Capitulation to spread LIES makes one a LIAR.

ABCNNBCBS&FOXPRAVDA = one big family of LIARS!

.

I’m not sure if there will be any break in the partisanship, but, it’s an opportunity for a cleaner slate.

Where we disagree is that are willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt, and believe that misrepresenting, misusing and manipulating intelligence was simply “bad leadership”.

Bush is a bad leader, there’s no question about that.

But he also unquestionably lied to the American people regarding warrantless wiretaps and about outing an undercover CIA officer, both of which are criminal acts, and he authorized suspension of habeas corpus and the indefinite imprisonment without access to due process of both foreign captives and American citizens.

I could go on but I suspect you get the idea. Lying to get us into a war for which he had a hard-on from Day One is not the criminal act that many say it is. There’s too much wiggle room built into it, leaving it mainly an issue for the judgment of public opinion. And I think that judgment has been kinder than deserved, but still correct.

Re: my post at #39 Yellin clarifies what she said:

And now I’m going back to work covering the Puerto Rico primary from San Juan.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/29/tv-news-under-the-microscope/

**PLEASE don’t do the same thing they do. I know it is probably a “fine point”, but Yellin was specifically referring to MSNBC not ABC. Yes, I am sure they are all involved, but I am glad she clarified her story.

If Bush is criminal, impeach him or investigate him and get to the bottom of it.

But, if it’s bad leadership, let the process work. He’ll be out of office in 7 months and someone else will get to lead.

I see problems with the administration. And I don’t have a personal stake in Bush, if he lied to me.

I just resist the temptation to criminalize poor performance. Or judging someones decisions based on hindsight.

But, I’ve said it before, I could be wrong.

I believe that Bush’s “mismanagement” of the situation was indeed most likely criminal, and, further, that he employed illegal tactics in pursuit of his political objectives.

Unlike you, however, I don’t assume that lack of formal charges means that all is kosher in the House of Bush.

It’s not made of cheese?

No, but apparently your brain is, and I’m not talking sharp cheddar.

But, progressives have been claiming criminal activity for years. The democratic congress had 2 years to act and they didn’t. And democrats would still be able to investigate after the next election.

If what you and others here are claiming is true, they should have an obligation to investigate it.

I don’t believe Bush’s mismanagement of the situation was criminal, but if it was, he should be held accountable.

I agree. I’m glad some of these Administration and Media folks are finally speaking out. Of course many of us knew these things earlier on, but it’s great to see some of the perpetrators of the propaganda machine break ranks and confess to some of this.

But it seems a little disingenuous to wait so long to do so. It seems like they have hidden away and waited for it to become safe and fashionable (within the government and MSM) to take on Bush (finally!) when they could have stood up for themselves and helped taking on Bush fashionable much earlier.

Oh well. Disingenuous or not, they are still helping shine some more light on these things from within.

And Iran Contra wasn’t fully prosecuted because Larry Walsh took pity on Reagan’s alzheimers. Some think the nation is better off without such distractions – but a look at the damage caused by that little bit of pity, and one sees the vile precedent that Bush followed.

I was one of the millions of people who marched against this insanity – who spoke out every chance I had – so many Americans did not care, so many did not think – and the news media treated this “shock and awe” like it was a grand thing. How disgusting!!

If only conservatives had been sceptical when it really counted, instead of lick-spittle synchophants. We’d have four thousand additional troops available for chasing America’s real enemies. And how many billions of dollars? I laugh at your supposed scepticism of democrats and their motives, after having been suckered by your heros FOR FIVE YEARS.

ralph. come on. you can’t charge someone with a crime, if you aren’t willing to prove it. It would make it possible to inflict damage with the claim, whether it’s true or not.

If democrats claim that Bush intentionally misled us into an illegal war, they would have a obligation (and political interest, BTW) to expose it. Your dispute on this shouldn’t be with me, but with the democrats that were elected in ‘06 with promises of troop withdrawal and impeachment.

Their inaction leave the perception that the claims were hollow.

I understand your position. I just find it so limited as to be almost useless.

You’re basically saying that if Democrats do not bring charges and impeachment proceedings against the president, this may be taken as solid evidence that nothing rising to that level has occurred.

That’s ridiculous. There are all kinds of reasons, some of them sound, some of them cowardly, why someone in a position to pursue such charges may have evidence that the charges are warranted, but would still decline to file them. Chief among these reasons, for me in late May of 2008, is that the possibility that such a proceeding could be concluded before January 2009 is very slight — especially given that the adversary has developed a reputation for leading the most secretive and obstructionist administration in history.

But, as I said, if you’re comfortable with the rationalization that Democrats haven’t indicted the President because they have nothing on him, you’re free to embrace it.

Just don’t expect that argument to convince very many people who aren’t among the 28%.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that dems have a veto-proof majority.

barfly. I suggest that if they believed in it enough and had sufficient evidence they could get the support.

But, let me concede the point to make this one:

In ‘09, democrats will have a more significant majority in the congress and probably the white house. When that happens, there shouldn’t be any excuse not to investigate the Bush Administration and to promptly pull out the troops.

If those things don’t happen, I’ll be skeptical of the initial positions.

nanlichi.

Shit swallower is another matter…

Well, excuse the tenor of my earlier comment Captain, that is reserved for the likes of John Kerry. You sir, are no John Kerry.

We disagree on many issues, but you aren’t a shit stirrer.

nanlichi.

I guess that’s good. Thanks.