Bush OKs Leak of Classified Info, National Review Blames Press
Bush OKs Leak of Classified Info, National Review Blames Press
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review blasts media coverage of today’s news that President Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak classified information:
[F]irst impressions it seems to me that the story the press is going gleefully ga-ga about today is pretty disingenuous. … It is crucial to note here, however, that there has been no accusation — none — that the President or anyone else was willing to reveal, much less actually revealed, classified information. It is irresponsible to say such a thing based on the current record.
Actually, it’s perfectly responsible. Scooter Libby said that President Bush authorized the disclosure of classified info. From page 23 of yesterday’s filing:
[Libby] further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. [Libby] testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.
The information was classified, that’s why Libby initially told Cheney that he could not talk to Miller about it. The distinction here is that, in the opinion Addington, when the President authorizes the disclosure of classified info it amounts to declassification. But the whole point of Addington’s analysis is that Bush authorized the disclosure of classified information. The National Review may not like that story but the press isn’t making it up.
UPDATE: The National Review’s Bryron York, appears to agree with my analysis: “As for leaking portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, yes, it was classified, although it would later be declassified. But it should be remembered that when the president decides to make something public, then it can be made public.” (York, however, is still “a little baffled by the excitement.”)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
176 Responses to “Bush OKs Leak of Classified Info, National Review Blames Press”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Impeach the bastard!
April 6th, 2006 at 5:59 pmThe right wing scribblers love that "-----none-----" construction; it makes it sound as though there can be no doubt that what they're saying is true.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:00 pmMr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.
If so, then Bush would have already said that up front. That is not what he said for many months. He said that he was upset and would fire whomever was responsible. You don't say that if you think you're clear. You say that if you think the public disclosure of a CIA agent is the wrong thing to do.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:00 pmIMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
April 6th, 2006 at 6:04 pmYou say that if you think the public disclosure of a CIA agent is the wrong thing to do.
Or, if you think public reaction isn't going to be what you want, i.e. discreting Wilson.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:04 pmTypical, this administration, commits crimes on a scale that makes Nixon look like a saint, and it's all the media's fault. BS! The press did NOT make Bush/Cheney et al. do these things.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:04 pmIt's the same "NO Autopsy No Foul" meme they were running with their shamefull endorsement of Tom Delay and Byron York's Valerie , none of the original charges spiel, Plame investigation. Though they will editorialize that the exclusionary rule works against terror suspects, even if they are bootleggin baby formula. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604060603.asp. I guess the trick is to never plead to anything.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pmHe should resign, or at least do as he promised... FIRE himself.
Of course nothing will happen and justice will continue to be lost to the masses.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pmI fear that the justifiable outrage about Dumbya expressed on this site will not be reflected in the Congress or the mainstream media. The Fox poll is heartening although for the life of me I can not understand how he can get support from 37% of living, adult , human beings.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:10 pmeveryday, it seems, there is just more and more evidence to come out for the dems and msm to ignore
April 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmeveryday, it seems, there is just more and more evidence to come out for the dems and msm to ignore
April 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmWow, if only we had an independent press corps that could question the administration and subsequently shut up assholes like this.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmThe press is at fault!?
Shit, the press aint doin' a damn thing, it's called the truth, and it runs on its own two feet, bitch.
how did that come up twice...my bad
April 6th, 2006 at 6:19 pmOK, I get it. The president never authorized the release of classified information because when he authorizes the release of classified information, he in effect is de-classifiying it. Therefore, he can de-classify classified information and then release it, especially if it is used to against his political enemies.
Oh, and I'm sure Libby took it upon himself to reveal Plame's name, without permission from Cheney or Bush, because he was not concerned about leaking classified information. Oh, wait, only he was, because he was concerned about the NIE document. So, he was concerned enough to ask about the NIE document, but not concerned about revealing the name of a covert, CIA agent.
Got that?
April 6th, 2006 at 6:20 pmThis is how republics turn into empires. The little sniveling greedy boy at the top of the heap takes more power than actually granted by the people.
Emperor Bush has the backing of the majority of the US media. This solidifies his Emperorship (as he already "owns" the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, and the military).
If We The People care to remain a republic, we will have to find a way to remove and punish those who would turn this formerly great democratic country into an empire.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:20 pmTHE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html
Oops.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:21 pmUnbelievable. I knew they would try the defense that Bush declassified it by fiat so it was not classififed information.
Declassifying secret information for political gain.
IMPEACH THE BASTARD NOW!
April 6th, 2006 at 6:29 pm#17 - Declassifying secret information for political gain.
So it's as many of us suspected from the start. Bush outted a highly valuable undercover CIA operative who worked on the issue of WMD for political game.
S**t! I never thought I'd miss Nixon. At least he had the decency to resign after he was found out. The Bush Cabal hangs onto power like God granted it to them Himself.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:32 pm#9, Terry,
the answer to your statement, "The Fox poll is heartening although for the life of me I can not understand how he can get support from 37% of living, adult , human beings" is simple: It was an internal poll of Fox employees!!! (I kid the Fox Network)
April 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#18 - No one in this administration has the decency of Richard Nixon.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:36 pmNever thought I'd ever think that.
Bush thinks 'he' has a switch in his mouth to 'declassify',BREAK THE LAW,then 'classify' it so he can't talk about it, as it is 'classified'...right scotty????
"No man is above the law, unless, he has this switch,then it's ok." I can even hear nixon laughing about this one. "Are you a crook and lier mr.pres.?"..."That's classified and I can't talk about it"....."Next question".
April 6th, 2006 at 6:38 pmWell, except that Mr. 36% isn't enjoying the popularity he once was.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThis is how the "liberal" MSM is playing it out (ABCNews and others):
...The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney says an administration lawyer advised him that the president had the authority to declassify sensitive documents. Other lawyers are not so sure, but the preponderance of evidence (as lawyers would say) seems to be on the side of the president.
A little history is in order. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson claimed the authority to establish a classification system. In 1951, during the Korean War, President Harry Truman claimed in an executive order that the Constitution gave him the authority to set up a new method for protecting sensitive information connected to national security.
In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that the president had the right to determine who should and should not have access to classified information. Then in March 2003, around the start of the war in Iraq, George Bush expanded that power to include the vice president.
So, barring a court challenge, it appears that both Bush and Cheney have the power to say what is and is not classified...
... it is far from clear that President Bush ever condoned a smear campaign. What does seem clear, if Libby is correct, is that the White House felt it had to declassify sensitive material in an attempt to counter Wilson's claims about Iraq's nuclear intentions...
[from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1813491&page=1 ]
There you have it, folks. The MSM sides with Emperor Bush.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:39 pm#18 Bush is an evil bastard.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:41 pmCivil discourse and public trust, and along law of course, is based on precedent. I'm afraid this apparent stonewalling and obfuscation of relevant material to the people's business is just the mo for this and unfortunately future administrations. The slack they have obtained for themselves is frighetning.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmI totally like Fitzgerald's snarky "opined".
April 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmJesus,
In 2003, the changes only added support for the VP classifying new documents, it didn't give him the authority to de-classify. That's a distortion - as usual - in the sloppy reporting we've some come to expect from the MSM.
It is most certainly possible for the president to declassify information, but as I understand it that would require a WRITTEN order to do so. If bush didn't sign off, then Dick is left hanging in the wind.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmpg 30
April 6th, 2006 at 6:47 pm"Defendant is neither charged with disclosing classified information nor with lying about what other officials thought about the classified nature of Ms. Wilson’s employment. He is charged with perjury for lying under oath when he testified that he thought he learned information about Wilson’s wife as if it were new from Tim Russert on July 8 when in fact the information was neither new to him (he was dispensing it the days before his conversation with Russert) nor was it discussed with Mr. Russert."
Creepy Jackalope Eye,
So what you're pointing out is that Libby is making the administration pay for leaving him out to dry, since his claim is 100% unrelated to the charges against him. And someone people are surprised that the reichwingers are just out for themselves? Bahaha, then they're as stupid as you are!
April 6th, 2006 at 6:54 pm"THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action"
April 6th, 2006 at 6:55 pmOops. Guess he just didn’t know what classified information everybody was talking about. Must have missed his ears. Perhaps he was talking about troop movements and didn’t realize that Libby was being arrested for the CIA affair, that’s all. Otherwise he surely would have piped up and said, “heh, wait a minute, wait a minute guys…†and had a talk with the prosecuter to explain the WHOLE thing was just a mixup, that HE declassified the info and everything was just peachy.
ABC news is not the whole ball of wax.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:57 pmNBCNews has finally chimed in on their website.
...Libby’s testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks — a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers...
[from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/ ]
For the moment, this seems like the nub of the argument against Emperor Bush.
Since this is coming from the MSM, I don't trust it. So let's keep talking. I like what Ryan has said. I like what CJEye reminds us. I really like what plunger has written.
Keep the pressure on and remind the MSM that this is not some shallow one day story. There are deep deep issues at the heart of all of this. Evil appears to be the very thing in the heart of the Bush Cabal.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:57 pmSo what you’re pointing out is that Libby is making the administration pay for leaving him out to dry, since his claim is 100% unrelated to the charges against him. And someone people are surprised that the reichwingers are just out for themselves? Bahaha, then they’re as stupid as you are!
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 6, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
He just gotthat off his local Fox affliate. I watched it to see what they would say (if anything). I think I'm going blind now... so Iwill type fast..
They gave a 2 minute blurb about it while showing a clip of Scooter on his way to or from court. The anchor's voice over said that the involvement of Bush and Cheney has not been substantiated, in a tone to imply atht Scooter is lying about this. At least we know their talking points now.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:59 pmI have been reading alot of the past comments on this ite about old Scooter. I haven't found anyone that considers him a trustworthy source.
Alot of the comments seem to say he is a lying $#@*, Why is what he says now true?
April 6th, 2006 at 6:59 pmJohn Kerry ripped Bush and offerd an exit strategy from Iraq tonight on Hardball. I'm not a Kerry fan,l but he was very good today.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:01 pmDarn unbelievable beat me too it, If I had Fox on they wouldn't have stolen MY point. GRRRRRRR
April 6th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#30
April 6th, 2006 at 7:02 pmMy point is nobody is charged with leaking classified information.
Tundra,
Scottie serves at the discretion of the president. If he's a liar, bush is a liar, as he speaks for bush.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:03 pmHow can the right blast the media when they haven;t said a word on this development? The MSM is following the Bush protocol to the letter. ABC is even questioning the whether the Scooter filing desrevs coverage at all.
See the story at
April 6th, 2006 at 7:04 pmhttp://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
Darn unbelievable beat me too it, If I had Fox on they wouldn’t have stolen MY point. GRRRRRRR
Comment by Tundra — April 6, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Sorry dear. Can you ever forgive me?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pmI'll bet censure seems a lot less drastic to a lot of people now.
--
April 6th, 2006 at 7:06 pmhttp://griperblade.blogspot.com - grumblings from the heartland
"My point is nobody is charged with leaking classified information. Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye "
Well Libby never was the brightest bulb. It sounds like his attornies want to embarrass the administration and try to get the investigation stopped. They've already argued that the justice department didn't have a right to start the investigation. Now they're just trying to prove that if there was no original crime, then a perjury charge isn't relevant. It didn't work for Clinton either, but Libby's kinda slow, so we just have to realize he's gonna keep doing stupid things - much like yourself.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:07 pmScottie realizes he's on his own now. That is usually the point that people begin to give up their neighbor, brother and sometimes Mom for a stab a leniency. I think it's possibly the only time a caged bird will sing. It is true? Well, since lying has gottenhim indicted, then more lying could get him in bigger trouble. Seems more logical that he's at least in the general direction of being correct. But, not that it really matters. Nothing will happen to our naked Emprorer anyway.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:10 pmRyan,
Scottie serves at the discretion of the president. If he’s a liar, bush is a liar, as he speaks for bush.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 6, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
I meant Libby, not mouthpiece.
[Libby] further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. [Libby] testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law,
I'm just a little surprised to hear alot of people from this site trusting anything that comes out of his mouth. Does that mean we can take what Libby has said in the past as truth too? or just what he said today?
Sorry dear. Can you ever forgive me? unbelievable
April 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pmJust work on slowing down on ruining my thunder ;)
Nice straw man #43. You're the king of false logic. What. An. Idjut.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:13 pmI think it’s possibly the only time a caged bird will sing. It is true? Well, since lying has gottenhim indicted, then more lying could get him in bigger trouble. Seems more logical that he’s at least in the general direction of being correct
Wow, unbelievable. You never struck me as the type to believe that an offer of leniency to a person accused of a crime breeds true information. Normally I hear the he was promised a lighter sentence so that's why he said what he did.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:21 pmJust work on slowing down on ruining my thunder ;)
Comment by Tundra — April 6, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
Do yourself a favor and don't hold your breath on that one ; )
April 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pm"Nice straw man #43. You’re the king of false logic. What. An. Idjut. Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye"
Funny, that's exactly what I thought of your post when you gave it. You can only see yourself, like most republicans - and blame others for your own activities. You're just like the guy who was caught for pedophelia, who was responsible for stopping it. The moth to the flame, the liar to the lie. And Idjut is a perfect description of you and your stupid posts.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:24 pmClarifying 45
Scott McClellan = mouthpiece. I thought you confused my Scooter with Scottie and was just clarifying it.
Do yourself a favor and don’t hold your breath on that one ; )
Comment by unbelievable — April 6, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
insert unwashed hippy joke here :)
April 6th, 2006 at 7:25 pmTundra,
Did you read what I wrote? I think Libby is trying to implicate them to get off from his sentence. It's unlikely he'd do that unless he had proof - but not entirely impossible. It's clear what his motivation is, but not necessarily which of his lies is actually the truth - if any of them.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:26 pmGiven the practice of issuing "signing statements" allowing (he believes) bush to ignore congressional passed legislation and his belief that he can authorize spying on Americans "because he's doing it to protect us," is it any surprise that bush/cheney believe they can declassify anything they want? I used to laugh at the idea that this clown (the bush one) wanted to be king....now I'm not so sure!
April 6th, 2006 at 7:26 pmWow, unbelievable. You never struck me as the type to believe that an offer of leniency to a person accused of a crime breeds true information. Normally I hear the he was promised a lighter sentence so that’s why he said what he did.
Comment by Tundra — April 6, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
Why, is it the alfalfa sprouts again? :)
But, that's not exactly what I said... though, in the context of intention, I'm willing to guess that there's a reason District Attorneys do such a thing so frequently. Psychologically, it makes sense to me that if you are in a dire situation and no one is coming to your rescue, you might be willing to make a deal to save yourself. Especially when you have days upon days of nothing to do but think about how the sorry bastards set you up and then let you take the fall. I could see how someone would be willing to make a deal under those circumstances.
And Libby was initially lying to save Cheney. Not the same as being a habitual liar.
He might be lying now. I don't know the man, and that will be for a judge and jury to decide. I'm just saying that I could see why he'd make a deal.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:29 pm#51 - ...I think Libby is trying to implicate them to get off from his sentence. It’s unlikely he’d do that unless he had proof - but not entirely impossible. It’s clear what his motivation is, but not necessarily which of his lies is actually the truth - if any of them.
Would Libby be stupid enough to implicate Emperor Bush as part of some ruse or lie? I believe the answer is no (unless he is criminally insane).
I have a feeling that Emperor Bush holds tremendous power of the rest of the Cabal. If true, then Libby must be shaking in his boots. If not, why would Libby lie about his conversation with Cheney and think he could make it stick?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:29 pmIt’s clear what his motivation is, but not necessarily which of his lies is actually the truth - if any of them.
Sort of a boy who cried wolf theme?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:30 pminsert unwashed hippy joke here :)
Comment by Tundra — April 6, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
I thought we'd covered this. I own (and use) soap daily. Remember, it broke your heart? ; )
April 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pm#49
April 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pmWow, another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. Got another one in your bag of tricks?
#9 Terry, You simply made an error reading the poll. It's not 37%, but 37 people who now support Bush.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:40 pmMy point is nobody is charged with leaking classified information.
Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye — April 6, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Only because Libby and his ilk have actively obstructed justice -which is one of the charges levied against Libby. Given the evidence, someone will soon be charged with disclosing classified information:
April 6th, 2006 at 7:41 pmBefore his indictment, Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on prewar intelligence on Iraq and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. In that meeting, Libby made reference to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Given the evidence, someone will soon be charged with disclosing classified information.
Okay #59, you let us know when that happens, because you lefties have been claiming someone will be charged "soon" for months now.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:44 pmJudd - Thanks for posting this. Over at Angrybear, we noted the end of McCarthy's rant where he said it was important to "parse" this story. That he has!
April 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pmFiredog has this link for some further investigation regarding Libby and Judy Miller. Enjoy.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:51 pmhttp://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/4/6/155527/7776
Okay #59, you let us know when that happens, because you lefties have been claiming someone will be charged “soon†for months now.
Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye
Fate is slow, but sure.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:53 pmGeorge Bush can fly around in Air Force One, and that makes people mad.
Anything he does makes people mad. He can't please anyone these days. Poor baby
He wears his lapel pin, so he can do anything he wants.
If you don't wear your lapel pin, you can't do anything you want. You get arrested if you don't.
Be sure to wear your lapel pin.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:55 pm"Okay #59, you let us know when that happens, because you lefties have been claiming someone will be charged “soon†for months now. Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye "
And you righties have forgotten that Libby is already indicted. Just like you righties didn't care what Clinton was charged for - well reciprocation is mighty tasty.
I don't really care which crime he's charged with, as long as he goes to jail. And the same is true for the rest of this culture of corruption you call a government.
Oh, and 3 ohio election officials were indicted today for FIXING the Ohio recount. Patience isn't a very common republican virtue, maybe that's why you execute so many sloppy crimes.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:57 pm"Wow, another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. Got another one in your bag of tricks? Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye"
Another example of you using words you don't understand. Typical of Reichwingers, accuse others of your crimes, and misrepresent words that you don't understand to defend a position that's indefensible. It works well until you're indicted - something that's become a common occurrence for republicans these days. Keep up the delusions, they're working great for you one eyed willy.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:59 pmLies, Lies, Lies. Dumbya said he would get rid of anyone who leaked. Well, well MISTER PRESIDENT, so what gives now you lying sack of crap?
April 6th, 2006 at 8:07 pmRyan,
I don’t really care which crime he’s charged with, as long as he goes to jail. And the same is true for the rest of this culture of corruption you call a government.
My Libertarian ears are ringing here, sounds alot like something a crooked police officer might say. Are you implying that if they can not prove the correct charge they should fabricate one?
April 6th, 2006 at 8:08 pmHey Kiddies, let's play the awesome game impeach by the BushCo brothers. Don't step on an 'honesty card' - or it's Guantanimo for you! Guaranteed 72 days of wire tapping.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:10 pmAh Addington, one third the unholy trinity - the others of course are Yoo & Gonzales, they come from a proud tradition....
http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Torquemada.html
April 6th, 2006 at 8:10 pmI thought he said they would find out who the "leakers" are and that they would be punished?
QUESTION (9/30/03): Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?
BUSH: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
Wow.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:15 pmThey're gonna cut Libby lose and leave hiim swinging in the wind. That's my bet. They have no other choice.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:21 pmHey, get cozy with mangy curs....
.... fleas.
Expect the denials to start soon.
I love this country. It has RULES and one of them is that sh!t doesn't run up hill.
Too bad that Libby forgot that.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:28 pm"My Libertarian ears are ringing here, sounds alot like something a crooked police officer might say. Are you implying that if they can not prove the correct charge they should fabricate one? Comment by Tundra "
Nope, not at all, and I'm not sure how you read that. I'm saying there's so many crimes to choose from, I don't care which one of these is the one he gets charged and convicted of. My personal belief at this point is that he deserves to be convicted on all of them, but hey, that's why we have courts :)
April 6th, 2006 at 8:34 pmi know noone in here is surprised. forget oath. where is the suicide bomber when ya need one. can i say that? o'well---did now.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:36 pmI’m saying there’s so many crimes to choose from, I don’t care which one of these is the one he gets charged and convicted of.
Ahhhh, got it. Thanks for the clarification.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:37 pmand bushyboy stacked the supreme court for this very reason: to throw out any impending lawsuits against him.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:43 pmYou people are too f'ing stupid to be true. If the President of the United States of America say's it's OK to disclosed classified information it automatically and immediately becomes unclassified information. If the President of the United States of America can not change "classified" to "unclassified" then nobody can. What's the upshot of all this. The fools in the Left have been publicly snookered again and made to look like the American hating assholes they are. Like I've said before, Bush is scary smart and.....you are not.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:49 pm"If the President of the United States of America say’s it’s OK to disclosed classified information it automatically and immediately becomes unclassified information. MizzWrong"
Remember that when Hillary declassifies your work (supposing you have it), and tells your neighbors about your 'procivities'.
And when we see Bush's 'signature' on the declassification (REQUIRED), then it will be interesting to here why he declassified sensitive material for political gain. It's right up there with the 'tricky dick' defenses.
"Bush is scary smart and…..you are not. MizzWrong"
It's true Bush is 'scary', but smart he's not. You confuse 'stubborn' with smart, but then again - that describes you perfectly as well. You're a stubborn propagandist, but smart you aren't.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:55 pmOk. SO the president declassified the document and exposed the CIA agent. Given?
April 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pmYou people are too f’ing stupid to be true. If the President of the United States of America say’s it’s OK to disclosed classified information it automatically and immediately becomes unclassified
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 6, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Actually, in this particular case, he was supposed to run it past the CIA first. He didn't. Why exactly do you suppose that is?
You do know that he doesn't have supreme authority, right? That he's one of three equal branches of government?
April 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThe President declassified the document to discredit someone who was trying to red flag bad intelligence 'lest we engage in an unnecessary war. In doing so, he exposed a covert agent's identity, placed her network in jeapardy, and ruined her operations.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:02 pmHe knew he had told Cheney,... Libby, to try to tank her husband's reputation with information that should have remained classified. IS that about it?
oh, no... there's is one more little thing.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:05 pmHe let Libby SWING IN THE WIND knowing he had "declassified" the document. Now, why was that? Didn't his little heart skip a beat when they perp walked his sacrificial lamb?
Why did GEORGE W. BUSH refer to it as a LEAK then? Either Libby is lying or W is lying. Take your pick.
But do you Bush Apologists ever tired of apologizing for Bush? Face - you screwed up - YOU TRUSTED HIM.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:06 pmHas anyone here ever seen Casablanca? The police-chief? "Round up the usual suspects!"
April 6th, 2006 at 9:09 pmPresident's Executive Order 12958
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html
(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a specific date or event for declassification of the information. The Panel may direct the agency not to exempt the information or to declassify it at an earlier date than recommended. The agency head may appeal such a decision to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information will remain classified while such an appeal is pending.
Reading through it, I would say that a department head (Who is speciffically granted those rights) would have to want to declassify it and if someone else did not want that to happen it could be appealed to the President.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:12 pmEither Scooter, or Trigger, or the Shrub lied. Or two of the three... or maybe even all three. But, since the proverbial excrement does not flow uphill, I suspect Scoot baby is going to be left with the stink.
I hope he learns the ropes in prison a little better than he learned the groove of the Washington court. It's built on a slope. Downhill, baby. Downhill.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:18 pmThe back and forth as to whether or not a law was broken, and if so, what law was broken is - of course - relevant.
But this development becomes extremely relevant way before any of the legal arguments begin.
In the 90's - a certain President "outraged" the GOP by looking into the camera and saying that he did not do something - which he ultimately had to admit was not true.
" A man who does such a thing cannot be President," the GOP and their supporters cried at the time.
The leak by the current President was classified information - as opposed to - well, you know.
And as #31 points out - the current President has done essentially the same thing as the previous. He has essentially looked into the very same camera and said ...
"I have not leaked classified information about that woman - or about anything."
I think even the most partisan GOP person would have to agree that it is only fair to apply the same rules. If it was the opinion of the GOP in the 1990's that looking into the camera and stating a falsehood to the nation reflected a "fatal flaw" in the character of a man - so much so that such a man should step down from the Presidency - then they must, if they wish to be taken serously at all in terms of credibility, apply the same rules to the President of their own party.
( I also seem to remember that the GOP was of the position that it didn't matter that the prior Presidential fib too trivial, because it "was only about sex." Again, fairly applying this standard to the current Presidential fib, the GOP should take the lead in pushing the current President away. This fib by the current President - if proven to be true - is far less trivial than the prior fib ).
If you must respond - please be polite.
Don't make me insult you. :-)
April 6th, 2006 at 9:25 pmReading through it, I would say that a department head (Who is speciffically granted those rights) would have to want to declassify it and if someone else did not want that to happen it could be appealed to the President.
Comment by Tundra — April 6, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
So, as I was saying... Bush was supposed to present this to the CIA so they would know what was happening and have an opportunity to object.
Thanks Tundra. I owe you one :)
April 6th, 2006 at 9:26 pmBush must be on high dosage meds, because he is always in la la land > lol. He still thinks that Americans like him, but about 65% dislike everything he represents! Karl Rove has him so sheltered from reality, that he is almost a baboon!
April 6th, 2006 at 9:40 pmMinor correction: I said that Libby and Miller spoke in 6/03. It's true, they did. But the meeting that's currently being discussed, where Libby gave Miller info from the NIE, was on 7/8/03.
By the way, it's no surprise that Power Line is promoting the same distortion as NRO. Power Line recently said "the administration declassified the 2002 intelligence estimate." Wrong. On 7/18/03, they declassified a small portion of the "2002 intelligence estimate." Most of that document still remains classified.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:06 pmSOMEONE WITH A FUCKING SHIELD ARREST THIS FUCKING TRAITOR NOW!!
April 6th, 2006 at 10:15 pmAre we there yet!!!!!!!! Are we????? Please just say yes!!! Is this as bad yet as cheating on your spouse???? Is it??? Is it?????
April 6th, 2006 at 10:21 pmFirst of all Executive ordes are not law.
PERIOD
He cannot just write a new executive order to give him and unka dickie some sort of new powers.
We need to limit Executive orders, which were always just orders to control the execuitve offices, and departments that are under his aegis.
We need to limit pardoning, to make it that the Preznit CANNOT pardon tratiors like North et al. And he will for whoever gets hung out to dry for all of the criminal activity.
WE NEED A NEW FUCKING CONSTITUTION. ONE THAT PROTECTS FROM ITS INCEPTION ALL PEOPLE, NOT HAVE TO BE RE-WRITTEN JUST TO COVER A SUB-GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WHILE AT IT, THE CORPORATISTS USED THE SAME RE-WRITING TO EXTEND PERSONHOOD TO CORPORATIONS.
WE NEED TO MAKE CORPORATIONS DIE AFTER ONE GENERATION , LIKE THE GOOD OLD DAYS. PRE 14th AMENDMENT.
We CAN do it, by rewriting corporate law at the state levels.
But WE NEED A NEW FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:22 pmAnd excuse me.. but .. not now!!! Are we there yet??? Our constitution is fine!!! We just need to VOTE in the right people... and get more PARTIES from the bottom up!! We need to vote for HOUSE OF REPS that are not the same old same old!!! We need to have more CHOICES than Dems and Republicans!!! More parties like the rest of the world!!!!!
April 6th, 2006 at 10:25 pmthere is no word that describes the die hard Bush apologist
April 6th, 2006 at 10:36 pmsuch as the racist as$hole i-right-i.
embiciles, traitors, fascist, morons, cultist,
blind evil partisans. I just do not know what it would
take for these clearly non-Americans to wake up from
their stuper. Maybe perhaps when nuclear fallout
causes their hair to fall, skin to boil and
organs to swell and fail. by then those of us
in the reality based world will get no pleasure
in saying I told you so. outing plame is not
just destruction of a career - but quite possibly
getting her co-workers killed and our security
damaged. Yet still they support this adminstration.
infingcredible. No wonder people want to do
harm to wankers like irighti.
89
The certain president in the 90's was not required to step down though. I think the current president is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as was the president in the 90's (Against many peoples beliefs in both cases).
And as #31 points out - the current President has done essentially the same thing as the previous. He has essentially looked into the very same camera and said …
“I have not leaked classified information about that woman - or about anything.â€
More importantly though it has not been proven, all we currently have on this issue is Libby (A known lier based on this site in several areas) claiming Bush knew. I am all for an investigation etc, but calling for removal from office because of this is premature (In my opinion)
90
Thanks Tundra. I owe you one :)
Least I could do after all the kindness you have shown me!
April 6th, 2006 at 10:37 pmClinton was impeached but was not found guilty by the senate. No president would step down unless they were found guilty by the senate so let's give this president his articles of impeachment like Clinton and let him take his chances with a trial in the Senate. That's how it works
April 6th, 2006 at 10:45 pm#9
Actually it is easy to understand why 37% of adult human beings still approve of George W. Orwell's administration. For the past 35 years, the Right has utilized a form of fraudulent social populism to convince at least one-third of all voting age Americans that there exists a vast Liberal conspiracy against America, and that they are all perpetually being controlled by a Liberal elite. For the past 10 years they have been telling the American people that because of this there exists a Liberal media bias. If you are a Radical Conservative Republican and you possess almost all of America's money, control the 4th estate, control corporate America, and have already been involved in building a Right-Wing Grassroots infrastructure for the past 40 years it is then easy to convince a large number of uneducated or ingnorant people to believe in fairy tales. It is all about people control meathods. It is relatively easy to control others as long as they don't know that you are controling them.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:51 pmjason, i can empathize...with each new revelation and indictment, i can enjoy a slight feeling of relief but, like you say, take no pleasure in even being able to say "i told you so", and so i don't - it hurts too much knowing and watching the effects that this mis-administration is having on the country, and that my kids and their kids will be cleaning it all up for a long time...
April 6th, 2006 at 10:52 pmmaybe the leaders of China could do a better job. outsource the government to China. They at least pay attention to other counties without wanting to send in a hundred and fifty thousand troops.
China might just come in handy one day.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:52 pmRemoving an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
Does anyone think they will get that?
April 6th, 2006 at 10:52 pmThe point is... Republicans are looking real bad for the next election.. no matter what, this is the end of this corrupt party for a long time
April 6th, 2006 at 10:57 pmByron York weighs in over at The Corner. He blames it all on Joe Wilson. Go figure.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:01 pmBottom line is we have a president who is engaged in illegal wiretapping, setting up secret prisions around the world, torturing people, holding American citizens in prison without charging them, and these are the only things he "admits" (sic) to, the neo-know-nothings are in control of all 3 branches of govt. and as a result there has not been one single move to check this abhorent abuse of power. This is what the american people get when they make a mad dash to the polls to vote for a stinking tax cut and don't give a thought to the delicate balance of power provided for by the Constitution. We need to get a branch of govt. out of the Republicans (neo know nothings) hands if we are going to stop this guy. I'm a little bit optimistic because I am seeing less idiots in hummers waving flags and yellow magnets these days.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:05 pmNo Tundra, not yet. But the seed of his undoing is in the very nature of the beast. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:16 pm104
I honestly don't know how bad they are looking. If the Democrats really want a good shot they have to come together, stop playing the games and have a good plan. The current plan is NO MORE BUSH. I hate to say it but that's not a platform. The problem with the Democratic movement is it's very nature (Not to be insulting at all here, but it involves progressing and moving forward) With that you have one side of the Democrats completely against gun ownership and even a decent chunk of the party disagrees (Because they own them and feel it's their right). You have the it's my right to abort up until the day before labor and a large chunk that says whoa, that's a little steep, First trimester OK, but 8 months is a little far. The more extreme and insulting ones get all of the press, which isn't always a good thing. I know many people that see those blurbs of Hillary screaming and comparing everyone in the senate to slave owners and just shake their head.
The Democratic party is very lively and motivated. With a voting base that is still considered "older" it seems loud and "OH MYish". Bill Clinton was a good runner because he was mellow and had sincerity. Kerry choose a trial lawyer (Who made his living suing doctors and was complaining about health care costs) as a VP and many people flinched.
I just hope the Dems are smart enough to pick good solid candidates who can show they will unite instead of divide.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:24 pm#90
Tundra - The President in in 90's was not required to step down - as you say. But it would be disingenuous to claim that this was not the desire of the GOP and their supporters, no?
So to be fair and consistent - this too ( the stepping down of the current President ), should be the desire of the current GOP and their supporters - given all that was expressed by them in the 90's regarding this sort of stuff..
Lastly, I did include the "if proven to be true" language in the latter part of my note. I respect "innocent until proven guilty" in terms of the law.
But, I anticipate getting a "bad gut feeling" about G.W. Bush's role in this affair - even in the absence of a "formal conviction." If this bad gut feeling does, in fact, come to visit me - my respect for the man will diminish from whatever level it is at currently.
I understand that you favor one party over the other. But beyond that, you may also experience the same "bad gut feeling" I mentioned earlier if this unfolds poorly for the current President. At which point, if you continue to support the man - you are simply playing the "my party, right or wrong game."
Thanks for the chat, Tundra.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:28 pmYa well she is GOP..
April 6th, 2006 at 11:32 pmSo to be fair and consistent - this too ( the stepping down of the current President ), should be the desire of the current GOP and their supporters - given all that was expressed by them in the 90’s regarding this sort of stuff..
Provided he either admits to or has been proven to have leaked the information (Or knew about it). There was a huge base of people that denied the whole Lewinsky scandal until he looked into that camera (I doubted it until he said that). I feel I owe the current president the same respect in this instance.
I understand that you favor one party over the other.
Right leaning Libertarian, Soooo I won't be happy until they get a candidate in there that turns us back into a republic with a small federal government that gets out of my life and better States rights.
At which point, if you continue to support the man - you are simply playing the “my party, right or wrong game.â€
Just the innocent till proven guilty part. As far as I am concerned, Clinton is innocent of the charges brought upon him, OJ is innocent, Scott Peterson was innocent till they said "Guilty". Good old Martha was innocent till they said guilty. Same works for old George here.
Thanks for the chat, Tundra.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:39 pmYou too Simon Cowell
oh please.. put it all to bed
April 6th, 2006 at 11:58 pmOY.. Clinton admitted to a blow job not all the incredibly horrible atrocities.. geez.. what gives with the whole orwelian prozac attitude..
April 7th, 2006 at 12:01 am"If the Democrats really want a good shot they have to come together, stop playing the games and have a good plan. The current plan is NO MORE BUSH. I hate to say it but that’s not a platform. Tundra"
I suggest you look at democrats.org if you want to know the democratic agenda. The media is too busy covering Hillary's homemaking skills. They introduced a HUGE plan this week for dealing with security, and the MSM did a complete blackout on it. If you don't know the plan of the democrats, it's because of the media - not because of its absence.
I know you're a bright and reasonable guy - this is not a reasonable response Tundra - I'm very disappointed in you.
And Tundra, might I remind you that your 'stereotypes' of Democrats applies equally to republicans that have a percentage of pro-life and pro-gun control voters. I can't believed you'd oversimplify this as a 'democratic' problem - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
And Tundra, I hate to CORRECT you but suing bad doctors for malpractice is a NOBLE act, not one to be ashamed. And it DOES NOT significantly impact health care costs, despite the blathering propaganda from the reichwing. I'd be happy to point you to the backup for that if you'd like.
Sorry, but this post was beneath you - I'm very disappointed in you.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:45 amI suggest you look at democrats.org if you want to know the democratic agenda.
Lets see the first big article, meant to help bring voters to the Democratic side:
DeLay is a symptom of a larger disease -- a sick Republican culture of corruption that touches everyone who took his dirty money, voted for his corrupt leadership,
I've done web development and you have about 3 seconds tops to grab a reader and wellll, that page screams Republicans suck, we don't so come on read more.
If you don’t know the plan of the democrats, it’s because of the media
That was a Republican argument forever, it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. There are plenty of ways to get your word out. If you would like I could look up some quotes from this site when there was a huge laugh about mainstream media and the republican feeling on it. I seem to recall several instances of being told how true the media is.
I remind you that your ’stereotypes’ of Democrats applies equally to republicans that have a percentage of pro-life and pro-gun control voters.
I in no way meant that as an only example. My point (Possibly poorly stated) was that the democratic movement involves alot of changes (by design). With changes that some are interested in, others in the party do not want. It is the harder party to keep a backing because of the changes (opinion noted) where the conservative side basically resists change. It is a whole lot easier to say yeah whatever keep it the same when it doesn't effect you and get support for it.
I hate to CORRECT you but suing bad doctors for malpractice is a NOBLE act,
I live in a community that lost over half of it's doctors due to not being able to maintain their malpractice costs in check. None of them were ever sued but they paid the price and headed south. It takes me over 3 months to schedule a physical. Something basic takes me 2 weeks + to get in for. It may be acceptable to you, but personally I don't like waiting when my families health is a concern.
Regardless if it's noble or not, people are in my boat and it sure is the impression it gives. I will take your backup on malpractice insurance cost raises though. I don't feel Edwards was his best choice. If he had a Lieberman or a Gore I think you may have seen a different race.
Sorry, but this post was beneath you - I’m very disappointed in you.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:15 amWell, I'm sorry you feel that way. I was simply putting the problems I felt were with the Democratic party out there. something from an outsider. I expected that you would appreciate hearing something from someone who had a different view on the party. Things don't change (Progress) if everyone always agrees.
116
What's a Ned?
April 7th, 2006 at 1:16 am"There was a huge base of people that denied the whole Lewinsky scandal until he looked into that camera (I doubted it until he said that). I feel I owe the current president the same respect in this instance. Tundra"
Huh? That's really silly. People questioned what an AFFAIR had to do with federal politics. For you to even compare that to leaking classified data is insane. And we KNOW the evidence was leaked in this case - the blue dress is in the public domain. All we don't know is HOW MANY PEOPLE were involved in the crime. I'm terribly dissapointed in you tonight.
"Right leaning Libertarian, Soooo I won’t be happy until they get a candidate in there that turns us back into a republic with a small federal government that gets out of my life and better States rights. Tundra"
So you have no problem with states being large government? Or do you want to overturn both the state and federal government in order to create a 'libertarian banana republic' - just like those in africa and south america that have/had 'small governments'?
Libertarian values are a 'good voice' in the chorus, but when they run the show, they're almost as bad as fascist and neoCons. Libertarian values are anarchy, and pre civilization values. 'Club Control' was never a priority of cave men, just as gun control is never a priority for the libertarian. Sorry, but I'm not a 'fan' of libertarian values. I appreciate the 'intent' of the movement, but it's just as bad in implentation as NeoCon and Fascist values.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:20 am"I’ve done web development and you have about 3 seconds tops to grab a reader and wellll, that page screams Republicans suck, we don’t so come on read more. Tundra"
Well Republicans do Suck, but if you can't look for the links on the page that point to agendas for what Democrats stand for - you don't want to look.
"That was a Republican argument forever, it didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. There are plenty of ways to get your word out. Tundra"
Sure there are, but they take more time - and people like you won't go looking if not spoon fed, especially by the MSM - just as you've stated above in your critique of the site. Sorry, but you're sounding more and more like a Republican mouthpiece tonight. You've gone from reasonable open minded person, to non-critical thinker overnight. It's very disappointing.
"I live in a community that lost over half of it’s doctors due to not being able to maintain their malpractice costs in check. None of them were ever sued but they paid the price and headed south. Tundra"
Move to a real community - sorry but that just sounds like you guys have a lot of incompetent doctors in your state/region. Are you in a red state?
I suppose that it never dawned on you that INSURANCE COMPANIES set those rates, and that they've remained heavily profitable? Or that the medical board permits poorly trained doctors to remain licensed after multiple malpractice charges are clearly proven? Sorry, but you can't place this on the back of 'lawyers', that's like putting the cost of the prison system on attorneys. It's illogical, unreasonable, and just flat wrong.
"I was simply putting the problems I felt were with the Democratic party out there. something from an outsider. Tundra"
I'm not buying it. If you were either an independent or even a republican you'd know that the republican party shares the same set of ranges on both the gun control and abortion issue. The percentages are most certainly 'flipped' in the two parties - but the same 'range' you complain about exists in BOTH parties. I'm sorry, but you sounded like a propagandist in that post - it's beneath you as an 'independent', and it makes me question that 'supposed' independence you claim.
You seem like a smart person from your previous posts - but I've not seen any of that intelligence, reason or rational arguments tonight.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:30 amPeople questioned what an AFFAIR had to do with federal politics.
Ummm, it was the perjury, same thing old Scooter is dealing with. My point was innocent until proven guilty by the way. He had the benefit of the doubt.
So you have no problem with states being large government?
That would be for the voters in that state to decide, not me. I'm against groups from California going to Georgia to tell them to remove the 10 commandments (let them decide there, it has nothing to do with the federal government. Same as a anti-abortion group in Alabama has no reason to go to California and tell them no. Communities decide how they will live and how they will be governed.
Libertarian values are anarchy, and pre civilization values. ‘Club Control’ was never a priority of cave men, just as gun control is never a priority for the libertarian.
And I generalize? OK, well your right here. I tell you what we will move to a Socialist society and why everyone else works I will sit on my porch drinking lemonade (it's as stupid a comparison as what you said)
I’m terribly dissapointed in you tonight
April 7th, 2006 at 1:36 amNoone has been as disappointed in me as much as you since my mother.
Mrs. Wilson,
I hope they weren't too rough on your husband.
-Mrs. Alito
April 7th, 2006 at 1:49 am"Ummm, it was the perjury, same thing old Scooter is dealing with. My point was innocent until proven guilty by the way. He had the benefit of the doubt. Tundra"
Yes, but as I stated earlier that was the ONLY crime that Clinton could be charged with, because having an affair is not a crime. And you may not have paid attention but he was only 'indicted', not 'convicted' of this crime. In america, that means he's innocent - right?
The difference as I stated before is that we KNOW a CIA agent was outed, as was other classified information released - and that's only one of SEVERAL crimes this government has committed.
"That would be for the voters in that state to decide, not me. I’m against groups from California going to Georgia to tell them to remove the 10 commandments (let them decide there, it has nothing to do with the federal government. Tundra"
So then you're not a libertarian - as the state government is still GOVERNMENT if this is what you believe. You sound more like a federalist than a libertarian.
"And I generalize? OK, well your right here. ... Tundra"
Absolutely not. Most political theorists group Anarchism and Libertarianism as largely the same. Although based on your previous section in this post, you sound more like a federalist than a libertarian. If you have the freedom to do what you want, you have anarchy - period. Fewer rules, more anarchy.
A strong states rights libertarian is an oxy moron...
April 7th, 2006 at 1:52 amWell Republicans do Suck,
Which is why I said it's the statement of your party. keep echoing it, prove me wrong, it will work in 2008, you may be right, hatred could be the key to the election. Sorry I doubted it. I was just suggesting the high road, won't happen again.
Sure there are, but they take more time - and people like you won’t go looking if not spoon fed
Right again, The marketing on web site data is wrong too. It was a general critique, on what I felt was worng with the Democratic party. I was speaking on why the general public doesn't head the way of the democrat "in my opinion". But as per usual you need to keep throwing the insults out there.
Move to a real community - sorry but that just sounds like you guys have a lot of incompetent doctors in your state/region.
Where would you like me to move? Also if you could include which doctors I can take my kids to, that would be great.
Maybe one in PA?
Are you in a red state?
I live in New York, yeah pretty red.
I’m not buying it. If you were either an independent or even a republican you’d know that the republican party shares the same set of ranges on both the gun control and abortion issue
Are you stupid? The point that you are having such a hard time grasping here is that progressives want change, conservatives do not. It's harder to get an object into motion (including a movement) I was trying to say it was a harder party to run and give credit to it doing so well. Take it personally as much as you want, I'll try to sleep tonight.
I suppose that it never dawned on you that INSURANCE COMPANIES set those rates, and that they’ve remained heavily profitable? Or that the medical board permits poorly trained doctors to remain licensed after multiple malpractice charges are clearly proven?
I don't recall advocating for either of those two groups. Hey we can blame shift all night that would be grand. Here is another instance where you failed to step away for a second and read. IN MY OPINION EDWARDS WAS A POOR CHOICE. THE PUBLIC SAW HIM AS A LAWYER (regardless of my position on him) AND IN CASE YOU DIDN"T KNOW THEY DON"T HAVE THE BEST REPUTATIONS (Argue it if you want and Mighty will agree with you). Maybe I am completely wrong here again fine. The general public loves lawyers and thinks they are fine people who are honest and true enough to help run a country.
My Republican critique didn't get this bad of a reception on the right blogs and it was a lot harsher.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:58 am"Noone has been as disappointed in me as much as you since my mother.
Comment by Tundra "
I guess that puts me in good company, she probably saw the same wasted potential that I do ;)
April 7th, 2006 at 1:59 amnot have paid attention but he was only ‘indicted’, not ‘convicted’ of this crime. In america, that means he’s innocent - right?
not have paid attention Sort of like you to my post?
As far as I am concerned, Clinton is innocent of the charges brought upon him - Post 112 - Tundra
I would guess that would have required you to actually stop, read and comprehend something. Sorry if it slipped past your knee jerk reaction to my post.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:04 amAbsolutely not. Most political theorists group Anarchism and Libertarianism as largely the same.
Source please? If it will help i will try and get a list of all political theorists for ya.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:07 amIf you would like to give me a critique of the left sides opinion of my party, I'll read it. Calling us caveman anarchists is the same as me calling you unwashed hippies (Yes me and unbelievable joke about it, but yours didn't fit that criteria)
It's about as far from the truth of the party as you can get.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:11 am"Which is why I said it’s the statement of your party. keep echoing it, prove me wrong, it will work in 2008, you may be right, hatred could be the key to the election. Sorry I doubted it. I was just suggesting the high road, won’t happen again.
Tundra"
Hmm... Hatred? I thought we were talking about corruption and accountability of public figures for crimes that have been PROVEN where people are going to jail.
So to you the high road means you don't bother pointing out the number of corruptions, failures and criminal indictments of the other political party? You don't think those things are 'relevant' to a campaign? Well if you're republican you probably want to avoid them - but they're definitely relevant. A party that campaigns on 'values' as its core message shouldn't be surprised when their hypocrisy is pointed out. Perhaps you are?
"Right again, The marketing on web site data is wrong too. It was a general critique, on what I felt was worng with the Democratic party. I was speaking on why the general public doesn’t head the way of the democrat “in my opinionâ€. But as per usual you need to keep throwing the insults out there. Tundra"
You felt that was insulting? I critiqued your critique - you're rather sensitive tonight. Sorry, but you don't seem like the same tundra...
And just as an FYI, there are more registered democrats than republicans, and democrats outvoted republicans 2000 by 1/2 million in favor of gore.
You said the democrats had no agenda, yet you refused to look past a splash page intro which told you one of the KEY agendas - REDUCE CORRUPTION.
"Are you stupid? The point that you are having such a hard time grasping here is that progressives want change, conservatives do not. It’s harder to get an object into motion (including a movement) I was trying to say it was a harder party to run and give credit to it doing so well. Take it personally as much as you want, I’ll try to sleep tonight. Tundra"
And you accuse me of being insulting. Sorry tundra, but considering how 'peaceful' and open I've been with you - that's uncalled for. And what you said was that Democrats had 'extreme positions' on gun control and abortion that harmed it - I merely pointed out that republicans have the SAME range. You made the invalid point, I merely corrected you. But I disagree with your evaluation again. Democrats don't necessarily WANT change, we accept change if it improves things. Republicans don't want change even when it improves things.
"I don’t recall advocating for either of those two groups. Tundra"
No but you did claim that it was hypocrisy for a trial lawyer to talk about health care issues - and I disagreed with you.
"Hey we can blame shift all night that would be grand. Tundra"
It wasn't about 'shifting' blame, it was about pointing out that your critique was overly simplistic and inconsistent with the reality of the situation.
"Here is another instance where you failed to step away for a second and read. IN MY OPINION EDWARDS WAS A POOR CHOICE. THE PUBLIC SAW HIM AS A LAWYER (regardless of my position on him) AND IN CASE YOU DIDNâ€T KNOW THEY DONâ€T HAVE THE BEST REPUTATIONS (Argue it if you want and Mighty will agree with you). Tundra"
Do you really believe that people saw edwards in a more poor light than they did Darth Cheney? Perhaps in the libertarian circles - but not in mainstream america. Cheney was NOT the deciding factor in that election - ohio was. In fact the same ohio that INDICTED 3 OFFICIALS TODAY for election recount fraud for rigging the recount.
http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1144312870224340.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
"My Republican critique didn’t get this bad of a reception on the right blogs and it was a lot harsher. Comment by Tundra "
You think a peer review, and intellectual discussion of your critique is a 'harsh reception'? That explains why so few CONservatives make it in academia ;)
April 7th, 2006 at 2:17 amAnd you accuse me of being insulting
Huh? That’s really silly
April 7th, 2006 at 2:28 amI’m terribly dissapointed in you tonight.
‘libertarian banana republic’
but when they run the show, they’re almost as bad as fascist and neoCons
Libertarian values are anarchy, and pre civilization values
it’s just as bad in implentation as NeoCon and Fascist values
and people like you won’t go looking if not spoon fed
you don’t want to look
Move to a real community
If you were either an independent or even a republican
I’m sorry, but you sounded like a propagandist in that post
it’s beneath you
So then you’re not a libertarian
"If you would like to give me a critique of the left sides opinion of my party, I’ll read it. Calling us caveman anarchists is the same as me calling you unwashed hippies (Yes me and unbelievable joke about it, but yours didn’t fit that criteria)
It’s about as far from the truth of the party as you can get. Comment by Tundra "
Do you mean the libertarian party? I'd like to hear your own critique. I actually believe that many of the platform ideas of libertarian values make sense, the problem is that most libertarians I know just don't know how 'extremist' some of those values quickly become from an implementation perspective. The world of unintended consequences are something libertarians often don't seem to grasp.
Small government means that there are less resources to prevent cheating, stealing and exploitation of others. Freedom and therefore deregulation means that exploitation and divisions between the rich and poor grow more extreme. We had somewhat of a libertarian government in the 1920s, and yet we also had over half of the population in poverty, compared to 11% when Clinton left office.
Sorry, but I want a more civilized society than that.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:33 amTundra,
I didn't see any of those comments as insulting - (well the real community one was insulting, sorry). They were descriptions of what the libertarian values represent taken to their extreme. And I do think many of the comments you made tonight were beneath you, I was being honest in how I felt about it. Go look online at critiques of Libertarian values - it is listed in the SAME political science philosophies as anarchy. I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm being technically accurate.
And how again is pointing out that your comments contradict the 'libertarian values' is being 'insulting'?
April 7th, 2006 at 2:38 amTundra,
As a libertarian do you believe Bush has the right to wiretap anyone he feels fit, exclusively within the US? Because that's what Gonzales claimed Bush has the right to do today. He's sounding more and more like paranoid tricky dick daily.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:40 amTundra,
How is it 'justice' to have doctors perform malpractice on a patient, ruin the patient's life, and not be 'sued' by a lawyer for doing this. In the realm of the Libertarian values isn't the 'court' and therefore 'lawyers' critical to 'justice'? And if we have a small government, who's going to monitor, regulate and ensure 'justice' is happening. For instance if there's no EPA, how do we know where those chemicals poisoning the water is coming from? Is the guy supposed to go out to the creek with his home testing kit?
Sorry, but many libertarian 'political' values just don't make any sense in a civil and complex society. I'm all for personal freedom, but what if I want to walk around with toxic chemicals smeared on my body. Should I have the freedom? And who writes the 'laws' and enforces them? And what if I want the freedom to go to a school, but they won't let me in - does personal freedom only exist if my family has the money or connections or skin color to get into a particular club?
April 7th, 2006 at 2:45 am‘extremist’ some of those values quickly become from an implementation perspective.
Every political party has extremes that are quickly realized if they were implemented fully.
Right = Evangelical
Left = Socialism
Libertarian = Anarchy
Statist = Facism
To agree with some points doesn't mean you have to jump to the extreme in any party.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:47 amAs a libertarian do you believe Bush has the right to wiretap anyone he feels fit, exclusively within the US?
Nope, I wish I knew how it was working so I could debate it propery though. If for instance they were tapping a known terrorists phone (Outside the U.S). A call came in from a phone in the U.S. It would be probable cause to get a warrent. If they are tapping phones in the U.S (Constitutionally protected Citizens phones) without a warrent, then no, it is an extreme breach of law.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:56 amTundra,
You might go to the Senate website for the Democrats. It highlights the security agenda on the home page.
http://democrats.senate.gov/
You want an AGENDA, have at it. There's LOTS of agenda up there.
Although you'd never know it by the media blackout. You said that republicans used to claim this - but how many news organizations have you heard cover a single point or the specifics or even the existence of this new agenda. If it's even mentioned in the news it's burried somewhere in a McKinney story.
If you don't believe there's a 'media blackout' on agenda issues, then you're not paying attention. Go have a look at mediamatters.org - the news is one giant spewing machine for rightwing rhetoric. And unlike newsmax, media matters actually links to the real transcripts, real data, and specifics that underlie the stories. I'm shocked at how easy it is for republicans to believe all of the crap they do with absolutely no factual basis to their opinions.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:58 am"Every political party has extremes that are quickly realized if they were implemented fully. Tundra"
Now THAT's the Tundra I know - I couldn't agree more :)
"To agree with some points doesn’t mean you have to jump to the extreme in any party. Comment by Tundra"
And yet that's how I felt the critique you gave began with. The democratic party doesn't even have a truly extreme wing - they've all left for other 'minor' parties - whereas the republicans are run by a whole core of extremist whackos.
"As a libertarian do you believe Bush has the right to wiretap anyone he feels fit, exclusively within the US?
Nope, I wish I knew how it was working so I could debate it propery though. Tundra"
Ah, now this is the part of libertarians I can related to.
Unfortunately, this is just out today.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:04 am
and not be ’sued’ by a lawyer for doing this.
If it's a police officer protecting you in the best way physically he is in the wrong. But a Lawyer should be able to. To me that is the same argument. One is protecting you physically and the other is taking money from someone who allready did you harm.
For instance if there’s no EPA, how do we know where those chemicals poisoning the water is coming from?
Removing the EPA is an extremist version of it. There does need to be some government controls, but personal responsibility still has to have a place. Suing McDonalds because you were too stupid to not put hot coffee between your legs goes the other way.
but what if I want to walk around with toxic chemicals smeared on my body. Should I have the freedom?
Your personal freedom ends where mine begins. This discussion is unwinnable from either end, there has to be a middle ground. Otherwise, one could say that having coffee on your breath is a danger to my health. I'm sure someone could fund a survey showing even miniscule trace amounts of caffine to be somehow harmful. I don't want the extreme the other way taking away my right to drink coffee.
And who writes the ‘laws’ and enforces them?
There is still a government, it just has the representatives with more power closer and in touch.
And yet that’s how I felt the critique you gave began with.
It wasn't meant to be insulting.
You want an AGENDA, have at it. There’s LOTS of agenda up there.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:22 amI know the Democratic agenda (I think there are some good points in it), the point was it's not getting out. Even this site does not focus on the positives of the party (I think they should) A large number of the articles listed are all see what the republicans did articles (the only positive listed right now is the Port security one and it's puny). The ones that I personally think need to get some more air time here are the good ones. I realize bad news spurs more debate and discussion, but I don't feel it does the party justice. It wasn't meant to be insulting at all.
Thursday that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States,
Now that would boil my blood.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:24 amWhy is Bush and the members of both parties in the Congress playing games with the American people? Why are they refusing to militarize the Mexican border to prevent terrorists from crossing, stop drug smuggling operations, and prevent massive illegal immigration? Why do they want insecurity in America, and an economy so weak it could collapse tomorrow?
The games in DC must come to an end, or Americans will be forced to rebel like the French!
April 7th, 2006 at 5:47 amOkay
Tundra
Here is what Anarchists believe:
There should be no government, because government means laws. Law, in essence, corrupts people, and if you leave people well enough alone, their own self interest will make them behave themselves.
Here is what Libertarians believe:
The should be no government control excercised over business, because that means laws. Law, in essence, corrupts the market, and if you leave business well enough along, its own self interest will make it behave itself.
That is how we arrive at libertarians being basically anarchists. That said, if you are voting conservative, Libertarian is the best bet for you right now because at least they aren't involved in K Street and you need someone in government who is against new laws in general, rather then just when those new laws effect their own bank accounts.
The sad fact is that the various idiots who dwell in your senate and congress, whatever their party affiliation, have not read the bills and laws they are passing. It is a horrifying thought that in real terms, you have guys in your government approving things they have not even bothered to read.
It is actually why I call the USA the UCA (United Corporations of America) because even when the system is not being controlled via K Street style bribery, the guys you have representing the people are too lazy to read what the proposed law says, rather taking the lobbyists at their word. If there was a serious reluctance to pass any new law, you wouldn't have the patriot act right now, because you would have a government which would have actually read the damn thing before passing it.
Now back on topic. Sad fact is, unlike Bush spying on Americans (and violating the civil rights of people all around the world, your constitution isn't the only one which contains a right to privacy for civilians) if Bush did approve the leak, the wording of the law is such that the info is no longer classified. If Cheney did, the law says the reverse, unless Bush authorised Cheney doing it. This is why what is legal, isn't always morally right.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:01 amhttp://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
Alot of people have a extremist view of Libertarians and the above link pretty much tells you where the party stands on most issues. Besides a few notable exceptions, it's where I am coming from.
The sad fact is that the various idiots who dwell in your senate and congress, whatever their party affiliation, have not read the bills and laws they are passing.
That is because of all of the "red tape" of trying to allow a government to run every facet of life. When you choose to have your government decide what is best for you in every area, that's one of the sad biproducts.
If there was a serious reluctance to pass any new law, you wouldn’t have the patriot act right now
Fully agreed
OK, back on topic.
(and violating the civil rights of people all around the world, your constitution isn’t the only one which contains a right to privacy for civilians)
I understand your point here, but mine is that I do not expect the German (or any country of course) people to stop their government from conducting spying operations on Americans. Countries spy on each other, it is their governments responsibility in those areas to protect their populations rights from foreign interest. Just like I am not protected by another countries constitution from their government, the same applies.
if Bush did approve the leak
If that is found to be the case (Which my earlier posts were based on innocent till proven guilty, which started this mess) I think he can be prosecuted under neglience of national security.
This is why what is legal, isn’t always morally right.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:39 amI am normally a person that feels legislating someone elses morals is a bad idea (Abortion, required charity, religion, alcohol/drug use) I realize this sets up an extremist argument (murder, thievery blah, but I have no intention of going there) :)
#135 Every political party has extremes that are quickly realized if they were implemented fully.
(...)Left = Socialism(...)
Comment by Tundra
Now, that's funny, equating extreme left to socialism... We have a socialist government in our country, and I don't see Soviet's Party comrades walking on the street, or red army officers commanding our SS-20 units or KGB agents demanding our "dokumentation, tovarisch", nor rightists sent to goulags...
Yeah, That's extreme simplification, if I have seen it anytime.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:24 amummmmm, That was Communism, they are different.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:28 amWhen is this Corrupt governing coming to an end. The Consitution has been spredded in that fuk of an Oval Office .rovian politics has destroyed who we are as a Nation. Iran is going to be invaded for two reason Oil and a continued president who will not vacate the office.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:37 amThings are getting pretty hot in the furerbunker. Looks like the leak is coming back to bite them and the press is finally smelling blod. Even short of impeachment, this admins may be too bogged sown in its own filtyh quagmire to do much more of anything.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:40 am#146 yes, they are different but, sorry, I don't think that intrinsically socialism is bad and communism is neither. The problem has been ever implementation. But think of this: the most violent revolutions have been ever, done by very oppresed people, poor and without a chance to live with a minimal dignity. The commoners in prerevolutionary Russia where vassals, nearly slaves to the feudal lord, and people in France was only scum to the noble's rule. Both had an ongoing war, who only added poverty and misery to those commoneers.
The application of democracy in France and communism in Russia was only an attempt to bring more fairness to all. But the revolt gave the power to greedy people, who bastardized the noble ideas of the pre-democrats (the same ones who inspired many of the ideas your Founding Fathers had to write your Constitution) and protocommunists, to get the power. Then, the inner fights upped the most sanguinaires or the most fit of them to the higher instancies of the govern. Call them Robespierre or Stalin, the problem wasn't communist ideas, but the fight for power of concrete people, thriving in a changing society.
Typical of the left? I don't think so. Your own revolution brought also killings of many people, but the enemy was easily identified as a foreing (for loyal americans) army, the british one. And so, many british civilian killings were avoided, to greater glory of the american revolution. Even so, basic differences brought later your Civil War.
What I want to say? That ideologies aren't the ones who kill, but the people who applies them. So branding "communism" as "bad", as are people in your country so eager to do, is a bit excesive, and extremist, to the right.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:03 am#149 Oh, and before any troll calls me a "communist", I'm not. But I don't think that "communist" has to be a derogatory adjective, not more than "demochristian", "republican", "democrat", etc., by itself.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:05 amGeorge W. Bush is a liar. He lies about most things and he lied on about "taking action" against those who leak classified information in the White House. He runs the government like a business: a corrupt, greedy, unaccountable business. As Dick Cheney would say, Bush can go f**k himself.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:36 amWhy does Creepy Jackalope continue to post items on this forum? His logic is always shown to be full of holes and he is an embarrassment to himself. I guess he doesn't mind being made to look like a moron.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:39 amBut I don’t think that “communist†has to be a derogatory adjective, not more than “demochristianâ€, “republicanâ€, “democratâ€, etc., by itself.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 7, 2006 @ 8:05 am
Funny you say that. Carl Marx's 'The Communist Manifesto' was never actually the brand of Communism put into place. A bastardized version of it was what has been corrupted and villified through out history. The USSR and People Republic of China were not Communist in the sense that Marx had intended. And I am frequently amused at the fear the owrd 'Communism' mongers when really, we as humans are very community oriented.
Like you, I don't align with the flavor of 'Communism' that the Soviets brandished. But, I read Marx's version in college, and while a bit utopian, as are all varieties of ideology, the last thing Marx had in mind was what he is remembered for. Guess you never know, how well intended, you will be incorrectly remembered by history.
Which, leads to an interesting report I saw on CNN about the Gospel of Judas... According to the translation by scholars, Judas might have done exactly as instructed by Jesus in order to fulfill what Jesus thought was his divine intention. That he didn't break his loyalty, but simply did as he was requested. If true, talk about getting a bum wrap!
April 7th, 2006 at 9:09 amWhy is Bush and the members of both parties in the Congress playing games with the American people? Why are they refusing to militarize the Mexican border to prevent terrorists from crossing, stop drug smuggling operations, and prevent massive illegal immigration? Why do they want insecurity in America, and an economy so weak it could collapse tomorrow?
The games in DC must come to an end, or Americans will be forced to rebel like the French!
Comment by Jay Randal
1) A militarized border sounds to most people like a country that isnt free... though when there are terrorists actively trying to get in it does not sound as bad
2) People want their drugs and dont think other people have the right to stop them (aka The War on Drugs is a failure)
3) Businesses want the cheap labor.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:18 amI’m shocked at how easy it is for republicans to believe all of the crap they do with absolutely no factual basis to their opinions.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 7, 2006 @ 2:58 am
On Sunday, go to church. There will be your answer : )
You and Tundra had some extensive debate last night | this morning. As someone whose beliefs are generally left of center, it's nice to see people on the left and the right of my beliefs have an intelligent discussion about the issues, rather than the standard arguments of 'I'm right and you are wrong'. I learn a lot listening to you both. I think it's important to know why a person believes what they believe, including myself. And to challenge your own beliefs. We're indoctrinated with a certain culture early in life, and it seems that we, in this country, are not encouraged to question it or learn contrasting views. It's no wonder our government is in such a quadmire. Everyone thinks that they are right and everyone else much be a major idiot not to understand, never once considering that we all have differing perspectives for a reason, and that the goal is to find compromise among those viewpoints that works for as many as possible.
Maybe, you guys should run for office. You'd do a significantly better job than the present lot.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:21 am3) Businesses want the cheap labor.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — April 7, 2006 @ 9:18 am
And that is running the entire show...
April 7th, 2006 at 9:23 amPeople questioned what an AFFAIR had to do with federal politics.
Ummm, it was the perjury, same thing old Scooter is dealing with. My point was innocent until proven guilty by the way. He had the benefit of the doubt.
So you have no problem with states being large government?
That would be for the voters in that state to decide, not me. I’m against groups from California going to Georgia to tell them to remove the 10 commandments (let them decide there, it has nothing to do with the federal government. Same as a anti-abortion group in Alabama has no reason to go to California and tell them no. Communities decide how they will live and how they will be governed.
Libertarian values are anarchy, and pre civilization values. ‘Club Control’ was never a priority of cave men, just as gun control is never a priority for the libertarian.
And I generalize? OK, well your right here. I tell you what we will move to a Socialist society and why everyone else works I will sit on my porch drinking lemonade (it’s as stupid a comparison as what you said)
I’m terribly dissapointed in you tonight
Noone has been as disappointed in me as much as you since my mother.
Comment by Tundra
In principle I totaly agree with Libertarianism. Everybody should mind their own business unless someone breaks a law by harming someone else. HOWEVER in real world execution it just does not fit.
1) People make unjust laws for reasons other than protecting people from each other all the time. Why should I have to pay a ticket just because some cop doesnt like it that I do not have my seat belt on? That is NONE of his business. War on Drugs in any state is just as unjust as it existing in one state...
2) When an entire community desides that slavery is OK....
3) When people have to mind their own business until all the wealth in a country is in the hands of 1000 familys and the rest of us become virtual serfs that have no say and so get treated like slaves.
4) When one state decides that science is no longer acceptable and that only evangelical teachings (ID) are allowed. Now everyone in that state who do not agree must be persecuted by some religious nuts or else up root their lives and move to California?
In the real world evil people in groups (communities) over power the meak unless the meak can hold the Constitution up as their shield with the threat of Federal action as the backing weight behind it. THAT is what a president is suppose to be... the WEIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT behind the Constitution.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:34 amTundra v Ryan actually shows why you need the smaller parties to replace the Repubs and Democrats in power. The two big parties have grown fat and entirely too identical, you need some of the smaller guys to get in and actually fight over the issues, rather then which pig gets the apples.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:37 amTundra v Ryan actually shows why you need the smaller parties to replace the Repubs and Democrats in power.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — April 7, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Agreed. I just don't know how that can happen until we get the Corporate funding out of the process. Neither of these guys can afford to run against the Corporate candidates, and no Corporation will touch anyone who wants to limit their powers. So, how do you stop it? I'm almost convinced that it will require another Revolution to fix...
April 7th, 2006 at 9:52 am#60- CJE, It was VP Cheney who said "The insurgency is in it's last throes." How many months ago was that? Be sure and let us know when THAT happens, will you?
April 7th, 2006 at 10:04 amGeorge W. Bush is not HALF the man Nixon was, or he would resign.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:28 amIt wasn't declassified until July 18. The leak happened on July 8.
Leaking is not declassifying. Surely Mr. York can understand that, though I'm sure he'll pretend that he doesn't.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:38 am.
#79
April 7th, 2006 at 11:41 amIf Bush is "scary smart" as you claim, and he as the president has the authority to declassify information, then why would he LIE and say he had no idea who could've done it and condemn the person(s) that allegedy leaked the information in the first place? When it comes to Bush's intellegence, you're only half right.
#79
April 7th, 2006 at 11:42 amIf Bush is "scary smart" as you claim, and he as the president has the authority to declassify information, then why would he LIE and say he had no idea who could've done it and condemn the person(s) that allegedy leaked the information in the first place? When it comes to Bush's intellegence, you're only half right.
#154 That's the idea: theorethically many ideologies are great, but when applied by some people under some circunstances, and with some modifications of his own, become "bad", but I think that it's not the fault of the original ideology. As you say, the original communism is very uthopian, and surely has few chances of existing in the present world, but brandishing (derogatively) someone with the motto "communist", for example, only because he thinks that some social coverage to poor/dissabled/veteran people is ok, it's a bit too much.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:50 amAs you say, the original communism is very uthopian, and surely has few chances of existing in the present world, but brandishing (derogatively) someone with the motto “communistâ€, for example, only because he thinks that some social coverage to poor/dissabled/veteran people is ok, it’s a bit too much.
Comment by Any Troll — April 7, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Did you see 'Good Night and Good Luck"? In retrospect it's hard to believe it was a true period in our history. That McCarthy was that extreme and was getting away with a witch hunt. I can't imagine, in 50 - 75 -100 years from now, when people look back upon this current epoch, that they won't be amazed that this phase occured as well. It's truly on the verge of being a modern Dark Ages of Politics.
By the way, you don't sound like a troll to me.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pmTwo questions will solve this whole matter relative to the criminal TRAITOR Bushiva's role in this Plamegate Affair:
1) Is it illegal (pursuant to the law signed by Bush 41) to reveal the name of an actively covert CIA operative?
2) Did Bushiva give Libby (thru Cheney) the okay to divulge Valerie Plame-Wilson's name to the press?By a preponderance of the evidence (no matter how circumstantial) the answer to number two is an emphatic YES!
...as to number two...
...I'll leave that to the "legal cognoscenti"...
April 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#167 I forgot to change back to my original Nick :P
April 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#167 Yes. Some years in the future, the current time would be seen as a very special one. I hope that the world would remember the whole dimension and the evil of the actual Republican GOP, and call them by their true names. But I fear that, at least some people, will remember the Bush II rule as a golden dream of righteousness and political wit, as do today many people with the Reagan years.
And yes, I've seen "Good Night and Good Luck". A masterwork, as I see it. Maybe too polite in political critic, but I know it's the mood in your country. I even saw it in the original english language (as a norm, in our country, the most of the movies are translated to spanish, but here, in Barcelona, we have too some theathers who exhibit always the movies in their original language). I plan to see "Syriana", too, but I don't know if it is in the showing, yet, or I would wait for the DVD... Decidedly, I like more every day George Clooney standing on politics...
April 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pmDecidedly, I like more every day George Clooney standing on politics…
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 7, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
He's become quite a hero around Hollywood too. I think a lot of poeple still don't take him seriously because he's stilla relatively young, great looking, playboy actor. I think with serious roles like these and some more grey hair, he mightfind a future in politics...
I'm interested to see what he will do next. Hard to top an Academy Award, but I'm sure he will manage :)
I saw Saving Private Ryan in Antwerp. The movie was in English with French subtitles. I kept laughing, because someone would say something crude, but teh French subtitles would be a very proper and polite interpretation. Has to be a good way to improve your language skills I would imagine. I wish I had an outlet for having practiced my French after college. But no one here really speaks much except for English, and Spanish is catching on.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:24 pmDecidedly, I like more every day George Clooney standing on politics…
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Clooney is gay with an IQ of 83. As a modern Spaniard I'm sure you approve of whatever he says.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:21 pmI wish I had an outlet for having practiced my French after college. But no one here really speaks much except for English, and Spanish is catching on.
Comment by unbelievable
Parlez vous a humma-humma?"
April 7th, 2006 at 9:24 pm#172 - iri,
April 7th, 2006 at 9:57 pmYou sure you got the right guy. George Bush is the gay with an IQ about 83 - but the last time I heard, it was actually 81. Last names must confuse you. Does Gannon ring a bell by any chance?
#172 Again fantasizing about homosexuality, I-HOMER-I? Maybe you need to exit from the closet in your basement already. The air in there must be really foul. Oh, now I understand why your neurones died long ago. Lack of oxygen.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:08 pm#172 And just another thing. Even if it's true that George Clooney has a CI of 83, I'm sure he has earned far more money than you and has kissed Julia Roberts, and not once. And now, he directs good movies. Hmmm, sounds as a winner.
Your assets? "I work in a cubicle, I hate homosexuals, non-WASPs, foreigners, not-fascists like me, and I'm angry at people who doesn't like my retrograde ideas (?)", as you might say. Not a winner, definitively. A whiner, yes.
Sorry, but I have very clear who to admire and who don't. And you're not the former one.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:34 pmIf Bush is so smart, why has he gotten the country is such deep shit?
April 8th, 2006 at 12:53 amParlez vous a humma-humma?â€
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 7, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Avec toi? Dans tes reves. Et, peu probable! : )
April 8th, 2006 at 9:49 amSorry, but I have very clear who to admire and who don’t. And you’re not the former one.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 7, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
I'm sure he'll be devistated... : )
April 8th, 2006 at 9:51 amjason, i can empathize…with each new revelation and indictment, i can enjoy a slight feeling of relief but, like you say, take no pleasure in even being able to say “i told you soâ€, and so i don’t - it hurts too much knowing and watching the effects that this mis-administration is having on the country, and that my kids and their kids will be cleaning it all up for a long time…
Comment by katy #101
katy,
This is PRECISELY why they (Bushites and their masters)...
...must be held accountable...
...future generations of Americans (who will be adversely affected by this administration's criminal negligence) need to understand...
...that there are consequences of the harshest kind to be paid...
...for corruption, mass murder, war profiteering, incompetence, misinformation/mendacity, and TREASON...
...especially from elected officials and society's elite...
...think about it...
...if this society penalizes (with loss of liberty, property and reputation) those authority figures who misuse their positions of "trust" and power...
...for say "seducing" underlings, students, wards, or other subordinates to commit criminal acts of a sexual or other nature...
...then why shouldn't these Bushites be held accountable for "luring" our military to commit acts of barbarism and murder under false pretenses...
...or convincing the public that paying oil companies record profits for nothing more than to line their cronies' pockets with our hard earned money...
...or rewarding their defense contractor cronies with taxpayer dollars for destruction-reconstruction-destruction- and on and on...
...shouldn't THEY be held to- at the very least- the same standard?
...you da*n right they should!
Bushiva, L'il Dick and their criminal corporate co-conspirators must NOT be allowed to ride off into the sunset with their ill-gotten gains intact...
April 8th, 2006 at 10:34 amBucket’s Got a Hole In It...
Bill Clinton played loose with language when he claimed he “did not have sexual relations with that woman,” but that hardly compares to parsing the line of treason with a White House bucket that’s leaking from the top down.
......
April 8th, 2006 at 1:30 pmI can't really see what all the excitement is about either. Bush apparently has, as did other presidents, the power to declassify whatever he wants to.
What I'd like to see wrapped up is are we ever going to have anyone charged with leaking Plame's identity? Was her identity, in fact, leaked?
April 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pm