Bush Consultation on Alito: “Zero, Nothing”
Bush Consultation on Alito: “Zero, Nothing”
When President Bush nominated John Roberts, the White House repeatedly highlighted the level of Bush’s consultation with the Senate:
I think you heard from some long-time serving members of the Senate who said that this level of consultation was unprecedented.
The same occured during the lead up to the Miers pick:
We have consulted with over 70 United States senators. That matches the level of consultation that we held for the first vacancy. The level of consultation that we engaged in was unprecedented; we have now matched that.
With Alito’s nomination, however, the White House disregarded the process:
[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid’s tongue was firmly in cheek when describing consultation with the White House about the Alito nomination.
“I really am impressed with the consultation of this nomination. Let me tell you what it consisted of. I was at the Rosa Parks event last night, which was a solemn occasion and very nice. [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card walked up to me and said I am going to call you at 6:30 in the morning. I said, ‘That is too bad,’ because I knew by then they had already picked someone…. He didn’t call me at 6:30 [but at] about quarter to 7. The conversation lasted maybe 10 seconds. He said, ‘You have already heard?’ I said, yup, and that was it. That is the consultation. With [Judge John] Roberts we had consultation, with [White House Counsel Harriet] Miers we had consultation, with Alito zero, nothing.”
It’s not that President Bush didn’t have the time — he spent last weekend “contact[ing] prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
#
“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
Both comments by Northeast Dilemma
November 1st, 2005 at 1:56 pm“I cunsultid hiz hunertz o’ cases an’ stuff”-W
November 1st, 2005 at 2:01 pmIf I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. Freeper trolls are like advertisements – they are only effective if you pay attention to them.
Ignore NED, and she’ll go away.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:02 pm#1 – Condi would be a great VP.
As long as liberals seek impeachment of the President, the only consultation they will get is to find out what liberals want so he can the opposite.
If you want consultation, stop the witch-hunt against the President. If not, he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!
November 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pm“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
“he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!
-Northeast Dilemma
November 1st, 2005 at 2:07 pm“With Alito’s nomination, however, the White House disregarded the process”
Tough tortellini. Bush isn’t required to consult anyone let alone the members of the Filthy Left. What did you dipshits expect, another Ruth “FreakShow” Ginsberg? Grow up assholes, we’re going to make you obey the law whether or not you respect it.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:09 pmIf I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. Freeper trolls are like advertisements – they are only effective if you pay attention to them.
Ignore NED, and she’ll go away.
Comment by Anti Warhol
Listen loser, at least 51% of this country and probably more like 70% would be considered a freeper troll on this website. Shut up and take it like a man.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:11 pm“at least 51% of this country and probably more like 70%”
This comment is open for captions.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pm“we’re going to make you obey the law whether or not you respect it.”
A classic!
November 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pm“Shut up and take it like a man.”
You heard the advertising freeper troll! Shall we shutup and obey like a good little BushBot?
HELL NO!
November 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pmIMPEACH BUSH, and NED and I-wrong-I….how do you like that ‘freedom of speech’…losers? “You have the right to post here, and we have the right to tell you your full of s…”
November 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pm“If you want consultation, stop the witch-hunt against the President.”
Which hunt as in….questioning the decision made by the current President?? Okay, only problem is we are not conservative drones who change our positions on issues with the wind. Nah, sorry…that’s why political opposition exists in this country. You may call it a “witch hunt” but we call it democracy.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:18 pmIMPEACH BUSH, and NED and I-wrong-I….how do you like that ‘freedom of speech’…losers? “You have the right to post here, and we have the right to tell you your full of s…â€
Comment by wisedup
I have often make the comment that I’m grateful that the operators of this site don’t operate like the DUmmies and allow me to spout my patented Right Wing ChristoNazi Hate Speech. I’ll say it again…..Thanks losers!
But, so what? We’re allowing you to spout treason and sedition without throwing your worthless asses in jail. I’d say we’re at least even.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:25 pmDems were consulted – the same names were considered as when Bush spoke to Dems before the Meirs nomination. If he’d just spoken to them a few weeks ago about the SAME topic, why should he now go back and consult again? Alito was discussed and brought up prior to Meirs nomination – as some dems have already stated.
Freedom of speech, as long as we agrees with you.
Freedom of choice – as long as the choice is abortion.
Can’t the left see it’s own hypocritical stance?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:27 pmC’mon….wake up.
only problem is we are not conservative drones who change our positions on issues with the wind.
Comment by Jeremy
Our positions like our principles are rock solid and don’t change. Why should they? We are not called the Right for nothing.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:27 pmThis stuff is not worth responding to, people. A witch hunt……my God. Can you imagine if this had happened under Clinton? I know one thing, NOBODY would be calling it a witch hunt.
True, Bush doesn’t have to consult Democrats or anybody else. Nor does he have to fire anybody who was involved in the leak. Nor does he have to get UN approval before invading Iraq. Nor does he have to bring ethics and decorum back to Washington DC. Nor does he have to keep us out of foreign entanglements, as he promised in the 2000 campaign. Nor does he have to prove that he didn’t take a powder from National Guard duty………………..Promises, promises.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:34 pm“We’re allowing you…” …uh huh…yea…
de-lu-sion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.
de-lu-sion-al: suffering from or characterized by delusions; relating to, based on, or affected by delusions
November 1st, 2005 at 2:35 pmIf you want consultation, stop the witch-hunt against the President. If not, he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!
Neddy, there is nobody who thinks like you. Not even you.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:36 pmI think 3/4 of this blog are to the left or center. 51% of this country are trolls that is a lie like you. I think most American can not stand you Republican.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmThe ones that voted for Old Bush are BRAINWASHED. They can not think for themself. Courtesy from the Right would of been nice but Old Bushie has no brains what so every. He was only a “C” student in college. When President Clinton was picking a judge out he had conversation with the JUDICIAL committee. We need more women on the court to balance it out. REPUBLICAN only want to control everything.
must be a slow day at the wingnut bloggs…yawn. The ‘right’ and bushie are DICTATORS you sheep out there. It is plain as day. What part of 39% don’t you get?????…The majority has swung to the center, where it belongs. Right wing EXSTREAMEST republican preachers are losing it, so go cry somewhere else. waaaaaaaaaaa
November 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pm“Our positions like our principles are rock solid and don’t change.”
Nothing flakier and more fragile than an evangelical. Hell they nominated one and it split them right down the middle. Power hungry pukes.
The only real conservative is a fiscal conservative. Anything more is someone who wants to tell other people how to live. They break under their own weight.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmMr. Reid is Senate Minority Leader, not Majority Leader. However, I am not particularly surpised by this. Mr. Bush is stinging, and needs to demonstrate his manliness.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pmNor does he have to bring ethics and decorum back to Washington DC.
Comment by Massachusetts Liberal
I think he’s done a pretty good job considering the kind of man that occupied the White House before him. The landscape isn’t littered with the dead bodies of his enemies, and beat up girlfriends. There hasn’t been Red Chinese spies sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom and he hasn’t pardoned any international crime figures. As far as I know the only blow job he gets is from his wife. What kind of ethics and decorum are you looking for?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmWe need more women on the court to balance it out. REPUBLICAN only want to control everything.
Comment by Mary Poppin
We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner. Oh, we don’t want to control everything….WE DO ALREADY. Get used to it loser.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmThe only real conservative is a fiscal conservative. Anything more is someone who wants to tell other people how to live. They break under their own weight.
Comment by Average TV Viewer
My guess is you don’t know what a liberal is either.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pmIRI is a Nazi, he advocates murder, racism, & mysogyny. He may be certifiable.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pmhttp://www.tedkennedy.com/page/petition/iraqdocuments
November 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pmDisgusting trolls once again hijack the thread…
November 1st, 2005 at 2:51 pm“Our positions like our principles are rock solid and don’t change. Why should they? We are not called the Right for nothing.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 1, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Conservative principles?
Fiscal restraint? Nope.
Limiting the size of government? Uh,Uh.
Commitment to Christian principles? Sorry.
Respect for the rule of law? Not lately.
Respect for “states rights”? Please.
Any I forgot?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:51 pm“…Red Chinese spies sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom…”
Even better! you guy SOLD the COUNTRY to the chinese…
November 1st, 2005 at 2:52 pmor is this news to you?
“…Old Bushie has no brains what so every. He was only a “C†student in college. ”
Which makes him, in comparison to you, a towering intellect of the first order.
Seriously… It’s rather comical to read your breathlessly illiterate rants, Mary, but perhaps you should lay off the intelligence-bashing…at least until you learn how to spell, punctuate, etc. etc.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:52 pm“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
“he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!”
-Northeast Dilemma
November 1st, 2005 at 2:58 pmYou need to be in kitchen cooking dinner not a woman. Another Stupid man that thinks a woman should be in the kitchen. You are the loser. We still have two PARTIES. YOU DO NOT CONTROL EVERYTHING. IDIOT!!!!!
November 1st, 2005 at 2:58 pm#28 – just like the left-wing nutjobs hijacked the Courts.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:59 pmSeriously… It’s rather comical to read your breathlessly illiterate rants, Mary, but perhaps you should lay off the intelligence-bashing…at least until you learn how to spell, punctuate, etc. etc.
Well, Mary is at a handicap compared to Georgie, because she doesn’t have Karl Rove and Hairy It Miers to do her writing for her.
But let’s compromise, and be fair, and say that neither Mary nor George should be President.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:59 pm“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
“he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!
-Northeast Dilemma
November 1st, 2005 at 3:00 pm“The landscape isn’t littered with the dead bodies of his enemies, and beat up girlfriends.”
2000 dead soldiers would disagree (if they could).
“There hasn’t been Red Chinese spies sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom [. . .]”
Spies caught working for Dick Cheney’s office don’t count, though?
“[. . .] and he hasn’t pardoned any international crime figures.”
Like Scooter Libby’s former client, Marc Rich?
“As far as I know the only blow job he gets is from his wife.”
And perhaps Harriet.
“What kind of ethics and decorum are you looking for?”
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 1, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
I would think your version looks just like Bush’s – corrupt and willful.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pm“Libby forgot”
“Whew! No primary charge indictment!”-
John Doe McNeocon
November 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pmI gotta go. Please sign the Kennedy petition. Pass it on.
Help us out, Turtle.
http://www.tedkennedy.com/page/petition/iraqdocuments
November 1st, 2005 at 3:03 pmhis level of consultation with Dems is in direct proportion to how much he really cares about their approval… zilch!
November 1st, 2005 at 3:05 pm#7
“Listen loser, at least 51% of this country and probably more like 70% would be considered a freeper troll on this website. Shut up and take it like a man.”
Actually dumbass the number is 38%. That is it, nothing more. You wish it was 70%.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm#36 Who died and made you Boss.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pmThis is why Harry Reid forced the Senate into a closed session.
Republican Chairman Pat Roberts on the Phase 2 Report on possible Bush White House manipulation of Iraq WMD intelligence:
- “I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further.” (March 31, 2005)
- “To go though that exercise, it seems to me, in a post-election environment–we didn’t see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it.” (March 31, 2005)
- “[Phase 2] is basically on the back burner.” (March 10, 2005)
For the full story, see:
“Fitzgerald, Iraq and the Truth About Pre-War Intelligence.”
November 1st, 2005 at 3:12 pm#36 Who died and made you Boss.
Nobody. It was merely an attempt at making a subtle point, which seems to have failed.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:14 pm#19
Mary,
Do not give these trolls credit for their lies. The number of people that support Bush is 38%. Do not let them make you say 51%. That is a flat out lie.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:14 pmDemocrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq
WASHINGTON – Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, demanding answers about intelligence that led to the Iraq war. Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Democratic leader Harry Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_go_co/senate_iraq
November 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pm#23
Let’s see, Clinton was Impeached for a blow job. Just about everyone of the assholes on capitol hill are being indicted, investigated or arrested. There is no comparison bitch.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:17 pm“The number of people that support Bush is 38%.”
Ya, you know, the 38% that think Adam and Eve were riding dinosaurs. Ya, that bunch.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:18 pm#35, ned – not sure what you mean by “hijacked” but you should find this interesting (if your comprehension is not hindered by your delusion):
“…How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?
Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That’s because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy…
Of course, calling Congressional legislation into question is not necessarily a bad thing. If a law is unconstitutional, the court has a responsibility to strike it down. But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.
Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court’s decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal” – Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist
this via crooksandliars and eschaton at:
November 1st, 2005 at 3:18 pmhttp://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_atrios_archive.html#113080046968302435
#24
“We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner. Oh, we don’t want to control everything….WE DO ALREADY. Get used to it loser.”
With a statement like this, you are going to turn your measily 38% into 19% real quick. Keep talking please.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:18 pm#46 Spudge_Boy I know that is a lie. Turn on CNN The Dems closed down the Senate. It is about time the Dems stand up to the Republican.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:20 pmActually dumbass the number is 38%. That is it, nothing more. You wish it was 70%.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize the American Communist Party kept such precise records of the number of real Americans.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:22 pm#49
Yeah, the same bunch who think a blow jow is worse than ruining our intellegence community.
#52
I know you know that, that is why you shouldn’t use any number bu tthe real 38% one. :)
November 1st, 2005 at 3:23 pm#53
Not sure who those communists are, but everybody here keeps very precise records. I know you guys just go by your talking points, but we don’t. Sorry about that.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm“I didn’t realize the American Communist Party kept such precise records of the number of real Americans.”
And this fellow here is the reason why we are the laughing stock of the world.
You damn red neck, go back to the boonies from which you came from!
November 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pmThis just in: Frist is on CNN having a hissy fit.I love it when these beedy eyed mongoloid boys lose it.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pmHe looks like just lost a couple million in the market.
Why does Bush have to consult with anyone? It is his choice. He did consult already over the Roberts and Miers nominations. Any more would be a complete waste of time. Did Clinton consult before selecting Ginsberg? I can bet you not many Republicans would have endorsed her? Why should Bush care?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:33 pmDEMS shut down the Senate. Now we are talking. Investigate the lead up to the war and tell “we the people”, then we shall see who is with this administration. BE u TI full.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:33 pm“Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize the American Communist Party kept such precise records of the number of real Americans.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I ”
To a fascist racist homophobic bigot, everyone is a ‘commie’, but then again you’ve clearly established that you’re insane – so oooh.. Commies, look everyone commies. Heh mister decades out of date, NOONE in the world is a commie anymore, even castro has free enterprise zones. You’re not only a FOOL, you’re a STUPID FOOL. Take your Zoloft and go back to sleep pedophile boy.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pmDid Clinton consult before selecting Ginsberg? I can bet you not many Republicans would have endorsed her?
Actually, Clinton did consult for both Ginsburg and Breyer, which is why neither had any trouble getting confirmed. Idiot.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:41 pm#59
Sounds like an act of desparation to me.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:42 pmYou wish ed. HAAAAAAAHAAAA!whoooooo whooo heehheee
November 1st, 2005 at 3:45 pmDope.
[...] Update (by Matt) — Humorously, Trent Lott is raising a stink about how Reid’s actions have shattered trust by ignoring tradition. This coming after the President didn’t talk to Senate Democrats about the Alito pick. Who is ignoring tradition in a more important way here? [link] [...]
November 1st, 2005 at 3:50 pm“One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal†– Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative†vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist”
Understand the role of the court: To deem whether or not a law or judgement is constitutionally correct. Therefore, overturning a statute means that there is no basis for it within the Constitution.
Ex: I have yet to meet anyone who can accurately and reasonably argue that the right to kill an unborn child is supported in the U.S. Constitution. Roe V Wade is often referred to as “Bad Law” because of this fact.
I hardly think making a true Constitutional decision is “activist”. Seeking to overturn the constitution in lieu of a new law, would however, be activist.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:56 pmIn regards to the “closed session” – Let the truth come out – by all means! Just make sure that ALL relevant parties are called to testify: The French, Russians, British, United Nations, etc., etc… In other words – all those parties that saw the same intelligence and AGREED with the pre-war assessments given as cause for war. This would also include all the statements made by Clinton, Kerry and the many many other Democrats who, until no weapons were found, also claimed they were there.
So – do it right – and let the truth be told. There was no LIES – no DECEPTION – it was poor intelligence based on the fact that Hussein wouldn’t allow a true inspection and was not up-front with his programs.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pmCheck out Reid’s speech
November 1st, 2005 at 4:11 pmhttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reid_takes_Senate_into_closed_session_1101.html
Reid’s comment: “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. ”
This is direct conflict to Fitzgerald’s statement after the indictment:
” This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just — it wouldn’t be good for the process and the fairness of a trial. ”
So, true to form, Reid and the Dems will use any means necessary, including politicizing a criminal indictment which the prosecutor himself stated “wouldn’t be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.” But, the Dems aren’t concerned about a fair trial, are they? They’ve convicted Libby before the indictment was announced. They’ve forgotten all the comments from their side of the aisle prior to the war which were in agreement with what the President was saying….
November 1st, 2005 at 4:32 pmPolitics is ugly…but only when the Republicans are doing it….right people?
After reading the first eight comments I began to think how dumb humans can be. Just now it seems rather “high school” what these venomous people are saying. Political discourse is awesome! Disagreeing is the best part. Too bad it seems more a blood sport, to be won or lost, against principle, integrity and character.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pmI’m not sure what Sociopathy means but the word sure comes to mind after reading some commenters.
#66
“In other words – all those parties that saw the same intelligence and AGREED with the pre-war assessments given as cause for war.”
The Fench, Russians and the U.N. were all against going to war in Iraq. We did it without any of their consent.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:45 pmOf course the French, Russians & UN were against going to war….see: “OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL”….
November 1st, 2005 at 4:48 pmWhy kill the cash-cow, i.e. Saddam?
They were neck-deep in illegal scams which netted them millions….let alone being the major sources for his weapons.
#66
November 1st, 2005 at 4:57 pmWell said Gino!
Wow, can you say knee jerk reaction to the radical right wing? I knew you could.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm#71
Are you fvcking kidding me?
You can’t post this:
“In other words – all those parties that saw the same intelligence and AGREED with the pre-war assessments given as cause for war.”
Then follow up with this:
“Of course the French, Russians & UN were against going to war”
You can only take one side of an arguement.
And Ed, how do you feel about Gino’s second post where he contradicts what he said in the first one?
November 1st, 2005 at 5:15 pmI wouldn’t consult with Harry Reid about what to feed my dog. Let him watch the Alito hearings and vote against him.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:44 pmMightyHermaphrodite, what does your husband’s eating habits have to do with democracy or elected officials? Clearly he’s with you, so any tastes on what he ‘eats’ doesn’t exist.
Reid is the leader of at least HALF of the population of the country. In your world of terrorism and fascism democracy doesn’t matter – but to americans and not fascist israelis like you it does.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:22 pmGlobal terrorism experts say US is losing the war. Considering the republicans are in charge, of course we’re losing. The republicans have always sucked at foreign policy, this is just the latest example of their complete ineptitude.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051101/pl_nm/security_terrorism_dc
November 1st, 2005 at 7:58 pm“Heh mister decades out of date, NOONE in the world is a commie anymore, even castro has free enterprise zones. You’re not only a FOOL, you’re a STUPID FOOL.”
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:08 amComment by Ryanne
****Don’t tell your friends at the Revolutionary Communist Party or Not In Our Name – they’ll be devastated!!!
“Reid is the leader of at least HALF of the population of the country.” – Ryanne
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:19 am****You must be talking about the half that show up late and leave early. Why does Harry the Wimp remind me of another lackluster Dem leader, Jimmy Carter??? All that missing is the beige cardigan sweater, and Rosalynn growling behind him. Nighty night!!
I offered no contradiction in my previous statements. I said there was agreement about the ASSESSMENTS, not about going to war. There was a majority of opinions within the world that Saddam was a threat. The difference in opinion was how to act on that threat. Intelligence agencies from different countries all had the same opinion that Iraq had, or had the capabilities to manufacture, WMD’s. ( The 16-word statement about the British lead that Saddam had made overtures to Niger about Uranium has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN – and the Brits still stand by there assessment. A bi-partisan effort HAS, however questioned the accuracy of Ambassador Wilson’s assessment, as not definitively putting to rest the issue. ) The question then became what to do about it. The US, Britain and others determined that they’d had enough of Iraq’s B.S. policy of non-compliance with UN Resolutions. There was low-level, sporadic cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaida, nothing major, but it was there. ( Read the 9-11 report – it’s in there. ) No connection to 9-11….never said there was…just interaction with the terrorist networks.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:09 amSoundbites and selective reading doesn’t change that fact.
And, as a follow-up – here’s a couple links referring to pre-war assessments made by Liberals & Democrats….but, I guess it was all a conspiracy by President Bush…oh, wait…look at the dates…Bush wasn’t President for many of them…hmmmm…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html
http://demsquotewmd.8m.com/
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:49 amI’m having trouble reconciling these two statements:
1. The level of consultation leading up to the Miers nomination for the O’Connor spot on the Supreme Court was unprecedented.
2. No consultation took place for nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.
The first statement simply refutes the second one. The consultation took place. It just didn’t take place after Miers withdrew.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:32 amI am so sorry for being a reich-wing hate monger.
I have changed, and please accept my apology.
I will try to be good from now on.
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:16 pmWas Harry Reid going to suddenly come up with a new name to toss out on his list of “acceptable liberal activist candidates”.
If, after the two previous nominees Harry wasn’t happy the Prez knew his thoughts on who should or shouldn’t be nominated, then Harry is a complete moron.
It’s not like it’s been 6 years since the last nominee, it’s been six weeks.
November 16th, 2005 at 6:24 pmmighty- You are forgiven! Go and vote no more…..
November 18th, 2005 at 4:02 pmSincerely, Fidel
LMAO! Harry was waiting to be consulted on the court nominee???? I would pay anything to see him pacing in his office, staring at the phone…..hoping….
November 19th, 2005 at 12:16 pm[...] The upshot is that this throws Bush’s nomination of Scalito completely off the news cycle – sort of a procedural "f— you" to Bush for his return to a complete disregard for advise and consent in the wake of conservatives scuttling the Harriet Miers nomination (she wasn’t Nazi enough for them). [...]
June 7th, 2006 at 11:10 pm