Democrats & Liberals Archives

Trust Me

In testimony before Congress on Thursday, Attorney General Gonzales implicitly acknowledged the existence of a program to monitor phone calls between American citizens exclusively within the United States. I’m all for tracking terrorists, but there’s a reason it’s illegal for the President to secretly spy on American citizens without a warrant: It’s far too easy and tempting to abuse such a program for political gain. President Bush says, “Trust me, I’m only spying on terrorists,” but after the revelation that he leaked top secret national security documents merely to discredit a critic of his policies, all trust is gone.

President Bush claims he's only spying on terrorists, but who decides which American citizens are threats to national security? President Bush's unmonitored spy programs reserve that power for him alone, but if President Bush will go so far as to secretly leak CIA intelligence documents merely to undermine a critic, I have to wonder whether he'll abuse an unconstrained internal security program the same way.

President Bush asks us to trust him, but for years he stood in front of the Presidential Seal with his fingers crossed behind his back and lied, assuring us he knew nothing about the leaks. "I cannot tell a lie," Bush said. "I do not know who chopped down the cherry tree, but just like O.J. Simpson, I will not rest until I bring the perpetrators to justice."

President Bush tells us he's a man of honor and integrity, but when "Scooter" Libby begged him, "Please, Mr. President, do not let them put me up against a wall and shoot me as a traitor. For God's sake, tell them you authorized me to release the documents," President Bush denied, denied, denied. Shhh... Did you just hear a cock crow? Unlike Peter, I doubt George W. Bush wept bitterly when he realized what he did.

I don't often agree with President Bush's politics, but I've given him the benefit of the doubt that he had America's best interests at heart -- he just wasn't up to it and fell in with the wrong crowd. Now I know that President Bush will lie, betray his associates, and put petty politics above the security of the United States. He absolutely cannot be trusted not to abuse an unmonitored, secret security apparatus.

Posted by American Pundit at April 8, 2006 2:11 AM
Comments
Comment #139025

AP,

Thank you! I’m sure some here will remember me saying many times that this “evasion” of FISA and his explanation thereof really amounts to Bush saying, “trust me”.

Hmmmm, throughout life I’ve learned a little about human nature. I’ve learned, “fool me once it’s your fault, fool me twice it’s my fault”.

George Bush failed to even fool me once. I’ve never trusted him due to his underhanded campaign tactics. Now it’s become clear that Bush is not just a morally corrupt liar but that he’s actually a felon and even worse, a traitor to our great nation!

How long can we allow a felon and traitor to hold the highest office of our great country?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 8, 2006 3:02 AM
Comment #139026

“In testimony before Congress on Thursday, Attorney General Gonzales implicitly acknowledged the existence of a program to monitor phone calls between American citizens exclusively within the United States.”

AP,

I just have to add one thing: AG Gonzales did this with a smirk on his face indicative of the arrogance of this administration and their lack of regard for our own constitution.

It’s absolutely obvious that Bush & Co. hold themselves above the law.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 8, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #139032

Bush declassified portions of the NIE WITHOUT TELLING THE CIA!!!

That’s important!!! When the WingNuts come squaking, remember that.

Apparently, Bush now has the ability to divine which part of the NIE is safe for public consumption and which aren’t. That’s why he can make snap decisions and not worry about our Intelligence Operations out there.

God must have told him to do it.

Posted by: Aldous at April 8, 2006 3:37 AM
Comment #139041

KansasDem
It’s not just the Bush administration who hold themselves above the law. The Republican Congress does as well.

Aldous
The president can declassify any NIE when he finds it politically expedient to do so. This administration has always selectively kept and revealed secrets based on political motivation and it’s not too hard to think of examples. (Remember the vice-presidents Energy Task Force?) Nor was it very difficult for administration apologists to rationalize why this or that secret must be kept or revealed. How many times have we read that GWBush and Co. are the most secretive administration ever? This just confirms what we have all long suspected about their real motivation.

While this story blows their cover I do not expect it to significantly diminish the number of groupie sycophants who will continue to leap to their defense.

Posted by: RMD at April 8, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #139043

I don’t thinnk much else can hurt Bush’s poll numbers. I think we’re down to the hardcore support for Bush only, and I don’t see these guys ever question their loyatly or his motives. I think he could come out to the press conference wearing nothing but a feather boa and some assless chaps, and these guys wouls pat themselves on the back for supporting alternative lifestyles.

btw - have we gone so much as a single week without some major new scandle involving this administration? (yea yea yea, I know, that’s all the press’s doing…)

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #139044

(yea yea yea, I know, that’s all the press’s doing…)

========

‘Bout time they do their jobs.

Posted by: tree hugger at April 8, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #139045

“I thaid (said), stay the course! bitch”

— GW

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #139046
btw - have we gone so much as a single week without some major new scandle involving this administration?

I’ve been trying to do a series of posts on the Democratic agenda, but the Bush scandals keep interrupting. :(

Posted by: American Pundit at April 8, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #139047

tree hugger -

I absolutely agree. these guys got a deferment from the press for 5 years! It’s about time some verd hard questions were asked. (I don’t expect Bush to give an answers, but.. )

I think the press has done a pathetic job - but you can’t blame them for being hard on the administration now… anyone who lies and distorts the truth like BushCo… BushCo lost trust, and that’s their own fault.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #139048

AP -

You’re right - we should stay focused on getting our own word out - let Bush hang himmself… he’s SO good at it.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #139053

NY Times article about Alan B. Mollohan, senior Democrat on the House ethics committee:

“As lawmakers have increasingly slipped pet projects into federal spending bills over the past decade, one lawmaker has used his powerful perch on the House Appropriations Committee to funnel $250 million into five nonprofit organizations that he set up.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08earmarks.html?hp&ex=1144555200&en=9621820f567c2ea6&ei=5094&partner=homepage


FRY THE BASTARD! NOW!

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #139060

I didn’t trust a rich white boy pretending to be a cowboy from the start. He’s a mean spirited little privileged brat with a propensity for lying. It’s got him so much in life without much negative consequence. Gary Trudeaux observed that while they were at Yale.

I respect the office, not the man.

Posted by: gergle at April 8, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #139066

tony:

I agree!!! You kill Mollohan!!! I will kill everyone who got money from Abromoff!!!

You get Mollohan!!! I get them ALL!!!

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 8, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #139074

Aldous…

Man, you’re going to be a busy man.

As far as the outrage goes - I can not sit by and let someone who represents my party get a pass on such reprehensible acts. It bothers me when Bush or other REPs do such stuff, but I expect them to. When it’s someone who represents me, and they do this… screw them. Immediately! How else are we going to prove to the world that WE are not like REPs?

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #139090

Guys:

Seymore Hersch just had a column that says Bush is planning to use NUKES on Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_060408061934;_ylt=AqlY12ndkAMMI.mG8QtKN2Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

The Rapture is here and it looks a lot like a mushroom cloud.

Posted by: Aldous at April 8, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #139102

Trust Me.
____________________
Scientists have long known that the hormone used in the study, oxytocin, which circulates widely in the body during childbirth and lactation - prompts warm relations and mating in other mammals.

But they say the Swiss study, which appears in the Thursday (2-Jun-2005) issue of the journal Nature, is the first to show that a simple administration of a hormone in humans can consistently alter something as socially sensitive as trust.
_____________________
Now, if only we can find the cause for lying , and simply administer the appropriate hormone.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #139103

“As far as the outrage goes - I can not sit by and let someone who represents my party get a pass on such reprehensible acts. It bothers me when Bush or other REPs do such stuff, but I expect them to. When it’s someone who represents me, and they do this… screw them. Immediately! How else are we going to prove to the world that WE are not like REPs?”

Tony,

I agree. This nonsense has to stop. The Democratic leadership should demand he step aside while this is investigated, and anyone (democrat or republican) that’s found guilty of the misappropriation of OUR tax dollars should do some serious jail time.

Enough is enough, only when the penalties get some real “teeth” will this corruption end.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 8, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #139112

Aldous,

I almost choked when I saw that.

I grew up during the period of time when we had the “drills” at school where everyone would hide under their school desks. By the time I reached high school we all had learned to joke about it. The common saying was, “put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye”.

Everyone just knew that only the Soviets or Red Chinese would be insane enough to begin a nuclear war. Can everyone say “nukular”? Yes, I’m actually scared for the future of my children and grandchildren. Would someone please send the “Mad-Hatter” back to wonderland?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 8, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #139116

To those thumping the press/media for being AWOL for the past 5 years, agreed but, do you REALLY need someone else to tell you the obvious, or can’t your own rump feel when you’re being screwed royal?

It’s been obvious that the guy is a chimp [my apology to chimps everywhere] from the get-go. Ya had to have cottage-cheese for brains before voting for Bush&Dick.

Posted by: DA at April 8, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #139118

Aldous… Do you suppose that article would confirm his (in)sanity and give credence to impeachment???? I can just about guarantee that in retaliation, they can’t hit just the blue states….. :(

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 8, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #139129
Ya had to have cottage-cheese for brains before voting for Bush&Dick.
Yeah….sad but true. I’m ashamed to say I was one of those (in 2004, not 2000). But, fortunately, the cottage-cheese-for-brains condition may not be a permaent condition. I admit it was a mistake. Unfortunately, I can’t take it back now. So, my penitence is to try and do better next time. But, what is all too clear, is that the President and VP are only a small part of the problem. Not to rationalize or trivialize the error, but the problem is much deeper than just a few people in government. Some, especially in the rose-colored-column, think everything is rosy, but I’m not so sure about that. We know corruption in government is always trying to grow and spread. What have voters done lately to control that? Fall prey to the seductive, distracting, petty partisan warfare? Demonize the other party as if it were the root of all evil? Sure, the “In-Party” always appears a bit more corrupt, and they do need the majority stripped from them, but house cleaning is badly needed in all parties. If we don’t, the consequences of several decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy is about to finally catch up with us. Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #139142

Now how many folks have you seen on a blog display the character revealed in D.a.n’s comment above? Bravo, D.a.n.

There is no shame in admitting an error or to a change of heart. The shame comes from repeating the error or failing to change appropriately. A shame for many, today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #139143

The media did its job. That is how I learned of then Gov. GW Bush’s folly and became informed enough to vote against him in 2000 and 2004. The media did its job, that is how I became sufficiently informed to avoid voting for Sen. John Kerry.

The media did its job. The problem is folks in the 10’s of millions weren’t paying attention to the media, and 10’s of millions more didn’t like what they were reading and dismissed it. That is how we ended up here, not for a general dereliction of duty by the media, but, for a general lack of interest in the complex details that were being revealed over time. About 2/3 of Americans want their news in 30 seconds and if it fails to knock their socks off in that 30 seconds, it goes in one ear and out the other.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #139146

You know, all of this is interesting, but the document being used to ‘prove’ Bush guilty something completely different. From the initial Washington Post article (the only ‘reliable’ reference that was posted in any of the articles here in the blue column) states:

In the new filing, he did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure, and he said Bush was “unaware of the role” that Libby, then Cheney’s chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters.

I’m not sure how this meshes, like I have stated many times before it is going to be interesting to find out the facts when they are made available. Unfortunately, I’m not one of the blue cool-aid drinkers who immediately assume anything as long as it points to the president or his administration…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #139148

Rhinehold, this is coming out of a Patrick Fitzgerald court submission that the president leaked this stuff. The facts are available. They’ve been available for years now. Unfortunately, too many folks have been playing a game of reliable sources, using political loyalty and not the way the facts fit together as their guide to what’s reliable. Even with the best party, that’s a recipe for disaster, because all parties bias their stories to their advantage. You folks, in order not to get fooled by the liberal media, have allowed yourselves to fall prey to Bush’s PR.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #139152

And you don’t have to rely on Libby’s statement. The fact that the White House is only trying to draw line between what Bush leaked and other “endangering national security” leaks says quite plainly that they are not contesting this at all. They went straight into spin mode.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #139154

Leaked what ‘stuff’, Stephen?

Does it not matter that Fitzgerald hismelf has stated that Bush was not involved with leaking Plame’s name? That there was no evidence of that?

All I have been able to determine is that he authorized the declassification of the NIE report. That is not the same thing.

Can anyone please point me to the factual basis of stating that Bush authorized the release of Plame’s name to the news media? I just haven’t been able to find it yet. If it is true, then I will most likely join the call for impeachment, but I will not do so lightly and without any factual evidence.

I personally find nothing wrong with the President declassifying an NIE report that repudiates claims made by a critic of the policies of the administration. Again, this is not the same thing, we’re talking apples and oranges…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #139159

Btw, I find it mildy amusing that the people who claim that Bush is ‘too secretive’ and that he classifies too much is now upset that he declassified an NIE report in order to provide information to the public to counter invalid statements by someone criticizing the government’s actions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #139165

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html

Apparently AT&T has been helped the government violate the constitution by wiretapping on its customers. Looks like I have a good reason to not support these bastards and switch to, say, the cable company’s phone service (besides the better price).

What’s disturbing is I highly doubt any of the corrupt politicians and the cronies will pay for their crimes, at least while the GOP is in power.

For example, have you heard anything on Abramoff actually going to trial? If he isn’t outright pardoned, the government and press will probably mysteriously forget about the whole issue and not bring it up again.

Our only hope is for democrats to take back the government. That is, if the voting system hasn’t been rigged by republicans (like the diebold machines).

Posted by: mark at April 8, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #139167

Rheinhold,
How much stink do you have to smell before you suspect the diapers are dirty?
The FACT is that either way, whether what was leaked was a crime or not, the lying and coverups that followed stink to high heaven.
Doesn’t the constant, endless lying piss you off at all?

Posted by: Norby at April 8, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #139168

Rhinehold - from yesterday’s White House press conference…

“Q Can I just — one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak —

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q — not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, “I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks.” Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn’t classified information — I know you’re not going the get to the legal issues here — but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House —

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments — about leaking of classified information, I believe.

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, “I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks.” Not just classified information. He says “particularly leaks.”

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that’s why it’s important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let’s make clear what the distinction is.”

——-

You’ll notice that he is only trying to draw a line of distinction - not at all denying what is being reported (or what was in Libby’s statement.) Also, no one is complaining about the whole secrecy/leaking… it’s the fact that he has been so vocally against all leaks, and is then found to be at the source of a major news leak. Also, the information was officially declassified 10 days after Libby met with Miller… so it’s a covert leak, not a simple declassification.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #139170

Rhinehold,

Can anyone please point me to the factual basis of stating that Bush authorized the release of Plame’s name to the news media? …. I personally find nothing wrong with the President declassifying an NIE report that repudiates claims made by a critic of the policies of the administration.
This is not about leaking Plame’s name—it’s about leaking and lying in general. Can you point me to the factual and legal basis that gave the president the authority to declassify the NIE report just by declaring (to Cheney and Libby only) that it is declassified? Also, how do you reconcile the fact that Scott McClellan clearly and repeatedly stated on July 18th, 2003 that the NIE report was officially declassified as of that very morning…but we now hear that Bush supposedly “authorized” the leak on July 8th? Can you honestly say that you don’t see anything wrong with this scenario? Anything hypocritical?

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 8, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #139172
How much stink do you have to smell before you suspect the diapers are dirty?

Factual smell or liberal accusations of smell?

There is a distinct difference.

Doesn’t the constant, endless lying piss you off at all?

Yes, and I wish that the liberal (and conservative when they do it) pundits who are constantly lying and having to cover their own lies about what did and didn’t happen would stop and people would focus on facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #139173

OK… Rhinehold…

And the fact that President Bush promised (when speaking of this leak) that anyone in his administration involved in the leak would be dealt with… and he’s the one who authorized it… isn’t that lying?

The fact that he let Libby be the fall guy without ever stepping forward to clear up the matter… is that cowardice? Doesn’t that bother you?

If he had good intentions, why didn’t he have a press conference to annouce the disclosure of this information? Why did he go about it so secretly?

Like I said in my first post here, we’re down to the die-hard 35% who will always support Bush - and I don’t ever see changing that.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #139177

Tony,

Anyone involed with the leak of Plame’s name, yes.

This has nothing to do with that investigation. He is only being attributed in authorizing the release of information regarding the NIH document. Something within his rights to do.

Please explain to me how these two different things are the same to you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #139178

Btw, you’re assertion that I am a ‘die hard Bush fan’ is hilarious.

I didn’t even vote for the guy (I voted libertarian) and think that he has done a lot of damage to the county in many ways and have posted such on here in the past.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #139183

Again we come to the question, “what is the solution?” Forcing Bush to resign certainly isn’t feasible, nor is impeaching him. Basically, we have a lot of people saying there are problems (which is obvious) without giving a pragmatic course of action.

Posted by: Zeek at April 8, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #139184

Doncha think that this is kind of like skimming the cream off the milk, then saying it never came from the cow???? These two issues, though separate at one time, have become so convoluted that they don’t have distinct identities any more.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 8, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #139185

I would have liked to have seen a viable alternative in 2004. If the dems had put up anyone qualified to be president then we would have had a new president starting his term in January 2005. As it was, the completely incompetent John Kerry nearly pulled it off. Any real candidate would have had won easily.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #139187

No, Sandra, they have become ‘convoluted’ by illogical thought and a desire for a specific outcome. I’m trying to fight against that, to look at the facts of the issues at hand and not try to smudge them together illogically.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #139188

Zeek,

Basically, we have a lot of people saying there are problems (which is obvious) without giving a pragmatic course of action.
I don’t see anything infeasible about Bush’s resignation or impeachment. Unlikely, perhaps, but not infeasible. You agree that there’s a problem, so what is your suggestion as to a course of action?

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 8, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #139190

“Anyone involed with the leak of Plame’s name, yes.

This has nothing to do with that investigation. He is only being attributed in authorizing the release of information regarding the NIH document. Something within his rights to do.

Please explain to me how these two different things are the same to you.”

They were part of the very same conversation with Miller. Are you telling me that it’s just pure coincidence?

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #139191

Rhinehold,

He is only being attributed in authorizing the release of information regarding the NIH document. Something within his rights to do.
I agree, let’s stick to the facts. Can you elaborate why you think it’s within the President’s right to release the NIE document without informing the CIA first?

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 8, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #139194
Can you elaborate why you think it’s within the President’s right to release the NIE document without informing the CIA first?

Because as the president he has that legal authority? Last I checked, the CIA was not the leader of the executive branch, they work for him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #139196
They were part of the very same conversation with Miller. Are you telling me that it’s just pure coincidence?

No, Libby was told to release the information, as he claims, about the information in the document. He then went on to mention the information he had learned about Plame’s identity. Fiztgerald’s findings originally reported that Libby was upset about what he saw as the CIA trying to ‘pass the buck’ and went further to ensure that the information about Plame’s identity was made public knowledge. It in no way proves to me that Bush was involved in that and Fitzgerald in his new brief goes on to say the same thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #139205

Rhine
It all reeks of arrogance and abuse of power.
The president may have the authority to declasify certain documents, but doing so in a partisan political manner for personal gain is abhorent.
To defend so adamantly based on nitpicking the law sure makes you seem like a typical bushbot. Very similar to the claims of “bad WMD intel”, of “never SAID DIRECTLY that Sadam was behind 9/11, so it’s not a lie”.
The outcome was planned. The process sketchy at best, outright treasonous at worst. And this is what were supposed to accept from our president? Parsing, backpeddling, splitting legal hairs, obstructing and obfuscating to the point no one knows or remembers what the original truth was.
You might claim to be a libertarian, but your words and actions spell NEOCON.

Posted by: Norby at April 8, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #139207

Norby,

Your comments sounds exactly like the partisan splitting of hairs that you eschew to abhor. It makes it hard to take any of it seriously.

My words and actions? Please, what about my words on fiscal responsibility (of which this administration has none) and the ignorance of the right to accept the basic of human rights in dealing with homosexual marriage and the call to freedom that both parties are ignorant of?

Oh yeah, they don’t fit your clearly partisan model and must be ignored for your point to be made, much as most issues of facts need to be to keep the partisan blinders on.

As for ‘releasing them in a partisan political manner’, that’s your OPINION. I see it as a clear call to refute what someone was saying about the intel used as one of the reasons for the Iraq war, the statements that Wilson were making that were incorrect and incomplete (what about those issues?), at a time when support for the war by our partners in the war was waning. that, to me, sounds like an entirely resonable time to do it, something that at the time the media was SCREAMING for him to do.

Oh yeah, your words, claiming me a neocon wound me, I’m sure that anyone who isn’t calling for the immediate beheading of ‘King George’ are listed up in that category in your mind, aren’t they?

God, I love the smell of partisanship in the morning…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #139212

Why of COURSE we should trust Bush. To get us into the third world war that is.

Bush is getting ready to start the destruction of humanity:

U.S. military is seriously considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran

If this doesn’t start us on the road, nothing will. I am grateful to see this though:

The Pentagon advisor is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the issue.

It appears some folks have their heads on straight.

This scares the hell out of me, frankly.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 8, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #139213

Rhinehold,

Because as the president he has that legal authority? Last I checked, the CIA was not the leader of the executive branch, they work for him.
What evidence do you have that he has the legal authority? Saying that the CIA works for him does not automatically give him that right—just as it doesn’t give your employeers the right to provide your SS# to anyone they want.

Provide us with a source or a link that demonstrates the President has that legal authority…or is all this just your OPINION?

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 8, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #139214

“My words and actions? Please, what about my words on fiscal responsibility”

I was talking about todays discussion as I’m new to this forum. You can defend the “technical” legality of bush’s actions, but the political morality of it stinks.

“Your comments sounds exactly like the partisan splitting of hairs that you eschew to abhor. “

I’m talking about a clear pattern of skirting the intent, but barely staying technically in the law that bush and co. live on. Revising history when reality doesn’t match their claims. Clearly implying one thing, then claiming they never said such. Their are dozens of examples.

“Oh yeah, they don’t fit your clearly partisan model”

Damn right I’m partisan. The scorched earth republican tactics of the last decade made me such. Their stated goal is the extinction of the democratic party. When someone is out to kill me, I take it personally.

“that’s your OPINION”

EVERYTHING ANYONE posts on this forum is opinion.

“at a time when support for the war by our partners in the war was waning. “

It was of no concern to bush whether anyone else joined us, whether intel was correct, whether Sadam was an ACTUAL threat or a paper tiger, war was the plan.

“claiming me a neocon wound me”

I said you SOUNDED like one. You wanna parse technicalities, I can too.

“I’m sure that anyone who isn’t calling for the immediate beheading of ‘King George’ are listed up in that category in your mind, aren’t they?”

Anyone still defending this moron is either blindly partisan, or amazingly stupid.
Which is it?

“God, I love the smell of partisanship in the morning…”

That’s your own stink your smelling.

Posted by: Norby at April 8, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #139216

“The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate,”

“Libby passed the information about the document to New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. It was 10 days later, on July 18, when the same portions of the document that Libby discussed with Miller were released publicly.”

There’s your techicality, Rhine. Since the WH is refusing to give exact dates the bush ordered the document declassified, the inevitable spotlight on the issue and the heat generated are THEIR OWN DOING.
Why are they not releasing all details?
Why when asked about the “leak” years ago did bush issue such protestations about “firing the leaker”, about how much he hates leaks, etc, etc. He KNEW THEN that the info was leaked “officially”. If it was legal and necessary, why not just clear it up then? Why create such a mess? Why did Libby lie about it to a grand jury if not told to cover it up?
Stink,stink,stink.

Posted by: Norby at April 8, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #139218

“God, I love the smell of partisanship in the morning…”

You see it as partisanship… I say that’s crap. I say it’s learning from experience. Bush has led himself and us to this point… a point where he can no longer be trusted and assuming the worse of him has more than been proven to be a wise decision.

You still need proof of Bush’s involvement, but I doubt even given that - that you wouldn’t find some rationale for giving Bush another benefit of the doubt. I say he used all those up years ago.

Personally, I feel that Bush’s evil actions have completely invalidated any argument he makes - by the sheer fact that he has associated himself with that idea. You say I am foolish to beleive you support Bush, and I say that I can see no other option - based on your posts. As far as calling Bush evil, only idiots and evil men willingly choose war, and I am pretty sure Bush is no idiot.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #139224
Why when asked about the “leak” years ago did bush issue such protestations about “firing the leaker”, about how much he hates leaks, etc, etc. He KNEW THEN that the info was leaked “officially”. If it was legal and necessary, why not just clear it up then? Why create such a mess? Why did Libby lie about it to a grand jury if not told to cover it up? Stink,stink,stink.

*sigh* This just validates my point. The ‘info’ that was ‘leaked’ was the releasing of the information on Valerie Plame. It was *NOT* the release of the information in the NIH report. Which is what this discussion is about.

Libby lied to a grand jury to cover up that he released the information about Valerie Plame’s identity to a reporter to save his own ass. He released the information to ‘get back’ at the CIA who he had a grudge against.

That you can’t see the two things as seperate is the basis of my article in the middle column. It’s not necessarily your fault, but you should have the ability to see the difference between the two and refuse to.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #139225
assuming the worse of him has more than been proven to be a wise decision

Assuming someone guilty without proof has never been the right decision, it wasn’t with Nixon, it wasn’t with Clinton and it isn’t with Bush.

Just the thought that a single American can say those words without bile rising in their throat makes me very sad.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #139226
You say I am foolish to beleive you support Bush, and I say that I can see no other option - based on your posts.

Really? which posts, other than my comments to this article, are you referring to? Have you looked at any of them?

I know it’s to understand that someone can oppose the views of another but support some of their views at the same time, but you might want to try it. It’s a liberating feeling knowing that you don’t have to accept lock, stock and barrel what someone says or be against them entirely either. Human beings are more complex than single issues and not everyone fits in the molds that those people without salient thoughts attempt to shove them in to.

As far as calling Bush evil, only idiots and evil men willingly choose war, and I am pretty sure Bush is no idiot.

Are you calling our forefathers, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Wilson evil or idiots then?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #139227

Oh, and don’t forget Clinton, who had no problem with war when he was president. Idiot or evil? Please post your view…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #139234

d.a.n.:

Btw, you’re assertion that I am a ‘die hard Bush fan’ is hilarious.

I didn’t even vote for the guy (I voted libertarian) and think that he has done a lot of damage to the county in many ways and have posted such on here in the past.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 06:45 PM

[play ominous threatening music in background] It’s just you and Rhinehold, dude… Won’t you commit and Come On Over the whole way? I can make a very Reasoned argument to you over why Government should provide Services to The People - even (and especially) those you might classify as hateful entitlements! I promise that I can. C’mon, d.a.n.; you don’t wanna be sitting there hanging out with Rhinehold, do you?!? Try saying it aloud a few times:

“I am a Liberal Progressive. I care more about People and the quality of human existence than I do about anything else! I am a Liberal Progressive!!!”


:o)


Encouragingly,

Betty

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 8, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #139235

“Are you calling our forefathers, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Wilson evil or idiots then?”

None of them willingly chose war. Would you compare our invasion of Iraq with the American Revolution?

Clinton’s war was based on genocide. Iraq was based on lies (or, if you prefer - faulty intelligence.)

“Assuming someone guilty without proof has never been the right decision, it wasn’t with Nixon, it wasn’t with Clinton and it isn’t with Bush.”

There is no assumption here - I have seen mountains of proof. Also, this is not a court of law - I do not have to assume anyone is innocent where trust is involved.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #139236

Sorry, I care more about the right of people to be free to live their lives as they see fit than to have the government involved in every aspect of it, setting rules and bounderies when they don’t affect anyone else, and using the power for force the government wields to do so.

I really doubt you’re going to convince me that government is the only/best way for people to band together and take care of others, why just take a look at what the Drug War has allowed the government to do to our dogs!

Good Luck!

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #139237
None of them willingly chose war. Would you compare our invasion of Iraq with the American Revolution?

In many ways yes. It depends upon your prediliction, but assuming that YOUR way is the ONLY way just makes you look like a self-rightous baffoon.

I do not have to assume anyone is innocent where trust is involved.

Ah, but you do when it comes to convincing others of your view, now doesn’t it? You are going to sit there and say ‘Well, I’ve thought about it and this is the way I see it and you must be brainwashed not to see it that way.’ and expect me not to call you on it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #139245

Rhinehold:

I agree it is a damn shame about the dogs.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 8, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #139247

“Ah, but you do when it comes to convincing others of your view, now doesn’t it? “

I am only stating my beleifs - it is you who assumes I am trying to convince you specifically… so does this still hold true?

“but assuming that YOUR way is the ONLY way just makes you look like a self-rightous baffoon.”

I’m not sure there’s much to this argument. Bush and his actions could not be any clearer… nor could the proof of his intentions. I can not understand why you do not see it, but that’s your issue, not mine. However, I would never be so sad as to call someone a self-rightous BUFFOON simply because they disagree with me.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #139250

Rhinehold:

I’m certainly not trying to convince you of anything! (Waste of my time and only serves to confuse you…) But tell me:

When did the “War On Drugs” begin? - Under which Party?

As I recall, it began under Richard Nixon, and was then revived (in an almost Evengelical way) by none other than Ronald Reagan - who was going to “get government off our backs” - remember?

Of course, the War On Drugs didn’t fare so well when the Contras exported all that Cocaine into Los Angeles, did it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 8, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #139253

And supported by every democrat running national office. Neither party is clean on this one.

And it’s a GREAT example of how we get screwed whenever we allow government to have any say into our personal lives?

What about hate crimes? I’m pretty sure that democrats are all for criminalizing THOUGHT, aren’t they?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #139254

“What about hate crimes? I’m pretty sure that democrats are all for criminalizing THOUGHT, aren’t they?”

…and you think hate crimes should be just treated as normal infractions? Hate crimes have nothing to do with criminalizing thought - it’s all about criminalizing actions. I’m surprised you don’t see it that way.

“And it’s a GREAT example of how we get screwed whenever we allow government to have any say into our personal lives?”

Just more proof of why I see Bush as evil-minded. Bush has grown government far faster than any previous administration, and that government is far more intrusive into our personal lives. When I see that kind of mentality from our leader - I know it’s time to get a new one - immediately.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #139255
Hate crimes have nothing to do with criminalizing thought - it’s all about criminalizing actions. I’m surprised you don’t see it that way.

Crimes should be punished for their actions. Adding ‘extra penalty’ because of what someone was THINKING when they committed the crime means you are criminalizing thought. I’m surprised you don’t see it THAT way.

Bush has grown government far faster than any previous administration, and that government is far more intrusive into our personal lives.

Mmm, I could debate that, but I agree that Bush has done a lot to increase the size of government while being a ‘limiting government’ president, which I think is worse.

Like I said, I’m not a Bush fan. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #139259

“Crimes should be punished for their actions. Adding ‘extra penalty’ because of what someone was THINKING when they committed the crime means you are criminalizing thought. I’m surprised you don’t see it THAT way.”

So - the whole difference between man slaughter and 1st degree murder should eb done away with? Hate crimes are of the same ilk as terrorist crimes - and both should be dealt with in extreme manner. There are absolutely no ‘just cause’ or excuse for these crimes, therefore we should show no mercy in their punishments.

Posted by: tony at April 8, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #139262

No Tony,

There should a penalty for a behavior. It shouldn’t matter why the person committed the crime, the fact that it was committed should be the defining factor. If someone MEANT to do something, whether from greed, hatred, jealousy, fear, anger, etc shouldn’t matter.

Only if we find extenuating circumstances should we consider lowering the punishment. That is not criminalizing thought, that is understanding and considering the state of mind to give someone a break. We should *NOT* be ‘tacking on’ a few years punishment because of what they were thinking when they committed the crime.

What’s next, we extend a person’s punishment because he was a nazi? A republican? Or a libertarian? Should we start punishing because they are a practicing homosexual?

It all really depends upon who is in charge at that point, doesn’t it? I mean, we are already punishing someone soley on what is in their minds at the time.

If someone premidatedly kills someone, that’s disgusting and should be punished. BUT if someone kills them because they are ‘black’ we should be punishing them more? Does it matter, the person is any less dead? And what are we telling the parents of the guy that was killed because of greed, that that person’s killer shouldn’t get the same amount of time as they guy who was killed by the white supremist? That he is ‘not as deserving’?

Please, we as a society, we should not be criminalizing thought.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #139268

It seems that in our politically correct world, thoughts count more than actions. This philosophy did not evolve by accident. In a results based system, political correctness is never validated.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 9, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #139269
Betty Burke wrote, [play ominous threatening music in background] It’s just you and Rhinehold, dude… Won’t you commit and Come On Over the whole way? I can make a very Reasoned argument to you over why Government should provide Services to The People - even (and especially) those you might classify as hateful entitlements! I promise that I can.

I find this Darth Vader / The Dark Side analogy humorous. : )

Betty Burke,
Some see my abandoning the Republican party as an escape from the Dark Side. However, there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to join another party either. No … from now on, my vote might be for anyone from any party. No more straight ticket voting. Instead, from now on, the goal will be to know something about every candidate on the ballot.

Betty Burke,
However, I would like to hear your reasoning to support the idea that government should provide certain services to the people.

Some, I may agree with.
For example, I believe in welfare for the truly needy. Any civilized society can and should be willing to help those that truly need help.

However, the sticky point will who is truly needy, and who is not. Many that receive welfare are not truly needy, and many are not even U.S. citizens (such as 32% of all illegal aliens on welfare).

Since we have Social Security already, and since people have already been paying into it their entire life, they deserve to receive benefits. The sticky point is how much should those benefits be, and with an aging population, we may have no choice but to reduce benefits at some point in the future.

I did not agree with the Medicare Prescription Drug program (yet, another entitlement). Medicare is already bankrupt, Social Security is $12.8 trillion in the hole), Medicare is facing huge shortages, and could eclipse Social Security in a few more years.

The $8.4 trillion National Debt is way out of control and growing very quickly. It would now take 140 years to pay it off, if we stoped (today) borrowing $1 billion per day, and also started reducing the National Debt by $1 billion per day). Congress has completely abandoned fiscal responsibility. That wouldn’t be so bad, except that it was already preceded by 36 years of fiscal irresponsibility (excluding 1998 to 1999).

So, I believe in welfare for the truly needy, and taxes to fund it, but wish Social Security and Medicare had never been created, until government was responsible enough to properly manage it. But they weren’t and aren’t. Each may be doomed already. We may already be beyond the point of no return. The fiscal picture does not look rosy. Sure, the economy may look OK at the moment, and it may last a few more years, but there will be another recession (average occurrence every 2 to 11 years for the past 46 years).

And, I’m not a fan of government provided healthcare, because the federal government has already demonstrated its inability to responsibly manage entitlement systems, as evidenced by the $12.8 trillion deficit in Social Security, massive looming short falls in Medicare, and the PBGC $450 billion in the hole. The government has no discipline for handling money responsibly. The government is FOR SALE, and corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians pander and bribe voters with the voters’ own money. Power Corrupts without sufficient Transparency, Accountability, and Responsibility.

I believe we could have a better health care system if we simply eliminate the two unnecessary middlemen: government and insurance companies.

Before voters do anything, they need to, first, vote out all irresponsible incumbents, and then warn current and new incumbents that their career will be short too, if they still refuse to pass many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms, and make simplifications to unnecessarily and cleverly, over-complicated sysetms, to increase Transparency, Accountability, and Responsibility.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #139274

d.a.n.,

I agree that we should be helping those who are less fortunate. I just do NOT believe that we should be forcing that action through the power of the gun that the government provides. Instead, community organizations should provide assisstance and identify those in need, much like the Red Cross and other such organizations do a great job at.

Then the poor and needy wouldn’t be pawns in the political process anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #139279

>>Instead, community organizations should provide assisstance and identify those in need, much like the Red Cross and other such organizations do a great job at.

Then the poor and needy wouldn’t be pawns in the political process anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 01:09 AM

Rhinehold,

Think about it for a minute. Families, faith based institutions and charities were trying to handle it before…they were failing and people were starving. Do you really believe aid programs and Social Security jumped out of the basket because some buraucrat thought them up in order to build a power pyramid? Those programs and more were developed over time because the private sector was not filling the bill. Can you cite the percentage of cheats in the system? Figure a certain amount of chicanary and a certain amount of clumsiness, but don’t you really believe the programs target the most needy among us? What has turned you so bitter toward folks that lack your skills and/or intelligence?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 9, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #139295

i have been reading executive order 12958, signed by clinton in ‘95, the order which bush’s privilege to declassify classified information is allegedly attributed to, and nowhere does it grant the president authority to declassify such information at whim, without notification.

“Does it not matter that Fitzgerald hismelf [sic] has stated that Bush was not involved with leaking Plame’s name?”

…this is utter bullsh!t. fitzgerald made no such claim.

and might i remind, these actions would have been considered treason by anyone else.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at April 9, 2006 3:26 AM
Comment #139296
d.a.n., I agree that we should be helping those who are less fortunate. I just do NOT believe that we should be forcing that action through the power of the gun that the government provides. Instead, community organizations should provide assisstance and identify those in need, much like the Red Cross and other such organizations do a great job at. Then the poor and needy wouldn’t be pawns in the political process anymore.

Rhinehold,
I respect your opinion on this. As one with Libertarian leanings myself, I’m not keen on government involvement in much more that anything but National defense, and Law Enforcement. But look at the nightmare proportions our bloated, corrupt government has grown to now.

And, I wish all of the other entitlement systems (Social Security, Medicare, Prescriptions, etc.) had never been created.

Most people are willing to help the truly needy, I’m willing to make an exception for taxation for the truly needy. The truly needy should be a very small percentage of the total population. Hence, there would be few objections.

That would not be difficult at all, if it were not for all of the myriad of other things the federal government meddles in.

But, our current welfare system is severely abused. Heck, 32% of 12 million illegal aliens receive welfare. If that can’t be prevented, welfare at the federal level should be eliminated.

Rhinehold,
I hate to say it, but there’s a very good chance that all of this will solve itself ( the hard way) within the next 10 years. And, recovery from the next inevitable recession (occurring every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years) may not be easy due to the last several decades of fiscal irresponsibility.

We have sold ourselves out, and are being crushed by the weight of our laziness, apathy, and ignorance. Perhaps Americans sold themselves out long ago, and we are merely witnessing the transfer of assets?

The only way I see out of this, and it is a long shot, is for voters to wake up before it is too late, and start holding irresponsible incumbents accountable. Otherwise, our FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for government will continue to sell us all out, and the next thing we’ll have to worry about will be more than just our jobs.
But, no reforms are possible until one fundamental change is made first. All voters need to do is the one simple, common-sense, no-brainer, non-partisan, safe, peaceful, inexpensive, and responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along:


Vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and government finally agrees to pass the many badly-needed, common-sense, responsible reforms that incumbents have refused to pass for so many decades.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2006 3:27 AM
Comment #139299

Marysdude, long run on sentence, let’s see if I can break it down and answer your questions…

Think about it for a minute. Families, faith based institutions and charities were trying to handle it before…they were failing and people were starving.

MMm, there are a few things wrong with this…

First, they weren’t failing until the Depression. I don’t think we are in that position right now, are we? I mean, even as bad as the economy has been over the past 20 years, we’re way better than we were then when the programs were created.

Second, it took a flinch by the Supreme Court for these programs to even be created. Roosevelt stood toe to toe with them and they blinked when threatened with him packing the court, and people say BUSH is powerhungry.

Third, we are a much richer and stable country than we were in the 1930s, if you haven’t figured that out. We weren’t even considered a ‘world power’ at the time. Things have changes, why do you want to keep comparing them to 100 years ago?

Do you really believe aid programs and Social Security jumped out of the basket because some buraucrat thought them up in order to build a power pyramid?

No. I think they were initially created as a way to help the poorest among us at a time when there was not enough wealth to go around and should have been temporary. They were EXPANDED to the intrusive monumental inefficient wastes of taxpayer money that they are today because some bureaucrat thought to increase his political power base.

Those programs and more were developed over time because the private sector was not filling the bill.

Well, you can think that if you want… But looking at the statistics would disagree with your assertions, especially if you look at a recent post by Captain Capitalism which shows graphically that wealth redistribution programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, went from 3% of the federal budget in 1943 to 64% last year, while we are told over and over and over again that ‘the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer’ during time. Maybe it’s the notion of ‘wealth redistribution’ that might have a hand in causing that? how much of the federal budget should we be spending on wealth redistribution, 100? 120? The term ‘diminishing returns’ should be brought up here I think…

Can you cite the percentage of cheats in the system?

Doesn’t matter, giving someone a small amount of money does not HELP anyone long term, we need to give personal attention, provide MENTORS or some other method to give people the tools they need to help themselves. We are failing the people we need because we let the government take our taxes and hand a check to a nameless ‘poor person’ while ignoring the problem since we are paying our taxes to do our part. It’s disgusting…

Figure a certain amount of chicanary and a certain amount of clumsiness, but don’t you really believe the programs target the most needy among us?

Target? maybe. Succeed in helping? Nope. We have *3rd generation* welfare recipients now, what the…? Who are we really helping except creating a class of people who only know to live off of other’s hard work? These people aren’t ‘cheating’, they are just never taught to live on their own two feet.

What has turned you so bitter toward folks that lack your skills and/or intelligence?

Here I was having a nice debate about the value of wealth redistribution programs and then you have to end it with a stupidly disgusting attack on my character. I’m not for handing a paultry check to people who need something else from a different source than the federal government’s police power and you equate that to being a selfish jaded hater of the poor?

I swear, whenever I see someone stoop to that level, and it’s about as low as I can think of in a debate forum like this, it just goes to show that people who do not THINK and are incapable of doing little else than regurgitate the talking points they’ve been spoon fed for years always have to retreat to the name calling in an attempt to ‘scare’ the person into feeling guilty or shamed into giving up the point.

Here’s a clue, I’ve PERSONALLY helped more people than you can possibly imagine who needed it. I’ve had strangers living at my house, giving money and time to people who were in real need and GO to places, like the south recently, to help people who need it because I’ve put myself in a position where I can do that. Yet I still have to sit here and read someone who knows NOTHING about me insinuating horrible things about my character just because they are too ignorant to make a valid point to back up their partisan talking points?

Please, don’t bother responding, you’ve pretty much wasted any chance of respect in my eyes with this one little ignorant statement.

As the Cavemen on the Geico commercials say, ‘do a little research next time’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 4:01 AM
Comment #139300

Sorry to everyone else for the missing the blockquote, I wasn’t seeing straight.

I did want to add one thing. The worst part about ‘federal’ redistribution progams such as this is that we are trying to solve everyone’s problems the same. The problem is, they aren’t. People in California have different needs than those in New York, or Georgia.

For example, let’s just take a look at the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is set to X dollars, but the cost of living in different areas are are completely different! What may work somewhere in Idaho may be no where NEAR what someone needs in Virginia.

Why are we so hell bent on federal progams when LOCAL ones would serve their communities much better, meet their needs more approriately and be able to identify scammers much easier? Oh yeah, the power base that gets created…

I’m sure that someone has mentioned somewhere before about the dangers of ‘centralized power’… (and if you haven’t seen the quotes, do a google search on the anti-federalist papers…)

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 4:10 AM
Comment #139301

Btw, from a site about The Anti-Federalist Papers

They contain warnings of dangers from tyranny that weaknesses in the proposed Constitution did not adequately provide against, and while some of those weaknesses were corrected by adoption of the Bill of Rights, others remained, and some of these dangers are nowcoming to pass.

Educate yourselves, don’t just listen to the ‘talking heads’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 4:17 AM
Comment #139305

Rhinehold:

What a lucid response! I agree that simple wealth redistribution programs are at best bandaids. Intergenerational poverty and the resulting institutionalization of a modern underclass will be a growing problem for future politicians.

I believe that this problem is particularly hard to solve with generic national programs because the political attention span in America is determined by the election cycle. In order to impact the intergenerational cycle is necessary to implement long-term policies. Our political system doesn’t tend to sustain policies long enough to actually affect the cycle. Instead we implement a quick fix here and there because it’s more politically feasible.

I don’t know what to do about that. If you have a solution to this structural deficiency, we can also apply it to the educational system and really apply programs to a generation from pre-school through high school graduation.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 9, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #139325

Rhinehold,

Lots of words…nothing said…glad you had that conversation with yourself…the history you imply you’ve studied was, at best skewed by some sort of hateful reshaping, or gross exageration. I lived through most of that time and remember things far different than you state them.

I know you prefer for my responses to stop, because I >> equate that to being a selfish jaded hater of the poor, but my opinion stands. From whom did you take your lessons in vitriol?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 9, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #139328

one point on the hate crime issue:

In the conviction part of the trial, people are either convicted or aquited of a crime. It isn’t until the sentencing phase of the trial where the situation of the crime comes into play. A huge part of sentencing someone is the probability of repeating the offense. Sexual predators and hate-crimes (hate-criminals?) are extremely likely to repeat their offense. It’s because they are not driven to their crimes by environmental specifics - therefore it’s highly likely that they will repeat their offense. Also, since they show little or no remorse for their crimes, that speaks to their probability of repeat as well.

No one is trying to govern thought - but once someone allows their thoughts to drive their actions, then thoughts relating to that crime are of huge importance.

Posted by: tony at April 9, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #139333

From the NY Times today -

“Mr. Fitzgerald, in his filing, said that Mr. Libby had been authorized to tell Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, that a key finding of the 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq was that Baghdad had been vigorously seeking to acquire uranium from Africa.

But a week earlier, in an interview in his State Department office, Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention, and were “no longer carrying it as a credible item” by early 2003, when he was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the United Nations.

Mr. Powell’s queasiness with some of the intelligence has been well known, but the new revelations suggest that long after he had concluded the intelligence was faulty, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were still promoting it.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=bc85efcb03b580b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

——

I think this issue speaks much more to the overall approach to the Iraq invasion than to a specific conversation/leak with Miller. Again, it goes back to a track record… and the assumption of where Bush’s interest and motivation lie. I contend that anyone who wants to wait for the legal interpretations is simply stalling - grasping for any sort of rationale to justify what their their leaders (with their full support) have done.

This gets back to the 35% rule - we are down to the hard core, blind supporters that I don’t think will ever see things for what they are. These supporters can continue to pick at loose threads, but they will also continue to miss the larger picture because that would require that they admit to supporting bad people.

Posted by: tony at April 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #139335

“Instead, community organizations should provide assisstance and identify those in need, much like the Red Cross and other such organizations do a great job at.

Then the poor and needy wouldn’t be pawns in the political process anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2006 01:09 AM”

Rhinehold,
I can point to a couple of flaws in your reasoning by pointing out a couple of problems in my own community.

#1) It has been much publicized in the local press where I live that the number of elderly is disproportionately high in this community. I live in a small rural town and I doubt the problem is at all unigue. Quite simply the vast majority of high school graduates move away, either to pursue a vocation or to attend college, and they don’t return.

If the entire burden of providing aid were shifted to the community the community would quite simply collapse financially.

#2) An especially good case in point is that of the USDA food parcels that are delivered to the poor and elderly on a monthly basis. I go to the Senior Center here once or twice a week and the elimination of this program in the future budget has a lot of elderly retirees worried sick. For the most part I’m talking about widows that are living on $500 to $700 a month. (also, I’ve asked and it’s not been offset by Food Stamps)

The local ministerial association has been, and continues to be, financially strapped all winter due to a huge increase in heating costs that was not offset through matching increases in Energy Assistance programs. Many of these same elderly are also finding that the new Medicare part D plan has also resulted in them paying more for needed prescriptions.

I realize that there will always be those who’ll abuse any charitable program whether it’s administered privately or by the government. I don’t see however, how a person can point to the abusers and then reach the assumption that the entire program should be eliminated.

After all, how many people cheat on their taxes? I think it’s reasonable to assume that many of the tax cheats are far from poor. Admittedly I don’t know a great deal about welfare, and I certainly do believe that anyone who can work should either be working or looking for work. I think efforts are ongoing to achieve that goal.

IMO what we’re really faced with is the culmination of decades of moral decay resulting in a ME, ME, ME culture. I’ll never forget watching O’Reilly once repeating over and over, “not with my money!” I do however fail to remember what specifically he was objecting to.

The point is no one wants to pay but everyone wants a basic level of security for themselves. Even before the Great Depression the needs of the poor far outweighed the abilities of private charitable organizations, to suggest that somehow Americans are now more charitable flies in the face of reason.

Also you might want to google Red Cross. Quite a lot of internal problems there also.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #139338

RE: Hate crimes / Hate Groups:

Quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center (in which I’m a member)

“The number of hate groups in the United States reached new heights in 2005. The Intelligence Project counted 803 hate groups active, a jump of more than five percent since 2004 and a more than 30 percent rise since 2000, when there were 602.”

http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=187

“There’s no doubt that the white supremacist movement is growing — we’ve seen a substantial jump in the number of hate groups in just the last five years,” said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project. “And unfortunately, much of that growth has been in the most violent sectors of the movement, skinheads and Christian Identity adherents.”

Strange parallel to the current administration, huh?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #139345

“I think this issue speaks much more to the overall approach to the Iraq invasion than to a specific conversation/leak with Miller. Again, it goes back to a track record… and the assumption of where Bush’s interest and motivation lie. I contend that anyone who wants to wait for the legal interpretations is simply stalling - grasping for any sort of rationale to justify what their their leaders (with their full support) have done.”

Tony,

You’re exactly right. The specifics of any one piece of the puzzle are much less important than the picture you end up with when all the pieces are joined together.
The picture I end up more closely reveals something along the lines of the Mad-Hatter than that of the leader of the free world.

More blue kool-aid anyone? I have plenty.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #139349

I prefer the electric kool-aid, myself.

As I see it, at some point, you must react to what you have seen and learned from the past . At some point, waiting for proof of each wrongdoing seems rather desparate.

I’ve seen the “Clinton did it, too” agrument. In other words, you guys have been inconsitant, so your argument is not valid. Attack the messenger…

… the “No one has been convicted of anything, yet.” - or, wait till the lawyers hash this all out and then let them tell us what to think. Immediately, this seems to be a very bad idea. This is not about legal punishment for illegal acts, this is about trust and making our leaders take responsibility for their actions. Any legitimate legal action against an elected official should be grounds for dismisal - at least temporarily.

… the “you guys just hate Bush” argument. Is this the “I know you are but what am I” agrument? Again, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

How about this: anyone who still supports Bush (or defaults to this position by supporting his ideals) - show me a single reason he deserves the office he holds. Just one. (I’ve posted this several times, and had only one attempt, by a DEM, and that didn’t really seem to hold water.)

Posted by: tony at April 9, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #139352

Remember those tunnels under the White House? The Discover Channel did a show on them a while back. You know, the ones JFK and Clinton smuggled women in and out of and that were featured in the movie “Dave”.

Well, the rumor is that Bush is using them to sneak skinhead, klu klux klan and American Nazi Party leaders into the White House for late-night secret meetings in the Oval Office.

According to a highly-placed administration official (who spoke only on condition of anonimity), Bush even wears an old white night shirt over his head during these meetings.

An attempted cross-burning in the Lincoln bedroom was cut short when the flames set off the fire sprinkler system.

It is unclear if Mrs. Bush was aware of her husbands clandestine activities.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 9, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #139363

Although this is nothing new it’s just too good to not read:

Tony Hendra: The Bushes: A Hereditary Trait For Treason? Surely Not!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060408/cm_huffpost/018728

I know I should slow down on the blue kool-aid but it’s so dang good.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #139364

Even Arlen Specter thinks Bush should come clean:

“I think that it is necessary for the president and vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened,” Specter told “Fox News Sunday.”

He goes on to say:

“The president may be entirely in the clear, and it may turn out that he had the authority to make the disclosures which were made,” Specter said. But, he added, “it was not the right way to go about it because we ought not to have leaks in government.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_50

Not that I’d believe a word that Bush said at this point but Senator Specter is right, he owes us an explanation. After all, Bush was elected as our leader not as our ruler!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #139371

Specter said there ought not to be leaks in government?

That’s the funniest think I’ve heard since Clinton asked for the definition of the word “is.”

LEAKS ARE THE WAY OFFICIAL WASHINGTON DOES BUSINESS, whether it’s too gage public opinion about an issue or to smear an opponent or just to make the leaker feel important.

Whew! Where’s my Advil? My sides are killing me. Laughter does that to me!

Posted by: slowthinker at April 9, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #139374

slowthinker,

Specter said there ought not to be leaks in government?
Yes, and so did Bush. Many, many, times. No matter how you look at it, and regardless of whether his actions were illegal or simply immoral, Bush is a liar and a hypocrite.

Your going to need something stronger than Advil—that pain you feel is not from laughing too hard.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 9, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #139433

“Your going to need something stronger than Advil—that pain you feel is not from laughing too hard.”

We could hope it’s the pain of reality setting in.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #139461
I would like to hear your reasoning to support the idea that government should provide certain services to the people.

Sure. Allow me a bit of preface… If I had to define my political leanings, I would call myself a Democratic Socialist; that is, I believe in both democracy and socialism, according to my own personal definitions:

Democracy: a form of government in which The People determine policy through the Vote, within guidelines set by some sort of charter of rights.

Socialism: a form of government whose motto is “No Government Should Exist Which Does Not Serve The Best Interests Of The People.”

(Incidentally, I am not against either Commerce or Industry. Many people seem to think that Capitalism is a form of Government: it is not. The closest thing to Capitalism as a Form Of Government is Oligarchic Plutocratic Hegemony - which no true American Patriot would ever desire. Capitalism is, in fact, a system of economics in which free markets determine the value of goods and services. The term “free markets” does not mean “unregulated markets.” It means that the value of goods and services, and the professions of those who supply them, are not to be determined solely by governmental fiat [as was done with the failed so-called “communism” {which was actually a form of despotic dictatorship} under the old Soviet Union]. Social Democracy does not preclude capitalism; however, it does demand Regulation of it, to avoid abuses and provide a right to redress for harms caused [the concerns of The People being paramount, remember?])

Now, whereas Libertarianism demands that The People largely do for themselves, Socialism requires that government serve the needs of the People, or it should not exist. Since de-facto, Government must exist, we are faced with a question of What Serves The People? Here is my answer:

- The right to Live. I.e.: Shelter, Sustenance, Health Care, Education, and Security.

To guarantee these basic rights, and to keep the U.S. from looking like Somalia, the government must provide: Housing, the ability to have Food, Treatment and Medicine, Schools and Libraries (and, I would argue, some Airwaves as well), and Police and Fire Services.

- The right to Liberty. I.e.: Due Process, Defence, and Transportation.

To guarantee these basic rights, and to keep the U.S. from looking like Albania, the government must provide: Courts and Legal Aid, a strong Military, and a decent Transportation Network.

- The right to at least pursue Happiness. I.e.: Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Choice, Freedom Of Personal Lifestyle, Freedom Of Trade.

To guarantee these basic rights, and to keep the U.S. from looking like India, the government must provide: Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and (regulated, to prevent abuse and guarantee the right of redress) Free Commerce.

Now: how to do it? Well, as I have said, I am a tax-and-spend Socialist (albeit, a democratic one, who loves to Shop); so I say that “From each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need,” is a Good Start. The wealthy should be taxed out the ass (`til it bleeds, and they need some sort of cream to reduce the burning sensation: `threw that in there for you, Jack!), and the poor should benefit by government-sponsored programmes. (Which, by the way, can help everyone, Rich or Poor; consider the WPA: this nation’s infrastructure is failing, and too many people are out of work. Why not recreate the WPA [only much, much Larger] and put everyone who wants a job to fixing and building Roads, Hospitals, Jails, Schools, Fire Stations, Bridges, Border Fences, Port Security, etc.?) In this way, the nation does not look like Somalia, Albania, or India; the People are Fed, Housed, Healthy, Educated, and Secure; the national infrastructure is maintained and enhanced; crime drops dramatically; and in general we can start working our way back up the Quality Of Life Index instead of down it as we have been doing for so long.

Millionaires and Billionaires do not need to have extra Millions and Billions: but the Poor and the Sick do need to be Fed, Housed, and Treated.

Liberals are not Compassionate because they are Liberals; rather, they are Liberal because they are Compassionate. And the reason they eschew Social Darwinism is that it is not Compassionate. However, it is the connecting-point between Conservatism and “Libertarianism.” A Conservative says, “Fuck`em: if they can’t Swim, let `em Sink!” (and then he laughs evilly as he accumulates yet more Wealth he can’t possibly spend). A Libertarian, on the other hand, says, “Fuck`em: they aren’t entitled to those things because it’s not in the Constitution,” (and then he feels rather smug because he has correctly interpreted The Rules).

In both cases, The People get Fucked.

What I ask you to do, since you are obviously a person of character, is to stop parsing the Rules and let Compassion be your guide. Do what is Right, not what is “Correct” according to them. While Libertarians debate the strict meaning of the Constitution and Conservatives use its stringent interpretation as a Shield for their Wealth - people are starving in this land. People are un-Educated. People are dying of illnesses the Rich can afford not to have. People are living under freeway bypasses. And the freeway bypasses are crumbling over people’s heads.

If one is both Intelligent and Compassionate, there is but one choice for a citizen at this juncture of history in this nation: Socialised Democracy (or Democratic Socialism - you choose the semantics). Anything else is merely a promulgation of the Status Quo: the rich get richer and the poor - citizens though they are - die in the dirt. It warms the cockles of Conservatives’ cold, anthracitic hearts; can you possibly justify it?

If not, then please consider, at length, what I have said here. I truly hope that you will one day join with us for the good of Humanity - in both of its meanings.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 9, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #139486

Socialism has given us French civil order and English dentistry. No thanks.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 10, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #139517
A Libertarian, on the other hand, says, “Fuck`em: they aren’t entitled to those things because it’s not in the Constitution,” (and then he feels rather smug because he has correctly interpreted The Rules).

Wow, what a completely ignorant, offensive and innacurate view you have of libertarians. I’m not sure there’s much we can say to each other going further if you really have this view of me and what I stand for as a libertarian.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #139520

Btw, Betty, the reason that libertarians are concerned about the constitution is that if we simply ignore it when it gets in our way, we invalidate the entire thing. We already see that today, Republicans want to ignore the 1st amendment, Democrats want to ignore the 2nd, etc.

The simple answer is, if the things you want aren’t legally possible because the constitution does not allow it, why not fight to amend the constitution to allow it? Why scoff it and ignore it simply because it’s not expedient enough? Or label those that do care about their rights as somehow selfish?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 7:13 AM
Comment #139659

Rhinehold, I simply cannot believe that you are unaware of the hijacking of the word “libertarian.”

I have encountered countless people in the past ten years who style themselves “libertarian” when what they really mean to say is, “I am a hardcore Conservative who has just been too sickened by what my fellows are calling for to identify myself as such anymore.”

And even before the NewSpeak happened, I had problems with the Official Libertarians…

When a Libertarian (Official) says, sneeringly, “There’s nothing in the Constitution about the U.S. Government building Roads or providing Healthcare,” it reminds me why I am a (democratic) socialist. See Above: any government which does not serve the Needs of its People should not exist at all.

When people are dying of starvation, exposure, and disease, it is the responsibility of any legitimate government to step in and remedy that situation.

Libertarians (genuine or otherwise) are opposed to that. The Official sort are opposed by Party Platform, and the NewSpeak sort are opposed by internal Character-Flaw (they are Conservatives).

Now, tell us all: are you - as a Libertarian - in favour of government-supplied Housing, Sustenance, and Healthcare? Or do you prefer the U.S. to look like Calcutta and Bangladesh?

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 10, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #139673

NO, it’s the responsiblity of the CITIZENS to do it, not the government to use guns to force people to do it. I’m not sure why you think anyone wants help from someone who only did it because if they didn’t they were going to have a bullet in their heads but it isn’t me.

And a government that has to turn its guns on its own citizen is not a government I want to have anything to do with. It’s sick and disgusting and that you think that is ‘ok’ makes me want to throw up.

But, of course, since you don’t care about the constitution at all, I’m sure you won’t mind when someone comes along and takes you to jail for simply writing your thoughts on this blog…

AND yes, Betty, there are other ways to accomplish things other than using the police power of the goverment. Use your brain once and ponder alternative that DON’T result in American Citizens getting shot and killed. Don’t think that’s happening? LOL, you’re more nieve than I thought.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #139674
LOL, you’re more nieve than I thought.

Oh yeah, you’re a socialist, Nieve pretty much sums that thought process up nicely.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #139813

Can anyone count the times that Rhinehold has called a poster stupid, uninformed or ignorant, offensive and innacurate, or don’t care about the constitution…or, or, or, I can’t keep track.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 11, 2006 6:32 AM
Comment #140133

Rhinehold:

WTF? What in Blue Hades is all this shite about “using guns to force the people to” do anything?!?!? Have you gone `round the bend entirely?

Where in my previous post does it say that I’m in favour of having the government “use guns” to build housing for the poor or provide healthcare?

Better get that tinfoil hat cleaned and oiled, buddy: I think it’s fitted to tight…

P.S.: It’s “Naive.” Like the Water, only backwards…


Marysdude:

1,456 times. `Hope that helps.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 6:15 AM
Comment #140134

[ +’o’ ]

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 6:17 AM
Comment #140176

Rhinehold and Ms. Burke:

Ms. Burke posted above:
WTF? What in Blue Hades is all this shite about “using guns to force the people to” do anything?!?!? Have you gone `round the bend entirely?

Where in my previous post does it say that I’m in favour of having the government “use guns” to build housing for the poor or provide healthcare?


AND For your consideration from the green column:

And I am in deadly earnest when I say that if the Ballot Box can no longer be relied upon, then perhaps the Bullet Box should be accessed by The People once again.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 10, 2006 05:29 PM


As you can see Ms. Burke is not advocating violence by the government; she is advocating armed resistance to the government.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 12, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #140311

Correct: just as Thomas Jefferson did.

[adopts manner of Silvio Dante] What? Yougodda problem wit’ Tommie Jefferson?!??

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 12, 2006 10:15 PM
Post a comment