Will Bush pardon Ted Stevens as his final act?
By on Jan 19th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Will Bush pardon Ted Stevens as his final act?
CBS News reports Sen. Lisa Murkowski has called President Bush to ask that he pardon former Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted of seven felony counts in October for making false statements. Michael Brumas, the Communications Director for Murkowski, said a pardon request was made earlier this month. “He declined to give other details, including whether Stevens himself wanted the pardon and had asked Murkowski to pursue it on his behalf. ‘It’s just a very sensitive issue and a sensitive time — a couple days left,’ Brumas said. ‘We’re just not saying anything more.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh Heir Chimpy–Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please….
January 19th, 2009 at 8:15 amOn second thought, just like drugs– Just Say No!
January 19th, 2009 at 8:16 amScooter Libby, too. The lawlessness won’t end until tomorrow at noon.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:19 amMagic Eightball says: “certainly”.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:34 amLet he who is without sin cast the first shoe.
Have You Told a Republican He’s a Screw-Up Today?
January 19th, 2009 at 8:37 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIFIvFarghs
Pardon me, but aren’t convicted felons supposed to go to jail?
January 19th, 2009 at 8:45 amMore than likely Bush is trying to figure out if he can pardon himself…
January 19th, 2009 at 8:56 amIn just 27 hours, the President of the United States will be Barack Obama.
And I hope Bush exits D.C. with eggs thrown at his limo, just as he arrived. The perfect bookend.
PEACE
January 19th, 2009 at 9:02 amWhat a fitting end to his abysmal Administration this could be – the Bush Crime Family pardons the Stevens Crime Family.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:06 amPardon me, but aren’t convicted felons supposed to go to jail?
–
January 19th, 2009 at 9:17 amJust the unconnected and minority ones. Shit, you don’t even have to be guilty if you fit into those groups.
One more day…
January 19th, 2009 at 9:17 amOne more day…
One more day…
One more day…
spencers mom Says:
And I hope Bush exits D.C. with eggs thrown at his limo, just as he arrived. The perfect bookend.
I remember that. It may be shoes this time tho… hehe
January 19th, 2009 at 9:21 amI sincerely hope that GDumbya will release his list of pardons today so as not to cast a pall on tomorrow’s inauguration events. Get the bad news out today, GDumbya.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:33 amWayne Says: More than likely Bush is trying to figure out if he can pardon himself…
Seems more and more that if Congress or Obama’s AG, or even Obama don’t do anything to hold him accountable for his recklessness, someone else will. And, fortunately, it will be after his veto powers have expired.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:34 amWe’ve waited for the end of the Bush Crime Family for so long now, I can hardly believe that it’s really going to be over tomorrow. Someone pinch me!
January 19th, 2009 at 9:37 amTom Delay and Duke Cunningham, too? All the crooks?
January 19th, 2009 at 9:44 amtom Says:
I sincerely hope that GDumbya will release his list of pardons today so as not to cast a pall on tomorrow’s inauguration events. Get the bad news out today, GDumbya.
That would be the decent thing to do Tom… It’s more likely that Dana will call a press conference while Obama is being sworn in.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:47 amIt’s just a very sensitive issue concerning dual corruption and a sensitive time for corruption-a couple days left.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:48 amOpen Thread ? … oh, goody…
How climate change scepticism works
January 19th, 2009 at 9:48 amguardian.co.uk – 1 hour ago
Don’t fret. You still have plenty of time left to secure your place at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change to be held in New York on March 8-10, 2009.
Hansen’s Grim Warning to Obama: You Have Only 4 Years Left to Save … Red, Green, and Blue
‘We Have Only Four Years Left to Act on Climate Change – America … Buzzle
Business Green – Telegraph.co.uk – Deseret News – Metro Canda – Edmonton
all 102 news articles »
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1293461863&hl=en&topic=t
What’s your point Dynamo? That it’s ok because Clinton did it? That bush is at least as big political hack as slick willy? That you’re a whiny little troll? Take your pick.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:51 amDynamo Says:
Lets see who Clinton Pardon.
Anyone else notice that this freak troll cannot post a complete coherent sentence, unless it is a sentence it cut and pasted?
Seems this troll has a lot in common with it’s hero Shrub.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:52 amDynamo Says: Lets see who Clinton Pardon
Why are you cons still in love with him?
Clinton didn’t invade a sovereign nation based on lies.
Clinton didn’t run up the deficit for any reason, much less pointless and destructive ones.
Clinton didn’t make America hated in the world.
Clinton didn’t ruin the mortgage industry.
Clinton didn’t make the middle class poor.
Clinton got a b.j., and that’s all you idiots see…. Sheesh!
January 19th, 2009 at 9:52 amWe call that the “Dolly” pardon…
Rich was pardoned at the behest of the Mossad and the State of Israel, which Joe Conason repeatedd over the weekend, but which has been known since 2001.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:53 amIf Nancy starts impeachment proceedings today, does that mean that shrub can’t pardon Rummy, Cheney, or himself?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:00 amHi Dynamo
January 19th, 2009 at 10:00 amHum…
Why the bold?
Silly picture
Good work as usual Dr. Matt.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:00 amgeorge is only wondering if there is anyone he should just go ahead and murder.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:01 amHe knows this will be the last day he can easily get away with it.
He Kept Us Safe, but…
Washington Post – 31 minutes ago
By Fareed Zakaria That has become the mantra to explain why George W. Bush — contrary to the view of the American public, people abroad and historians — is actually a great man.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011801430.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
worth a read… just a hint of koolaid… mostly reality…
January 19th, 2009 at 10:03 amArranging murders or “suicides” is Cheney’s job isn’t it?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:03 amKeith H. Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 10:05 amgeorge is only wondering if there is anyone he should just go ahead and murder.
He knows this will be the last day he can easily get away with it.
I can’t think of anyone that george hates that much…except for us. Did anyone take his launch codes away yet?
Let’s ask Uncle Teddy on his opinion about the pardon:
Whaddya say, Ted?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:11 amZimzone Says:
Pardon me, but aren’t convicted felons supposed to go to jail?
IOKIYAR.
.
Dynamo Says:
Lets see who Clinton Pardon.
How is listing what pardonees were convicted of supposed to prove anything? Presumably anybody eligible for a pardon would have been convicted of something, right? Do you expect Presidents to pardon people who weren’t convicted of crimes? That’s not possible. You really can’t be that dumb, can you? Maybe you just never thought it through.
Besides, I can beat your entire list with the one guy whose death sentence Bush commuted while Governor of Texas. That’s the only approvaal out of 153 pardon/commute requests. That guy, there. Take a look.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:26 amfook boosh and his criminal cronies…
THESE kind are the REAL problem… via C&L:
[...]
According to Mark Potok at the SPLC, Turner has gone public this week with his threats:
On Friday, neo-Nazi threatmeister Hal Turner, amplifying on an earlier posting suggesting that it would be a good thing to use an unmanned drone carrying explosives to attack the crowds, said a mass murder of those attending the festivities “would be a public service.” “I won’t say what may happen Tuesday but I will say this,” Turner wrote on his blog. “After Tuesday, the name Hal Turner may live in infamy. Let it be known that I saw what was necessary and decided to do what had to be done. I make no apology to those affected or their families.”
Earlier, on Jan. 11, Turner had posted photos to his blog, under the headline “My Inauguration Dream,” of a small, unmanned drone, an electronic guidance system and sticks of dynamite as he laid out one method of attack. [...]
The racist right indulges its assassination fantasies
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/racist-right-indulges-its-assassinat
so, why isn’t THAT guy under arrest?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:30 amI wouldn’t doubt if Harry Reid hasn’t already asked Bush to Pardon Ted Stevens. He recently said “He didn’t think Stevens should go to prison because he had suffered enough as a veteran of WWII and because he has served 40 years in the senate.”
January 19th, 2009 at 10:35 amkaty Says:
so, why isn’t THAT guy under arrest?
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Probably because:
A-He is a republikkkan
B-Many in the secret service, FBI and Bush administration agree with him.
C-A,B
A chill ran down my spine when I saw the headline at the bottom of the CNN news ticker last night: Chertoff says inauguration security ‘ready’
Sorry I still don’t trust these bastards like Bush, Cheney and Chertoff and can only imagine the chaos that would erupt in this country racially if something were to happen to President Barack Obama.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:42 amI think Chimpy will not pardon Stevens because Chimpy wants his hand picked stooge, Norm Coleman (Steven’s fishing buddy)to have a companion in the fed pen. Since Chimpy will have no authority to parden Coleman, when convicted, since Obama will be our president.
Just a thought
January 19th, 2009 at 10:45 amI didn’t mean to sound so dark in my last comment but considering what has happpened to public figures in the past who promote love, peace and unity like JFK, RFK, MLK and John Lennon….
January 19th, 2009 at 10:46 ami understand, and agree, uncle fester…
watching skeletor opine about obama’s security only reinforced MY fears…
January 19th, 2009 at 10:51 amI can’t think of any President ever who has waited this long to issue final pardons. At all. Usually lame ducks kick out the pardon lits on Christmas Eve.
Maybe Bush has a big one planned, like Charles Manson.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:55 amNot to blogwhore or anything, but . . . about that Marc Rich pardon that gets the Right all gassy and bloated, you might want to take a closer look at what really happened, including the fact that Marc Rich has never returned to the US to use that pardon because President Clinton included a requirement that he pay back taxes in the millions of dollars.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:00 amBush to Ted:
” I have you in mind…”
Ted to Bush:
“You better hurry up; we have less than 24 hours to do it..and you don’t want to see me handcuffed and sent to prison”.
Bush to Ted: “Did you talk to Cheney”?!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:03 amI have a very uneasy feeling that the stack of pardons about to be released will resemble the US Tax Code in volume.
I hope I’m wrong.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:17 amI just dont see Bush pardoning Stevens after having to rescind the Toussie pardon. IE Stevens has not completed his sentence.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:20 amXisithrus Says:
I just dont see Bush pardoning Stevens after having to rescind the Toussie pardon. IE Stevens has not completed his sentence.
Yet another republican who can’t complete a sentence…
January 19th, 2009 at 11:29 amI don’t think commuting Ted Stevens’ sentence would be as bad a travesty as doing the same for Scooter Libby. I would like to see Ted Stevens pay for his crimes and would hope that whatever financial portion of the sentence would stand. He has already lost his Senate seat so he can do little more damage politically. A commutation or pardon at this point would serve as an exclamation point on the culture of corruption which Bush has fostered during his term in office.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am“Tomorrow, tomorrow; I love ya, tomorrow–you’re only a DAAAY Aaaa-waaaaaay!!!!!!”
January 19th, 2009 at 11:58 amI don’t think Bush cares about anybody but himself enough to pardon them. He can’t pardon himself before he’s been charged can he? If he could start pardoning people he knows are guilty it’s like pointing a finger at the people with the testimony we need.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pmAnd, I don’t think they can plead the 5th, if they have been pardoned.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:03 pmLet’s all read with the Law defines as approvel of a Presidential Pardon. Sorry Ted Stevens hasn’t had that 5 year waiting period. Now yes Bush can give it but it will not be legal. It will stay on the Legal dockets are a crime until 5 years and maybe Uncle Ted can ask President Obama for that pardon.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pmJackie Says:
Let’s all read with the Law defines as approvel of a Presidential Pardon. Sorry Ted Stevens hasn’t had that 5 year waiting period.
That’s not a law, that’s just the procedure that’s in place for consistency.
Here are the two factors I think Bush would consider regarding Stevens: 1) He knows him. 2) He likes him. From what we now know of Bush, that’s pretty much all the info he needs.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pmshoeless Says:
And, I don’t think they can plead the 5th, if they have been pardoned.
That’s right. You can’t stay quiet to avoid self-incrimination regarding something you can’t be prosecuted for anyways. If you get a free pass on something, then you can be compelled to testify about it.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:10 pmI just hope they investigate how Palin got her house built in Wasilla.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:11 pmOne hand washes the other….even with shit.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pmAn interesting scenario…IF pardons are granted and IF investigations are done and IF these people testify with smirking immunity, what place in America could they go where they wouldn’t at least be spit on?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pmShayne Says:
I just hope they investigate how Palin got her house built in Wasilla.
I hear it just fell out of the sky one day and landed on her sister.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pmShayne Says:
I just hope they investigate how Palin got her house built in Wasilla.
You mean the one under the Bridge to nowhere?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pmdbadass Says:
Hi Dynamo
Hum…
__________
Dynamo hum, dynamo hum… where’s that hum coming from?
Movin’ to Montana… gonna grow me some dental floss…
January 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pmraisin’ it up, choppin’ it down…
January 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmIs that a Mexican poncho or a Sears poncho?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pmShayne, I don’t care who you, that’s funny, house landing on her sister, tee-hee.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pmIt`s as good as done….
January 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmAnd, if they won’t talk, we could waterboard them, since it isn’t torture.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pmAll I have is a headline at this time but it reads:
January 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pmBush pardons two former border security agents.
Stevens is a seven time felon who has not publicly acknowledged his own complicity in his crimes. He is unrepentant and therefore should not be pardoned. Convicts should at least admit to their crime(s) prior to being offered a pardon.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pmDynamo Says:
Hopefully now the media, race baiters, and liberals will finally give the racial divisiveness a rest and start seeing people for what they are and not their skin pigment.
____________
So I guess we won’t be hearing anymore from the right about “Obama Waffles” or “Obama’s Baby Mamma” or “Terraist Fist Bumps” or “Macaca” or seeing anymore Curious George dolls w/ Obama stickers on the foreheads… huh?
January 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pmThe first time I saw the Curious George dolls w/ Obama stickers on the foreheads, I thought, “Don’t they realize that doll looks a lot more George W. Bush than it does Barack Obama?”
January 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pmBeing a corrupt Republican means never having to say you’re saorry.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pmsorry
January 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pmThe first time I saw the Curious George dolls w/ Obama stickers on the foreheads, I thought, “Don’t they realize that doll looks a lot more George W. Bush?
____________
No, they don’t. They also don’t realize how they themselves look to the rest of us. At the rate the GOOP is going, they won’t need a tent anymore for the party to meet in. They’ll be able to fit the whole damned mess into an airport bathroom stall soon enough.
If you’ve got the stomach for it, take a spin by Redstate and read some of the comments posted on the “Limbaugh – I Hope Obama Fails” thread.
Talk about a whiny hate-fest…
January 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pmDynamo Says:
Because of the actions of about 10 individuals, made popular by media outlets like this one and others. You assume every body that does not share your political party and ideology approves of scattered hyper inflated “racism”? That seems to me, to be a bigoted assumption on your part.
____________
Riiiiiiiiiiight… is that like YOU coming here and lumping ALL of us together w/ a meaningless phrase like “the media, race-baiters, and liberals”?
I mean, it’s not the GOOP’s leaders ever actually engage in this sort of behavior, huh? Ya know, describing the opposition’s candidate as “different from you and me” or telling an audience that people who live in cities “aren’t real Americans”.
I’m just asking? I mean, I’d hate to think you’re engaging in stereotypes here…
BTW, define “liberals” for me, so I understand what you’re referring to.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:10 pmDynamo Says:
Bush’s decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting…
Hopefully now the media, race baiters, and liberals will finally give the racial divisiveness a rest…
I don’t know. If it’s the “job” of our border security guards to kill and hide the bodies of immigrants, then I’d say there’s still some racial divisiveness going on, no?
.
Dynamo Says:
Because of the actions of about 10 individuals, made popular by media outlets like this one and others. You assume every body that does not share your political party and ideology approves of scattered hyper inflated “racism”? That seems to me, to be a bigoted assumption on your part.
The editorial staff of FAUX News is more than 10 individuals. Far more than 10 individuals have been recorded at Palin/McCain rallies saying bigoted things. Plus all the other people who stood by approvingly.
You have an odd definition of “bigotry” if you think you get to use the term to refer to people calling out bigots. We’re on to that game.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm#57 ElBruce
Sec. 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.
The good thing about the US Law is it is their for all the read. Your comment is not surprising with the effects that have taken place by Bush. But 5 years doesn’t change no matter how much you like someone. Now if Bush does decide to break the law by giving Unle Ted a pardon well it’s a good as a 3 dollar bill. Good news for Americans Eric Holder does know the Law and the Constitution. Guidelines and rules were set in place for those who choose to read them, others can just guess at what the answer should be. With no Justice System working for 8 years it’s not suprising that Americans go on that gut feeling. Bush will do his best to change the rules and break the laws/guidelines of Pardons as he leaves. But like a friend who gives you a fake drivers license you will get caught.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pmGee… where’d Dynamo go?
The conversation was just getting interesting.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pmThis is the same weird strategy of labeling us as intolerant because we don’t put up with homophobes, racists, and those who are intolerant of other religions.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pmOh, T_5, you’re really going to have to do better than a few re-heated nuggets of “Clinton Did It™” if you want to stay in the game here.
I mean, I know the guys your side is throwing out on the field are lame-o, but that doesn’t mean you have to play down to their level, does it?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:02 pmDynamo Says:
But, but, but, but CLINTON. Quick look over there or over there or somewhere there is a Dem doing SOMETHING bad lets talk about THAT. You wingnuts are worse than a broken record
January 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pmDynamo Says:
You are a liar and a fool. The racial divisiveness comes from YOUR side. Punks like you pretend that if race is mentioned at ALL it is racebaiting and that all racial prejudice dissapeared as soon as slavery was abolished. Hopefully racists and bigots like YOU will soon be delegated to the footnotes of history.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pmGee, I wonder if those three Republicans, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, had anything to do with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pmDynamo Says:
I assume that people pretending that all that racism is in the past like YOU have stated while those things and much MORE are going on are pushing a flawed agenda. I assume that the party that only a few years ago APPOLOGIZED for using the racist southern strategy MIGHT stop trying to push the meme that racism is all gone and if you bring up any discussion about race then you are race baiting I ASSUME that the minimum we can expect is honesty and I see NONE from your posts.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pmJust kinda sad that it’s all you have to bring to the party. You might have at least thought to bring some Ring Dings and Pepsi.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Clinton didn’t invade a sovereign nation based on lies.”
Although he did push for regime change but didn’t have the guts to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We would like to see regime changes in many places including China, Egypt, Somalia and Nicaragua. That doesnt mean it would be worth the PRICE of invading. That isnt being gutless its just not being an ignorant warmonger like YOU and BUSH. I would LIKE to have several thousand dollars doesnt mean I will rob a bank nor that I WONT do that because I am afraid. See it is that decency thing that morons like YOU have no conception of.
“Clinton didn’t make America hated in the world.”
America was already hated hence 9/11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True, hated by enemies. It took the genius of BUSH to make us hated by the ENTIRE WORLD.
“Clinton didn’t ruin the mortgage industry.”
He helped quite a bit though by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reasonable not to mention Glass Steagal. Clinton deserves some criticism here no doubt. Gramm is a putz
January 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Gee, I wonder if those three Republicans, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, had anything to do with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?”
How did you guess?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I noticed you were honest enough to put the GOP in the mix giving them part of the blame. I have to give you credit on that one.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pmEugeneDebs Says:
I noticed you were honest enough to put the GOP in the mix giving them part of the blame. I have to give you credit on that one.
____________
He had to, Eugene.
How else could he find a way to blame Clinton for SOMETHING??
____________
Now, about this regime change thingy… perhaps if Botch’s own father, and Rummy, and BiggusDickus too, hadn’t befriended Saddam in the first place, and helped arm him, none of this might happened, huh?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pmActually Eugene, I was the one who pointed out that the authors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were all Republicans. Tracy kind of glossed over that part while placing the blame on Clinton.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
That is surely true. It is however a bipartisan failing that we cozy up to convienient dictators. Even Carter comitted a warcrime by smuggling Tacho Somoza out of Nicaragua in a plane with red cross markings. Both Dems and Reps cozy up to the worlds worst people when convienient. Clinton LOVED Suhuarto one of the worlds worst butchers. So YEAh, lets stop doing that but if we make that criticism and WE want to be fair our own are just about as bad as the GOP on that score.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pmIf Bush pardons Ted Stevens, then Bush’s presidential legacy should go down as the ultimate partisan bridge that led to absolute ruin.
Hell, if Stevens gets a pardon then Randy “Duke” Cunningham should get one as well if Dumbya is playing a final game of “The Pardon is Right”!
Loyalist to the GOP? Serving prison time or about to? No need to fear, George W. Bush is here!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pmshoeless Says:
Actually Eugene, I was the one who pointed out that the authors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were all Republicans. Tracy kind of glossed over that part while placing the blame on Clinton.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I know you pointed it out but while Tracy may be bitterly partisan and often rude as can be he isnt an idiot. He surely understood we would KNOW Phil Gramm at LEAST was a rightwing GOPer. I dont think he was trying to gloss over anything. I think he deserves that credit. HEY I am as quick as anyone to go at the wingnuts when they deserve it but I believe in this case we were seeing some honesty. We really ought to give credit when it is due
January 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pmWell, if Tracy wanted to be totally up front, he would have phrased it more like this:
“Clinton didn’t ruin the mortgage industry.”
He helped quite a bit though when he made the mistake of signing the Republican bill, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:16 pmJackie Says:
#57 ElBruce
Sec. 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.
The good thing about the US Law is it is their for all the read…
My point is that the Code of Federal Regulations is a set of guidelines the Executive branch places on itself, not a law that the Legislative branch has placed on the Executive. So it’s not a “law” per se. Constitutionally speaking, the President could overrule it. Note the language:
Those “shoulds” oughtta tell you something.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
#24
“Clinton didn’t invade a sovereign nation based on lies.”
Although he did push for regime change but didn’t have the guts to do it.
Push how? There’s a huge difference between diplomatic action and killing people. Huge.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
“Clinton didn’t ruin the mortgage industry.”
He helped quite a bit though by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Granted. I’ll give you a point there. Somebody should have done something about that big fat CDS loophole in the 9 years since. Also would have helped if people in charge of regulating industries since then weren’t all lobbyists for those industries. Etcetera.
.
shoeless Says:
This is the same weird strategy of labeling us as intolerant because we don’t put up with homophobes, racists, and those who are intolerant of other religions.
It’s called “I’m rubber and you’re glue.” However, when what they’re “bouncing” is things like racism, hate speech and hate crimes, it’s not so funny.
.
EugeneDebs Says:
Even Carter comitted a warcrime by smuggling Tacho Somoza out of Nicaragua in a plane with red cross markings.
War crimes are pretty specifically defined. That’s not one.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:41 pmfixed it for ya t5.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThere you go Eugene. Tracy just blamed 3 more Democrats on top of blaming Bill Clinton for the financial collapse, without ever mentioning the word Republican. If I had not brought up the fact that the three authors of the bill which caused the biggest part of the problem were all Republicans, you can be sure that Tracy wouldn’t say it.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pmTracy__5 Says:
That doesnt mean it would be worth the PRICE of invading.”
Then why “talk it up”? Talk is cheap and easy to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because it would be a good thing if it happened which is NOT the same thing as being worth the cost of an invasion. What is it about a simple cost benifit ana& ysis that is eluding you? It would also be a good thing if the death squads in Columbia dissapeared. Does that mean it would be worth invading Columbia to destroy them? This is actually pretty simple
“I would LIKE to have several thousand dollars doesnt mean I will rob a bank…”
Why would you feel like you needed to rob a bank in order to obtain several thousand dollars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are on the VERGE of understanding the point. There are also other ways of marginalizing a regime and even getting rid of it than invading. IF they dont work you have to decide IF it is worth the cost of an invasion to both US and the civilian population of the country involved. That Cost/Benifit thing again.
“It took the genius of BUSH to make us hated by the ENTIRE WORLD.”
I they hate us so much they sure don’t mind doing business and taking American tourist dollars when they can. They might dislike what we have done but hate is when you with someone was dead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A non point coupled with a false dichotomy. Do you REALLY think no one does business with those they despise IF it means making money? Please tell me you arent that niave. Are you really arguing that people only hate others if they want them dead? In your world is EVERYONE a sociopath? Your definition of hate is flawed.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:46 pmTracy__5 Says:
Barney Frank isnt a liar you are just a brainwashed moron. This has been gone over already a few hundred times. You cells of the Limborg repeating lies dont make them true.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:50 pmA case in point is that Haliburton did business in Iran when Dick Cheney was CEO. Not only was that illegal at the time, but I don’t think anyone doubts that Dick Cheney despises the Iranians.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pmMylroie is a nutbag without a shred of credibility. YOU are a warmonger who just LOVES to see brown people being killed, no matter how many Americans have to die to accomplish it and who learned everything you know about foriegn policy from watching John Wayne movies. We SUPPORTED far worse thugs than Saddam. We SUPPORTED Pol Pot AFTER he comitted genocide. We SUPPORTED Suhuarto LONG after he slaughtered about 300,000 landless peasants in Indonesia. We gave Rios Montt a MEDAL OF FREEDOM after he slaughtered tens of thousands in Guatemala. We SUPPORTED Saddam during his worst attrocities. Yeah he was a bad guy. Acting nowhere NEAR as bad as he did when we supported him but a bad guy. You are just desperatly WISHING there were some justification for invading Iraq when there clearly WASNT.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pmDon’t say I didn’t warn you, Eugene. It is always a mistake to give Tracy credit for anything. If he occasionally says something that seems credit worthy, it’s probably an accident.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pmshoeless Says:
Yeah he is fiercely partisan. I still dont think he was trying to slip anything by. I doubt he thinks we are uninformed enough to now KNOW that was a republican bill or that at the very least Phil Gramm is a Republican
January 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pmTracy__5 Says:
I they hate us so much they sure don’t mind doing business and taking American tourist dollars when they can. They might dislike what we have done but hate is when you with someone was dead.
First of all, speaking as someone from the rest of the world, I think I can fairly say we don’t hate America. We may dislike obnoxious american tourists (NOT all of them, just the rude idiots) who think that everybody in the world should understand English, especially when spoken slowly and loudly.
We do hate what the Bush administration has done all over the world. GITMO, Abu Ghraib, “Shock and awe”, using and selling cluster bombs and depleted uranium, excusing Blackwater mercenaries’ actions in Iraq, CIA renditions, waterboarding, spying on telecommunications (both local and world-wide), calling everybody they disliked “unlawful combatants” so they could have any rights as POWs nor as criminals.
We also hate what the Bush administration did to your _own_ country: Katrina, FISA, presidential signing statements (also know as “F U Congress, I’m gonna do what I want ‘cuz I’m the deciderer!”), FEMA trailers… and so on and so forth.
/speaking for the rest of the world because I’m cool like that.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:00 pmNo, he knows better. He just wanted to blame Bill Clinton for it, and figured that no one would bother to point out that it was a totally Republican bill. That’s Tracy’s idea of being bipartisan.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:02 pmGod damn tracy, how do you remember to breath? How can you be this ignorant unless you just like being the odd ball?
There will be no tourist dollars from Americans for a while thanks to fools like you. The dollar is worth less than the euro you knucklehead, Americans are not traveling abroad. People from other countries are coming here because it’s cheap you damned idiot…. WAKE UP!!!
sorry but you really deserve that.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pmNot only that, but people are coming here from Europe to buy stuff made in China! What a great economic plan!
January 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pmTracy__5 Says:
Then why “talk it up”? Talk is cheap and easy to do.
Back then talking about regime change was not identical to talking about unilateral invasion. Yes, talk is cheap – especially in terms of human lives.
Consider the following two statements:
1) That country would be better off if that dictator weren’t running it.
2) I am willing to kill x% of that country’s population to remove that dictator from running it regardless of the precedent of international law, or of world opinion.
I see #1 as being an ethically correct statement. You consider #1 to be ineffective, but intentionally equivalent to #2. The difference is all the dead people. They’re important.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
I do it on a constant basis, however I forgot to give the current Dem leadership of Pelosi, and Reid for doing their part to screw this whole mortage thing and especially that liar Barney “I did nothing wrong” Frank.
You mean the guy who did nothing wrong? You just don’t like him ‘cuz he has great one-liners against you, and ‘cuz he gets all the man-lovin’.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act just started the snowball effect. The Republicans worked their asses off to set all this up while they had the majority for six years, and then they obstructed any attempt to rectify the situation. Blaming the Dems amounts to tryint go put the blame on the people who merely failed to stop you from destroying the country. That’s like saying it’s the cops’ fault you robbed that convenience store.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:24 pmTracy__5 Says:
“There are also other ways of marginalizing a regime and even getting rid of it than invading.”
Marginalizing yes…but sanctions wern’t doing much to foster Saddam stepping down. The whole CBA thing wasn’t working for anyone but US and certainly not the Iraqi people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This argument is just obtuse. How well did the invasion work for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded or their families? AGAIN, WANTING a regime change doesnt mean it was WORTH THE COST in lives and suffering. What part of that cant you understand?
“Your definition of hate is flawed.”
That’s YOUR opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah no actually it is plain fact
hate (ht)
v. hat·ed, hat·ing, hates
v.tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.
b. To detest.
2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.
v.intr.
To feel hatred.
n.
1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.
2. An object of detestation or hatred:
DO YOU see anything there about wanting people dead being a prerequisite for hate? Because I dont.
“In your world is EVERYONE a sociopath?”
Those who hate are. Those who hate others are a POS just like bin Laden.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So only sociopaths hate? ANYONE who hates is as bad as Ben Laden? Is that a joke? You arent REALLY making that argument seriously are you? That may be one of the dumbest things ever written in the English language.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:16 pmTracy__5 Says:
We do hate what the Bush administration has done all over the world.”
Fair enough. I hope EugeneDebs understands this. Debs do you HATE Bush or just what he has done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would I hate Bush. I dont know the man. He isnt coming over for dinner. He only EXISTS to me as far as his policies shape our world. Of course I dont hate him. I cant even understand how ANYONE could hate someone they dont know. It doesnt even make sense.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
OK Frank was wrong. Doesnt make him a liar.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:14 pmTracy__5 Says:
“So only sociopaths hate? ANYONE who hates is as bad as Ben Laden?”
Dude I don’t hate bin Laden. I hate what he believes and what he has done, but to hate someone is to NEVER be able to forgive them. This is MY definition and if you don’t like it that’s really too bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So then you are saying you MAKE UP definitions of words to fit your arguments. I am sorry the judges have ruled that words have REAL and ACTUAL meanings that you dont get to change, kind of like reality itself, in order to make you argument make sense when it doesnt. The word hate has an ACTUAL definiton and if YOU dont like it no sane person ANYWHERE cares. You can decide the word six means three plus four. THAT wont make it so.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pmTracy__5 Says:
“How well did the invasion work for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded or their families?”
I am in total agreement that the post invasion actions by the U.S. were totally fumbled. Rumsfeld was an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONLY was it fumble it was COMPLETELY morally unjustifiable. THAT is more to the point.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:19 pmWell for all the opinions and hopes for Uncle Ted Stevens to get a pardon Bush answered that with a big NO. Others who followed the Bush Criminal Team will not be pardon. It was this weekend that Daddy Bush told his idiot, drunken, drug addict son GW. Save yourself and the Bush Family name and let the others fight for themselves. Cheney can try and turn in some Hallibuton shares and pay off a Judge or two.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:17 pmTracy__5 Says:
BTW Clinton knew exactly what he was doing….but yes he did make another mistake.
As I said, granted. His mistake was compromising with Republican scum.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Marginalizing yes…but sanctions wern’t doing much to foster Saddam stepping down. The whole CBA thing wasn’t working for anyone but US and certainly not the Iraqi people.
Doesn’t justify starting a war.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
“Your definition of hate is flawed.”
That’s YOUR opinion.
Definitions, like facts, aren’t opinions.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Those who hate are. Those who hate others are a POS just like bin Laden.
So, you don’t hate anyone but you support an action that directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Which is worse, cold-blooded murder, or hot-blooded murder? Or is there really a difference?
.
Tracy__5 Says:
He is a liar and below is direct quote. He said that the mortage situation was just fine back in September 2007.
That’s approximately 12 months before Republicans were saying the mortgage situation was just fine. But even if it wasn’t there’s a difference between an error and a lie. An error is believing Republicans about anything. A lie is being one.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
“People from other countries are coming here because it’s cheap you damned idiot…. WAKE UP!!!”
People are comming here and have been for decades because of the opportunity and your are right it’s far less expensive to live here that other parts of the world expecially Europe.
The reference was to tourism due to the relative currency strength, not to immigration. Do you know what the impact of relative currency strength is on tourism? Do you know the difference between tourism and immigration?
.
Tracy__5 Says:
But, it’s still just talk and pretty much worthless.
…says the mouthpiece of the party who believes that diplomacy has never and will never accomplish anything.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
You seem to think #1, could have been achieved with out people dying. Nonsense. Do you actually think getting rid of Saddam would have been able to be achieved without people dying?
Dude, all I was saying was that speaking the truth kills no one. You’re the one with the necessary body counts.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
You actually think the Frank is blameless for the current mortage crisis we face today? Good joke.
Frank was not a cop in this case.
I specified then entire party who were the perpetrators in this instance. If you really believe that Barney Frank is such a powerful individual that he can take more credit for the mortgage crisis than the entire Republican party (every one of whom was pushing for it), then… I’m sure he’s flattered, but that’s just nuts.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
I am in total agreement that the post invasion actions by the U.S. were totally fumbled. Rumsfeld was an idiot.
The body count was in the six figures before “shock and awe” ended. Post-invasion actions are only a secondary factor here.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
…to hate someone is to NEVER be able to forgive them. This is MY definition and if you don’t like it that’s really too bad.
Definitions, like facts, aren’t opinions.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:34 pmA mistake Clinton made several times. It’s amusing to watch Republicans blame Bill Clinton for his mistake of compromising with Republican scum.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pmTracy, it is well documented that Bush lied more than 200 times in the months leading up to the Iraq War. Give it up chump.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Not ONLY was it fumble it was COMPLETELY morally unjustifiable. ”
Say who? You? You are nobody to make that determination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes I am. I am a citizen. What is done is done with MY tax dollars and in MY name. I am EXACTLY who should make that decision I am also someone who actually KNOWS what he is talking about. The big difference between YOU as a citizen and me. All the reasons first given for invading Iraq dissapeared into the fairy dust from whence they came. NO WMDs, NO collaboration with al Queda, NO connection with 9/11 when the rationale for an invasion has to keep changing the only logical reason is that the REAL reason would not sell. There actually is no rational moral justification whatsoever. Only desperate excuses. YOU may be brainwashed enough to except ANY reason given. Those of us with normal IQs are not so easily led
January 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pmTracy__5 Says: 136
What IS your problem Tracy is your vast ignorance. I POSTED the definition and the idiocy you made up and put INTO the word do not exist. You can PRETEND words mean whatever you want to make your idiotic argument make some level of sense but that is just another in your long line of delusional fantasies. Words dont mean whatever you WANT them to mean they have ACTUAL meanings and wanting someone dead is not any part of the definition of hate. Face it. You just never know what you are talking about and are forced to make the stupidest arguments imaginable to shore up your weak ass attempts at a point.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pmTracy__5 Says:
“OK Frank was wrong. Doesnt make him a liar.”
So that makes Bush wrong about Iraq’s WMDs not a liar as many people have said here repeatedly.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The difference of course is that Bush DID tell specific and outright LIES about WMDs. When he made UP the IAEA report that didnt exist when he told Congress and the American people the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges an entire YEAR after our own scientists said they were unlikely to be used that way at ALL much less could ONLY be used that way. Those werent just being wrong. When you make something up that doesnt EXIST to support your argument you are LYING. Bush IS a liar. It is what he does. The man lies like most people BREATHE. That is a simple fact.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pmTracy changes the definition of words according to whom he is referring. For instance, Barney Frank is a liar, even though he didn’t lie. On the other hand, Bush’s hundreds of lies about Iraq were honest mistakes.
In Tracy’s world, if you are a gay Democrat, everything you say is a lie. If you are a Republican fake cowboy, you are incapable of lying.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pmNo problem.
Study: Bush led U.S. to war on ‘false pretenses’
Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war
WMD, al-Qaida links debunked
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pmIn fact, Bush is still lying:
Bush Still Lies about Iraqi Inspections
In what’s been called George W. Bush’s first exit interview, the outgoing President continues a lie that he first unveiled several months after launching the Iraq War, justifying the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein didn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.
Share this article
Bookmark
Digg
Email
Printer friendly
Like previous times when President Bush has used this lie, it went unchallenged by the journalist who heard the false claim, in this case ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.
According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”
Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”
Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.
Hussein and his government also declared publicly that they didn’t possess WMD, including providing the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how Iraq’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed in the 1990s.
However, still set on invading, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003, a departure that was followed within days by his “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, beginning March 19.
Several months later, with Hussein’s government ousted and with the U.S. military coming up empty in its search for WMD caches, Bush began his historical revisionism by insisting publicly that he had no choice but to invade because Hussein supposedly had barred U.N. inspectors.
On July 14, 2003, Bush told reporters:
“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
Facing no contradiction from the White House press corps, Bush continued repeating this lie again and again in varied forms.
On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”
January 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pmI don’t know what information Barney Frank had at the time. I do know that Bush lied hundreds of times about Iraq, as I have shown you, and Bush continues to lie about Iraq, as I have shown you.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pmKnow how to click on a link dumbass? Jan. 2008 is when the study was released which documented the hundreds of lies by George W. Bush and his cabinet.
Now tell me that Bush did not know that UN inspectors were in Iraq the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003. C’mon Tracy, embarrass yourself some more by trying to defend the lies of your former Liar in Chief.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pmThis is rich. Tracy tells us that we don’t know whether Bush was given the information that UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, even though Bush himself ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq just before “Shock and Awe” began.
Tracy you have no self-respect.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:43 pmScott Stanzel was a White House spokesperson you jackass. You are using a statement by one of Bush’s minions to prove Bush wasn’t lying!
January 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pmDoes anyone think they are going to change someone’s mind on this site? You have extremists on both sides of the political fence. There is nothing that could be said here that has any chance of changing my mind. I’m sure that’s the case with 99% of the people reading this. Why waste your time and get all worked up? Nobody is buying what you are selling, unless they are already a customer of your product.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:12 pmWhen you have sex, do you ever know whether or not you are “in”?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:42 pmThere you go folks. The ultimate proof in the world of Tracy. A Bush spoksperson says Bush didn’t lie, so it is a point of fact.
Not much point in arguing further with you fool.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pmTracy__5 Says:
“I am EXACTLY who should make that decision I am also someone who actually KNOWS what he is talking about.”
I will bet your elected representative in the Senate in 2001 basically told you that isn’t so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont care WHAT they say. It is you WINGNUTS with a fixation of authority and worship of conformity. I am a citizen we ARE the top layer of government PERIOD. I am sorry you werent bright enough to know that
January 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pmTracy__5 Says:
If it was a bunch of lies as you claim it should have been a slam dunk for impeachment process. Did that happen?…I don’t seem to remember Dick Cheney being president for even one minute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
My GOD you are stupid. There are other considerations than CAN WE DO IT that determine impeachment. Reagan broke the law. He violated the Boland amendment and the evidence was airtight. We SAW the paper he signed authorizing it and he ADMITTED doing so. He wasnt impeached. I guess stupid as you are the fact no one was prosecuted for the St Valentines Day massacre means no one was killed. You do know you arent very good at this dont you?
January 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pmTracy__5 Says:
“In fact, Bush is still lying:”
It’s a known fact that Saddam WAS NOT allowing unfettered access as called for in UN 1441 or any other resolutions.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a liar and a fool. The inspectors said they were going everywhere they wanted without any obstruction. Just because it is a lie you tell on Planet Wingnut doesnt mean it has ANY connection to reality
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new. All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.
In assessing the degree of Iraq’s cooperation with the inspection process, the report makes a distinction between cooperation on “process” and cooperation on “substance”. In general, Iraq has been helpful on “process” and has, from the outset, satisfied the demand for prompt access to any site.
So are you just a LIAR or are you really this brainwashed?
January 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media,”
Yes as if Saddam didn’t know in advance which sites they wanted to visit.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are SUCH a moron. The inspectors report to the UN said they saw no EVIDENCE they knew in advance so exactly what are YOUR vast resources that you know better than those DOING THE INSPECTIONS? You are simply brainwashed and dont know a SINGLE THING you werent TOLD to know by some rightwing screechmonkey.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Scott Stanzel was a White House spokesperson you jackass.”
His statement was a point of fact.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No it wasnt YOUR delusions do NOT change reality. You are an idiot
January 20th, 2009 at 6:50 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Words dont mean whatever you WANT them to mean they have ACTUAL meanings and wanting someone dead is not any part of the definition of hate. Face it.”
Again word are open to interpretation and again it’s none of your business what I think the word “hate” means. Why is so hard for you just to say “We’ll just have to agree to disagree?”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Because the definition of words IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION FOOL. You think you are Humpty Dumpty from Alice Through the Looking Glass
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
How STUPID do you have to be to think this makes sense? What you really mean is you NEED it to mean that to make your idiotic argument make sense. Well let me leave you with Alices answer to HD
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The answer is not in the reality based universe you cant. Whatever you guys think on Planet Wingnut
January 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pmPortico Says:
Is that all there is? People whose mind is made up one way or another? That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Think there is no such thing as someone who drops by without KNOWING the facts or arguments reads both sides and comes away knowing just a bit more? Hey feel free to tune out. NO one is making you read our posts.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pmNotice in post #162 Tracy was arguing the definition of “in”.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pmSo are Bush apologists. As such, you are now officially irrelevant.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:22 pmTracy__5 Says:
You really are stupid and think you can redefine terms to fit your arguments. There is NO question we are the top layer of government. The President works for us FOOL. Now for another trip to the dictionary since you are basically illiterate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
We are a democracy by definition. If you are dumb enough to think that only pure democracies are democracies then none exist anywhere in the world and the word has no funtional meaning. You should stop trying to be humpty dumpty. Words do NOT mean just what you want them to mean. The actually mean what their definition is. One of these days you ought to try having some dim idea what you are talking about. By any reasonable definition including THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. A representative Republic IS a Democracy. Try to keep up
January 20th, 2009 at 11:26 pmTracy__5 Says:
You really are an idiot. Yeah he COULD have been impeached. Dems decided against it for political reasons JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH REAGAN WHO WAS PROVEN TO HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.
There isnt any question Bush lied. When he said Sept 7 2002.
I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq when they were finally denied access (which could only have been 1998) An IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear, the only kind of weapon the IAEA would HAVE a report about) weapon. No such report. Didnt exist. Bush lied. He made it up. The IAEA said the very next DAY they had no such report saying any such thing. Their actual position in 98 was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program in 91 and had seen no evidence they had reconstituted it. When he sent reports to congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used as gas centrifuges when the scientific evidence PROVED that was a lie. When he sent Condalizzard Rice out saying the anodyzed coating ( you can blame this on Condi if you want but it is all part of the same pattern) on the tubes PROVED they were for gas centrifuges when it would have to be removed to USE THEM FOR GCs, since uranium gas reacts badly to anodyzed coating. Remain as braiwashed as you want but there isnt any question Bush lied. Only your committment to believing ONLY what you are told to believe by the screechmonkeys that do your thining for you can possibly have you still arguing he didnt lie.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:34 pmTracy__5 Says:
You are an incredible joke. 1441 was written BEFORE the inspectors went back into Iraq in Nov of 02. The inspectors went in a couple of months later, so how in the WORLD can what 1441 said have anything to do with whether or not the inspectors THAT CAME AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN were getting unfettered access or NOT? They were. That is a fact. They said so DIRECTLY in their report to the UN. 1441 was talking about 1998 what in the WORLD does that have to do with 2003? ARE you this stupid or this desperate certainly you dont think that argument made sense do you?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:39 pmTracy__5 Says:
You mean the resolution that says DIRECTLY that the security counsel would remain siezed of the issue and denied the US the authority for unilateral invasion? The one that included that langauge specifically because it wouldnt pass otherwise? That our OWN DELEGATE TOLD FRANCE DIRECTLY DID NOT GIVE US THE AUTHORITY TO INVADE? THAT 1441? suggest YOU read it. However it doesnt have anything to do with whether or not the inspectors who went in AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN were getting unfettered access to the sites they wanted to inspect WHICH THE INSPECTORS CLEARLY SAID THEY WERE in the report TO the UN I linked to. You do know that you arent very good at this dont you?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:42 pmTracy__5 Says:
As if YOU making up fantasy definitions is fooling anyone. I linked to a DICTIONARY moron. In case you didnt know DICTIONARIES define words it is their function. You making things up and deciding that is what words mean because it will help your argument is you being stupid
January 20th, 2009 at 11:44 pmI showed my wife your arguments here she said obviously the tax dollars spent on your education were wasted.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:45 pmTracy__5 Says:
Ludicrous. The scientists are under on PERSONAL obligation to talk to the UN or anybody else they WERE given access to them. They just wouldnt talk. Your argument that Bush meant THIS when he said they wouldnt let us in is just absurd. THE INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ. They were going wherever they wanted to go.
The Iraqi scientists WERE interviewed
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/25/eng20021225_109028.shtml
UN arms inspectors on Tuesday resumed their “regular interview” of Iraqi scientists after a four-year suspension while inspecting at least 11 sites suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The UN experts “requested an interview with a particular Iraqi scientist, conducted separately from the rest of the inspection” inthe Baghdad Technical University, the UN team’s spokesman Hiro Uekisaid in a statement.
The Iraqi scientist said he refused to be questioned in private and asked to have Iraqi officials from the National Monitoring Directorate present during the interview.
How in the WORLD can you say that in any way violates the UN MANDATE? Were they supposed to kidnap the scientist? What exactly do you think the conspiricy is? We KNOW there were no weapons programs in Iraq in 03 so what do you think they were covering up? This is simple. The inspectors WERE IN IRAQ. Bush said we invaded because they didnt let the inspectors in
July 14, 2003 a press conference with Kofi Annan Bush said “”The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in [emphasis added]. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power…”
Gave him a chance to let the inspectors in and he wouldnt let them in. It is ludicrous to say he meant interviews with scientists. Bottom line Bush is both a liar AND a fool. He thinks he can rewrite history the way YOU think you can redefine words. That argument by the way is just too absurd for words. I cannot belive you are basically saying WWWWWAAHHHHHHH, I dont care what YOU say, I dont care what dictionaries say. Words mean what I want them to mean WWWWAHHHHH. I mean that is just precious. Do you LIKE to be wrong? Do you get stubborn EVERY time you are shown to be wrong because it gives you some kind of charge? This is ludicrous. Bush lied. No way out of this.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:18 amhttp://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/ma_iraq_2412.shtml
24 December 2002 — In recent interviews, IAEA Spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said that the Agency’s nuclear inspectors have started interviewing Iraqi nuclear scientists. “We are moving from an information-gathering phase to a more probing, investigative phase,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post.
Speaking to the Associated Press and other wire services, he said that “interviews are taking place, but we are not revealing when or how many or with whom.” He said the steps were part of efforts to build a fuller understanding of Iraq’s nuclear programme through stepped up “investigative” efforts. “Now that we are refining that understanding, we are able to do one-on-one interviews in a more strategic way,” rather than interviewing lots of people who may or may not have specific information the inspectors seek, he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky noted that scientists are being interviewed in Iraq, and that the Agency has not moved to exercise its authority under Security Council mandate to conduct interviews with scientists taken outside the country. The practical arrangements and modalities for such interviews are being worked out, he said. Considerations include, he noted, taking account of the kind of exposure scientists would receive by leaving the country; consent of the individuals involved and their families to leaving the country; and the protection of individuals taken to other countries, including the possibility of asylum.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a recent interview that he would interview Iraqi scientists abroad if he received assurances that they could obtain political asylum or return safely to Iraq. “We are now in the process of interviewing people inside Iraq in private,” he noted 23 December in an interview with CNN. “But we are also working on the practical arrangements to take people out of Iraq.”
January 21st, 2009 at 12:22 amTracy__5 Says:
Oh my goodness. You are saying the NSC isnt BOUND BY THE LAW? So Congress passes a law and the President can say WELL sure but I mean that doesnt apply to what I want to do? That is ludicrous. The NSC doesnt get to opt out of whatever laws Congress passes. There is no QUESTION Reagan could have been impeached. They CHOSE not to do it.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:47 amTracy__5 Says:
You are being ridiculous. What did you want them to do KIDNAP the scientists? They were OFFERED assylum and to be taken out of the country with their families. They declined. Was the UN supposed to FORCE them to defect? AGAIN what do you think they were protecting since we KNOW IRAQ HAD NO WMDs? The times article is irrelevant to the point we have been making as is this argument about the scientists since Buah said “”The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in>
GET THAT? WE GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO ALLOW THE INSPECTORS IN AND HE WOULDNT LET THEM IN. NO way that is talking about interviews. It is simply a lie.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:52 amhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964501-2,00.html
Did the Boland amendment apply to the National Security Council? The White House contends that the NSC does not fit the definition of an “entity engaged in intelligence activities.” A secret opinion by the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board took this approach in 1985. Former Watergate Prosecutor Philip Lacovara agrees that if Congress intended the amendment to apply to “other than those persons connected with official intelligence agencies, it could and should have said so.” But many experts agree with Tribe that NSC officials were clearly “acting as intelligence agents.” Even Robert McFarlane testified that it was his “common-sense judgment” that the law applied to the NSC, which he headed.
So McFarland who HEADED the NSC thought it applied to them but that isnt good enough? That has to be a joke
January 21st, 2009 at 1:02 amHow in the WORLD can someone as stupid as YOU talk about anyone ELSE being anything other than brilliant. Compared to YOU my GOLDFISH is Stephen Hawkins. You are arguing in IGNORANCE and 1441 is STILL irrelevant to the FACT the inspectors WERE IN IRAQ, GOING WHERE THEY WANTED unimpeded whatever problems they had with the scientists. Bush said he DIDNT LET THEM IN. A lie NOT in any way changed by the scientists not wanting to cooperate with the UN. By they way you keep dodging the FACT they had nothing to hide. We KNOW there were no WMD programs. You are doing the con two step. But the scientists. WHO CARES. The inspectors were there going wherever they wanted. Bush said Iraq DIDNT LET THEM IN. If YOU cant see that you are too stupid to continue to hog oxygen a higher life form could be using. I guess YOU still havent read 1441 if you dont know IT DIDNT AUTHORIZE the US to invade no matter WHAT you think or WHAT Bush thought about Iraqi compliance. The UN didnt think Iraq was in non compliance. You just WISH it were true because again you are making an ignorant argument. Also an irrelevant one. Bush lied. You havent come within a parsec of showing he didnt trying to move the goalposts to some idiocy about the scientists. IT IS IRRElEVANT IRAQ HAD NO WMD PROGRAMS YOU MORON AND BUSH LIED PERIOD.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:10 amNO IT WASNT MORON. They CHOSE not to impeach. You are ignorant. McFarland ADMITTED the amendment applied to the NSC. My GOD you are ignorant
It said
“no funds available” to the CIA, the Defense Department or any “entity of the U.S. involved in intelligence activities” could be used “directly or indirectly” to support the contras.
McFarland ADMITTED it applied to the NSC. Reagan signed an authorization to violate that amendment. YOU are a moron
January 21st, 2009 at 1:14 amTracy__5 Says:
You are so stupid. Bush wasnt talking about the scientists. The UN didnt find them in violation and YOU arent the decider that they were. THEY are and they didnt make any such determination but I said who cares BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT WE WERE ARGUING YOU INSUFERABLE FOOL. Bush said Iraq wouldnt LET THEM IN. Not wouldnt let them make the kind of interviews or scientists that would make MORONTRACY happy. My GOD you are ignorant.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:17 amMy GOD you are stupid. I was arguing IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT WE ARE MAKING. Bush wasnt talking about interviews when he LIE YOU IDIOT. You do know you are a moron right?
January 21st, 2009 at 1:19 amTracy__5 Says:
No STUPID but he was heading the agency we were talking about so he thought he was violating the Boland amendment which is why they had Reagan sign off on the violation. This wasnt pursued because Dems didnt WANT to impeach Raygun. They easily COUlD have. Had this gone before a judge they would have had to argue that the NSC isnt an intelligence gatehring agency even though the guy who headed it thought they were. Only if they found a judge as stupid as YOU would they have a snowballs chance in Saudi Arabia.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:21 amThats enough Tracy. You are too stupid to be bothered with. Facts. Reality. They mean nothing to you. You just decide to change arguments, evade facts, and demand the right to define words to mean any stupid thing you need them to mean. This may seem reasonable on Planet Wingnut but really you are incredibly stupid on Planet Earth
January 21st, 2009 at 1:24 amEugene,
January 21st, 2009 at 2:25 amDid you know that Tracy claims to be an architect who designs leaky medical buildings? He says he hires unskilled, non-union labor to build his leaky medical centers, and blames the flaws on union workers.
Seriously, I couldn’t make this stuff up.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:27 amshoeless Says:
Eugene,
Did you know that Tracy claims to be an architect who designs leaky medical buildings? He says he hires unskilled, non-union labor to build his leaky medical centers, and blames the flaws on union workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe you. I think I have had about enough of trying to beat Q-tips into anvils. The guys head is so dense I think light actually bends around it. For certain reality has no ability to penetrate it.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:43 amTalk about utter BS. For 8 years we had to listen to you a-holes tell us that what Bush said wasn’t what he really said. Screw you. Bush lied. The inspectors were in Iraq.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 pmSo, you agree that the inspectors were in Iraq? If so, THEN BUSH LIED!
Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”
On July 14, 2003, Bush told reporters:
“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”
nOW tRACY, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “IN”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pmWhat’s the matter? Are you a quitter?
After the invasion of Iraq, were the US military inspectors more “in” than the UN inspectors were before the invasion? You can’t get much more “in” a country than to occupy it militarily, can you Tracy? How many more WMD did our military inspectors find after the invasion? Oh yeah, it was the same number of WMD that the UN inspectors found when they were “in” Iraq before the war.
Seek help you poor deluded fool.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:30 amOf course, it was apparent that Iraq WAS allowing inspectors “in”. BUSH LIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”
On July 14, 2003, Bush told reporters:
“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”
NOW TRACY, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “IN”.
After the invasion of Iraq, were the US military inspectors more “in” than the UN inspectors were before the invasion? You can’t get much more “in” a country than to occupy it militarily, can you Tracy? How many more WMD did our military inspectors find after the invasion? Oh yeah, it was the same number of WMD that the UN inspectors found when they were “in” Iraq before the war.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:58 amSimply put, for the simpleton, the UN inspectors obviously were allowed “in” enough to find exactly the same number of WMD that the US military found after they were “in” during the occupation of Iraq.
ZERO! Just like you.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:03 am