July 12, 2005
Another Damaged Part of Bush Machine
July 11,2003 Joseph Wilson writes an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. He writes that his investigation into allegations that Iraq purchased Uranium Yellowcake from Niger were untrue. He went on to write that He had been left with “little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”
The Bush administrations response was to break the cover of a CIA analyst in order to discredit criticism of the way George W. Bush used intelligence(Made up)in the run-up to the Iraq war.
The United States attacked Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change.
This is illegal,immoral and he and the rest of this regime should be held accountable.
The Downing Street Memos, Joseph Wilson's report, Rove's actions and the absence of WMDs once again show the American people just how dishonest and disfunctional the Bush administration is.
Andre, your partisanship is just too obvious for me to take you seriously, however I will point out one thing you may not know. The official policy of the US towards Iraq was one of containment until 1995 (maybe 1996, unsure) when the official policy shifted to regime change. That happened under the Clinton administration. You are right, we attacked Iraq based on 17 UN resolution violations, resolution #1441 specifying “serious” consequences if violated, the peospect of WMD and regime change and none of it was illegal or immoral. Quite the opposite was what Saddam was up to which was truly illegal and immoral.
Posted by: Jay at July 12, 2005 09:32 AMHA HA Lookie what I found, I’m so excited to point out YET AGAIN another reason why we are at fault…….WE ARE AT WAR LIKE IT OR NOT!!!Jesus already, if you want to be productive, search for answeres to fix the problem and come back later!!!Hint….(Bush is a poopie head does not cut it)!
Posted by: Traci at July 12, 2005 09:44 AMWith all due respect to this article’s author and, to the regular contributors to Watchblog, this topic constitutes nothing more than “more of the same”.
There are no longer any ways to discuss and/or debate WHY/WHAT THE REAL REASON is for the Iraq war. It is impossible for the supporters of the “Bush Lied” position to come up with anything original about that theory/fact nor, is it reasonable to expect that the “Bush did not lie” or “even if he did lie” we still needed to go to war with Iraq supporters can convince their detractors otherwise.
Were there WMD, were there not WMD, did Iraq have enriched uranium or not, and on and on and on.
Let’s go on to something relatively new/fresh.
Posted by: steve smith at July 12, 2005 10:22 AMSteve:
Good point. Both sides seem to be entrenched in their positions, and are bolstered by the “facts” that they choose to believe, as well as by the conclusions they reach from looking at those facts.
It is quite possible for two equally intelligent people to reach diametrically opposed opinions, depending on the viewpoint they are coming from. It is not stupid to believe that the war was based on a lie, nor is it stupid to believe that the war was a necessary thing. Of course, those on the polarized left or right will think the opposition is stupid or ignorant, but it just isnt true.
The question to be answered is : How do we move forward from here?
We can pull out of Iraq immediately, or on a measured time frame, or leave the time frame totally unidentified. We can stay in Iraq forever. We can close our borders or choose to leave them open, so that the terrorists dont “win”.
But, our society at this point must look forward to solutions, rather than backwards in blame. We are where we are—nothing will change that. This is not to say that we should stop investigations of how we reached this point. It is, however, to say that thos investigations should not halt our forward progress.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 12, 2005 11:39 AMAndre,
You are right. As retribution for release of information contrary to the policies of the administration, the BushCo pack dogs were released.
In this instance, the violation of law is clear.
In this instance, G W Bush’s policy of protect the faithful even at the expense of national security is clear.
In this instance, the inability of the conservative narrow minded (e.g. posts 1 and 2) to face realities is clear.
In this instance, the pain of the conservative faithful or tired(e.g. “please, we get it, no more already” posts 3 and 4) is clear.
In this instance, it is also clear that changing the subject or mentioning false and/or unrelated facts is the consistent defense (e.g. posts 1,2, and 3).
As social liberals (this is not partisanship, Jay, this is philosophical foundations) it is our duty to take the place of the subjugated and incarcerated fourth estate. Steve, we don’t need something new. We need to constantly, redundantly, and even tautologically remind people of the hypocracy and immorality of this administration.
Bush lied to justify going war in Iraq. I’m as confident that history will prove it as I am that the apologists will continue to obfuscate.
Posted by: Dave at July 12, 2005 11:42 AMSteve Smith wrote:
With all due respect to this article’s author and, to the regular contributors to Watchblog, this topic constitutes nothing more than “more of the same”.
Steve, I fear that this misses the point. It is a grave matter if someone in public office leaks classified information for political purposes. It should disgust us if it’s true. And we should talk about it — because (again, if it’s true) we should demand that someone be held responsible, demand that this type of thing never happens again.
To argue that we’re already at war and should focus on finding solutions to the “problem” also misses the point. If someone intentionally leaked classified information for political purposes, that IS a problem, and one which we need to address.
I think that it’s important for this particular discussion to take place aside from considerations of political gain (on one side or the other). Bush should (if the allegations are true) fire anyone involved in leaking the information. Democrats should focus on the issue at hand, and beware of a tendency to pounce on the issue for political gain themselves.
But still…let’s think about it. A major political figure seems to be involved in leaking classified information for revenge. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, this should disgust us. Our country deserves better.
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 12, 2005 11:46 AMAndre bringing up headline news about a possibly corrupt administration is certainly legitimate. The old ‘lets talk solutions instead’ defense is as worn out an excuse as any.
That being said, I’m not so sure I believe Rove and Co. did this for evil retribution. That doesn’t seem to make sense as a way of intimidation. Seems he was just making the point that Cheney was not the one who asked for the Wilson investigation and didn’t realize the security implications - it’s much easier after the fact to see it. The problem Rove and Co have (and they well deserve this problem) is that the administration has lied for years about His/their involvement. The idea of returning integrity to the White House is the biggest lie of all.
Posted by: Tom G at July 12, 2005 11:54 AMThe CIA agent leak is old news. You can’t prove that the Bush Administration is involved. Until you can, move on.
Posted by: Gandhi at July 12, 2005 12:00 PMWhere have you been Gandhi? The cat is out of the bag.
Posted by: Tom G at July 12, 2005 12:17 PMGhandee,
It took $30000000+ to find out that Clinton came on a dress. You need to give this some more time before you brush it off. Unless, of course, since Bush talks to God this “Who me?” must be true too.
Gandhi, yes the CIA leak may very well be old news; however, the Republicans spent 2-3 years searching and prosecuting Clinton on a number of crimes, all of which to me and many of my political friends (all of us moderate Independents) felt like was old news. Why is it only CURRENT NEWS if it is something the Republicans feel strongly about? Why is it only worth investigating if it is something the Republicans feel strongly about? Leaking a CIA Agents name is a serious crime. And IF the Bush Administration IS involved, I hope that this judge, Fitzgerald, will pursue it until the very end. And until that time has come, this is news that should be kept in the headlines because Americans have a very short attention span and need to be reminded of this, lest they forget.
Posted by: Ravyne at July 12, 2005 12:19 PMMost readers on Watchblog do not have short attention spans, and do not need to be continuously reminded by identical posts of declining quality. Don’t insult your peers.
Dave - we have the Starr report on Clinton. Let us know when you have something as significant on Bush, and we’ll happily prosecute. Oh, and who the hell is “Ghandee”?
Posted by: Gandhi at July 12, 2005 12:31 PMOK guys, have at it. Far be it from me to suggest that some topic new and fresh, the resolution of which would enrich all of our lives should get in the way of good old knock down, drag out Bush bashing.
BTW I heard that Bush once caught an undersized fish and, his dad and he conspired to keep it.
Posted by: steve smith at July 12, 2005 12:34 PMI find it interesting that many who decried the investigation into the Clinton lies now use those investigations as a reason for future investigations. And others who reveled in the Clinton investigations now decry the current investigations. Folks, be consistent, not partisan.
Investigations are necessary in our form of government. Because we value freedom, we have freedom. And having freedom means recognizing that some will abuse those freedoms.
We trusted Clinton and Nixon, but they lied. They was not the only ones to do so. I’d rather say they were just ones who got caught, since I dont think ANY politician gets out of office without some degree of lying. (They don’t get INTO office without some degree of lying either, usually)
But for Pete’s sake, folks, dont use something that you disliked as a reason to do it again. And dont now fight against that which you fought for previously.
Consistency, rather than partisanship, should be the key point.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 12, 2005 12:39 PM“this is news that should be kept in the headlines because Americans have a very short attention span and need to be reminded of this, lest they forget”
Amen! Look how easy its been to forget about clintons (blah) lies and crimes.
Posted by: kctim at July 12, 2005 12:45 PMWhat will the left do if its turns out that Rove made a statment to the press without outing, or naming anyone, and the real leak came from a Democrat in the Senate? One with security clearance? One that had real knowledge that plame worked at a desk for the cia?
I’ll bet that then it will be no big deal, huh?
I have heard (from un-named persons) that this is exactly what will be proven.
I don’t know if its true, but it sure as hell is as creditable as a NYT reporter protecting Carl Rove!
We’ll have to wait and see.
Have the Administrations supporters on this thread (and there are many)posted even a single word addressing the specific claim of corruption in the original post? I dont think so. Funny thing is, I think there is a case to be made in defense.
Nice debating people - you’ve learned well.
Posted by: Tom G at July 12, 2005 12:53 PMAnd so it goes;
Bush lied; people die, so far about 150,000.
Clinton lied; Hillary’s pissed but forgave him, Monica’s forgotten about, Tripp got a face job, and Gaandi still won’t say if he takes the bible literally.
Joe,
Of course the persecution is political. Despite the fact I’m a liberal, I think anyone of reasonable neutrality sees a difference in the magnitude of effects these lies have had.
Finally,
If what Rove told revealed Plame, he needs to pay no matter what his party affiliation. Period. It needs to be investigated. Period. Unnamed sources are useless.
Nobody’s commented on or even seemed curious about why Cooper was told by his source to break confidentiality and Miller wasn’t. It seems that we’re talking about two different sources here.
Beagle, the more I study the timelines and relationships between those in question, the more convinced I am that Wilson and/or Plame disclosed Plame’s status (or what they claim to be her status) to Miller, who then disclosed it to others, and that Rove actually first heard about Plame from a reporter!
It’s utterly unthinkable that the NYT would let one of their reporters go to jail if Karl Rove was the source and he was releasing the reporters from that confidentiality. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that we’re talking someone other than Rove.
This entire web of events make no sense if Rove is at the center of it.
It seems more likely that in additon to standing on journalistic principle, Miller doesn’t want to talk about her source because doing so would be “outing” a supposed CIA operative.
I don’t know if my theories are correct, but they’re at least as good a guess as anything else being tossed around.
Posted by: sanger at July 12, 2005 01:20 PMYeah, none of this is important.
Just like a reporter with no credentials, who also happens to be a male prostitute, is planted inside the White House to lob softball questions to the president, shouldn’t be considered important.
Like the administrations insanely Nixonian levels of secrecy, shouldn’t be considered important.
Like all the information about the military’s secret bombing runs into Iraq before Congressional approval to go to war, or the facts for that war “being fixed around the intelligence” as revealed in all those Downing Street Memos, shouldn’t be considered important.
Like no bid contracts awarded to companies with ties to the administration, or 9 billion dollars going missing in Iraq, shouldn’t be considered important.
Nothing should be considered important, indeed, everything is quite spotless about BushCo — it’s that Clinton who was a really terrible president!
Posted by: Adrienne at July 12, 2005 01:27 PMAnd so it continues: a lie is OK as long as its your side doing it.
clinton lied nobody died my ass. Tell that to those who knew people in the aspirin factory, somalia, bosnia etc… Give me a break!
My conspiracy theory about this goes way beyond what the left thinks, but damn, at least I’m not going to condemn one and make excuses for the other when he’s guilty of the same thing.
Adrienne,
Exellent point.
If this doesn’t work out for those that demanded the investigation, One can always fall back on;
A male prostitute reporter that didn’t ask tough questions.
Richard Nixion?
Secret bombings?
Downing street notes.
If all else fails, stamping ones feet is always a good final option.
Posted by: Beagle at July 12, 2005 02:20 PMA couple of points:
“But, our society at this point must look forward to solutions, rather than backwards in blame. We are where we are—nothing will change that”
No, I think assigning blame for failure is quite important — just as assigning credit for success is important. Team Red doesn’t hesitate to take credit for percieved success, e.g. the elections in Iraq last January. If Bush wins a Nobel Peace Prize will you still want to look forward, not back? We obviously need to have accountability for failure, and if we as a nation have made a wrong choice, then we need to understand how that happened to ensure it isn’t repeated.
Which is not to say “we never should have gone into Iraq” logically implies “we should pull out ASAP”. It does not, and I think most Americans realize that.
Point two, Rove’s outing of Plame is not “more of the same.” Plame was identified as “working for the agency on wmd issues” - not by name, but as “Wilson’s wife”, which is certainly clear enough - to a reporter. Revealing the identity of an undercover agent like this is a serious crime, if it is judged an intentional act. Whether it was intentional or not is pretty hard to prove, which is why I doubt Rove will actually serve time for this, but it certainly benefited team Red. If it’s not a crime, it’s still a serious error - a serious breach of security - and needs to be addressed. And yes, I’d say the same if it was a Democrat that did it.
And if we’re going to go back and consider blame for Clinton - I believe that the Democratic party was severely damaged when Clinton refused to resign after his affair with Lewinsky became public knowledge. (Arguably he shouldn’t have been impeached, but I think that he should have held himself to a standard higher than following-the-letter-of-the-law and stepped down.) I know of life-long Dems that voted for Bush in 2000 simply because they were disgusted by Clinton’s conduct. I don’t think it’s too partisan to ask a man whose job requires access to classified data, and who has admitted to outing a CIA agent (intentionally or otherwise) to resign.
Point three, welcome back joebag.
Posted by: William Cohen at July 12, 2005 02:27 PMkctim,
Give me a break! Few people are stupid enough to believe there is relevancy to those quesitons. Are you comparing a single missle attack on a terrorist headquarters (correctly determined or not) to the Iraq war? Are you comparing a short, internationally agreed to minor war in Europe to Iraq? How many US casualties were there in Bosnia? Did Clinton lie to the world to enter Bosnia? Did the UN participate in Bosnia? Etc… Etc… Etc…
I only see an attempt to deflect from the evil empire currently living in the white house.
Beagle,
When all else fails, sticking ones head in the ground seems to work for the Bush43 apologists.
I believe sanger makes some valid points. Could anyone from the blue column stop their Bush bashing long enough to deal with these points? Or do you just ignore valid points?
Perplexed
Well said William!
Dave
“I only see an attempt to deflect from the evil empire currently living in the white house”
And I only see somebody justifying lies from their side by saying “what he did was worse.”
To commend clinton (blah) for anything other than being able to nail a girl half his age is ridiculous.
To excuse his actions and hold him to a lower standard because of what party he belongs to is stupid.
Read Mr. Cohens post. THAT attitude probably would have won the Whitehouse in 2000!
Instead, defending to the death as you guys did and continue to do, proved to be just that, the death of the left.
Well, at least for eight years.
WB joebag
Posted by: kctim at July 12, 2005 03:07 PMThis is ironic. With minor exception (read it and see) the identical discussion is going on in the next thread under the title :
The Political Name Game
Never mind what the topic is supposed to be in either of these two threads, what is being said is virtually identical.
I believe sanger makes some valid points. Could anyone from the blue column stop their Bush bashing long enough to deal with these points? Or do you just ignore valid points?It’s pretty apparent to all that there is more than one source. Rove’s lawyer has already admitted he leaked the info (though not the specific name). I dont know what more it will take to convince some Rove is involved.
There has actually not been that much Bush bashing. It’s not even about him except he is probably going to go back on his statement that he would dismiss anyone involved. He likes nothing more than pissing off his critics. (This is not a Bush Bash).
The red column only plays offense - and predictably well. Where’s the D?
Posted by: Tom G at July 12, 2005 04:03 PMWilliam:
First of all, thanks for noticing I’m back. Secondly, you state that Rove DID out Valerie Plame, when that is really not substantiated at this point. Rove has admitted to talking to reporters, but not to “outing” Valerie Plame.
It seems to me that Wilson’s trip, and how his involvement was suggested by Plame, is a salient point. He wasn’t picked necessarily because of his credentials, but in part because of his marital relationship. He tried to deny this and to make it look different—-i wonder why.
In reality, I dont see how “outing” Plame helped the Republican party. There was enough to discredit Wilson without this information, though, as i said, its salient that he got the job in part due to his wife’s influence.
Rove will not be held accountable, whether he did this or not. Lanny Davis, Clinton counsel, already has said its virtually an unprovable case, since the letter of the law requires the leaker to have “known” that Plame was a spy. And that is nearly impossible to prove.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 12, 2005 04:17 PMI know this is going to take some people posting here by surprise, but Clinton is not in the White House anymore. All discussions aimed at him are purely academic.
Bush is in the White House - and this point is crucial. Every couple of weeks there is more and more evidence that points to the fact that Bush had an agenda prior to attacking Iraq + Bush either misrepresented or outright lied about the intelligence supporting his claims as to Iraq’s violation of the UN resolution (or WMDs for short.)
If any Bush supported can outright refute these charges, then please do so. Stop deflecting the point by saying it’s been said before.
Also - and please be honest about this - if Bush did lie or misrepresent to get us into Iraq, would you continue to support him?
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 04:18 PMtony~
Exactly~ Clinton is NOT in the white house (although people do want to bring him back as first man………..extremely scary). But at least he had been there, I’m sick of hearing Kerry this, and Kerry that………NOT ONE PERSON knows what Kerry would or would not have done!
Posted by: Traci at July 12, 2005 04:40 PMTony,
I will be honest with you. There are a myriad of reasons that people lie. Actually some mis-truths are helpful in certain situations (child raising, etc.). I have not said this to create a comparison with what Bush is accused of.
In any case, if it came out that Bush lied, I would assume that he did it for a reason that he felt was in the best interests of the people who elected him.
I will continue to support him under any conditions whatsoever because he is our President. When the rest of the world sees us continually casting doubt and shame on our president (deserved or otherwise) it is not a good thing. I will support him until the final day of his term and they are moving his furniture out of the white house.
Then, when the next Republican candidate is nominated I will support him for the same reasons. For all the world, I wish it would be Jeb Bush, Bush’s wife or one of the twins.
Posted by: steve smith at July 12, 2005 04:59 PMJoe-
Hi. Welcome back.
The only thing protecting Rove at this point is ambiguous phrasing. No other leakers have been identified at this point, which leaves Rove prime suspect.
If somebody comes forward and reveals that this was discussed strategically, then it’s all over for Karl. Unlikely, but then wait long enough and things like this happen. We don’t know the whole story here, but the very subject of the discussion was discrediting Wilson by saying he was recruited by his CIA wife. Rove knew what he was telling Cooper. Did he know he was revealing something? If he was cleared that high the case could be made that he should have known enough to keep his mouth shut, or at least leave out who the CIA recruiter was.
Regardless, is this the kind of gamesplaying our politicians should engage in? This is our national security, not merely who gets into office next election.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 12, 2005 05:30 PM“I will continue to support him under any conditions whatsoever because he is our President”
Steve, with all due respect, that is wrong.
That way of thinking is exactly why the left looks like hypocrites today.
They blindly defended clinton (blah) because he was from the left and even to this day, they refuse to see him as the criminal and liar he was/is.
They condemn Bush for the very same things they excused clinton (blah) for.
Why do you think they always skirt the issue by saying “its not the same” and refuse to look at the facts.
It would be a sad deal to see you stoop to that level.
IF Bush is guilty, he must go.
Steve Smith-
And if he screws up?
And if he leads us to ruin?
And if he puts shame on us all?
I liked Clinton, but I will not hesitate to say that not everything he did was good or even right, and that those things are things he should be held accountable for. I didn’t agree with the impeachment, but I felt he deserved some punishment.
Bush is going to make decisions that affect your family for the rest of their lives. His decisions could end up spelling the difference between death and life, prosperity and ruin for millions. By all means, honor his good intentions, if you perceive them. But do not use them as a reason not to criticize what you do not agree with, to remain in a state of inaction when his errors get out of control. You may like Bush, but your interests and the interests of this country must come before his, regardless.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 12, 2005 05:36 PM—-
tony~
Exactly~ Clinton is NOT in the white house (although people do want to bring him back as first man………..extremely scary). But at least he had been there, I’m sick of hearing Kerry this, and Kerry that………NOT ONE PERSON knows what Kerry would or would not have done!
—-
And exactly where did you see my post or any other in recent memory mention Kerry. I’ve gotten over him, you should too.
My point still stands: refute my original post. (And being blindly lead by the nose only proves your docility - it doesn’t vindicate Bush.)
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 06:01 PM—-
They condemn Bush for the very same things they excused clinton (blah) for.
Why do you think they always skirt the issue by saying “its not the same” and refuse to look at the facts.
—-
Please - I’m looking at the facts. I’m not excusing Clinton for anything he did. (He was a complete Bubba for getting busted and lying for something so COMPELTELY stupid.)
Trying to support Bush by bringing up Clinton only clouds the issue. I for one want to hang anyone who violates out trust out to dry immediately. (If you look at the Congress rushing to re-file travel logs, trips paid by lobbyists, etc. is pathetic. If you tried to get away with illegal junkets, then only file properly from fear of prosecution… ALL OF THEM OUT ON THEIR ASSES! If there are Democrats in that group - which I know there are… then toss them out first the cushion the landing for the REPS. I supported them, and they broke trust with me. The REPS have to clean up their own house.)
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 06:07 PM1) Adrienne,
Excellent comments.
2)Sept. 30,2003 Bush and Oct.7,2003 McClellan stated that if a member of their administration turned out to be the leak, they would hold that person accountable Bush said “Punished”, McClellen suggested “Firing.”I just can’t wait to see if they follow through on their tough talk now that they know who it is. You folks who support this administration have written countless times how solid of a guy G.W. is. I can’t wait to see if you’re right.(No pun intended)
I wanna see G.W. give Rove some of that Texas “Tough Love.” Put some “Iraqi Freedom” on his ass.
3)Speaking of “same old same old”, Every time a post suggests this Administration has failed us, the sheep(Steve)who support this administration, claim partisan politics and bring up Clinton. You folks really need to change the station when Rush Limbaugh comes on. Watch something more intellectually stimutating, like say..SpongeBob.(My bad I forgot, SpongeBob is a liberal tool used to promote the super secret homosexual agenda) If anyone posts that SpongBob is a liberal,partisan, homo-loving abortionist,I will cry. I mean it.(Crying is what us Yankee,Liberals do)
P.S. I’m from N.Y and have uncovered secret documents that prove Hillary Clinton(Blah) is building a bomb that she plans on detonating at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in a plot to take over the world.An anonymous source refused to give details.
kctim and Stephen Daugherty,
This is the statement by Tony that I responded to
“Also - and please be honest about this - if Bush did lie or misrepresent to get us into Iraq, would you continue to support him?”
I seriously suggest you reread my post. I never said that he did not lie. I said if he did that
“I assume it would be for a reason that he felt was in the best interests of the people who elected him.”
Now, here is the important point. There is no official process under way calling for his impeachment. Therefore I have to assume that he will be the President of the United States of America for the balance of his term.
As such, my statement “I will continue to support him under any conditions whatsoever because he is our President. When the rest of the world sees us continually casting doubt and shame on our president (deserved or otherwise) it is not a good thing.” is a completely valid one. If the President were Winnie the Pooh, I strongly believe that we must demonstrate our support of our current leader to the world.
kctim,
not to support your president or as you say “if he is guilty he must go” is only applicable if you are part of an official campaign to have him impeached.
Stephen Daugherty,
You mention that he is going to make decisions that will affect me and my family for the rest of our lives. That may be so but, you have implied that he will not make good decisions in the future based on what you consider to be poor decisions in the past.
My innocent opinion given in the post that precipitated your wrath is not wrong simply on the strength of your saying so.
Posted by: steve smith at July 12, 2005 06:33 PMWe call it “getting in touch with out inner SpongeBob.”
You NY’ers are freaks — or at least you guys make rotten salsa. Keep getting my TV info confused. (NY: love the city, love The Times… hate the Yankees. — Red Sox fan.)
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 06:36 PM“Then, when the next Republican candidate is nominated I will support him for the same reasons. For all the world, I wish it would be Jeb Bush, Bush’s wife or one of the twins.”
Whoa. That is astonishingly wacked — and on so many levels!!!
Come on and admit it Steve, you said this just to completely creep us all out, didn’t you?
“Then, when the next Republican candidate is nominated…I wish it would be Jeb Bush, Bush’s wife or one of the twins”
I sometimes wonder if Americans have a slight case of Monarchy envy?
Posted by: Nikita at July 12, 2005 07:02 PMMaybe this question has been raised a great many times, but reading posts by people who still unrelentingly defend Bush on all fronts makes me wonder: in all honesty, what the hell evidence would it take for you to finally realize that this administration is corrupt to the core and inept beyond description, except when it comes to distortion of information and manipulating the voting public? Really, what would it take?
Sometimes it feels like strong evidence could come out tomorrow that Bush and his entire White House staff eats three square meals a day of human baby brains, and still, we would see posts on here like this:
From Sanger: There is frankly no credible evidence that these alleged “babies” were in fact human, and not simply homo sapiens embryos carried to term, birthed through a woman’s birth canal, and subsequently devoured by George Bush. I mean, where’s the evidence?
From kctim: I’m so tired of hearing about baby eating, when clearly the issue is the fact that Clinton (blah) once stole a snickers bar from an Arkansas Piggly Wiggly. The fact that he was a Democrat and committed a minor wrongdoing in the past OBVIOUSLY negates all efforts by left-sympathizers to point out the egregious crimes of BushCo.
Joking aside, really, what would it take? I fear the answer is evidence that could never be procured against anyone for anything, e.g. a signed entry in Bush’s diary to the effect: “Dear Dairy, today I engineered a totally unnecessary war in a foriegn land. Tee hee!”
God help us.
unkind K
Tell us how you really feel…
Ha - I enjoyed that. It’s really gotten that ridiculous, hasn’t it.?. I’ve faced the chagrin of trying to support Clinton and wonder how the hell someone who seemed so smart could be such a bubba. I can not even begin to imagine the insane reality twisting and mind-bending rationalizations people must go thru to support the current White House… the eating baby brains seems to pale in comparison.
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 08:33 PMSteve Smith-
We don’t need unconditional loyalty in this country. We need people willing to challenge authority, challenge our government. We need people who see our government and see both the possibility and the necessity of correcting whats wrong with it. We need leaders who correct themselves and their own behavior instead of leaving it to history to clean up their messes.
He’s a new idea none of you have probably ever heard before:
Let’s get rid of the whole bunch, and start over. Let’s vote ‘em all out.
: ]
I’d bet if we rented a bunch of monkeys from zoos all across the country, they’d do a better job. I once saw a monkey pick better stocks than a professional stock broker for many months. See? How hard can it be?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 08:46 PMI once saw a monkey holding hands with the Saudi Royal Prince… wait, that was Bush. I can see where you might get them confused.
Maybe we can find some other animal to replace them with so that it’ll be harder for any politician to hide among them.
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2005 08:51 PMIn watching the whole Plame story unfold, it seems that right and left wing commentators have mostly ignored a GIANT fact that is right in front of our faces.
The focus of special prosecutor Fitgerald’s investigation doesn’t seem to be the White House at all anymore. White House employees gave Grand Jury testimony a year ago, but what’s happened since? Just follow the subpoenas.
The revelation about Rove’s conversation with Cooper that we’re all reacting to now is year old news to the prosecutor, and he’s made no further moves to depose or subpoena Rove.
So where does the focus lie? I don’t mean the media’s focus. I mean the special prosecutor’s?
On a small group of journalists (some of whom coincidentally or not have multiple ties to Wilson himself). Isn’t it interesting that the reporter who is currently in jail for protecting her source works for the same paper where many of Wilson’s friends work, like his buddy Nicholas Kristof? The same editorial page where Wilson originally published his Niger yellowcake story?
Many (myself included) have wondered why Robert Novak has escaped Fitgerald’s wrath. After all, he is the one who actually wrote the story that was said to “out” Plame. Wilson never even wrote about it, and she’s the one sitting in jail!
There’s no explanation for this other than the fact that Novak cut a deal to cooperate and sing like a bird while Miller and the NYT have refused.
The idea that right-wing Novak would give up Rove and the NYT would protect him—especially after Rove was asking for them to talk and Cooper identified Rove as his source—is too ridiculous to be believed. So I ask you: who would the NYT want to protect that Robert Novak wouldn’t?
And I find the following very interesting: how can Miller be protecting a source if she didn’t even write a story? A source for what? It looks like Miller is tied up in the loop in a way that has to do with being a conduit for information (in a non-journalistic sense).
I’ve been following this closely, and have a strong hunch that at the end of the day the road of this investigation is going to end right back where it started, with Joseph Wilson who talked to one of his reporter buddies and let a little information slip about his wife.
Whether Miller is that person herself or it’s some loose-lipped colleague remains to be seen.
Some might think that this is all just speculation on my part, and much of it is. But unlike all the speculation that centers on Rove, my speculations are based on the actual actions of the prosecutor.
Posted by: sanger at July 12, 2005 09:08 PMunkind, I’m actually far more interested in this story and how it’s unfolding than “defending Bush.” Bush doesn’t need my defense.
Previous to last November 2nd, I spent a lot of time defending Bush against exactly the kinds of remarks and accusatons that I see here. But now I see no point in descending into a flame war over the question of whether or not George Bush is a lying draft-dodging blood-thirsty chimp. Why keep fighting battles that my side has already won? I’m more likely now to just say “Good for you! Go with that!”
Posted by: sanger at July 12, 2005 09:20 PMTo those of you who are critical of my support for the President….
I will repeat once more since none of you seem to be able to grasp what I am saying:
To disagree with the administration is fine, to blame them for current conditions is also OK, to advocate and execute their removal is certainly within the framework of the Constitution. I agree with all of that.
To announce disapproval of the current leadership to the world I think is very wrong, as is spending every waking hour denouncing the actions of your government.
Stephen Daugherty,
I feel that in troubled times you do need unconditional loyalty. Work in the background if you will to replace the president, I have no problem with that.
Adrienne,
I would certainly vote for the Republican (the Bush family part was a stretch)
d.a.n,
Go ahead, vote them all out and let’s start over. I would love to see that historical event in my lifetime. Monkeys might be a good choice as long as you can cull out the Liberals and Democrats.
I agree, being President is easy. The first step is nomination, then campaign, getting elected, innauguration and, the big one SIGN ON TO WATCHBLOG AND FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW TO RUN THE COUNTRY, WHO TO APPOINT, HOW TO DEAL WITH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN ISSUES, DON’T MAKE ANY MISTAKES, DONT EAT BABY BRAINS AND DON’T FRATERNIZE WITH JUNGLE ANIMALS. WELCOME EVERYONE FROM FOREIGN LANDS, ALLOW FLAG BURNING IN THE STREETS, IF YOU START A WAR YOU MUST UNDERSTAND IT IS YOUR WAR, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT OF YOUR PARTY.
Most of all log on to this site daily so that you can take immediate corrective action to mistakes you make based on the observations of the posters.
Posted by: steve smith at July 12, 2005 09:24 PM—-
To announce disapproval of the current leadership to the world I think is very wrong, as is spending every waking hour denouncing the actions of your government.
—-
Dissention is the greatest act of patriotism: Thomas Jefferson
Sanger-
Except they were still pushing to know what Cooper knew. See if you can follow me around the room-
They already took Rove’s testimony. If Rove had told them exactly what they needed to know, Cooper would merely need to corroborate, and that would be the end of that. Why is so much of a big deal being made of wording? Why was Rove so unwilling to release Cooper from confidentiality before they were on the eve of contempt charges? What would he have to lose?
Besides everything? There’s a concept in screenwriting called a time-lock. Before it comes into play, time is arbitrary. Afterwards, it’s of the essence. It can be objective time, a limit to the time that the protagonist can take to resolve their problem, or it can be subjective time, related to a set of events that follow logically, relentlessly after each other. They can be both. Point is, after you get past the inciting incident, events are in motion. This revelation sets things in motion for Rove, and for his employer, because it is proof that a White House official leaked information about Valerie Plame with the intention of making it public. That is what they’ve denied all along, and what you try to deny now. The Defenders of the Realm have betrayed one of their nation’s secrets to keep it their realm.
That’s what Rove wanted to avoid: his fingerprints being at the scene of the crime. He’s a political ninja. He doesn’t like to be a known quantity, and he doesn’t like to operate under scrutiny. He craves the mystery and the power of being untouchable.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 12, 2005 09:39 PMSteve Smith-
Unconditional loyalty is not what this country is built upon. We are free to change our loyalties to our leaders as we please. We have no King we must sign an oath of loyalty to, no emperor to bow down before, no dictator we must watch our words about.
It’s not a matter of freedom. One can accept the consequences and absolutely loyal to a person. There is that freedom. But the central point of having that freedom is being able to say no at some point to your leaders.
Without that power, we are helpless before our own government.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 12, 2005 09:48 PMsteve smith wrote: d.a.n, Go ahead, vote them all out and let’s start over. I would love to see that historical event in my lifetime. Monkeys might be a good choice as long as you can cull out the Liberals and Democrats.
Well, we all need dreams, and something to hold on to. I’d dream for government to magically reform itself, but that’s even too far fetched for a dream.
By the way…I loved this country in the 60’s and 70’s. We went to the moon. We had dreams. The future looked bright (except for Viet Nam). I’m not so sure any more about the U.S. I still love it, but I see a gathering storm on the horizon, and hardly anyone seems very concerned. And, just because I’m the supreme Chicken Little, doesn’t mean the sky really isn’t falling.
Does anyone else see these numerous and pressing problems, growing in number and severity decade after decade, also wonder how much longer we can keep crappin’ in our own nest before the branch breaks off, and the whole stinkin’ mess comes tumblin’ down all around us?
For instance, can anyone explain, realistically, how we’ll ever pay down (much less pay off) an $8 trillion National Debt? Especially, when Social Security is headed for trouble, Medicare is already in trouble, pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole, there’s $40 trillion in personal debt, foreign nations are investing in our debt, there’s the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, government continues to spend and borrow and spend and borrow, and government can’t tax enough to ever cover the shortfalls ?
OK. That’s all for now.
Got to go see my psychiatrist.
He thinks I’m a bit too pessimistic.
I keep tellin’ him I really a realist. Really! Know what I’m sayin’ ?
“well done is better than well said” Benjamin Franklin
Stephen, I will try to follow you around the room even though you’re traveling in a circular motion and trying to maintain an initial assumption (Rove’s wrongdoing) by using facts that don’t exist.
Are you more interested in the facts or your desire to see something pinned on Rove?
The latest reports tonight say that Luskin, Rove’s attorney, has been told by Fitgerald that he (Rove) is NOT the focus of the investigation. This nicely bears out what I’ve been saying all along.
You say “it is proof that a White House official leaked information about Valerie Plame with the intention of making it public.” But how does Cooper’s testimony do any such thing? According to Cooper, the ONLY information Rove leaked about Plame was her involvement in sending Wilson to Niger—not her job, covert or otherwise, and not even her name.
And your claim about Rove’s “intention” is totally undermined by Cooper’s actual statements. Cooper called Rove—not the other way around—to ask who sent Wilson to Africa, a question that Rove answered truthfully.
Considering the context of the situation, claims about Rove’s “intentions” are impossible to make (intention being one of the hardest things to prove to anyway).
You say “If Rove had told them exactly what they needed to know, Cooper would merely need to corroborate, and that would be the end of that. Why is so much of a big deal being made of wording? Why was Rove so unwilling to release Cooper from confidentiality before they were on the eve of contempt charges? What would he have to lose?”
The answer to that seems to be nothing, since he told Cooper to talk. But how, pray tell, was Rove seen to be “so unwilling to release Cooper from confidentiality?” As you’ve pointed out yourself, Rove has hedged his statements very carefully, clearly knowing what his involvement in this story was—his interactions with Cooper—and has been careful to ensure that his grand jury statements anticpated anything Cooper might say.
What HAS happened is this—and this is nobody’s interpretation, not even my own.
The special prosecutor has asked Robert Novak not to make public statements about the case. He has asked Karl Rove not to talk about the case (while ensuring Rove that he’s not the target of the investigation).
And all the while, the prosecuter is focusing like a laser beam on Miller, who is sitting in the slammer.
The facts here are what they are. And luckily for Rove, the case is not being investigated or tried by the same media orgnanizations which (ironically) are the ones being investigated.
Posted by: sanger at July 12, 2005 11:25 PMSteve Smith said: “To announce disapproval of the current leadership to the world I think is very wrong, as is spending every waking hour denouncing the actions of your government.”
Then you are for banning all polls about the President’s performance while in office, or at least keeping them top secret until he leaves office? What an absurd notion in a nation with a Bill of Rights containing the First Amemdnment.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2005 11:32 PMd.a.n, you don’t need a psychiatrist, you need a passport. 7.2 million other Americans live overseas, so you wouldn’t be without kindred spirits, that’s for sure.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2005 11:35 PMI’ve already got a pass port.
: )
…and candles, and duct tape, and batteries, and canned goods, water, etc.
Yep…and I’m workin’ on my fall-out shelter now.
It always fascinates me how the Right will defend no matter what. The vitriol released against McCain and othe Moderate Republican VETERANS who criticized the Iraq War is beyond pale. The fact that this was done by Republican ArmChair Quarterbacks with no military experience but having yellow stickers is hilarious.
Tell me, sanger. Where do you stand with McCain having a Black Baby from an extramarital affair?
Posted by: Aldous at July 12, 2005 11:52 PMA word of advise.
Do not say that you are a Bush Supporter while overseas. Even Countries like Singapore, Canada or Italy are dangerous for Bushies. It would be safer if you denied that you are an American at all.
Posted by: Aldous at July 12, 2005 11:56 PMLook what I found:
“Why, of course, the people don’t want war, (but) the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946
Posted by: Aldous at July 13, 2005 12:06 AMAldous:
Tell me, sanger. Where do you stand with McCain having a Black Baby from an extramarital affair?
To me it would depend. If he looked me in the eye (on camera), and said “I never had sexual relations with that woman” It would matter a great deal.
If he said, “Yep, I did it. This is my kid, and it’s the best mistake I ever made. Sometimes wonderful things can come from mistakes. I am so proud of my child!!” Then I would be more likely to vote for him because the honesty would be so refreshing.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 13, 2005 12:10 AMCommon sense tells me that 2 years into the investigation, the Plame prosecutor would have gathered enough facts to make such a determination.(Is Plame an anylist or covert?)Seems a simple enough question. Heck, to me 2 hours seems sufficient. Served overseas? Check. In the last five years? Well, the CIA would know that one hopes. And the CIA referred the case to Justice. My application of common sense tells me that the answer is probably yes.
by Armando at KOS
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 20:58:10 PDT
Aldous, the fact that 7.2 million Americans live overseas would seem to contradict your advise about hiding one’s American identity. I have to find an American who can hide the fact that they are American. I’d rather not go into details, however… :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2005 03:09 AMSanger:
I’ve heard you parrot the reply over and over that the information that Rove passed on was little more than her marriage to the reporter, and her job at the CIA, and that this absolves him of wrongdoing.
First, I think the first part of the contention is pretty flimsy: even in a court of law, where the evidentiary standard is higher than in most common interactions, saying, “the person is the spouse of X” is sufficient to constitute an identification. So if you want to say that’s not an identification, you’re beyond standing on thin ice: you’re swimming.
Second, OK, let’s say Rove didn’t know whether Plame was covert or not. That being the case, isn’t it MINDBOGGLINGLY stupid, then, to comment to a member of the press on a member of the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY’S job, when it’s quite possible that that they are a covert operative?
I mean, we were considering going to war with a nation; she works for an agency that is responsible for intelligence; AND she is gathering information about a subject (WMDs) that is at the heart of the administration’s case for war with the aforementioned nation. Isn’t it a risky proposition to talk to the press about such a person, when you know NOTHING ELSE about them?
Now, I recognize that stupidity/negligence DOES NOT expose one to liability under the law Rove allegedly violated, but CERTAINLY it should get him fired.
So, it seems you’re either committed to saying Rove is either a damned idiot and should be fired, because we can’t have someone capable of such behavior jeopardizing our national security in such a way, or that he knew enough of what he was doing (maybe even exactly what he was doing), in which case he should go to jail.
True, this might be a false dichotomy. But to say that, one would need more information, information that the White House is not giving up. If Rove’s actions are innocent, why won’t the White House explain them?
Posted by: unkind K at July 13, 2005 03:26 AMDoes anybody else know that Rove was a prodigy of Attwater, Malek, and Chapin, who were Nixon and Reagan’s dirty trick specialists? He’s had 20+ years of practice at lying and deceipt. Why does anyone think he’ll get caught at the Plame lie? He’s probably alot like J Edgar Hoover, with files on everyone.
Craig, et. al.
Tell me, sanger. Where do you stand with McCain having a Black Baby from an extramarital affair?Ummmm… That baby was adopted by McCain and his wife from Bangladesh. The picture was used by Bush/Rove to seperate the southern Klan vote from McCain immediately after they had unsuccessfully tried to claim that McCain was gay and having an affair with another woman at the same time. Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 07:55 AM
Posted by: Aldous at July 12, 2005 11:52 PM
Tell me, sanger. Where do you stand with McCain having a Black Baby from an extramarital affair?Posted by: Aldous at July 12, 2005 11:52 PM
Why point out the baby’s color ?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 08:36 AM
Here’s an even less relevant question?
What if George Bush and Carl Rove adopted a “Black” baby? (Assuming they would not use the child just to harvest it’s brain for consumption)
Carl Rove and the rest of the Bush administration are corrupt!
If the people who blindly support this administration don’t see that, they are sheep.
It drives me insane when the Bush supporters claim some sort of victory in 04. What is it that you, as individuals won? The election was won by G.W.
Did you win the right(No pun intended)to watch people die in Iraq? Unfortunately we all did.
Is Haliburton or KBR sending out checks to only Bush supporters?
What did you win?
Can any of you answer this question?
What has this administration done to better your lives?
What are the prizes we “Liberals” are unaware of?
Thousands of dead Americans and Iraqi’s?
Non-secured borders?
Corruption?
Damaged global credibility?
Ignorance of global warming?
Billions of dollars of missing money?(Hey, are you people getting a cut of that?)
A divided nation?
Under-funded schools?
Poor health care?
Crushing debt?
We are all aware of the above mentioned gifts from this administration.
Just in case the anyone still thought Bush was trying to put integrity back into the White House:
“According to government reports and Army and KBR sources, Halliburton charged the government for 10,000 meals a day it never served, dished out food that had been expired for a year and provided its Turkish and Filipino staff with leftovers in trash bags. The Government Accountability Office concluded last year that the Army could save $43 million on food just by bypassing KBR and working with a different subcontractor. The $1.5 million tailoring fees, $560,000 in unnecessary heavy equipment, $152,000 for movie screenings, $45 cases of soda and exorbitant “cost-plus” contracts were just icing on the cake.”
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 08:45 AMIt seems like almost every big government contractor does this. Some of it is so blatant. Maybe there are kick-backs (like the Oil for Food program)?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 08:50 AMd.a.n.
The baby’s color was used by Rove against McCain in the southern primaries.
Dirty trick #8; associate your target with minorities against which your voters have established bigotries.
Andre M. Hernandez,
With respect to the “gifts” from the administration in your post I only have one question.
What have you and those who support like thinking to yours personally done to change that which you believe is wrong. (I mean other than continually repeat the same criticisms on these posts)
Posted by: steve smith at July 13, 2005 08:54 AMAndre, I won the sense of satisfaction that Kerry and the entire Democratic think tank lost.
Posted by: Jay at July 13, 2005 09:09 AMSteve Smith,
We do what dissenters do: vote, write, argue, protest, etc. Besides, repetition is a very effective rhetorical technique. Except when it’s your ONLY rhetorical technique, a la Bush, McClellan, etc.
Are you suggesting more decisive action? A revolt? Coup d’etat? Slumber party? I’m down.
Posted by: unkind K at July 13, 2005 09:14 AMJay,
I’m not sure you got the best of the bargain, then, cowboy. No tangible benefits, just satisfaction that serves you in no way?
I guess C.S. Lewis had the right idea: what the devil wants, in the end, is not for you to sell your soul, but for you to give it up for nothing.
Posted by: unkind K at July 13, 2005 09:16 AMunkind K, I do enjoy the hysterical left. They bring comic relief into my life and for that I thank you.
Posted by: Jay at July 13, 2005 09:30 AMWilliam:
Newt Gingrich was on Today Show with Katie Couric today. His viewpoint was this: Wilson claimed to be an impartial operative in the Niger situation, and claimed that the office of the Vice President suggested and authorized his trip. Rove told the reporter that this was untrue, and that it was actually Wilson’s wife who suggested Wilson for the job.
It turns out that Wilson was actually involved in the Kerry campaign at the time, which puts any thoughts of impartiality to rest.
This is a legitimate viewpoint to take, though it may contain some spin (most things in politics do). The point to consider is that the reverse side of the argument (that Rove is guilty of leaking vital info etc) also contains spin. For those who read that last statement and refuse to consider it accurate, there may be no hope—but it remains accurate nonetheless.
I still maintain that we need to look less to the past in an effort to lay blame, and more to the future solutions.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 13, 2005 09:35 AMBy the way and speaking of tangible benefits, on a personal level, my income has doubled in the last four years, I received a nice tax relief check a few years back, I now enjoy more deductions for my children, I feel confident that we are now taking the battle to the murderous thugs in the middle east instead of ignoring them, I am happy that GW is really trying to do something for Africa which needs help and which is more than any other sitting President has ever done, I am glad that the illegal immigrants that are here may get to stay here if they have been law abiding and contributing to society, I wish I had the option to put some of my money into a private account for retirement (but I guess you have other plans for MY money). So there is just some tangibles to answer your question. How is your life?
Posted by: Jay at July 13, 2005 09:39 AMJoe-
The real question is whether Wilson was on the Kerry campaign while he was looking into things for the CIA.
The GOP talking point that Wilson claimed Vice President Cheney sent him on his mission is false. He merely said that Cheney’s office was enquiring after that particular line of evidence, and the CIA asked him do this in his capacity as a former ambassador. This has not been contradicted, except to insert that his wife recommended him for the job.
Regardless, one thing is true, and Wilson’s trip helped confirm this: the Document was a forgery, and there was no deal between Niger and Iraq for 500 tons of Yellowcake. If you’ve got any satisfactory response to that fact, then you can call Wilson a liar. Otherwise, you’re relying on a twisting of the facts.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2005 10:36 AMJay,
Going from $5kpy to $10kpy is nothing to brag about.
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 10:36 AMSome of us have prospered in the last few years, despite the rampant irresponsibility and unaccountability of the federal government.
Tax cuts are always good, because, otherwise, government will just spend it.
But that still doesn’t keep them from uncontrollable borrowing and spending.
The U.S. dollar grows weaker and weaker year after year. That’s what happens when you have total fiscal irresponsibility.
It’s still hard to explain the many pressing problems that government continues to ignore, mismanage, and refuse to seriously tackle (for fear of risking re-election).
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 10:36 AMJay,
You just said “…my income has doubled in the last four years..”, and later said “I wish I had the option to put some of my money into a private account for retirement…”.
Last time I checked, no one is stopping you from investing in any kind of retirement you want (stock, etc).
And, by the by, Social Security is an INSURANCE in which EVERYBODY will have a MINIMUM to retire on. It is not designed to make you rich. It’s to ensure no one will have to eat cat food in their golden years.
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 13, 2005 10:41 AM—-
unkind K, I do enjoy the hysterical left. They bring comic relief into my life and for that I thank you.
—-
Rest assured that contentious, self-righteous right adds the same to ours. It’s a lot like coming to grips with the limited IQ of my dog - once you realize the limits of what she has to work with, you can find a lot of humor in her continuously banging her head into the pantry door. Kind of sad, but funny in a sadistic kind of way.
It’s like watching you REPS always bringing up the fact that Bush is ‘just a good, average everyday kind of guy you could see having a beer with.’ It’s all a high-profile PR rip, but you guys always seem to buy the hype… funny in a pathetic sort of way.
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 10:42 AMJoe,
Are you saying that Wilson was unable to peform his job objectively because he supported a different candidate? Rove makes his living on dirty tricks, Wilson made his living doing intelligence work.
Putting politics aside, Rove’s credibility isn’t worth the stain on used toilet paper. Maybe he’s guilty, maybe he’s not, in any case he’s scum.
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 10:46 AMWhy didn’t Rove come out immediately and dispel these allegations? Strange. Of all people, you’d think he would understand the importance of coming clean quickly (unless, of course, there is indeed some impropriety)?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 10:50 AMd.a.n.
I agree - completely. I can not understand how anyone in government can be so compacent about running up debt which is being purchased by foreign entities. Right now it all seems cool - living on credit, but I think we will wake up (or our kids will) and find that we are owned by the rest of the world.
I love this country - but idea of having to rent it from China is scary as hell.
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 10:57 AMsanger wrote:
Nobody’s commented on or even seemed curious about why Cooper was told by his source to break confidentiality and Miller wasn’t. It seems that we’re talking about two different sources here.
I heard Cooper interviewed on NPR shortly after his hearing and Miller’s sentencing. Cooper had only heard from his source that morning. He was basically expecting to be put in jail, and had told his family as much when he left for the hearing that morning, but luckily he made contact with his source and received permission to reveal them at the hearing.
Cooper also said that as far as he knew, Miller had not been in contact with her source or even attemped contact with her source at all recently. This might imply that she was more concerned with making a journalistic statment about protecting sources with or without the associated criminal charges..
On another note, if you saw Monday’s White House press briefing, you’ll know that at least some of the media is on top of this issue. They were hounding McClellan about it the whole time and brought up a few valid points about accountability and consistency based on earlier remarks from the administration:
Q Excuse me, but I wasn’t actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation…
which was followed by the even more pointed question:
Q Scott, if I could — if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, “We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation”?
Posted by: pete at July 13, 2005 11:08 AMtony,
Bush needed foreign buyers for the debt. It’s the only way, in the short term, to shore up the market. This is basically a giant Ponzi scheme.
Our “ownership” driven economy buys foreign goods. If we stop buying, they stop selling. By buying our debt, it keeps money in our tills to enable us to keep our economy going, buying their stuff and keeping their economy going.
Also, less and less money is being invested here by private foreign investors. More and more money is being invested by private Americans overseas. That should tell you something too. Eventually, the Ponzi wheel will stop spinning and then we’re all in for a very rough ride. (what an awful set of expresions, eh?)
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 11:20 AMDave,
Exactly!
What kind of a rough ride?
What are some of the probable outcomes?
unkind K, you wrote…
“We do what dissenters do: vote, write, argue, protest, etc. Besides, repetition is a very effective rhetorical technique.”
I realize that you do those things and they are a great outlet for frustration. I gues what I am really asking is, do you make it known (not you personally but your collective group of like thinkers) to your representatives in Congress, the Senate, etc. that this is the way you feel and you want him/her to take action. Do you make known your availability to generate petitions, action groups and so on.
Do you actually have conversations with the politicians that represent your thinking. Do those politicians actually meet with you and let you know what they can and/or cannot do about your concerns.
Are you told that we cannot bring about those changes now but, if and when we get control back we are planning to do it?
What interaction is there between your dissenting group and the actual people who are in a position to make changes, introduce bills, call for action, etc.
I do not ask this question with any ulterior motive. I simply think that for your action you should expect a reaction. Where is the positive reinforcement for what you have done?
Posted by: steve smith at July 13, 2005 11:43 AMIt all just seems like a college kid of on a shopping spree. it’s a hell of a lot of fun, and it makes everyone happy - in the sort term. But when the college kid can’t pay - he wrecks his credit and the credit card company has to pony up for the unpaid debt.
To put it on a personal level… I think our GDP is something along the lines of $3T a year. We’re closing in on $7T in debt. For me - 2.5 my annual salary - that’s close to $200k on unsecured credit. If your testicles don’t clinch up into your stomach on that… I know raising taxes and cutting government projects are political suicides, but somewhere along the way we have to pay the toll. Just maintaining the debt could be catastrophic.
Can someone stop the Merry-Go-Round? I’d like off please.
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 11:47 AMtony,
And to make things worse, any one of many things (e.g. an energy shortage, or a recession, or a default on interest payments, or another terrorist attack, etc.) alone, or one or more could accelerate and/or exacerbate it. We seem to be narrowing our options year after year.
And, these scandals in the federal government are all too frequent. It’s indicative of a government that is becoming increasingly fiscally and morally bankrupt.
Even if Rove is innocent of this leak, he’s still part of the problem. If he isn’t innocent, he cost the taxpayers million$ of dollars for the investigation thats been going on now for over two years.
OH MY GOD! I think I’m a fiscal ??? conservative ???
Maybe I’m a bit obsessive about debt, but it’s a really expensive way to live. Without the national debt, social security and a host of other nice social things would be a breeze.
You’re right, our options are dying off year-by-year, and I don’t think the nation as-a-whole can declare chapter 11. I guess we can just load our guns and wait for the bill collectors to show up, but that’s got it’s own ugly outcomes…
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 12:00 PMI don’t see how it won’t have consequences.
The National Debt is about $8T now.
Personal debt in the U.S. is about $40T now.
There are looming shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare. PGBGG & pensions are $1.6T in the hole. The war is costing hundreds of billions. The value of the U.$. dollar is falling.
It seems like we’re all waiting until the last minute, to see where this experiment is going.
Perhaps some or all of the foreign countries will forgive our debt? Seeing how loved we are around the world.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 12:08 PMi pray to god that one day soon american voters will be able to see past politics and just LOOK at the actions of bushco and realise how profoundly corrupt and immoral AS HUMAN BEINGS these people are …
hey beagle … on your list, does “secret bombings?” cover the question of how a 757 slams into the pentagon on 9/11 and leaves the building still standing with roof intact, an 18 foot wide hole in it and not a trace of wreckage? (anyone interested can go to www.reopen911.org)…
Posted by: Khandara at July 13, 2005 12:17 PMWhat kind of a rough ride? What are some of the probable outcomes? Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 11:35 AMI think the best soft-landing we can hope for is a mild worldwide recession (like the post-Microsoft ‘event’). That will only happen if politics takes second seat after some kind of saturation point is reached and any capital flight is tightly moderated. Most likely, however, a repeat of 1929 will happen. Some history; After Black Thursday, alot of the mega rich pumped assets into the market, trying to help stabilize it and prevent the great depression that followed. After a short time, when the inevitable was clear, it was everyone for themselves. Until then, I think the redistribution of wealth to the haves will continue and we will look more and more like the 1930’s.
In the longer term, after the realignments are complete, I would hope that with the deflated dollar, the US can regain some of its manufacturing superiority and be better diversified in the new world economy. Most likely, we’ll end up with something like the world in Rollerball.
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 12:17 PMKhandara,
If Bushit was behind 9/11 why did he stare at My Pet Goat for 7 minutes? Even a rabid Bushater like me doesn’t believe the ‘we did it’ crap.
I meant the original Rollerball. I never saw the 2002 version so don’t compare to that one.
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 12:23 PMDave,
What would you recommend people (average people for the most part, that is) do to prepare for something similar to a repeat of 1929 ?
Dave,
I’m not being patronizing. I believe something like 1929 (or worse perhaps) is becoming more and more likely.
now that the tide is turning in the bushco/rove affair, i think it is hilarious to see whitehouse spokesman scott mcclellan sputtering about how he cannot discuss an ongoing investigation after years of doing nothing but …
Posted by: Khandara at July 13, 2005 12:29 PMPete, you need to look at the timeline again.
Karl Rove signed a waiver unconditionaly releasing Cooper from confidentiality over a YEAR AND A HALF AGO in December 2003 or Jan 2004.
Cooper says he was afraid that Rove had been forced to sign the waiver against his will, but didn’t even try to contact Rove again until just a couple weeks ago just before his testimony.
Rove’s legal team was surprised that Cooper was asking again for something he’d already been given permission for long ago and told him that of course he could talk, as he’d already been told.
Posted by: sanger at July 13, 2005 12:30 PMThe trust issue…
There is a post by d.a.n in the article titled American Governments Embarassing Headlines that I believe is fitting in this thread. It pinpoints the potential disaterous failures of government at a supporting level to the executive office. d.a.n’s post solidifies the concept of needing to “work up the ladder” to correct problems.
I urge everyone to refer to the post for detail but it reveals that 69.7% of the 535 member Congress has been or, currently is involved with relatively serious crimes when considering what their political role is.
Posted by: steve smith at July 13, 2005 12:33 PMIt’s all a cover-up.
If Rove is innocent, why did he not come clean a long time ago? Why was there so much foot dragging for years, during a long and expensive investigation? As an advisor, rule # 1 is to come clean immediately, with all the facts, dispel rumors, and air everything. But, that’s not what happened. There has been much secrecy and stone-walling. It’s hard to not conclude that no one did anything wrong. Someone leaked the information. Who was it? And, regardless of who leaked it first, doesn’t Rove have a responsibility to not leak it some more ?
steve smith,
Thanks for the 69.7% calculation. I didn’t realize the percentage was so high.
Khandara-
Three things have to be understood about the Pentagon crash:
1)Jet aircraft are essentially flying aluminum cans, lightweight metal that does not stand up well to impacts.
2)That impact came at multiple hundreds of miles an hour. At those speed, Aircraft disintegrate, dispersing the force of the impact, reducing penetration.
3)The Pentagon is a massive, short, five tiered Concrete Structure that was built to withstand powerful forces.
I think the whole twin towers conspiracy theory thing is crap. We had two massive Jets rammed into buildings with extended, intense fires that weakened the steel. once floors started crashing from above, all that was needed to demolish the buildings was the potential energy of multiton floors held up hundreds of feet in the air. As for Demolition charges, the character of the fall of the towers would have been different had it been the result of an implosion job.
Tell me that Bush ignored the warning signs. I’ll buy that, I’ve seen the evidence. But don’t tell me that the 9/11 attacks were a set up. Not without the kind of extraordinary evidence required to back such a claim.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2005 12:42 PMdave … my question is based on documented facts and has so far remained unanswered to the satisfaction of anyone willing to ask it … i agree that it is too horrible a prospect to even WANT to consider but bear in mind that there are still people out there who don’t think that hitler killed 6million jews …
Posted by: Khandara at July 13, 2005 12:43 PMThe construction of the Pentagon was such that it shredded the aircraft. That is, there were many sturdy pillars closely arranged that actually kept the damage from being much much worse. There was a Science Channel episode about this, and how it could have been much worse.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 12:46 PMstephen … i was of exactly the same opinion until i really examined the evidence - a 757 cannot slam into a building leaving NO TRACE WHATSOEVER of the plane and only an 18ft hole below an intact facade and roofline which remained standing FOR SEVERAL MINUTES after the impact … i would love to know that this whole conspiracy theory is a load of doodoo, but that’s not what the facts are saying …
Posted by: Khandara at July 13, 2005 01:02 PMEven I, the supreme government critic, have not seen any credible evidence that our own government perpetrated 9/11.
Yes, govenment ignored the warning signs.
Many in government did. The FBI, the CIA, the Advisors to the President ignored specific warnings of plans by terrorists to use aircraft and crash them into buildings.
Government failed us miserably.
Yes, there could possibly be a sinister motive for someone in government to do such a thing, and it’s not impossible, but there’s no credible evidence of it, and staggering evidence to the contrary; that the perpetrators were terrorists that were members and/or sympathetic to Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. There is video evidence of the perpetrators and their nationalities, and behavior before 9/11.
thanks sanger,
you’ve probably followed the story closer than I, and your added details make sense in the timeline and why there are unanswered questions about Cooper’s actions. I hadn’t followed the story about Cooper/Miller until that interview, but I do distictinctly recall Cooper saying he was expecting to end up in jail w/ Miller, as well as the bit about Miller not being in contact with her source at all.
Still plenty of questions to be answered….
Posted by: pete at July 13, 2005 01:02 PMWhat would you recommend people (average people for the most part, that is) do to prepare for something similar to a repeat of 1929 ? Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 12:26 PM1 - Be frugal but don’t be afraid of moderate debt. Make sure that debt is low interest and can be paid off immediately if you have to (not counting mortgage).
2 - Don’t rely on home equity as a significant fraction of your wealth accumulation.
3 - Don’t rely on Social Security for retirement. Investigate whole life insurance (if you’re reasonably young and healthy), gains and dividends can be tax free.
4 - Finally, get opinions from at least two reputable financial advisors and follow what they say. Mine are sending more and more of my money overseas and domestic investments are mostly large international companies. Only risk caital goes elsewhere. Be careful of their fees, stated and hidden. That makes a big difference in returns.
If you don’t have the income or savings, learn Mandarin or Korean. At least the Indians speak English, but it’s too damn hot there. (Only a little serious…)
Khandara,
The aircraft is mostly hollow. It was like cheese through a cheese grater. The sturdy and closely placed pillars shredded the aircraft into small pieces. You have to understand the science of the materials, velocities, and speeds involved. There were countless pieces of the aircraft in the wreckage. They were just broken up into small pieces.
Dave,
That’s good advice.
During the Great Depression, unemployment was staggering, and wages were low.
The human suffering was hard to comprehend.
Those that owned, or owed little on their homes faired much better than those that owed a lot still. People should try to pay off their homes if possible. I’d bet a lot wish they’d done that in 1999-to-2003, rather than lose it in the stock market (like so many did; i.e. lost many trillions).
If there is a repeat of 1929, a place to live would be a big help (i.e. paid off, or very affordable).
With some many people borrowing huge amounts for their homes these days, I hate to think about what the rate of foreclosures would be compared to 1929.
Thus, owning or owing little is advisable.
Invest wisely. Some foreign assets would be a good way to diversify. Just be careful it’s not in some of those countries that have invested a great deal in the U.S. National Debt, because they’ll be affected adversely also.
Yes, watch the fees.
Better yet, watch the brokers.
Many will just make you broker.
d.a.n.
NOT brokers! Be careful, there is a big difference between a broker, who makes commisions on transactions, and advisors, who basically get a cut of your pie, during start-up mostly, then just a periodic fee. Advisors should not be too stock specific. Occasionally, OK. Mostly risk, funds, sector allocations, and non-equity vehicle advice tailored to your individual financial needs and goals is what you want from them.
Posted by: Dave at July 13, 2005 01:41 PMOh,
OK. That’s good. I was thinking you had a broker to make trades for you. A lot of people do. Each to their own. I usually do those myself (only $10.99 per trade at Ameritrade. The same used to cost hundred$ per sell order in the past using a broker).
How many damaged parts can exist before the machine breaks down? Can it keep running with some broken parts?
Not to minimize the seriousness of leaking secret information, but this entire thing is so stereotypical of government (not any particular party).
The president says whoever it was will be fired.
That’s so typical. Shouldn’t that person go to jail? Hmmmmm…No point in that. They’d just get a pardon.
Funny, now no on in the federal government is ever held accountable for anything, and if the do get convicted, they get a pardon.
You have to seriously wonder how our legal system is erroneously pardoning so many people unjustly…so many that the president has to pardon hundreds of felons. And that’s just those in politics. What about all of the other average people that have also been convicted unfairly? Why don’t any of them get pardons?
I sometimes wonder if both parties are colluding on these things to distract us from more pressing problems with a much higher probability of serious future consequences?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 02:08 PMOK… the theory of who was behind 9/11 is pretty much an open book. I don’t think it was a bomb rather than a 757… never seen a 757 hit anything at full speed, much less hitting one of the largest buildings in the world.
My problem is that the whole ‘who done it’ questions got answered way too fast to be believable. The FBI hit the flight schools the same day as 9/11? the day after? We all went to bed pretty damn sure it was Osama. If I’m not mistaken, all of the evidence got melted together with the rest of the twin towers… How is it that they have video of the terrorists getting onto the planes immediately after the attacks, but no one noticed even one of these guys before hand? Lot’s of questions answered immediately with no one ever having to prove a bit of it.
I don’t put it past Osama… and I can believe that it was him easily, but I’d feel better if it had been run through a court of law… prove your accusations true. If we were wrong, and the culprit is still out there with no one watching, that’s a really dangerous problem.
One thing I do know - Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Now that we are seeing more terrorist attacks outside of Iraq, it seems completely stupid to rationalize the war because of the benefits we will see by having a democratic Iraq. And please don’t bring up the fact that Saddam was a nasty guy and needed to be taken out. OK, sure, he was an asshole… but I’m a bit more concerned with people blowing themselves up in crowded areas. Please tell me how the distraction in Iraq = safety against terrorists…
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 02:15 PMYou’re half right d.a.n.
There is one party pushing the envelope on avarice, elitism, corruption, deception and changing of rules. The Republicans then accuse democrats of doing what they are doing thus prompting most people who try to appear fair to say they all do it.
It’s the truth - but say it at your own risk.
“The fact that he was a Democrat and committed a minor wrongdoing in the past OBVIOUSLY negates all efforts by left-sympathizers to point out the egregious crimes of BushCo.”
Actually unkind, it is your blindness I am talking about.
What you consider “minor wrongdoings” is exactly how the right views their support today.
At least their beliefs were proven in a court of law and proven by the dumbass himself.
When the right pointed out the crimes, the left looked the other way. Now it is their turn so why are you whining? Hypocrits come to mind.
The left made excuses to defend “their” guy against all accusations, true or not, and the crimes he committed but yet you expect better from the other side.
PROVE your “theories” and stop your whining, get something done.
Here’s hint: saying its so doesnt make it so! Get the proof you need and do it, the right did.
kctim
What proof can be offered up that will not be twisted and spun? All intelligence proves the lack of WMD and WMD programs in Iraq. There’s the no-bid contract to Halliburton for the original $9B. Even after they commit egregious over-billings and frauds, they get another no-bid contract for $5B. The Downing Street memos. Denying the Rove had anything to do with Plame. Aluminum tubes - yellow cake from Africa - predator drone planes - tons and tons of this WMD and that WMD. Mobile chemical and bio labs… (THEY NEVER EVER GAVE DOUBT TO THESE CLAIMS. “Not only do we know that they have these weapons, we know where they are.”) Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit that will cost $300B (Oh, I’m sorry - now that you’ve voted to approve it, we actually meant to say $650B.) Bush in debates “I never said I didn’t care about finding Osama” - Bush live on CNN - “I don’t know where he (Osama) is, and I really don’t think about it much anymore. He’s on the run and harmless.”
Do I need to continue?
Posted by: tony at July 13, 2005 02:58 PMtony
IF those are all true then provide the evidence on the few that are punishable and prosecute, right?
The problem is, most of the things you mentioned have be twisted and spun by BOTH sides to support their position.
I don’t rail on clinton (blah) because of my hate for him. I do it because I think it shows a double standard and until both sides are willing to accept the truth, no matter if its their guy or not, then all of this blaming and excusing will continue.
Why should they take your accusations seriously if you wouldn’t do the same for them?
Thats just my opinion and believe it or not, I actually side with you on alot of things.
Posted by: kctim at July 13, 2005 03:41 PMStephen:
I dont use the word liar very often, because to do so focuses on the person’s intention. So I will simply say that Wilson has stated that he was mistaken about some of his information.
Wilson claimed to have know the documents were forged, yet it later came out that he hadnt even seen them. Secondly, Wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his going on the mission—it was later shown that she recommended him for the mission. You can find these misstatements in the Senate Intelligence report.
Below is a link to an article from FactCheck that shows that while ultimately wrong, the information at the time appeared credible.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
I’m surprised that you dismiss his obvious affiliation with the Kerry campaign simply due to timing. This sounds like a Clintonian attempt to obfuscate a real issue. (Remember when Clinton tried to claim he wasn’t alone with Lewinsky because there were other people in the White House at the time…) Wilson was on Kerry’s side, whether he was active in the campaign at that particular time or not….that much is obvious to even the most partisan among us.
Dave-
Putting politics aside, Rove’s credibility isn’t worth the stain on used toilet paper. Maybe he’s guilty, maybe he’s not, in any case he’s scum.
Its obvious from your post that you have a preconceived position that wont change. Wilson COULD have done a good job regardless of his party affiliation. What I said was that he didnt. And the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed it when they said that it was reasonable to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on CIA and other available intelligence
NO DOUBLE STANDARD. (Sorry for the all-caps, but come on… live in the present. We have major issues we are facing and looking backwards to excuse forwards makes no sense.)
Also, as I’ve said plenty of times in the past - I did not support Clinton in his illegal or questionable actions. I think our President should hold himself above the common standard of what’s legal - he should be above even the appearance of illegal or unjust actions. How else can we ever hope to regain lost respect within and outside of our country for our leaders. To say that “well, they’re all the same” (not implying that you say that) does not excuse them for dragging our images and trust through the mud.
Halliburton should’ve never been allowed to bid of government contracts while it’s ex-CEO was in office… it’s the appearance of conflict of interest… Bush should’ve either more moderate in his assumptions of WMDs and the dangers posed by Iraq or directly apologetic for getting it so insanely wrong. Bush should’ve shown some humility for his responsibility during 9/11. He was in charge and he failed us (itR