: these are the same people who think black propaganda is "educational."
Rovewellian!
October 18th, 2005 at 10:47 amGotta go!
http://www.badmash.org/ videos/ videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream
October 18th, 2005 at 10:48 amFox?...oh that phoney news channel I never watch. "From the nazi brain of rupert murdock to the fox channel.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:51 amthis type of "politics" has been a staple of the rove strategy for going on 30 years and, in fact, rove pretty much wrote the book... that he has been able to construct "plausible deniability" sufficient to shield himself from charges of slander and criminality does not mean that the filthy, slimey political games he plays either have or should enter the mainstream... what these dodo's are saying is that because they have been going on so long without consequences, they are now acceptable... they're not... they never have been... and it's about time that serious consequences for brutal character assassination and, yes, breaking the law, were levied...
October 18th, 2005 at 10:54 amwe're actually witnessing the criminalization of criminality - finally!!!
October 18th, 2005 at 10:56 amThe good news is that Fox's audience is so dumb they might interpret the phrase to mean that criminals IN the administration might be "criminalizing politics", not prosecutors OUT of the administration.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:57 amtierney's got a similar column in the nytimes. it's the only article about plame/miller/et.al. today.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:59 amGive it a rest people. I am sure you weren't outraged when Clinton was slashing his opponents.
There are no indictments yet and if Rove and Libby aren't indicted, expect conservatives to come after you with jackhammers. Unlike idiot liberals, we will wait and see what happens. But, rest assured there will be reaction when Fitz releases his final report.
If you don't get the indictments you want, will you people then start smearing Fitzgerald? I guess yes.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:59 amStill got one for ole' Billy, do ya' NeD? Get over him, he's married to the lady you wish you could have.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:03 amGo back to work, NeD. Stop stealing.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:03 amAND another thing.... has anyone asked why Miller was put in jail? Novak came clean early on - it's obvious he gave up his source. What did Judy do differently? Who else is she covering for? The case is so complex and the jump the gun left could end up with egg on their face.....again.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:05 amIf Rove and Libby aren't indicted conservatives will come after us like jackhammers? As opposed to all the good-natured above the belt fighting they usually do? Puhhhhleeeze. In the courageous words of your fearless misleader......Bring it on!
This Bushies have added a new "ism" to the political lexicon. Indictmentism. They're swimming in it.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:07 amI hate Rove et.al. and their dirty tricks as much as any liberal who posts here. But, what makes us think that if Rove is quilty and leaves the WH he will not still run the show from Texas or some other outpost. Bush will find a way to keep him engaged, he can't survive without him, neither can the neocon machine.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:07 amDavid,
I'm sure they've already got plan B firmly in place. It's the political fallout that will f%^& them up.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:09 amJay - we shall see... Maybe you're right. I have nothing to lose at this point. The assumption on the left and in the MSM is that Rove and Libby have already been indicted. The right will have plenty of capital to trash you guys with if this goes nowhere. Notice - conservatives have not defended Rove and Libby because we simply don't know. Neither do you.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am#20 - the nomination of Miers and Bush's lack of public interest in his job says that Rove is not running the show right now.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:10 amI don't think it's necessarily bad that "politics" (a word synonymous with "lying") be criminalized, and I think it's possible that enough fox viewers, while leaning red, do not actually like politicians any more than anyone else.
Counter this talking point with the notion that people who play politics (i.e. lying, being petty, outing CIA agents) with something as important as government should be considered criminals, no matter which side of the aisle they fall upon. I think that's something everyone can get behind.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:12 amIf he's indicted / convicted he'll lose his security clearance so if Boosh passes him classified info he'll actually be breaking the law himself. Plus, he promised he would fire anyone involved in this leak scandal so let's all just trust him to stick to that promise.
HA! Man, I crack myself up sometimes.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:13 am"Notice - conservatives have not defended Rove and Libby " Oh COME ON! Do you even believe the crap you type?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:14 amAND another thing…. has anyone asked why Miller was put in jail? Novak came clean early on - it’s obvious he gave up his source. What did Judy do differently? Who else is she covering for?
Those are actually good questions, Neddy. Who do you think she might be covering for? Clinton? Clinton's schlong? We know you'd never ever consider the possibility that the Republicans might be the crooks.
The case is so complex and the jump the gun left could end up with egg on their face…..again.
Oh, and you'd be the expert on that, wouldn't you.
Tell us again how the allegation that the Bushies stole the election is a dirty rotten lie. Then tell us again how happy you are because it's true.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:15 amLook NeD, even if Rove and Libby weasel out of the legal ramifications, the horse is out of the barn. The administration can't recover from all the scandal at this point. The public KNOWS they lied us to war, knows we sacrificed all those soldiers for a greedy, long-planned lie of a cause and they know that Bush is a fraud. Nothing can change that. Now if you'd like to move past Bush and his lame duck term and engage in some substantive debate about something....the floor is yours.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:17 amdon't let trolls trick you ....
October 18th, 2005 at 11:19 amFriends don't let friends respond to trolls.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:22 amwisedup,
Lighten up brother, it's fun to tease and ridicule them.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:22 amEveryone should know by now, that Fox is an arm of this Administration. I don't know if it is all Republicans, or just this Administration. Fox is not a news organization one should listen to if they believe in Democracy and truth. Anyone that has a mind and can remember the last 12 years, is finding this all difficult to understand after the last Democratic presidency was attacked. Delay, radical Christians, Limabaugh, Coultier they are the founders of hate politics.
But when you get down to it, Fox is right these politicians are criminals. Thanks for bringing that to our attention Fox.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:22 amIsn't this the bunch that's always telling people, whether they be jobless, criminals, poor etc., to stand up and be accountable, responsible and not place blame outside themselves.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:23 amAlso, this sounds like another favorite phrase that dismisses all wrongdoing, "It's just business".
the nomination of Miers and Bush’s lack of public interest in his job says that Rove is not running the show right now.
Actually, Neddy, Rove's been 100% behind the Miers nomination and has been working hard to build up support for it among the influential wingnuts like Dobson and Huge Dimwit.
And if Bush being disinterested in doing his job is a sign of a lack of Rove influence, then Rove has never existed.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:23 amGet the criminals out of politics
That’s indicted former (he resigned so it would read former) White House procurement officer Michael Safavian, Insider Trader Bill Frist (under SEC investigation), George “W is for War criminal” Bush, Indicted former House Leader T...
October 18th, 2005 at 11:26 amI agree Jay....lololol
October 18th, 2005 at 11:26 am"And if Bush being disinterested in doing his job is a sign of a lack of Rove influence, then Rove has never existed."
Bush has a job? You mean other than pretending to "cut brush"?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:27 amHey! Pretending to cut brush is hard work!
October 18th, 2005 at 11:28 am#32 - just like CBS, ABC and NBC are all an arm of the Democratic Party.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:32 amIt's interesting that rove and the rest of the bushco operation seem give the impression of being "smarter" then the rest of the world. But, in fact, it's just arrogance. They "think" they are smarter and don't realize that over time, their compounding of lies to cover up previous lies will unravel. Their problem, especially bush and rove is that their tactic has been successful and led to increased arrogance. Bush must take the blame for it all. His life has never been about accountability or responsibility, but slipping and sliding around the truth. When he has someone who will continue to make him "look" presidential without changing the inner core of the man, he's simply fooling himself. The rest of the world knows what is there and what is not there. He'll be the last to know.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:32 amNED,
October 18th, 2005 at 11:34 amDude, you are the sound of one hand clapping.
Southwest Bob,
So I guess one might say FUBAR Bush has
October 18th, 2005 at 11:35 amsurrounded himself with enablers of various
stripes through his whole life.
That does seem about right.
Faux news is the most watched news(?) source with a little over 1 million viewers. Thank God the other 298 million of us have enough common sense not to watch.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:36 amThe criminals that have invaded our government will be put in their place. Even if there are no indictments, these losers are found out. They have lied to the American people long enough and we are tired of it.
Nevermind what the very few "last throes" trolls have to say, they are desperate and grasping. The mention of Clinton over and over again is damning and makes them look even more desperate.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:37 amNeD-
Where are your National Guard enlistment papers? Your President needs you. What happened to all your talk about 'fighting terrorists'?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:38 am#32 - just like CBS, ABC and NBC are all an arm of the Democratic Party.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma — October 18, 2005 @ 11:32 am
Fox News is too liberal for me. I want all hate, all the time. And public floggings and executions of liberals, too.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:42 amJay - we shall see… Maybe you’re right. I have nothing to lose at this point.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma — October 18, 2005 @ 11:09 am
So true. Your mind went years ago.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:45 am#39,
Like when Disney (ABC) blocked the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Or how NBC and GE (big military) are owned by the same megacorporation Vivendi.
Those ties to democrats?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:45 amCBS, ABC and NBC are all an arm of the Democratic Party.
Okay, reality check.
CBS: On Sunday 10/2, hosted a panel to discuss the allegations against Tom DeLay. The panel consisted of three Republicans (four if you include host Bob Schieffer who is an old Bush buddy). No Democrats were invited.
ABC: Promoted young Republicans' allegations that they were being discriminated against on campus without bothering to check their facts. Deceptively distorted poll numbers to make the Iraq war look more popular than it is.
NBC: Cable division M$NBC hosted a "town meeting" on Iraq; only supporters of the war were invited, critics were excluded.
Batting a thousand as usual, Neddy.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:47 amUmmm Gary, I think Northeast Dilemma is on your team. You guys might want to work that out.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:48 amI listened to Norah O'Donnell (sp?) MSNBC white house correspondent introduce this phrase "criminalizing politics" on IMUS this morning. That's when I turned the channel. Oh that liberal media!!! Why do the Democrats keep faxing the GOP talking points to their hacks?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:49 amKick me! I'm Blue State Red!
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/105427.php
October 18th, 2005 at 11:49 amI always love it when the right wing fudge packers try to act tough. Whip me Garry ! Harder! Call me Hillary!
October 18th, 2005 at 11:49 amJay: Huh?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:49 amOh.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:50 amOh, wrong Gary. My bad.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:50 amBill,
I absolutely loathe Norah O'Donnell. If ever there was someone seen regularly in the mainstream media that beats the drums for the Bushies and the GOP, Norah is your girl. She even looks evil. A piece of ass, no doubt, but a real evil one.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:51 amFox is the GOP's answer to the Soviet News Agency Tass--their number one task is the proliferation of GOP propaganda--and no one does it better!
October 18th, 2005 at 11:51 amSorry Kleppe, I was referring to Ruppert in post #46.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:52 amMaybe they should be blaming the "criminalization of politics" on those CRIMINAL POLITICIANS!!!
October 18th, 2005 at 11:53 amWhat about it, NeD? Do you have anything to say to Gary? Any nice retort? C'mon troll, make yourself useful while you sit there and waste all this time you have to burn. Ever wonder how someone gets all that time?
I figure NeD is probably just another gopher at work, so he sits around a lot. Or, maybe he forgoes work to be with us. Or maybe he doesn't work and lives at home with mommy who lets him stay because she feels so guilty about being an absentee parent.
What gives, NeD? How do you get all of that time?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:55 amI think Kristol's comment put it succinctly:
October 18th, 2005 at 12:04 pmThe administration's right-wing defenders are preparing for the worst, arguing that, as asserted by another prominent neo-conservative, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the prosecutor is part of a "comprehensive strategy of criminalisation ...implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives".
I believe he ment "conservative who seek to govern as criminals" because that is what they have shown themselves to be. Why am I not feeling elation from "I told you so"? Could it be the knowledge that the dead, the tortured and the neglected both here and in far places have already paid the ultimate price. There is a very good reason why religion and politics MUST remain separate. The marketing of a callous, ignorant, self-serving and arrogant man, George W. Bush, as a man of deep faith and compassion was the biggest bait and switch ever imagined. The frightening reality is that the same people (98% at least) who obediently voted for him are the ones who are now suffering fromhis policies. I do not understand.
I think they are just echoing Clausewitz: Crime is just the continuation of politics by other means.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:24 pm#18 why did Judy Miller go to jail? Miller's reputation was threatened by Wilson, hence her participation (willing presumably) in the outing.
With such a shoddy record on WMD reporting as hers (including touting the nuclear weapons bs that Wilson dicredited), turning herself into a martyr for free speech was her only way of keeping the spotlight off her shilling for the Busheviks war rationale. The summer in jail was all about Judy, nothing else. Alterman goes further: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
October 18th, 2005 at 12:24 pmElection cycle contributions for 2000,2002,2004 - interestingly enough two of the supposedly 'liberal' media outlets are owned by companies that were in the top 25 Republican contributors
ABC - owned by disney, contributions to GW 1.25 MILLION
NBC - owned by GE, contributions to GW 2.58 MILLION
CBS - owned by Viacom, is the only contributor of the 3 that has given big money to democrats. But as we see below - that doesn't tell the whole story.
Since reichwingers love to tout out CBS, lets hear Viacom/CBS's Redstone had to say:
"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," Redstone said, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. ... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Then lets not forget Faux News which IS a Rupert Murdoch Riechwing republican talking point bullhorn. And finally CNN - another conservative company owned by an even more conservative Time Warner. Time Warner CEO Richard Parson, gave a $1 million party for an estimated 15,000 journalists in Manhattan to cover the republican convention. All major american media is owned by 7 major MOSTLY CONSERVATIVE parents.
Then lets not forget the journalists. Only 34% of the nationwide journalists are registered democrats! And lets remind ourselves of Lieberman and Miller before we assume that even that 34% is all liberal! So much for the 'myth' of the liberal journalist!
October 18th, 2005 at 12:25 pmThank Goodness for ABC,CBS,& NBC. They don't always get it right, but they're the best we've got, especially CBS. Faux is a joke.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:28 pmAnd last time I checked, wasn't it whitewater that began the job of criminalizing politics? Or maybe it was when that criminal Nixon began using the whitehouse to actually perform criminal acts in the name of politics!
October 18th, 2005 at 12:28 pmNiko: What database search? Those are pretty striking stats, but without specifics no one on the right is going to buy it.
As far as the phrase goes, I'm not sure it's a win for the GOP -- after all, it's keeping the word "criminal" front-and-center with respect to all these folks under investigation. I'm not sure that that's actually better that "indicted" or whatnot (since none have actually be convicted of a crime yet)...
Given how good the GOP generally is at spin, I'm unimpressed.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:29 pm"The case is so complex and the jump the gun left could end up with egg on their face…..again."
Could?
Changed you tone since last week, I see. Last week your tone was "The case is so complex and the jump the gun left WILL end up with egg on their face…..again. But now its only "could"? Better backpedal a little faster, you're still losing ground.
"Maybe you’re right. I have nothing to lose at this point."
What about conservatism being shown for the criminal-coddling crony protection movement that it really is? If you think the repubs and their "movement" aren't going to be severely damaged by this, you are a political neophyte. Unless you're finally considering jumping ship, and this is your belated way of telling us.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:30 pmHow much is Bush paying Fox?
October 18th, 2005 at 12:31 pmNo rules for us, you(citizens) on the other hand...
Y'know what happens when the Preacher, who plays only by his rules and answers to no one, raises his daughter in a strict authoritarian manner? ....Playboy ...centerfold.... spread.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:44 pmSo get ready to see these young buds, IRI, NED, BSR etc. in all their glory when they grow up and blossom ...YUK!
"“Notice - conservatives have not defended Rove and Libby â€
Ah, NED, isn't this the whole point of the original post?
Or are you thinking that Fox is liberal and they are the ones defending Rove and Libby?
Anyway, I'd like to thank Mr. Kristol for putting such an elegant loaded phrase into play. I don't agree with him often, but this administration and the current leadership in the Republican Party have put the criminal into the "criminalization of politics".
We should have dealt with these traitorous bastards in the 80's (Iran-Contra) and the 90's (BCCI). We didn't and we are all paying the price of not dealing with the Republican Syndicate back then.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:54 pm#65 - Ryan Neat. This is the perfect example of what happens when dealing with the left. This is what Ryan said:
Then lets not forget the journalists. Only 34% of the nationwide journalists are registered democrats! And lets remind ourselves of Lieberman and Miller before we assume that even that 34% is all liberal! So much for the ‘myth’ of the liberal journalist!
This is where he got the information and what it said:
Journalists at national media outlets are more liberal and less conservative than nine years ago, and while in 1995 they were upset that the media were too critical of President Clinton, they are now disturbed that the media are going too easy on President Bush, a just-released survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. Five times more national outlet journalists identify themselves as liberal, 34 percent, than conservative, a mere 7 percent.
Not trying to be dishonest are you Ryan? Seems to be your modus operandi.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:56 pm"And last time I checked, wasn’t it whitewater that began the job of criminalizing politics?" - the PUTZ
October 18th, 2005 at 12:57 pmNo, Minnie Putz, Whitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting.
"I think Jeffrey Toobin, the legal writer, may be onto the root of the problem in his book A Vast Conspiracy. His thesis is that we have witnessed the criminalization of politics." - Molly Ivins, Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 4, 2000
October 18th, 2005 at 12:57 pmBFD Fox...he isn't listening:
New on EWM: Fitzgerald Issues Frog-Marching Guidelines
October 18th, 2005 at 1:06 pmLook NeD changed into mighty aphrodite, again.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:08 pmFinally, a scientfic explanation of the phenomenon that is the conservative mind:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1484365.htm
October 18th, 2005 at 1:10 pm“And last time I checked, wasn’t it whitewater that began the job of criminalizing politics?†- the PUTZ
No, Minnie Putz, Whitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — October 18, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
Um... no, Dork. Try 1929. If that's before your time, try BCCI. You know who busted those terrorists and criminals using BCCI? John Fvcking Kerry.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/
October 18th, 2005 at 1:19 pmWhitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting.
Not according to Ken Starr. I suppose you're going to tell us that he's a liberal too?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:23 pmThis is not a new phenomenon. The criminalization of poltical activity has been underway since Watergate. It has destroyed, or threatened to destroy, both Republicans and Democrats, and both liberals and conservatives. It ought to be a matter of grave concern to every freedom loving person.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:32 pm"Whitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting."
Comparing a failed land deal on which the Clinton's LOST MONEY (and which failed to achieve indictable offenses, to the deliberate outing of a CIA agent for political payback is a morally and intellectually indefensible statement. Conservative equivocation at its finest.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pmBen,
No, but you are. You and your schmuck republican friends are always saying that the media is liberal, yet only 34% are identified as liberal. You even agreed with the number. The fact is that 66% of the journalists do not consider themselves liberal.
Now who's misrepresenting the numbers? Yeah, that would be you BEN!
October 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pmBSR,
The only rational thing I've ever seen you write - I agree totally!
October 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pmWhitewater was a goose chase, Republicans were searching desperately for anything to nail on Clinton. It had nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with power.
Plamegate, however, is all about policy. Bush/Cheney and their crew used classified information as political weapons to intimidate anyone who opposed their policy. This is as illegal as using the FBI to spy on political opponents. That is something despots do. That is exactly the kind of criminal activity we need to purge from Washington. Make an example of these clowns. And show the red states what kind of scum they voted for.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pm"No, Minnie Putz, Whitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting.
Comment by mighty aphrodite"
Really? Then how do you explain Neil Bush getting away with it, while the clintons were attacked for years and were PROVEN INNOCENT. See you're such a dumb bitch/ass. You keep bitching and saying that Delay is innocent until proven guilty - yet the clintons were never charged and therefore proven innocent on this. Why are you such a hateful hypocrite? Of course, we already know - because you're a republican! You only want the constitution upheld and the principle of innocent until proven guilty applied to YOUR friends. Right? What a LOSER you are!
October 18th, 2005 at 1:46 pm"It has destroyed, or threatened to destroy, both Republicans and Democrats, and both liberals and conservatives. It ought to be a matter of grave concern to every freedom loving person."
Too little, too late. Your side started this. Know when? When you guys refused to hold Reagan accountable for Iran-Contra - and then went after Clinton as payback for showing the country how willing conservatives were to circumvent the law and SELL WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. History has tarred your favorite president as the most inept, disconnected, misinformed, and corrupt president in modern times. Unless Bush breaks his record, that is.
Whining "It has destroyed, or threatened to destroy, both Republicans and Democrats, and both liberals and conservatives. It ought to be a matter of grave concern to every freedom loving person." now just seems - pathetic.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:48 pmRyan, you are the classic case. You know you were trying to deceive by saying that 34% are liberal therefore the rest must be conservative. You're just a dishonest person and probably will continue to be one.
Ryan, just curious, are you older than 20? I ask because your response was like a little kid. It's okay if your a kid because one day you will grow up. But if you are older than that you may want to ask yourself about whether you want to go through life trying to say things to mean one thing and at the same time knowing that it's a lie.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:00 pmBen, with all due respect, after the exchange we had the other day regarding media bias (if this is the same Ben), I've gotta give Ryan the benefit of the doubt.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:11 pmBen-
What's your problem? A statement was made, "the press is liberal"...and, as always, Mr. Neat deconstructed the lie. Only 34% consider themselves liberal. Your silly attack questioning Mr. Neat's age is not germaine to the point. Please don your dunce hat and join MA and NED in the corner marked "losers".
October 18th, 2005 at 2:12 pm"The Normalization of Treason"
October 18th, 2005 at 2:16 pmRyan, you are the classic case. You know you were trying to deceive by saying that 34% are liberal therefore the rest must be conservative.
Doesn't much matter, since reporters are nowhere near as influential as editors, publishers, and CEOs do, and very few of these are liberal.
Even if you do survey reporters, they don't all wield anything close to equal influence. A liberal who writes fashion tips for the Podunk Weekly doesn't counterbalance Judy Miller.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:19 pm"Ryan, you are the classic case. You know you were trying to deceive by saying that 34% are liberal therefore the rest must be conservative. You’re just a dishonest person and probably will continue to be one."
Actually that's your claim, not mine. You and your cohorts always claim the media is liberal and I proved them wrong. Now the remaining 66% are probably comprised of a variety of folks who consider themselves along the political perspective - but the clearly don't consider themselves liberal - thereby debunking the myth.
"Ryan, just curious, are you older than 20? I ask because your response was like a little kid. It’s okay if your a kid because one day you will grow up. But if you are older than that you may want to ask yourself about whether you want to go through life trying to say things to mean one thing and at the same time knowing that it’s a lie. "
Hehe, my response was like a kid? Priceless. Just because you can't win an argument, please don't resort to such childish tactics. The fact is you're simply bad at arguments and deconstruction of arguments - that's your 'childish' limitation - not mine.
So once again, only 34% of journalists consider themselves liberal - the rest consider themselves something else. Thereby the claim of the 'liberal press' is both a lie and a deception. And your argument is both irrelevant and irrational.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:22 pmThis is exactly my point. The same place he got his research from says that liberals were 5 times that of conservatives (34% to 7%). By the way they do not say 34% are registered Democrats. The study says that 34% identify themselves as liberal. Now Jay and IB if you are saying that Ryan was not trying to be deceptive and was not trying to create the illusion of no liberal bias then you may have some issues yourself. Just enter the 34% phrase in google and you will get the study and the survey that was sent out. Besides that, just remember the media is very aware that they are being accused of liberal bias. This would be like sending out a survey to whites in the South and asking them to answer questions about racism. They would of course know the purpose of such a survey and the results might not accurately reflect the truth.
IB, I was being serious about the age issue for the simple fact that Ryan's response was like that of a very young and immature person. If he is indeed young then his behavior is understandable. All of the name calling rather than debating the facts is immature and shows a lack of credible argument.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:29 pmActually, what journalists consider themselves to be is pretty much irrelevant too. I'm sure most of them consider themselves to be nice people too; doesn't mean they really are.
A better way to measure political orientation is to poll views on the issues. How many journalists favor Canadian-style single-payer health care? How many want corporations and the wealthy to pay a higher share of taxes? How many oppose American imperialism? Not many.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:29 pmSome other interesting statistics from the study.
"At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance either liberal or conservative is Fox News Channel."
Now isn't that interesting?
October 18th, 2005 at 2:35 pm"This is exactly my point. The same place he got his research from says that liberals were 5 times that of conservatives (34% to 7%). By the way they do not say 34% are registered Democrats. The study says that 34% identify themselves as liberal."
Last time I checked, that didn't prove your point, but it did prove mine. There are still only 34% (a minority) of journalists who are liberals.
"Now Jay and IB if you are saying that Ryan was not trying to be deceptive and was not trying to create the illusion of no liberal bias then you may have some issues yourself. "
Actually your claim that the media is 'liberal' is what's deceptive and biased. If this were true, then the MAJORITY of the journalists should be liberal - clearly false.
"Just enter the 34% phrase in google and you will get the study and the survey that was sent out. Besides that, just remember the media is very aware that they are being accused of liberal bias. This would be like sending out a survey to whites in the South and asking them to answer questions about racism. They would of course know the purpose of such a survey and the results might not accurately reflect the truth."
Why bother, here's the link to the actual study.
Really, so does that mean only 7% of the racist republicans were willing to say they're racists, and that block of 'moderates' in the middle are actually republicans? The study says you're wrong. You can deny the validity of the study as you clearly do - but frankly that's being 'childish'...
"IB, I was being serious about the age issue for the simple fact that Ryan’s response was like that of a very young and immature person. If he is indeed young then his behavior is understandable. All of the name calling rather than debating the facts is immature and shows a lack of credible argument. "
He of limited vision, sees limited outcomes...
October 18th, 2005 at 2:39 pmWhy do the Rethugs use propaganda so much? Because they can. People have proven to be gullible and believe anything they hear and see coming from the media.
That's how the Rethugs were able to turn Kerry into a traitor instead of the war hero he was, and Bush became a protector and hero instead of the AWOL drug abuser bum that he still is.
When people stop mindlessly accepting the propaganda of the MSM and start thinking for themselves and persue internet based media, then the Rethugs will no longer be effective at pushing propaganda on the public.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pm[...] Think Progress has an interesting little tidbit about new talking points coming out of the ol’ conservative wing of the media. [...]
October 18th, 2005 at 2:47 pm" All of the name calling rather than debating the facts is immature and shows a lack of credible argument."
I can call you an idiot AND debate the facts. See unlike you, I don't have dimished capacity in either realm.
I proved that the statistics show that there are more 'non-liberals' than 'liberals'. The majority of those non-liberals call themselves moderates - so be it. They DON'T consider themselves liberals - which is what you and your party claimed. If they aren't liberals, they aren't liberals.
So when you've clearly lost that argument, you go to dismiss the validity of the study - but why do that? If the study had said what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have dismissed it would you? Clearly not.
This study is imperfect, as most are. My biggest issues with it were that it wasn't anonymous, and 21% of the people who were surveyed refused to participate. Clearly if the majority of those who refused were republicans - that would have heavily skewed the results to produce the outcome. I personally believe that an anonymous survey would have been preferable.
But that being said, it's the most recent and best methodology of any study in recent times - and clearly the study undermines the entire lie of the liberal media. Especially since that when you consider that 9 years ago when all of the Limbaugh nonsense of the 'liberal media' was going on, there were even more republicans in the survey than democrats! It just goes to show you the lengths to which republicans will go to spin, smear and lie to get what they want.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:47 pm#51 Don't you think Norah O'Donnell is on camera simply because she is so attractive? She has delivered some of the worst commentary on MSNBC, so biased is she toward Busn&Co.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:51 pmThe only one worth seeing on MSNBC is Olbermann.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet, Ryan.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:53 pmThe response should be that the R's are "politicizing crime"
October 18th, 2005 at 3:10 pmFrustrated by the major media? You might want to check out a really cool independent online news resource that's respects your intelligence rather than insults it:
http://newstandardnews.net
The NewStandard. Which, by the way, is in the midst of a do-or-die funding drive. If you like indpendent media and want to support solid independent media initiatives, take a few minutes to support TNS by signing up as a premium member. Details are on the website...
October 18th, 2005 at 3:16 pm"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."
In the 1971 interview, Kerry told Washington's WRC-TV he "gave back ... six, seven, eight, nine" medals. He answered a questions specifically about "medals." He said nothing about giving back ribbons only. He made no distinction then, as he does now.
"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."
Hey Kevin, that's not what most people invision as a war hero.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:19 pm"Whitewater began the job of criminalizing bank looting."
Huh? Not sure what you meant by that one. It sure didn't seem to get much attention in the eighties when all the "bank looting" seemed to be going on.
Here's a tip. Google search "S&L closings." Better yet, "Silverado Savings."
October 18th, 2005 at 3:28 pmBen,
I was trying to say, in a nice way, that I don't think your the sharpest knife in the drawer. There is NO LIBERAL media. That very notion is a fabrication of the right. How many ways can it be explained that 5 or 6 massive conglomerates own ALL OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIa, all of it! They're all striving for the same profits, for consolidation, to keep the GOP in power because they have the same goals. Get it? This includes the NYTimes, the WashPost, and all of the major TV networks. People believe that the media is liberally biased because they've been told its so by people that are a part of the rightwing propaganda machine. Another Big Lie.
The facts are out there Ben. Just do your homework and stop relying on the words of the propaganda machine. Nitwit.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:29 pmBen,
Not more swiftboat nonsense. Everything they wrote about was discredited - you're just looking even more foolish than you already did. It's clear that the swifties were just mad because Kerry tried to bring the troops home - something that the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT decided to do.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:30 pmJay,
When someone is that dull, they cease being a knife entirely!
October 18th, 2005 at 3:31 pmBut they clearly remain a tool :)
October 18th, 2005 at 3:31 pmNightline traveled to Vietnam and found a number of witnesses who have never been heard from before, and who have no particular ax to grind for or against Kerry. Only one of them, in fact, even knew who Kerry is. The witnesses, all Vietnamese, are still living in the same villages where the fighting took place more than 35 years ago. A Nightline producer visited them and recorded their accounts of that day. Their accounts back up Kerry's account of what happened, the Navy's official report, the citation for Kerry's Silver Star, and the statements of the men who served with Kerry and were there that day.
Koppel asked O'Neill why these Vietnamese peasant villagers would have any reason to lie. O'Neill blustered and tried to change the subject to some other incident, but Koppel didn't let the conversation wander and focused on this one incident, since that's what O'Neill was on the show to talk about. O'Neill then got angry and started shouting over Koppel, holding up books, and evading the question, but Koppel wasn't having any of it.
Ben is clearly easily fooled by those who would manipulate the mentally challenged. We're sorry ben about your learning disability - but you know there are treatments for most learning challenges that might help you to overcome yours!
October 18th, 2005 at 3:34 pmAnd here's some more.
Even a cursory examination of the available evidence reveals fatal flaws in the group's charges, which fly in the face of all documentary evidence, and the testimony of almost every person present when Kerry earned his medals. Larry Thurlow, the Swift Boat Vet who claims that Kerry was not underenemy fire when he earned his Bronze Star, himself earned a Bronze Starfor actions under enemy fire in the same incident. Louis Letson, who claims to have treated the wound that earned Kerry his first Purple Heart, is not the medic listed in medical records as having treated Kerry. John O'Neill, the leader of the group, has said that Kerry would have been "court-martialed" had he crossed the border into Cambodia-- but O'Neill is on tape telling President Richard Nixon that he himself had been in Cambodia. Several members of the group are on the record praising Kerry's leadership. And so on.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:35 pmBen,
No, but you are. You and your schmuck republican friends are always saying that the media is liberal, yet only 34% are identified as liberal. You even agreed with the number. The fact is that 66% of the journalists do not consider themselves liberal.
Now who’s misrepresenting the numbers? Yeah, that would be you BEN!
Comment by Ryan Neat — October 18, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
You can't be serious can you? You only believe 34% of journalists are liberal? Watch any of the big three networks or CNN. Read any major newswpaper in this country. Wake up. The majority of them do not try to hide their liberal bias. This is like believing the exit poll numbers from last year's election. We both know that they are wrong, you can't handle the truth.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:38 pmAnd finally, lets use the factcheck.org folks who your own Dick Cheney listed as being 'non-partisan'.
Not only do they give a thorough money trail, but an utter smackdown of this nonsense.
For someone who accuses others of being 'youthful', you have a naive quality to you that's astoundind. Clearly you either have no ability to distinguish fact from reality, or your exposure to facts is so low that you're delusional beyond explanation. In either case - go educate yourself you helpless dope!
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
October 18th, 2005 at 3:38 pmThe Swifties were the PR/political version of Blackwater. Hires guns whose sole purpose was to assassinate, only it was Kerry instead or Iraqis. The very fact that the SwiftBoat liars got as much attention and traction as they did, despite the fact that they were thouroughly discredited and their funding exposed, is further evidence of just how far the mainstream media was willing to go to keep Kerry from being elected.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:39 pmRandy, another moron heard from.
You guys are so F&*^ng CLUELESS!!!!
October 18th, 2005 at 3:40 pmRyan, I saw the Nightline segment. You clearly want to see what you want to see. Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas? No. Even he acknowledges that. Did he try to make people think he had thrown his medals over the fence? Yes. His words, he said them. Did he take a camera and get others to do film? Yes and they thought he was a joke. Why did he have such little support? Because he was a worm and that's what the veterans thought of him. By the way he still has not released his full record. When he released some of it recently his grades were lower than Bush's. He didn't want that coming out did he?
Jay, you turned out to be like the others. You guys with your name calling. No liberal media? That's why FOX has gone to the top while the others drift away. Follow the money Jay. Follow the money.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pm"You can’t be serious can you? You only believe 34% of journalists are liberal? Watch any of the big three networks or CNN."
Oh randy the dandy liar is back.
Not only is your statement a lie, but so are your conclusions. The Pew research clearly shows you are wrong. And I do watch the big three, and I'm disgusted at how rarely they cover a story in depth. You're so far to the right you can't distinguish between bad journalism and slanted journalism! What an idiot you are.
And this doesn't change the fact that 34% of journalists are liberal - the rest are something else. Anything you might 'believe' is just self deluded nonsese.
" Read any major newswpaper in this country. Wake up."
Funny, I should say the same to you. Most newspapers rarely cover a story in depth - and lets not forget the NYTimes coverage of all of the LIES that led to iraq? Now THAT was partisan reporting by Miller from a supposedly 'liberal' outlet. You're just delusional!
"The majority of them do not try to hide their liberal bias. "
Really? Most news outlets disagree with any bias - the study from Pew backs this up. In fact most journalists disagree with the use of bias, yet the all list FOX as the single network that IS biased.
"This is like believing the exit poll numbers from last year’s election. We both know that they are wrong, you can’t handle the truth.
Comment by Randy"
Wow, now that's projection! You do realize that the PENTAGON used exit polls last year to call the Ukrainian elections a fraud - right? I can dig up some republicans making statements about the reliability of exit polls if you like - you know they used to say they were very reliable before the recent election(s) - where suddenly they changed course. Geez, wonder what would make them do that?
October 18th, 2005 at 3:47 pmBen, what on God's green earth are you talking about? Fox news is a complete laughingstock, surely you're aware of this? The top of what? The cable network news shows only draw a fraction of what the Big Three draw. Hannity and O'Reilly's shows have lost half their viewership in the last several months. You are lost.
As for following the money, what do you think my last post referred to? It's all about the money, that's why Bid media isn't anything close to liberal. The conservatives are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Do you get it YET?
October 18th, 2005 at 3:49 pmRyan,
Excuse me, I am the one who is clueless? Your liberal movement is on the decline, has been on the decline and will continue to decline in the future. Why on earth do you think that Fox News is the number one network for news programs? Its not because they are putting out the same old liberal slanted crap that everyone else is. I'm suprised that not more networks have followed suit since it would increase their ratings overnight.
This country will not support a candidate that is not tough on terrorism, wants tax increases and does support social security reform. We'll see after next year's midterm elections who is still clueless.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:50 pmThis is your brain:
:)
This is your brain on Fox News:
"Its not because they are putting out the same old liberal slanted crap that everyone else is. I’m suprised that not more networks have followed suit since it would increase their ratings overnight."
Randy, you're just silly. Keep listening to the brainwashers though......things should be getting better for the rightwing movement any day now.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:54 pmIf "criminalization of politics" is the best that Karl can spin, then he is clearly buckling under the pressure. The message is ambiguous, even for the 37%(including Harriet) who believe that our Mission Accomplished/War President is so cooool. Truth and Illusion are tectonic plates now colliding under the White House Iraq Group. Something has gotta give. We the people, are ready to rumble. Bring it on,Paddy.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:58 pm"Ryan, I saw the Nightline segment. You clearly want to see what you want to see."
Funny, that's what I thought of when I read your bullcrap. Everything you write is irrelevant to the fact that he was an ESTABLISHED WAR HERO. Your attempts at slandering him are just embarrassing for you and your pitiful party!
"Did he try to make people think he had thrown his medals over the fence? Yes. His words, he said them. "
Absolutely - he was protesting - it's called free speech. The war was wrong, and he was voicing his discontent. You know it IS american you fascist pig!
"Did he take a camera and get others to do film? Yes and they thought he was a joke. "
Irrelevant and nonsense - this reads like a highschool report - who wrote this dribble you copied and pasted anyway?
"Why did he have such little support? "
Huh? What the heck are you talking about? This is both a strawman, and irrelevant to the charges being false. If you mean support from other 'veterans', the main reason is that many of the folks LIED to other veterans and convinced them of untrue statements - but then again, that's what republicans love to do.
"Because he was a worm and that’s what the veterans thought of him. "
Many veterans did and still do support him. So your statement of 'that's what the veterans thought', is in fact MORE outrageous than the claims you made about me and the 'liberal press'. Why? Because this implies ALL, and that's a BULLSHIT argument. ALL of the folks who SERVED with Kerry on his boat long term backed him up - that's what the VETERANS THAT MATTERED thought about him. The other people are just partisan hacks that put their own personal hatred ahead of their patriotism and who LIED to slander! Shame on them, and shame on you for spreading their slander!
"By the way he still has not released his full record."
Bahaha, you HAVE to be the stupidest moron ever. Don't you read anything!
" When he released some of it recently his grades were lower than Bush’s. He didn’t want that coming out did he?"
As I understand it Bush's 'worst year' wasn't included in the comparison - not surprising that would be 'spun' as well. Comparing 4 years with 3 years isn't really a comparison unless you're a republican. I thought the point was Kerry not being a war hero - how is this related again? Oh yeah, it was part of the cheap smear. Anyone who listens to bush and kerry speak can quickly ascertain that Bush's grades were part of the 'gentlemen's 'C' process that is applied to legacies - it's clearly not possible he actually earned any passing grades!
October 18th, 2005 at 4:04 pm"This country will not support a candidate that is not tough on terrorism, wants tax increases and does support social security reform. We’ll see after next year’s midterm elections who is still clueless."
Tough on terrorism - bahahaha. Terrorism has INCREASED because of this nitwit. Being TOUGH on terrorism means being EFFECTIVE, not just making threats and making it worse. That's not TOUGH on terrorism, that's TOUGH on americans you blind bat!
October 18th, 2005 at 4:05 pm"This country will not support a candidate that ...does support social security reform." Elpisis mine
What are you smoking? So, the country won't support a candidate that doesn't support an agenda that, apparently, the country doesn't support?
The logical equivalent of a pretzel.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:10 pmTough on terrorism - bahahaha. Terrorism has INCREASED because of this nitwit. Being TOUGH on terrorism means being EFFECTIVE, not just making threats and making it worse. That’s not TOUGH on terrorism, that’s TOUGH on americans you blind bat!
Comment by Ryan "bareback" Neat
I guess your idea of being tough on terrorists transcends blowing them up by rising to the awful level of not using a condom?
October 18th, 2005 at 4:16 pmThat all you got, IRI? Back to talk about Ryan's ass? You need help. You have some heavy issues and should discuss them before you hurt someone. You are obviously sexually repressed and have decided to come here under anonymity and get some of these "feelings" out on Ryan.
You are making yourself appear extremely dangerous. Please, enough with the sexed up chatter.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:21 pmThe "who had better grades debate" is among the most ridiculous that the wingnuts have concocted. Did you people watch the debates? I don't care if Kerry flunked out of Yale, he's obviously been excercising his intellect since. Bush, well.....not so much.
There have been books devoted to Dubya's malapropisms, misstatements and general mangling of the English language. The man couldn't speak extemporaneously if he had a speaker in his.......oh nevermind.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:21 pmRandy, you're a funny guy. Tell me where you buy your red noses from.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2119864/#ContinueArticle
Fox News is to the Bush admin what Pravda was to communism.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:23 pmAnd Randy, I believe the floor is yours. We are waiting for you to back up your statements or to refute, WITH PROOF, Ryan's.
Did you finish reading Kerry's record? I know you were having trouble finding it.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:24 pmP&P,
Republicans always resort to slander, because facts NEVER support their side. We shouldn't expect much from them, they don't have anything real to offer to the conversation.
And I agree with you on MissWrong - clearly she has 'sexual issues' that remain unresolved. But then again, that's not the point of this conversation - but it is typical of missThang's desperate attempt to change the subject EVERY TIME REPUBLICANS LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:49 pm"Your side started this. Know when? When you guys refused to hold Reagan accountable for Iran-Contra - and then went after Clinton as payback for showing the country how willing conservatives were to circumvent the law and SELL WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN."
You seem to forget that comprehensive federal campaign finance legislation, which is just one form of criminalizing politics, was first enacted in 1974, in response to Watergate; and that the national security/foreign policy activities that were investigated during Iran-Contra were made illegal by congressional legislation making certain presidential prerogatives illegal.
It is true that the investigation of the Clintons was partially motivated by a payback mentality. However, many of the laws the Clintons were alleged to have violated were more traditional forms of criminal activity, such as fraud and perjury. Still, there is no question that some of the Clintons' more dubious schemes were motivated by a desire to circumvent laws that made their political activities illegal.
The investigation of such matters has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, without an appreciable benefit. The answer to this is not more criminalizing legislation. It is simple transparency. If political activity is regulated so that everyone can see who is doing what, and who is paying for it, the voters can judge for themselves whether corruption is involved. The court of public opinion is where such "crimes" ought to be tried.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:57 pmThere will always be a Delay to launder his funds into nice clean piles.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:59 pm"It is true that the investigation of the Clintons was partially motivated by a payback mentality. "
Partially? Try ENTIRELY.
"However, many of the laws the Clintons were alleged to have violated were more traditional forms of criminal activity, such as fraud and perjury."
And yet, this premise was nonsense. The clintons LOST money on whitewater - hardly something to expect from 'fraud'. Not to mention that testimony and evidence clearly show they weren't involved - which is why they were CLEARED.
"Still, there is no question that some of the Clintons’ more dubious schemes were motivated by a desire to circumvent laws that made their political activities illegal."
Baseless allegations, and smears. Care to be more specific, or do you prefer to generally smear like the typical propagandist republican? I'm guessing the second, as the first doesn't exist!
"The investigation of such matters has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, without an appreciable benefit. The answer to this is not more criminalizing legislation. It is simple transparency. "
Then republicans are once again on the wrong side. The recent executive order from bush will basically block the release of presidential papers. Not to mention the fact that more of this administration's work has been designated 'secret' than ever before, and purely for political reasons.
As for the 'value' of these investigations - well if they go after REAL crime, they're beneficial - the alternative is a banana republic. As for transparency, that is a great idea - care to get the republican party to agree with this?
"If political activity is regulated so that everyone can see who is doing what, and who is paying for it, the voters can judge for themselves whether corruption is involved. The court of public opinion is where such “crimes†ought to be tried."
Actually the most cogent and reasonable argument you've ever made - I applaud you. But please explain how this correllates with the current administration that is the least transparent, most cronyistic and corrupt in history? It doesn't - your party is the OPPOSITE of your values on this topic!
October 18th, 2005 at 5:09 pmNo Ryan you are the one who is delusional. I gave you 3 examples concerning John Kerry where he said one thing and later acknowledged that it was something other than truth. He admitted that his staements about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 were not true. He admitted that even though he claimed to have thrown his medals over the fence that they were in fact someone else's medals. He made film with other military personnel in his group staging events as if they were happening real time but were in fact later renacted. This he has also acknowledged. The guy is a dishonest person. He was not respected by almost 300 Swiftees compared to less than a dozen who will speak favorably of him. In Vietnam that says a lot.
You just keep on ranting claiming everyone else has it wrong. The left says its wrong so you believe it. However the right brings evidence, asks Kerry to release all of his records and he does not. Slander is only slander if it is not true. If Kerry's complete record would make these guys out to be liars he would release them. Just like anyone else. His problem is that those records will back up the claims against him.
You and your buddy Jay have lost every issue today. You twist, you turn with half truths and deceptive garbage.
If that is not the case then just spell out how Kerry is not a liar on the three issues I pointed out. That was just three. There are many more.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:11 pmYeah, and choke on the pretzel, biatch!
October 18th, 2005 at 5:15 pmHey Ben, how about that honest Bushie? Ain't he great? And Delay, Hastert, Ney, Frist, my goodness the honesty is making my nose bleed. Repubs prop up criminals for our government. There is no excuse and they will pay the price.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:30 pmRyan:
Please don't pretend that Bill Clinton didn't lie to the American people about "that woman, Miss Lewinsky;" or that he didn't lie under oath in the Paula Jones case ("it depends on the meaning of 'is'"); or that he was not fined ($90,000.00, I believe) and disbarred for his lies under oath. And please don't pretend that Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick were all liars.
Clinton's apples have never fallen very far from the tree. The man may not have been indicted, but there was at least some basis in fact for his impeachment. He certainly is no angel. He just has an amazing ability to escape the consequences of his bad behavior.
As for the GOP position on the "transparency" of political activity, most Republicans privately seethed when John McCain and Russ Feingold introduced their campaign finance law. Congresssmen and senators on both sides chickened out when they voted to enact McCain-Feingold. The President punted when he signed it. Basically everyone thought the Supreme Court would invalidate the law under the First Amendment - then the Court upheld the law instead. I'd be happiest if John McCain would admit his mistake and lead the repeal of his own legislation.
I think most Democratic fundraisers would agree. The Democrats seem to have been hurt, far more than the Republicans, by the McCain-Feingold fundraising restrictions.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:34 pmWhat's with your fasination with the Clintons? Do you think about them all night? Do you dream about them? You just can't get them out of your head. You've got yourself quite a problem, huh?
October 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pmPerhaps "Criminalization of Politics" is coming into the conversation so often because it perfectly describes what is going on here. Ever thought of that lemmings?
October 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pmBen-
Why do Republican apologists hate Democratic war hero's so much? Not only was Kerry a proven leader in combat, but he's got the war wounds to prove it. Instead, you support an AWOL pResident, a 5 time deferring VP who had other priorities, a House majority leader that claims blacks took his slot in Nam, and on and on and on. Republicans love war as long as other people are fighting them.
Whether Kerry was on the Cambodian border or over it is really a non-starter. He was in combat. How deep his war wounds are totally irrelevent. That same shrapnel that can create a minor flesh wound can kill you....it's only the luck of inches that makes a difference in a few stiches or coming home in a body bag.
Too bad your Republican leadership didn't answer their country's call to service when it was their time. Perhaps they'd have learned why political leaders don't start elective wars to further poltical objectives at home. 2000 Americans have paid for AWOL's folly....how many more are you apologists going to condemn to the same?
And why aren't you, NED, and the MA enlisting to fight your Maximum Leader's Glorious War? There is no time limit...all warm bodies are encourage to sign up. Or will you be avoiding service so you can be around to start the next elective war?
October 18th, 2005 at 5:43 pm"Please don’t pretend that Bill Clinton didn’t lie to the American people about “that woman, Miss Lewinsky;†or that he didn’t lie under oath in the Paula Jones case (â€it depends on the meaning of ‘is’â€); or that he was not fined ($90,000.00, I believe) and disbarred for his lies under oath. And please don’t pretend that Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick were all liars."
Actually the only 'lie' under oath, technically wasn't a 'lie', because he used the court supplied definition. That being said, if you actually believe that someone lying about an affair is anywhere even remotely similar to all of the lies and corruption of the Reagan, BushI and BushII administration - you're truly insane! You have 8 years of Clinton, and the best you can do is bitch about him lying about a blow job?
Other than some sick pervert, who cares if he lied about a BLOWJOB? Get a life!
"Clinton’s apples have never fallen very far from the tree. The man may not have been indicted, but there was at least some basis in fact for his impeachment. He certainly is no angel. He just has an amazing ability to escape the consequences of his bad behavior."
If it wasn't factual enough to indict, it's not factual enough to be the basis of an impeachment. Bad behavior? A blowjob? Oh get over it, how old are you 12? Why are republicans such public prudes and private freaks? You guys need to get a hobby!
You keep screaming for innocent until proven guilty, yet you smear and slander a man that was PROVEN INNOCENT of everything other than trying to conceal an affair. That's not a high crime, and barely a misdemeanor for any reasonable or rational adult! Men have been doing this for centuries - or hadn't you noted? Heck, BushI's mistress was exposed during his run against Mondale, and got virtually no play!
"As for the GOP position on the “transparency†of political activity, most Republicans privately seethed when John McCain and Russ Feingold introduced their campaign finance law. Congresssmen and senators on both sides chickened out when they voted to enact McCain-Feingold. The President punted when he signed it. Basically everyone thought the Supreme Court would invalidate the law under the First Amendment - then the Court upheld the law instead. I’d be happiest if John McCain would admit his mistake and lead the repeal of his own legislation."
Huh? You talk about wanting transparency, while you bitch about campaign reform? You're a nitwit!
"I think most Democratic fundraisers would agree. The Democrats seem to have been hurt, far more than the Republicans, by the McCain-Feingold fundraising restrictions."
Really? Last election democrats had money left over at the end of the presidential election. The issue isn't fundraising, it's all of the PACs that are allowed to smear without evidence. The Smearmongers of the swiftie liars comes to mind!
October 18th, 2005 at 5:47 pmHey IB in case you didn't know, Kerry ran out of deferrments. Yep, he was appllying for them too. Clinton, ROTC deferrment in the back pocket never used when it was supposed to. I remember then. It was ugly. No one wanted to go. Grownups felt somewhat embarrassed because they thought it was bs too.
Here's the problem. Vietnam Vets served and for many they acknowledge it was bs. However, Mr. Kerry has lied repeatedly about his personal experience there. He tried to use the lies as a campaign promotion. If he had kept quiet about his stories he could have won. People listened to the evidence. They watched him not respond nor turn over his complete records. People thought he had something to hide. The truth. People thought he was a liar. That's the issue. He is dishonest and in a leadership position he was not respected.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:55 pmThis really is routine politics for Republicans. It's good that they finally admit it, but will Dems use that effectively?
October 18th, 2005 at 6:08 pmGet him Ryan. Hm, Christian uptightness with sex, causing outrage over a blow job, or CHristian comfort with sending other people's children (from poor families mostly) to their disfigurements and deaths over lies to subjugate their ever-lingering enemies, the Muslims. They're comfortable with a President who is "Christian" but lies, and makes life more difficult for the average American with his policies. That's one f*cked up situation.
145 million dollars worth of hate later, Bill Clinton was impeached over a blue dress. That's it, end of story. Even with the smothering force of Republican conservative hunger to see him come down. Clinton is good, but he's not good enough to escape that. The Republicans were, and are wayyy better networked to let him out maneuver them if he was guilty of anything else. Fact.
Fast forward to present; current Presidential Admin misrepresented ok, ok, LIED about evidence and findings to cultivate American support for war. Post 9/11, the admin knew Americans were hungry for revenge, and as is typical of mobs, all it takes is a direction to be pointed in. Need a list of current 'scandals' not involving sex affairs by a married guy, but abuse of American leadership at the top of our precious government?
your nominee to be Deputy Attorney General withdraws, because of his ties to Jack Abramoff, your majority leader rewrites rules a year ago to allow indicted members of the House to continue serving, but relented because the Ethics committee comprised of dems AND republicans admonished him (now he's indicted), Safavrian is indicted (part of the White House admin) for obstructing investigation into Jack Abramoff, 2 of DeLay's aides, just released on $10,000 bonds, Frist being investigated for insider trading, paying off Columnists for trumpeting your views, using soldiers constantly for PR purposes (factcheck!) And M.I.S.L.E.A.D.I.N.G and LYING to the AMERICAN people about a link between Iraq, and al Quaida..whatever happened to bin Laden..You know, the son of the Bush family friends? Those wacky Saudis who persecute Christians, give hush money to al quaida (factcheck!), and whom Bush just waived monetary sanctions on regarding human trafficking. OIL? Hmmmm. Then flash forward to Katrina, the awarding of yet another multimillion dollar contract, then immediately signing an emergency waiving of Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 that demands fair compensation to pay those same laborers working for Halliburton (So, Bush's friends make tons of money (Cheney's stock, check it out), while Americans like you and I get paid diddly for rebuilding our community). ONLY it's not Americans like you and I, it's illegal freakin aliens that this Admin has done nothing about
October 18th, 2005 at 6:11 pmIf your fool enough to think that just because a politician is marked repub....or democrat....means a hill of beans...I have some ocean front property in montana I'd like to sell you...lol.....Politicians have to be dirty to be there...It's all about image..and the all mighty dollar..thats why the so called democrats voted to help the war in the first place..corpratism is its own government..as for kerry and the swifties thing....My father was a swifty.....Kerry made a mockery of what they went through...although you can look at the swifty log books...If you know the dates you can check what boat he left on at X-mas....it will tell ya what part of the contry he was in...I'm non partison.....I just think If we quit arguing and get some real things done regardless of traditions...we'd be better off!
only the balance matters!
October 18th, 2005 at 6:13 pmWhat page are you on with Kerry, Ben?
His complete records were released sometime after the election, which left most dems scratching their heads, because they supported Kerry, they didn't detract from him.
The same people in those reports recommending him for commendations, were a couple of the same people in 2004 condemning him. What changed?
The human condition is one in which we like to hear what we want to hear, and not separate truth from our own opinions. If Kerry S E R V E D honorably, then he deserves respect for that, regardless of what your personal opinion is, or the what the huge Republican money pit behind the Swift Boat group wants you to believe.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pmI still find it amazing that Kerry is hammered over crap, that amounts to nothing if he actually stepped a foot into enemy territory, while Bush has snorted cocaine, was(?) an alcoholic, whose daughters are major partiers, (Don't forget Jeb's kids) All in the family. Dude never even bought a loaf of bread before.
Personally, if either of these two guys are the best America has to offer, it's a sad time for America.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:26 pmBen,
Lets begin by talking about the 5 deferments that Cheney received. How many did Kerry receive? Apparently 4, so the idea of them 'running out' seems a little irrational don't you think? Apparently his desire was to study for 1 year in france - something that the military board rejected because it was abroad.
If he had decided to further his education in the states, most assuredly he could have received more deferments just as Cheney did. But that's not what he chose to do - instead he VOLUNTEERED instead of taking his chance with the draft. But Bush didn't even finish his tour of duty, and Cheney deferred until the bitter end.
"Here’s the problem. Vietnam Vets served and for many they acknowledge it was bs. However, Mr. Kerry has lied repeatedly about his personal experience there."
You're wrong, I showed you the personal records were released, and your LIES have all been disproven. Stop spreading propaganda that has all been debunked, you just look like a lunatic idiot!
"He tried to use the lies as a campaign promotion. If he had kept quiet about his stories he could have won."
Oh please, your chickenhawk friends painted a war hero as someone weak on terror - it was you and your freak smear mongers who wouldn't and still won't shut up. You guys are a lie a minute! The entire swiftboat line was 100% debunked!
October 18th, 2005 at 6:28 pmRather than “Criminalization of Politics†say "Polictics of Criminals"
October 18th, 2005 at 6:35 pmKerry tried to glorify his experiance for political gain...But at the time the country was in such turmoil he had to get his political foot in the door. they were trying to change things then as we are lookin at doing now....change is good...as for us being in cambodia....My father said he was..I'm sure whats on record and whats true are two totally different things. As far as having a comparison between Bush And Kerry....personally I think they are both the same evil! get rid of the corprate personhood and I think we'll have something. Greed runs everything....no way to fix that now I think!
October 18th, 2005 at 6:36 pmThere's a new book out "Tragedy and Farce", the title is based on a quote by James Madison,
" If citizens are deprived of accurate information,
it will result in a government that is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both."
I'm thinking both.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:57 pm"Bad behavior? A blowjob? Oh get over it . . ."
No, bad behavior, lying under oath. The fact that President Clinton lied under oath in a deposition in a sexual harrassment case is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he lied under oath while he was serving as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. That's why he was fined and disbarred, and it's why he was impeached. None of this had anything to do with criminalizing political activity.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:57 pmThank you Taoist. It's all a greed and power play, Dems and Repubs are in the World Bank. However, I do feel sorry for the good, clean Republicans that believe government should be trusted, and orders are to be followed. These folks have been taken for a ride and they are just now finding out. It's gets even sadder, the Republican response is to go into some kind of denial, like Focks news is doing.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:58 pmI feel sorry for anyone who takes sides....Repubs...Dems. They are all the same to me...funny that If you think about it in a sick way. Keep the two prominent sides fighting, get away with the biggest corprate money grab in history. Keep them speculating what we are thinking, give disinformation,smear the otherside to fuel the argue ment.political civil war is what is ruining this great country. When a system relies on how things are worded rather than right or wrong, It is bound to fail. politicians definition of right and wrong: (right) whatever I can get away with that will keep me and my own in money after my 1st or 2nd term.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:15 pm(wrong) what I get caught diong that I can't buy or spin my way out of..lol politicians are half the reason we hate lawyers if you think about it!
"“Bad behavior? A blowjob? Oh get over it . . .â€
No, bad behavior, lying under oath. The fact that President Clinton lied under oath in a deposition in a sexual harrassment case is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he lied under oath while he was serving as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. That’s why he was fined and disbarred, and it’s why he was impeached. None of this had anything to do with criminalizing political activity."
Once again - hiding about a blow job? Get over it!
Not to mention that based on the definition of sex laid out by the grand jury he DID NOT LIE, he simply didn't help them. He wasn't indicted, and he was only charged with 'giving misleading testimony', which is NOT PERJURY. Hell, based on that definition, it appears libby, rove and half of the administration are all going down. Technically speaking while he was honest in the specific questions he answered, he answered them carefully as not to officially 'lie', thereby misleading the grand jury by not helping them. Is that your high crime? Can I hear you say that if any of the republicans gave 'misleading' testimony (delay, frist, etc.) they should all be removed from office? I'm willing to accept this as a term of indictment, because no republican will survive in office if this is how the law gets played! I'm all for it!
Because if that's your 'bar', then the whole administration is gone!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:16 pmThe fact is that the Democrats are extremely irrational and they want Fitzgerald to have extreme powers, instead of just finding out if the IIPA was violated.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:16 pm"They are all the same to me…funny that If you think about it in a sick way. Keep the two prominent sides fighting, get away with the biggest corprate money grab in history."
Then you aren't paying attention.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:16 pm"The fact is that the Democrats are extremely irrational and they want Fitzgerald to have extreme powers, instead of just finding out if the IIPA was violated.
Comment by Gary Ruppert"
Oh please, we already KNOW it was violated, all fitzgerald is doing is identified WHO violated it.
Wake up you idiot!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:17 pmAnd Gary,
Fitgerald is a REPUBLICAN APPOINTED investigator - your propaganda smear and misrepresentation is shameful - you clearly belong in the irrational and partisan republican party! A CIA agent was intentionally outted, and you question whether the IIPA was violated? If Kerry had done this we both know you'd call for his head. Don't be such a stupid hack!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:18 pmWe don't know that the IIPA was violated, and it is not confirmed since there have been no convictions for violating the IIPA.
Valerie Plame does not fit the criteria spelled out under the IIPA and she was outed in the 1990s by Aldrich Ames.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:20 pmI'm unbiased in my veiw. I try to pay plenty of attention. Both sides are irrational. and your all waisting your time fighting about it. proving some of my opinion.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:22 pmwhat's almost worse is that they're saying that "cheney was just playing hardball" on the show "hardball". and by "they", i mean david gergen and pat buchanan; i'm not sure which one is "fair" and which one is "balanced". and matthews just keeps acting like he's insulted by everything fitzgerald's done. idiots.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:28 pmI get a kick out of the spin-doktors trying to ply their wares here. The same goes for the liberals on this board who try to promote caution lest the republicans have planned this whole thing and now we have to tread lightly lest they somehow find a way to bitch-slap us again.
You want to go after these guys? Attack them where they are the weakest! In their own monumental egos. The truest weakness of every single right-wing, reactionary, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, gay-bashing, religion-bending, war-profiteering republican is their own collossal ego! PRIDE! Pride is a weakness people... It's the worst of the seven deadly sins and based purely in vanity and self-love. These jack-offs suffer from it worse than any single body politik on the planet. And PRIDE is going to be their un-doing.
So take the fight to them on it. Force them to defend their corrupt practices or admit they were wrong from the start! (Something their PRIDE will never permit them to do) Force them to defend the death of our troops. Force them to defend tax cuts to the rich. Force them to defend the Biggest government in history and the most incompetent and inept one at the same time. Force them to defend spending hundreds of billions on big, worthless and bad government.
You people need to stop being afraid of these hypocrites. Start taking the fight to them. Take it right to their doorstep. Corner every republican you can find and force them at every opportunity to defend the actions of their champion. Make them publicly state their support of Bush and Cheney in crowds of their colleagues. Make them make the case for why we are better off in front of anyone and everyone you can find. I Ddn't care if they're your own family members... Make them defend their corruption, or watch their entire house of cards built upon the sands of un-adulterated corruption come crashing down!
Until democrats can start to do that on a national level... These guys will continue to make the decisions!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:33 pmTaoist, I agree. Greed is all there is in our government and the corruption is almost complete. The Incorporated States of America exists but they may have gone too far. You can only take so much from the people and only feed them so many lies. There comes a time we they have nothing left but the memory of the American dream once so real. This government was created by people who wanted to be free, wanted to govern themselves, not be ruled by royals. Those people are us. They can't buy off, imprison, intimidate, demonize and neutralize all of us. They can't send us all off to war. I am here and I'm not going anywhere. The corporate state will fail as soon as they've robbed everyone but each other, then ....well they'll probably rob each other, but some day, bush will be back in Texas and we'll pick up the pieces and I think most of us really want to unite, get it right and leave a planet for our kids we can be proud of. We just need real leadership and anyone who isn't a divider can be a uniter in this atmosphere.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:48 pm"We don’t know that the IIPA was violated, and it is not confirmed since there have been no convictions for violating the IIPA."
Yes we do know, the CIA SAID it was violated, and that's why they pressured the justice department into determining who did it. You are clearly listening to too much limbaugh, and have lost all touch with reality.
"Valerie Plame does not fit the criteria spelled out under the IIPA and she was outed in the 1990s by Aldrich Ames.
Comment by Gary Ruppert "
Don't be a stupid dope! She was covert and she worked for a 'cover company'. It was NOT known that she was a CIA agent, and the nature of her work was classified. The republican smear machine has tried to deny all of these facts, but they are ESTABLISHED facts.
" Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
--Opening passage: Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)"
She was a covert agent, and she was identified as such by whitehouse operatives. You are a LIAR AND A FOOL!
October 18th, 2005 at 8:31 pm"I’m unbiased in my veiw. I try to pay plenty of attention. Both sides are irrational. and your all waisting your time fighting about it. proving some of my opinion.
Comment by The_Taoist"
Both sides are irrational? Actually not recognizing the dismantling of the democracy is irrational. Not recognizing the wholesale murder and torture in america's name is irrational. Not recognizing the ineptitude, cronyism and incompetence is irrational. One of the tactics of the republican smear machine is to say "both parties are the same" in an effort to get people to feel frustrated and stay away from the polls - every group that is but the reichwing fascist who show up. The fact that you're so easily duped just speaks to your inability to pay attention or distinguish information - nothing more. Wake up!
October 18th, 2005 at 8:37 pmHey all you numb nuts
October 18th, 2005 at 9:12 pmIIPA violations are a minor blip on the screen -
Fitzgerald is after bigger fish
The WHIG team - White House Iraq Group - ala Cheney, Libby, Rice - cooking up phony evidence for invading Iraq
That's what Fitzgerald is after - and that's what he's got - John Hannah is spewing his guts to Fitzgerald
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html
what are the 3 things you need to prove a crime
means, motive, and opportunity - and now Fitzgerald has all 3 covered
the WHIG team manufactured, falsified evidence to lie to American people and the Congress about reasons for invading Iraq
This is a major crime
October 18th, 2005 at 9:14 pmImpeachable crime
If Bush knew that he brought false evidence as a justification for war to Congress - his ass is grass too
And what was the motive
$
hallibacon type dollars - billions upon billions
what was the means?
Ahmad Chalabi, Judith Miller, the prostrate collaborating media
what was the opportunity?
October 18th, 2005 at 9:16 pm9-11
"Hey all you numb nuts
IIPA violations are a minor blip on the screen"
Threatening national security by compromising american intelligence is NOT a minor blip. But considering how many treasonous acts were committed by the OSP, I agree that bigger fish are definitely up for getting fried!
October 18th, 2005 at 9:20 pmMarie, #104. Of course, Norah O'Donnell is on tv in large part because she's eye candy. Check out any international, national or local newscast -- it's all the same. Same with ESPN's sideline/courtside babes. Barbie dolls everywhere. Hell, turn on the weather channel right now and watch Alexandra Steele, who my wife calls the weather hooker. For Chrissakes, she spends half her time flirting. A former CNN (I believe) newswomen gave an interview to Buzzflash.com, among others, over the summer and said most definately that male management hires for looks over substance.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:23 pmPicture it
Sept 12 2001,
White House situation room - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby, Bush, Rove
Cheney: This is a great opportunity to establish permanent funds flow by invading Iraq - Halliburton needs new contracts and Iraq oil is the place to be
Let's roll.
Rumsfeld: Military needs new contracts and kick backs
= let's roll
RIce: i don't know what you're talking about but it sounds profitable - let's roll
Libby: Anything you say Master Cheney, let's Roll
Bush: Heh heh heh, GOd luv ya
October 18th, 2005 at 9:30 pmFox News: the criminalization of responsible journalism.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:39 pmFox News are the criminals - they oughta know
October 18th, 2005 at 9:42 pmTaoist,
I think you're half right. The degree to which the Republicans and the Democrats differ depends on which politicians you're talking about. It's more complex than simply stating that "they're all corrupt". There are Democrats that have shown tremendous courage over the last 5 years by standing up for what's right for the American people. Barbara Boxer having the courage to stand up with John Conyers and a number of other memebers of the House to vote against Bush's bogus victory in November. The Dems on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that wouldn't capitulate on John Bolton's nomination to the U.N.. Rush Holt introducing legislation that would make voting receipts mandatory. Senator Patty Murray and her effort to assure adequate funds are allocated for the needs of the troops. Meanwhile the Republicans are passing legislation that spits in the eye of those same troops at every turn. They're fighting (and probably alreeady defeated) the voter paper trail bill. The list goes on and on. Or look at how the middle class has done under R's vs. D's. How the national debt and deficit has trended:
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
How divided is the country over gay marriage, abortion, contraception, church and state? All of these issues have been exploited by the GOP in their ongoing effort to destroy the Democrats, destroy our system of checks and balances and ultimately destroy our democracy.
Look more closely my friend. The differences are enormous. The Democrats biggest crime has been their collective spinelessness. They need to stand up, follow Howard Dean's lead and fight!
October 18th, 2005 at 9:46 pm[...] Fox News coverage by Think Progress: According to a database search, every single television reference to the CIA leak scandal as the “criminalization of politics†in the last 30 days has been on Fox. Even more stunning: on every occassion, the phrase was introduced into the segment by a Fox News anchor or correspondent, never by a guest. [...]
October 18th, 2005 at 9:54 pmHow can anyone w/ a conscience believe all this republican crap. I never believed Clinton either, but these guys take the friggin' cake. Every day my jaw drops with disgust at what these neo-cons are trying to push past in congress and in the media. FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!FOX LIES!!
October 18th, 2005 at 10:19 pmFor real news people watch c-span. Least spin out there.
Down with Fox news
Criminals who sold us the war
October 18th, 2005 at 10:37 pmConservatives have one morality: That which they perceive to advance their own cause at a given time.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that they would impeach Bill clinton for lying in a press conference ("I did not have sex with that woman) which is NOT perjury and NOTHING in his Paula Jones case was ever deemed perjury (misleading about a NON material fact, thus there can never be perjury because that includes a material fact)
And now these same conservatives think outing a CIA agent, or Tom Delay's scandals are simply "the criminalizing of politics" and how people should not be considered guilty unless convicted. (Unless of course they are minorities or Democrats)
Oh I can smell the hypocrisy from here to WAshington. But that's conservatism.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:48 pmI know that there are alot of variables and that there are a few good politicians. Our systems was designed on a great Idea. I'm not saying that Dems and repubs are the same. I personally remove my self from putting a label on who did what so I can see the larger picture. Boxer, and the Black caucus has been some of the few with spines left in the mix of things. The system as a whole just can't be sustained. Partisonship is great for debate,but put it in a practicle working order its bound to fail! I am optomistic that things will change, But I'm preparing for localisation cause thats where were going if things persist. I hope those who lied get caught. I hope the next time around we will not be so easily brainwashed by the media. I hope next term its more balanced. but you know what they say...hpe springs eternal..lol
October 19th, 2005 at 12:08 amFor more on the sordid history of the "criminalization of politics", see:
"Tom Delay's Media War"
Here's an excerpt:
There can no doubt that Delay's mobilization of the conservative commentariat has been complete. His fellow travelers in the media are clearly singing from the same hymnal. For example, as early as April 2005, Delay was attacking the "left-wing syndicate" for "the criminalization of politics." On October 3rd, Delay ally and Karl Rove PlameGate confidant Robert Novak penned a column not coincidentally called "Criminalizing Politics." An October 14th segment on Fox News, always a reliable appendage of the Republican Party, featured host Stuart Varney and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobist pressed guest David Corn of The Nation on Ronnie Earle's "criminalization of politics."
For more, see:
"Tom Delay's Media War"
October 19th, 2005 at 12:15 amWhy is william Krystol aallowed to spin the news as some one who is objective when he is a signer of the project for a new american century? This is the blue print for the invasion of iraq. He is a planner and has taken part in the selling of a war.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:00 amDearest NeD
October 19th, 2005 at 1:53 amThe time has come for you to admit that you are a Stepford thing.This blog requires an IQ of at least 2 digits.You realize , of course , that you are merely a tick on dead skin and have absolutely no credibility here.Were you trained by the Marquis de Sade or are you obsessed by Monica's white spot? Your entire structure is imploding and if I were you , I'd go to Baghdad toute suite
If bribery and prostitution is illegal, lobbyists and politicians should be outlawed as well. Its all pretty much the same thing.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:25 amPoor NeD, never even defended himself and Humpty shat all over him. And I guess we could never expect NeD to defend his country nor constitution........
NeD may never be back
October 19th, 2005 at 3:11 amAmerica has its own PRAVDA now, a state sponsored smear machine that acts as a distorting tool for your 'freedom-loving' government. We actually get the Fox network here in the UK, and most of us watch it for its comedic element. How can anyone take their journalistic selectivity seriously? All the while, too much of the US public seems to swallow up and accept this rubbish. America used to be the place everyone wanted to live. I am sad to say that most in the world feel it is now a hollowed out shell of its former self (and we in the UK know about that because we used to have an empire too!). The world has seen how the US governmnet runs itself and the world since 1945, and while it is less brutal than former dictatorships or empires, it has the motivations in its heart. That is, to serve itself at the expense of others. If you can't take this kind of advice/criticism from Britain (America's best friend and a society more experienced in empire than any America)you'll just have to learn the hard way.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:04 am#15, Examples of "when Clinton was slashing his opponents"???
October 19th, 2005 at 9:53 amI love the Republican argument that "this behavior isn't criminal, and besides, it was when Clinton did it, so there."
Morons, all of ya greed-heads.
Go enlist.
NeD is just repeating the WH stance: "We will wait and see. And we are cooperating fully... really... honest... would we ever lie to the American public?..."
Can you say "WMD"? Can you say "insider trading"? etc, etc, et unf%ckingbelievable c. ...
#23 - so, NeD admits that the person who normally "runs the show" in this admin is Rove. Interesting. I don't recall Rove's name on the ballot when I voted. In fact, I don't recall anyone voting for Rove to run our country. But even NeD understands that there is a problem with this administration: the wrong people are calling the shots.
#135 "The answer to this is not more criminalizing legislation. It is simple transparency."
I agree. There are, in the main, sufficient laws in place, if they would be applied properly (not with nit picking legal sophistry, ala, "He didn't actually say her first name...."). And openness from our PUBLIC SERVANTS should exist - which include the release of documents and files. Someone above made comment of Kerry not releasing files about his service. How about Robert's files? How about Miers' files? These are infinitely more important to the matter of running our country. How about GW's police records? How about all the files and information that Bush and Co. have continually and consistently refused to hand over. Yes, I agree - how about some transparency in our governmental leaders?
"If political activity is regulated so that everyone can see who is doing what, and who is paying for it, the voters can judge for themselves whether corruption is involved. The court of public opinion is where such “crimes†ought to be tried."
First of all, you mention "regulated". That implies legislation. What exactly are you arguing? You seem to be supporting the "criminalization of politics" argument - that they are just "doing politics", and therefore nothing is criminal. And "the court of public opinion"? Do you mean that politicians are exempt from laws, except as determined by the voters? How much of the public is required? What about impeachment? The voters have nothing to do with impeachment - its the House and Senate. Or do you suggest a public vigilantism against politicians? Criminal activity is criminal activity, whether you wrap it in the cloak of "organized religion" or "politics".
October 19th, 2005 at 11:20 amWhy the "sit back and see" approach? The CIA requested the investigation because an agent, on payroll, and an entire front operation was compromised by a leak. This means someone is responsible. You cannot deny that. Someone leaked the name of an agent and the CIA front operation she worked for. The culprit(s) are in the administration, and you know this. That is why you don't have an alternate (i.e. "liberal") target for the leak. In this time of "heightened security", and espescially in the light of the "Global war on terror" you should be HIGHLY concerned about classified information being irresponsibly leaked to reporters and put into print. But you are not. You are concerned that "some of the good 'ol boys" might be criminally charged. You hope that justice will NOT be done, as that means one or many of "your team" will go to jail. You clearly differentiate between "your team" (the GOP) and America. You have all been completely programmed by the GOP/PNAC fascist machine. If a non-conservative does it, it is high crime, if a conservative does it it is just normal politics ("there's no crime against going after Democrats" ... sorry, DeLay, but that is not an ends that justifies the means... in fact, no ends justifies the means: not on any moral grounds).
And anyone who has served in the armed forces and received an honorable discharge is a national hero and patriot. Where are your honorable discharge papers NeD, Mighty A, Ben, Randy, BSR, I-R-I, Ruppert, etc.... ? By questioning Kerry on this you are all questioning the troops, and undermining the troop morale by displaying that one can serve during a war or conflict, and receive medals for it, and still be slandered as unpartiotic and a poor soldier. How about showing some "support for the troops" instead of smearing those who have served? If you staunchly support the "War" that Bush has declared (America has not declared "War"), then show your support of the "war" and your support of the troops (and your leader) by joining. No kidding. That is the number one way to support the troops - join their ranks and help them fight this "war", and encourage all your friends and family to do so(espescially your children). If you balk at this at all, your "support" of this "war" is a hypocritical farce. If it is the true and mighty cause, if it is the Will of God, if it is securing our freedom and the freedom of the world, then it is a cause worth dying for. If the cause of a war is not worth dying for, then the war is not worth fighting.
Criminalizing politics huh? Anyone else remember that evil Eye of Newt? Karma is a mean mistress!
October 19th, 2005 at 1:03 pmFrom:
http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2005/10/criminal-error-in-word-choice.html
A Criminal Error in Word Choice
The top new conservative talking point in the effort to attack the attackers (who in the case of the current wave of indictments and investigations of top Republican Officials are mostly nonpartisan justice system officials) is that the investigations are indicative of a "criminalization of politics."
The first time I heard this -- I don't remember where -- last week, I thought it was a particularly unclear turn of phrase for the typically fine-honed propaganda of the conservative noise machine. Then when I heard the Bushist propentator Brit Hume and the Weekly Standard conservative guru Bill Kristol batting it around the punditable over the weekend, I knew the problem was real.
Here's Kristol and Jeffrey Bell in their current Standard editorial (thanks to Howard Kurtz for the link):
"Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization? ... [I]t's a reasonable bet that the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."
The problem with the word "criminalization" is clear in the first sentence of this excerpt: it's not clear -- especially to typical American readers -- that Kristol, et. al., mean "viewing politics-as- usual as crime, rather than what it really is -- just politics."
When I first heard "the criminalization of politics", it rang to me as though the conservative talking heads were saying that politics had been infested with criminality, not that politics was being wrongly viewed as criminality.
Read the above quotation again:
"Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization? ... [I]t's a reasonable bet that the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."
In fact, the first sentence really asks a question that I don't think these guys want answered by objective readers. They really ask why Republican Leaders are the targets of criminal probes and indictments across the board.
The inference Kristol and Bell seem to be drawing is that it is some kind of Democratic strategy to go after "conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives" for reasons that have only to do with left-right politics -- and that charges of criminality are not real or not warranted.
But this really sounds to me like an admission that conservative governance is inextricably linked with criminality. It is only that these guys don't realize that that's what they are saying.
Or that, under the current Republican leadership, it seems to be true.
This is the Bush Justice Department, after all, that is pursing the CIA leak case -- not some Democratic regime. And it is Bush's Security and Exchange Commission that is pursuing the insider trading investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. And Texas Prosecutor Ronnie Earle, who convinced two grand juries to indict House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a Democrat, but he's no partisan hack.
Kristol and Bell's statement should more accurately read: "a comprehensive and self-defeating strategy of criminality had been implemented by conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."
I have a funny feeling that when most Americans hear the phrase "criminalization of politics" from now on, that is what they are going to think it means.
And they will be right.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:20 pmHey, it worked during Iran-Contra
October 19th, 2005 at 4:06 pmRe: “criminalization of politicsâ€
This partcular line may be a Fox trademark, but the same exact sentiment is being widely disseminated in the mainstream media, to wit:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL
"What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801489.html
'HARDBALL' (MSNBC)
MATTHEWS: "Well, I guess they are talking about—and this is what is very ticklish here, for people who have worked in politics that have been involved with hardball politics, is that the charge here seems to be kind of a grand conspiracy charge that would incriminate the vice president for being in a room and, say, blowing off some steam and saying one of those things like, will somebody please deal with this jerk who keeps talking about me being involved with knowing there was no deal with Niger and Iraq on weapons of mass destruction?"
Would someone—you guys, Scooter, you know, will you please take care of this guy? If that could be criminal behavior, I guess a lot of politicians would be in trouble.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9751065/
October 19th, 2005 at 4:22 pmI agree with the comment above about ambiguity. Frankly, anyone who hears that talking point just needs to respond that "the GOP seems to be all about putting criminals in politics".
October 20th, 2005 at 11:48 amClassic; the investigation into criminal wrongdoing by the sitting administration is more eggregious and damaging to the nation than the actual criminal offences and their subsequent cover-up?
Only a mindless GOP sycophant could believe that nonsense.
How pathetic that this is the best they've got now that the house of cards is crumbling around them.
October 20th, 2005 at 12:10 pm[...] It is hard to believe that those Republicans spewing the latest Bush Administration talking point do not recognize the absurd irony of their claiming that an investigation into the politically-motivated outing of an undercover CIA agent is mearly an egregious example of the the partisan “crimialization of politics.” The central premise underlying that claim-the only one that would logically make sense-is that the outing itself was just politics as usual, not the treason it objectively is. How delicious it is to see the same men who pontificate about their righteousness in the battle against moral relativism and aboslute truth now obfuscate and employ the same legalistic parsing of language and blatant distortion of reality that they so adamantly condemned only a few years ago. [...]
October 20th, 2005 at 2:44 pmShut your pie hole,liberal loons. Just sit back and drink your koolaid and spin like there is no tomorrow. We on the other hand will take care of the problems in the world. Talk those talking points butt wipes.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:11 pmAmerica is wiser then it was pre-Iraq war. We understand the LANGUAGE of spin. They can spin all they want. Their just cutting their own heads off as they do it. After listening to Senator Hutchins this morning spewing it's just a little crime of pergery and obstruction of justice was a tip off that Republicans are worried. VERY WORRIED.
October 23rd, 2005 at 6:18 pmThe repugs are really, really terrified about their criminals and crooks getting busted, one after another. If they think they use the laughable criminology of polictics crap and blame the courts again they are just as dumb as everybody thought. Suddenly all perjury isn't so bad a crime as it was for President Clinton. Badly scarred and frightened with busted criminals and crooks they are flip- flopping, twisting, and doing what they do best, LYING to no avail.
October 24th, 2005 at 9:59 amShut your pie hole,liberal loons. Just sit back and drink your koolaid and spin like there is no tomorrow. We on the other hand will take care of the problems in the world. Talk those talking points butt wipes.
This is how the hateful, totally ignorant repugs. take care of our problems, with habitual lying, coverups, criminals and corruption running America into the ground. Repug. asswipes don't understand or know how to run a country right and now the entire world has absolute proof of that. The repugs. are terrified and should be. Bye bye with stupidity. Dem's know how to run a country and we have great, absolute, truthful proof of that compared to all the dishonest, lying repug. asswipes.
October 24th, 2005 at 10:12 am"Criminalization of politics" unfortunately is no longer a localized phrase that only Fox News had used. It’s growing in use, and in a much wider area now. This phrases is quickly being packaged, and delivered to the American people. It does no less than allow the violation of Free Speech to come from the only level in which it cannot be stopped, the voluntary censorship of the American populace by them-selves. Simply put this phrase is more dangerous an attempt by an organization to violate a persons Free Speech, or suppress it. Once this phrase takes root in the American psyche it will by its very nature induce a self-suppression of the American peoples basic right of Free Speech. Regardless of what intent Fox may have had in using this catch phrase, its taken on a life of its own. If it is allowed to grow, it is a good bet, and I am not a betting man, that it will take hold and do what no man or organization has ever done in 300 years, silence American's right to speak freely. All I can say to whomever created it, Doctor Joseph Gobbles would be proud.
October 25th, 2005 at 9:08 amalready tired of hearing that new buzzspeak, "criminalization of politics"? how about "the mob-ization of politics"? apparently on FOX during a light moment after this controversy, people may even get experimental, make up words. who cares. but, maybe the mob does! because criminals who like politics are welcomed inside its special mob subpopulation, aren't they. for non-mafia types like me, how mind boggling is it to see FOX appealing like that, expanding its audience base, reaching out to the (mob) masses? who would've thunk. is FOX hiring? that challenge could be fun, causing instantaneous mental illness in the minds of unsuspecting mafia from coast-to-coast. I mean, I am ready, Mur-dock, -- not!
October 27th, 2005 at 3:58 pm[...] It helps that the Republicans are in fact, corrupt. Yes, the “criminalization of politics” is true because so many Republican politicians are involved in criminal behavior. A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey. [...]
October 29th, 2005 at 10:15 pmWell, if the "criminalization of politics" is a major talking point for the right, and you only hear it on Fox, then I guess CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. are suppressing that idea from being voiced.
Guess that shows how "fair and balanced" the other networks are.
November 5th, 2005 at 5:48 pmI don't watch trash news like FOX. I suggest that others don't either, and over time, guess what? Their ratings will drop simply. Keep in mind that there are more progessives in the country now and because there are more blue states with more people, they will outnumber the reds.
November 13th, 2005 at 1:38 amto bad your first line is a lie, he isnt in trouble for 'outing' anyone. he is in trouble for forgetting who told who about a cia agent, not covert, who everyone knew about. If ya want to make a piont will you damn socailist ver learn not to start with a lie
November 21st, 2005 at 3:29 pm[...] Conservatives argue that charges against their beloved leaders will not stand and are nothing more than the ‘criminalization of politics’ [http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/18/fox-criminalization/]. Think about this for a minute- do you honestly believe that an independent prosecutor would risk his career and good name after a two year investigation if he [Fitzgerald] didn’t have enough concrete evidence to convict Libby? The charges against DeLay were brought by Ronnie Earl in Texas [read about him at http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/28/truth-ronnie-earle/. The Republican attempt to smear their opposition through television attack ads [http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3394083]only proves their guilt. If there is nothing to hide and the truth speaks for itself, then why be defensive by going on the offensive or block investigations into pre-war intelligence [main page]? Bush’s approval ratings are at all-time lows [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1278080] because people are finally seeing him, his administration, and other Republican leaders as the crooks that they are. [...]
December 2nd, 2005 at 4:23 ampet friendly hotels in las vegas
...
Think Progress »......
January 14th, 2006 at 10:04 pm[...] Notice how the “criminalization of politics” talking point has died out, apparently due to the fact that so many Republican politicians are turning out, in fact, to be criminal. [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pmmeridia reviews meridia review
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 ammeridia overnight buy meridia overnight order meridia overnight cheap meridia overnight meridia overnight online
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 am