Democrats & Liberals Archives

Is Impeachment Still Off the Table Pelosi?

Hey Pelosi? Is impeachment still off the table with the information from Scott McClellan’s publisher that he was told to lie about the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity by Cheney and Bush (along with Card, Libby, and Rove)?

The reports of the exact quote that released by the publicist for McClellan's book "WHAT HAPPENED: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington" is as follows:

"I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby," Mr McClellan wrote.

"There was one problem. It was not true," Mr McClellan wrote before making the inflammatory claim: "I had unknowingly passed along false information."

"And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice-President, the president's chief of staff and the president himself." (Independent)

Not released was exactly how McClellan came to know he had been deceived by everyone.

At this point there is no response from the White House regarding the information that the key players in the administration told McClellan to lie to the press about administration involvement in the criminal exposure of a CIA covert operative. The issue was then compounded by the outing of the cover business that she worked for.

Let's talk impeachable offenses, shall we?

The Plame leak was part of the cloth of lying to the American people and Congress in the administration's justification for a preemptive invasion of Iraq. Plame's CIA connection was leaked in an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson's challenge of the Niger yellow cake uranium validity. It might also have served the purpose of disabling direct intelligence inside Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program.

While the Republicans have tried to minimize Plame, and therefore the severity of leaking her identity, the damage is far larger than just Plame. Plame was a NOC (an espionage agent with a CIA Non-official Cover). She was "employed" by a CIA front company by the name of Brewster-Jennings & Associates:

U.S. intelligence sources have also said that Fitzgerald's investigation has gone far beyond the mere leaking of Plame's name, itself a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but has expanded to look into the exposure of Plame's colleagues who worked under the cover of a CIA firm called Brewster, Jennings & Associates. The "brass plate" CIA proprietary had offices in Boston and Washington, DC. Active since 1994, Brewster-Jennings was instrumental in tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had agents or correspondents in a number of countries including Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Russia, South Africa, Iran, Israel, China, Pakistan, Congo (Kinshasa), India, Taiwan, Libya, Syria, Serbia, and Malaysia. By releasing Valerie Plame's name, other agents' non-official covers were blown and the lives of U.S. operatives within foreign governments and businesses may have been placed in danger.

So the in addition to the crime of identifying an under cover agent in the employ of a U.S. intelligence organization, this also exposed a front company that was intimately involved in global weapons of mass destruction investigations and monitoring. Further, the scope of that unit included the so-called "state sponsors of terror" and nations who are definitely within the frame for Bush "regime change" - Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Also, Brewster-Jennings was operating in Pakistan which was one of the centers of exporting nuclear weapon technology. Is it only coincidental that the A. Q. Khan "nuclear marketplace" came to public attention in the winter of 2004?

The outing of Plame and Brewster-Jennings, also shut down first hand intelligence coming out of Iran. How convenient to have no confirmation of Iran's nuclear activities if you want to use that activity as legitimation to preemptively attack Iran. Seems, hauntingly similar to the U.S. getting the IAEA investigators out of Iraq prior to the preemptive strike there - legitimated on imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

One assumes that the outing of Plame was an indirect attack on Wilson. However, the administration certainly knew that she was a NOC, that she worked for a CIA cover company which was the "eyes on the ground" in the monitoring of nuclear activity in a critical part of the world. They certainly knew that their actions would place at risk intelligence sources all across the Middle East and Asia. In other words, it would dramatically undermine - if not destroy - an intelligence network critical to national security. It therefore seems that the fact that Plame is married to Wilson, and Wilson had embarrassed the administration, was simply "convenient." Just as intelligence is "inconvenient" when it might get in the way of larger plans. Those plans include the Pax Americana vision formalized by the Project for a New American Century - which numerous members of the Bush administration participated in (including Cheney).

Some might consider this analysis grasping at straws, or part of some grand "conspiracy theory." I think not. The administration has been characterized as a pack of bumbling fools whose "plans" consistently "fail." I would counter that the neo-conservatives are neither fools nor stupid. They are stacked deep within this administration, and what appears to be "failure" could just as easily be seen as further the plan of U.S. empire. For example, Iraq is promoted as a "failure." However, ongoing chaos in Iraq legitimates a long term (if not permanent) U.S. military presence in Iraq. Even the Democrat's fair haired hawk apparent Hillary Clinton supports an indefinite military presence.

The events of September 11, 2001 launched the formalized game plan of Pax Americana and the transformation of the United States from a democratic republic and on the course of a fascist dictatorship. While, I strongly believe that the administration was directly involved in those events, it was another "convenient" occurrence for overtly launching the grand plan. Lack of information and disinformation is a primary tool of the current cabal. If one thinks that the Plame/ Brewster-Jennings was just accidental, and yet another example of revenge against "enemies" of the administration, I really suggested you look at the "top secret" bombing of the Syrian "nuclear facility" (Wolf 1, Wolf 2). Convoluted? You bet.

No U.S. administration is above the law. The outing of Plame was definitely a crime of huge proportions given the alleged threat we now live under.

So Pelosi, is impeachment still off the table? If it is, are you intentionally covering up a criminal conspiracy?


Addendum: the Wikipedia entry on Brewster-Jennings has some interesting tid-bits.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at November 23, 2007 7:55 PM
Comments
Comment #239086

Oh stop it you big baby! Grow up and write about something more important, like how well the war in Iraq is going for example. Millions of Iraqi refugees are returning home happy, home to a new democratic society thanks to the man you want to impeach.

Posted by: Maxcroft Squire Muhldoon at November 23, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #239087

This is nothing more than a quibble over semantics and nothing about it is news.

In a press conference, McClellan said that he’d asked his superiors and they’d told him that Rove and Libby were not involved in leaking the identity of an undercover operative.

Not released was exactly how McClellan came to know he had be deceived by everyone.

Everybody already knows this information. It publicly emerged in the course of the investigation that Rove and Libby had discussed Joe Wilson’s wife with reporters.

Libby was convicted about lying about just this to a grand jury. There would be no crime, however, if he also lied to Scott McClellan. And it would be very easy, in any event, to simply maintain that when they said “not involved” they were not referring to conversations with reporters but to involvement in illegaly outing of someone they knew to be undercover. Something which legally speaking never happened because no one was even accused of that, much less convicted of it. McClellan is trying to sell copies of his book, and it looks like this marketing strategy will succeed, but he’s not telling anybody anything they don’t already know.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 23, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #239089
Millions of Iraqi refugees are returning home happy

Facts? Figures? Reality? Millions????

Posted by: Rachel at November 23, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #239090

Yes, facts rather than hype regarding Iraqi returnees and their reasons for returning are in order.

1. Those who are returning seem to be returning from Syria which has about 1.4 million Iraqi refugees of whom some 60,000 have returned.

2. According to a UNHCR survey:

“Most of some 110 Iraqi families interviewed said they were returning because they were running out of money and/or resources, they faced difficult living conditions or because their visas have expired.

As a result of recent visa restrictions, a number of Iraqis have been unable to shuttle back and forth between Iraq and Syria to get additional resources, make some money or collect food distributions or pensions.
The incentives offered by the Iraqi government of some 700-800 U.S. dollars to return home, as well as free bus and plane rides, have also played a role in rising returns.”
Posted by: Rowan Wolf at November 23, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #239091

Rowan,

This is exactly why I had a problem with Woody’s original article about this when he said that he was just ‘theorizing’, about what might be said.

The facts are (and we should be dealing with facts when bringing up ‘impeachment’) that there is nothing at all new in this recent ‘teaser’ for a book. And it is articles like this one that end up hurting the very result that you are seeking.

Just as those calling for Bush’s impeachment before he even took office in January 2001 hurt that same goal.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 23, 2007 11:21 PM
Comment #239094

Rhinehold, while I respect your opinion, I do not share it.

Regarding this article, I believe that McClellan’s “teaser” is confirmation of something that was only suspected before, and which was not included as part of the Libby trial. Further, the administration’s claim that Libby had “done nothing wrong” in impeding the investigation is challenged by McClellan’s claim.

Further, the reason Libby was on trial was because he “threw himself on the sword” to keep just this information from coming out.

There is a difference between “suspecting” and potential confirmation of those “suspicions.” Hence, this new information is significant.

Further, the outing of Plame is one in a whole string of issues. Impeachment starts with an investigation. An investigation may show that the actions of this administration have not crossed the line. If the investigation shows that there are impeachable offenses, then that too is important.

I was not a Clinton supporter by any stretch of the imagination; but I thought that the impeachment effort was ridiculous. The issue had nothing to do with breaches of the Constitution. Now, people point to that as a “waste of time” so that now when we are potentially facing much more serious issues “we don’t want to waste the time.”

People tend to think that all concern of “liberals” and “Democrats” is with Bush. However, I don’t want ANYONE to inherit the powers that this administration has embraced. I feel that the expansion of executive power and privilege poses a direct challenge to our form of government and our rights and protections.

Posted by: Rowan at November 24, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #239096
I believe that McClellan’s “teaser” is confirmation of something that was only suspected before, and which was not included as part of the Libby trial.

I understand, which is why you are projecting onto what was stated in the teaser. It says nothing at all new to people who read it objectively, however if you have a bias and want it to say something…

the administration’s claim that Libby had “done nothing wrong”?

And when did Bush say that Libby had done nothing wrong? As I recall, he said that Libby was wrong and found guilty as he should have been. Where is the evidence that the administration said that he did nothing wrong after the trial? Until the investigation, even, they had no idea that he was the leak, he was only authorized to release information about the NIE report.

Further, the reason Libby was on trial was because he “threw himself on the sword” to keep just this information from coming out.

An opinion not based in fact…

If the investigation shows that there are impeachable offenses, then that to is important.

So you support a hunt on the hopes of finding something impeachment worthy? Or should we support the rule of law and liberty in this country that we don’t investigate people until we have something to investigate and we stay within those areas? Given your way of looking at it we should be investigating everyone, perhaps they have done something wrong?

but I thought that the impeachment effort was ridiculous. The issue had nothing to do with breaches of the Constitution.

Committing a felony is a pretty big deal and have very much to do with the Constitution. I know some want to blow it off as ‘just about sex’ but there are still people who understand what the issue was really about, whether or not a sitting president lied under oath during an investigation into allegations he had sexually harassment someone. There are indeed those of us who do not think sexual harassment is something to be taken lightly and believe that defending Clinton on this by saying it was ‘a waste of time’ have watered down the fight against sexual harassment in the US today…

I feel that the expansion of executive power and privilege poses a direct challenge to our form of government and our rights and protections.

If you replace ‘this administration’ with ‘the past 80 years of neocon and progressive politics enacted by the legislative, judicial and executive branches’ then I would be in agreement. If you foolishly think that it is just ‘this administration’ that has been a direct challenge to our form of government and our righgts and protections, without understanding that they are just building upon expanses that were okay’d for other pet reasons over the course of our recent history (RICO statues anyone) then your claim to be a champion for liberty falls a bit flat.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 24, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #239098

Just to get it out of the way, I take sexual harassment very seriously being both a feminist and a having experienced it myself.

I think you are going a bit far afield to talk about the last 80 years, or I don’t get what is significant about the last 80 versus the last 200. I mean, if you want to argue that every change to the Constitution was a violation of the document, then I can’t go there. I am not a Constitutionalist. I believe there are things that follow the intent of our founding principles and those that do not. Fundamentally, I believe that the most important aspects of the Constitution are to protect the people from being abused by their government, protect the voice and participation of the people in our government, and to maintain a balance of powers in a democratically elected state.

While other administrations have certainly engaged in questionable (and possibly illegal) activities, there has been little check - little of the balance of powers - with the current administration. There have been no consequences for outright violations. For example, the White House has refused to comply with a court order to provide the records of Cheney’s energy meetings, and there has been no action to enforce that court order.

I am unclear what you are trying to say - beyond the point that you think I am a fool or liar, or at least disingenuous.

I guess my question would be. If the current administration is just building on the expansion of executive power over the last 80 years, at what point do you think that expansion has gone too far?

Posted by: Rowan at November 24, 2007 1:34 AM
Comment #239099

Rowan, I personally think it’s great that you brought this issue back in here now that the spotlight is back on it again. Obviously there are a number of people, both on here and in society in general, that don’t want anyone stepping on those toes again. I’m sorry that the first post in here is as hateful as it sounds, and awfully close to what could be determined as violating the rules for participation.
This administration has just run rampant with improprieties and left too long unchecked. Maybe this will be a turning point by which the truth can, and will be reached.

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 24, 2007 2:13 AM
Comment #239101
Just to get it out of the way, I take sexual harassment very seriously being both a feminist and a having experienced it myself.

While I am not saying I don’t believe you, how does that stated view mesh with your assertion before that the impeachment of Clinton was ridiculous?

I think you are going a bit far afield to talk about the last 80 years, or I don’t get what is significant about the last 80 versus the last 200

I believe that the expanses of government during the ‘New Deal’ has fractured the country in ways that not only changed the way that our federal government deals with its citizens and oversteps the bounds that were put in place to prevent that fracturing from taking pace in a very direct and purposeful way that may prevent this country from ever being able to exist as it was meant to.

Now, I am not someone that at all believes that our government should be stagnant or that there should not be changes to the constitution to alter what our government can and can’t do. That’s is a gross mischaracterization of how I view the federal government in the US.

However, it is the changes to the constitution that are NOT done through the approved constitutional channels, ie Amendments, that very obviously happened in the 30’s and continue to today that I find have made Bush’s quote about the constitution ‘just being a goddam piece of paper’ somewhat correct. If you ignore the constitution to fit your pet view of what government should do without altering the constitution as it should be, then you invalidate the whole thing, IMO.

If the current administration is just building on the expansion of executive power over the last 80 years, at what point do you think that expansion has gone too far?

Well, the most obvious recent one that I mentioned earlier were the RICO statues that were built upon by the Bush administration to include suspected terrorists. Originally they dealt with suspected drug dealers and then moved on to include suspected child molesters and now include suspected terrorists. Remember, SUSPECTED is the key word.

And what is worse is that while the act was suppose to fight against organized thugs, it has turned the government into one itself. All the government has to do is label someone as a suspect in any of a number of criminal activities and it can sieze (and resell at pure profit) the assets of the suspect. Not just large cash holding organizations but anyone, effectively preventing them from putting up much of a defense due to lack of funds. People trying to defend themselves against charges of terrorism, selling x-rated videos, medical marijuana, etc are all prevented from having the means of adequate defense.

It was my understanding that people were to be seen as ‘innocent’ in the eyes of the law until they had been proven guilty. Does seizing a suspects assets and blocking them from being able to defend themselves sound very American to you?

But, let’s go further!

In the 1930s when Roosevelt was attempting to enact the New Deal, he found that most of his programs were rightfully seen by the Supreme Court as violations of the Constitution’s limits on government. In an attempt to ram his programs through, Roosevelt threatened to alter the court from 9 members to 12, meaning he would have to appoint 3 new members and then ensure that those members would vote his way. It was defeated by Congress, along with an Executive reorganization plan that sought to expand the powers of the Executive Branch, but by that time it had already served its main purpose, getting some of his plans through the courts.

Early in the year, he asked Congress to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court so as to allow him to appoint members sympathetic to his ideas and hence tip the ideological balance of the Court. This proposal provoked a storm of protest.

In one sense, however, it succeeded; Justice Owen Roberts, switched positions and began voting to uphold New Deal measures, effectively creating a liberal majority in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation thus departing from the Lochner v. New York era and giving the government more power in questions of economic policies. Journalists called this change “the switch in time that saved nine.

I could also go into the creation of the Department of Education, use of federal highway funds to blackmail states into enacting laws the executive branch wants in place, etc.

In fact, at the beginning of the 20th century the federal government consumed only 8% of our national income. Today that number is above 47%. Many of these funds are for programs that are not technically within the scope of the federal government, but have been given the legal authority to be so because of the short-sighted expanses that were approved during the New Deal era. All in response to the Great Depression which, many argue (successfully I might add), existed BECAUSE of government. As one historian put it many years ago, the answer to solve the problem of too much government was MORE government…

But I’m digressing. Let’s just say that I do not approve of many things that this administration is doing or is attempting to do. But make no mistake, they are just expanding on the past expanses and violations of previous administrations. We can look to the Clinton years for example: Using IRS returns of political opponents against them, selling rocket technologies to the Chineese for election funds, etc. Reagan: Iran-contra. Nixon: Watergate. Kennedy: Bay of Pigs. etc, etc, etc….

We aren’t demanding that the government work within its bounds because we get something out of the deal. We’re political prostitutes, selling ourselves to the highest bidder, the one who promises the most to us personally. We use the government as a means of taking money from someone else to give back to us, never understanding fully that we end up giving it right back to those same people at the end of the day…

My old age is starting to catch up to me, I fear. I am becomming more and more disheartened by the lack of principles, of understanding what the term ‘liberty’ means and how we gave it up decades ago for the idea of a ‘fair’ society where we all get to exist, if we are lucky, at the level of the lowest common denominator. So perhaps you can take my rantings as such and ignore them, continue on your crusade to attack the idea or figurehead of what you see as the enemy while propping up his exact mirror for the next go around. Just remember that with the changes in political parties in power we have seen an ever increasing government and an ever decreasing state of personal liberty in this country. Neither party has the protection of our rights as a priorty, instead they seek only to increase their political base of power, promising to help people who need it while only making sure that they continue to remain in need so that they can be exploited again the next election cycle.

Excuse me while I go throw up now, seeing into the future to the type of society that will exist in 50 years time and knowing that there is little, if anything, that can be done to stop it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 24, 2007 3:48 AM
Comment #239102

More inuendo

You got nothing. Investigations found a lot of hot air and some screw ups.

Impeach Bush. Bring it on. Republicans had their Monika; why not let Democrats have their Valerie.

This is getting really old, like Dem ideas in general, I suppose.

Posted by: Jack at November 24, 2007 4:06 AM
Comment #239103

Rowan,

Although I wrote a similar post about this, I think you are pushing it too far. It is not clear yet what McClellan meant. Let’s wait and see whether it develops into anything or he is just trying to sell books.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 24, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #239105

Oh for goodness sakes will you get off the Clinton thing already. 200 years from now people will still be bringing up Clinton to justify any future president’s behavior.

We all know that if this was a democratic president the other side would be screaming for empeachment. Oh I forgot they already did that over a much more minor issue.

Why can we not stick to the issue which is the Plame issue and leave out all the little side issues that distract from what really went on. Clinton is no longer president so what he did or didn’t do is totally irrelevant. Just as anything Nixon did is not relevant, nothing Reagan did is relevant, and so on.

I am not surprised that Bush and his minnons would lie to cover themselves. I would hazard a guess that just about every president we have ever had would or has lied to cover up stuff.

The real point is this needs further investigation to find out who really knew what and when. If the only way to do that is to start the impeachment process then so be it. If it is determined that Bush did not commit an impeachable offense then so be it. Then don’t impeach. What are the neocons so afraid of. If he has done nothing wrong then why worry and insist on defending everything he does. To me it seems people doth protest his innocence too much.

Posted by: Carolina at November 24, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #239109

Valerie Plame outed herself when she tried to circumvent campaign contribution laws. She blew the cover off her “front” by listing it as her employer when she tried to squeeze an extra 1000$ into a Democratic campaign warchest.

I often wonder if Mr. Libby knew Plame and Wilson were the same person!

This is just another example of hypocracy.
Clinton can lie under oath to a grand jury and it’s a trivial thing but a lapse of memory is grounds for jail time for a republican.

Torture is a criminal act when a republican president is protecting our sorry asses but 53 days of sleep deprevation, bright lights and deafening noise leading up the the torching of a church group consisting of men, women, and children is just an unfortunate outcome.

Hypocracy is as obvious as a big booger hanging from the Democratic party leadership’s noses. And the media doesn’t bother to remove the booger because they think we are too dumb to notice it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #239115


Although the Bush Administration is far more corrupt, dishonest and criminal than either the Nixon or Reagan Administrations, the Vice President has already made certain that there will be no incriminating tapes or emails. The President has assured everyone in his Administration that pardons and high paying jobs are awaiting any who might be tempted to give forth information to avoid jail terms.

Impeachment is not a winner for the Democrats. They have an excellent strategy for the time remaining between now and the elections if they will only use it. The Republicans in the Senate have made it perfectly clear that they will use the fillibuster on every piece of Democratic legislation. The Democrats have been compromising with the Republicans to get legislation passed only to have the President veto the legislation and then lamblast the Congress for doing nothing.

The best possible strategy for the Democrats to follow is to write their own legislation, force the Republicans to either accept the legislation or hold a year long fillibuster. If the Republicans accept the legislation only to have Bush veto it, that is a winning situation for the Democrats.

Posted by: jlw at November 24, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #239119
Valerie Plame outed herself when she tried to circumvent campaign contribution laws. She blew the cover off her “front” by listing it as her employer…

Weary Willie,

I don’t think you are quite getting this front thing. The fact that she worked for the front was not a secret. If she had listed her employer as the CIA, then she would have blown her cover.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 24, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #239122

Weary Willie : “This is just another example of hypocracy.
Clinton can lie under oath to a grand jury and it’s a trivial thing but a lapse of memory is grounds for jail time for a republican.”
I find it hard to understand how some can compare Clinton having suffered “nothing” and Libby suffering “jail time”, when neither one of those things are what happened to either one ! Why is it so easy to consider impeachment as nothing? and a Presidential pardon, (excuse me, commutation) as jail time?
We keep having people refer to these two issues as identical the way they see them, and that is aparantly what you all are refusing to see. Clinton: nobody pays the ulitmate price of death for his misbehavior. Bush, et al: thousands! have paid the ultimate price!

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 24, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #239136

Woody Mena,
The fact she used this front to illegally contribute 1000$ to a campaign at least shows a personal neglect for her position.
To blame, PLAME , GWBush for outing her is taking this situation way out of context.
This is another shallow attempt to make our President look bad by way of false and missleading information.
Sorry, The Plame issue is dead meat.
You’ve got your bite via Libby.


Jane Doe,

ah, ah feel yur pain! Trust me, ah, ah do.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #239137

jwl,

It’s good to see you have your nation’s best interests at heart.

I’m looking forward to when you and your ilk are elected to the presidency. Good luck to you on that.

That chair isn’t in the back seat.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #239139
The fact that she worked for the front was not a secret.

Wrong! The fact she worked for the cia was not a secret. The “front” was an extinct business who’s owner was dead for 30 years.

She used this front company to falsify a document used to contribute 1000$ to a campaign her husband had already contributed to. This attempt to contribute 2000$ when only a 1000$ contribution is legal was obviously done to circumvent the campaign finance rules.

She got caught and she didn’t loose credibility but the person who caught her did.
I really don’t find this suprising.
What made this a national issue how it is used in the national media.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 5:11 PM
Comment #239145

Jane Doe,

ah, ah feel yur pain! Trust me, ah, ah do.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 04:30 PM

What the he** are you talking about?

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 24, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #239146

iam tawlkin bout the gubmint litlmissy. Tawlkin’ bout whats runnin yer life fer ya.

Yer jusa little priisy spoilt cus ya got nice clothin on.
The sad thin is ya think it’s cause the gubmint is givin’ it all too ya and yer expectin it.

Someones got to pay for it sweety. I’ll be dead an’ gone but you won’t. Sorry about yor luck.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #239147

WIllie, you don’t know me and I don’t believe you have the right to talk to me like that. Fine, I’ll take a chance and if nobody else sees Willie’s comments as obnoxious and inappropriate, then I don’t need to be in here.

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 24, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #239148

I’m talking about how the Democratic Party leadership has used the Iraq war specifically and the war on terrorism generally as a means towards recovering control of our government.

Our government did what was needed to be done after 30 years of being assaulted by “terrorists”. The Democratic Party leadership sanctioned a reply to the terrorism that has been inflicted on this country.

The Democratic Party retracted this sanction when the 2004 election began it’s process.
George Bush won the 2004 election. Democratics said the harassment of this administration will not stop. It didn’t.

If George Bush should be convicted of a war crime it should be that he neglected to interfere when 2 people were working out their differences. The media and the Democratic Party Leadership proclaimed with glee that Iraq was in a civil war and we had no place. George Bush was accused of holding secrets when asked to comment.

I think our solders in Iraq know that the population of Iraq do not hold our solders or our government responsible for their turmoil. I think the Iraqi people are looking forward to when they will have a democratically elected government.

I also think when our media forgets about the Iraq war as it did when it forgot about the Bosnia war, the results will be the same.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #239149

I do have the right to talk like that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #239151

Jane Doe is a term used to identify some entity that is unidentifiable.

My response to Jane doe was just that. A response to an entity that is unidentifiable.

I’m not quite regretting your taking it personally.

Is the impeachment of GWBush really needed or is it just another ploy by the media and the democratic party leadership to undermine this presidency?

Shallow inuendo and fabrications don’t lean towards impeachment. Perhaps video taped testimony should but that didn’t work at all. What chance do you think Valerie Plame has to initiate impeachment hearings if video taped lies aren’t enough to convict? Why is this Valarie Plame situation still saturating the media if there is no possibility of another conviction?

You have to realize this government is out of control.
Denial is perpetuating the situation. The media is propping up straw men every step of the way in the effort towards getting the democratic party leadership back in power.

Do you remember the song that went “We Won’t be fooled again”?

Guess What?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #239152

Rowan,

I don’t have time to read the whole thread and refute Weary, but thanks for keeping some heat on this simmering pot of Bush crap. If the U.S. survives long enough we may eventually cook enough of the stink out of this so the even Weary can smell it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Comment #239158

Ray,

If you think the Democrats are going to be the US’ savior, I’m afraid you’re going to be dissapointed. They didn’t do much better when they were in charge either.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 24, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #239167

Weary Willie, your comment to Jane Doe:

“Yer jusa little priisy spoilt cus ya got nice clothin on.”

is a form of flame baiting which is a violation of our rules. There is nothing in this comment on topic or in reference to Jane Doe’s comment. Abide our rules or lose your privilege to participate.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at November 25, 2007 2:11 AM
Comment #239194

Rowan
Impeach? No way. Outing a CIA agent is nowhere near as important as fibbing about a sex act. I suppose if WC had been hanging out in mens rooms it would have been OK with the GOP.Does Mc Clellen have a blue dress somewhere? He sure got ******.

Posted by: BillS at November 25, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #239214
The fact she worked for the cia was not a secret.

Weary Willie,

You need to start getting your news from a reality-based source.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 25, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #239222

Rhinehold,

I don’t get your position. You say, in effect, “Ho-hum,outing a CIA agent is nothing really, just a continuation of RICO and the New Deal encroachment on our civil liberties”

Why do you start at the New Deal? Let’s take it back to Shay’s Rebellion, or the Lousiana Purchase or the formation of Bank of the US.

I realize as a Neo Con Libertarian you want to turn the clock back to 1785, but then even you’re not that old. The “good ole days” didn’t have 300 million people, no frontiers, and weren’t that good to start with.

You didn’t just digress, you wandered into a quagmire of wishful delusions.

As to McClellan’s book, lying to the press isn’t impeachable, and impeachment, being a political process, rather than criminal law, …ain’t gonna happen. No one in Washington wants to overly remind us of the incompetence and capricious politics that pervades. The Dems will simply remind us throughout election season which party eroded our liberties, killed thousands, and lied to us, while ignoring the Democrats own complicity. Nancy’s job is to get more Dems in the Congress. After all, she has patronage to support.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 25, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #239225

Leak of Agent’s Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

The company’s identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission record on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore’s presidential primary campaign.
Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000, was “reattributed” so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore.
Novak, highlighting Wilson’s ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson’s “wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates.”


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #239233
I don’t get your position.

Obviously, and to be honest I think that is intentional.

You say, in effect, “Ho-hum,outing a CIA agent is nothing really, just a continuation of RICO and the New Deal encroachment on our civil liberties”

No, I say that assigning to this adminstration, which we have no proof sought out to out Plame (so far the evidence only shows that Libby did this on his own. If that is not the case we haven’t seen the EVIDENCE of that yet), any more nefarious encroachments onto our liberties than others have pushed for is being short-sighted and missing the reality of the situation. The fact is that we have allowed our government to get to this point where this is even discussed and talked about, it is our fault and the past administrations are just as guilty of where we are today by not seeing what could be done in the future when cracking through the wall of individual rights for the ease of gaining a few extra votes

Why do you start at the New Deal? Let’s take it back to Shay’s Rebellion, or the Lousiana Purchase or the formation of Bank of the US.

Because the New Deal really pushed not just beyond the executive branch desires but the judicial and legistlative became complicit in the expanses. And to date there have been no rolling back of those expanses. In addition, the changes to our political system were wide and varied and are largely identical to what we see today.

Two old words took on new meaning. “Liberal” no longer referred to classical liberalism but meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent. Whether the New Deal was successful in achieving the three Rs is usually approached not as a historical problem but as a current debate over the program’s applicability today. The term “New Deal” is also used to describe the liberal New Deal Coalition that Roosevelt created to support his programs, including the Democratic party, big city machines, labor unions, Catholic and Jewish minorities, African Americans, farmers, and most Southern whites.

Without the New Deal there is likely no way we have a society that we have today, one where individual rights are secondary to planned economies and expanded government intrusion into our lives, including wiping the term ‘liberty’ from our daily consciousness.

I realize as a Neo Con Libertarian you want to turn the clock back to 1785,

What an ignorant and highly offensive statement, one you not only can’t back up but I doubt will even try.

First, there is no such thing as a ‘neo con libertarian’, I’m not even sure what you think that means, but it is an oxymoron.

Secondly, there is no desire to ‘turn back the clock to 1785, there have been many great advances in our constitution that need to stay there. But there is a desire to fix those things that are wrong with our society and constitution that the politics of the New Deal forward have put into place and still exist to this day. Most notably, the violation of our personal liberties that continue to errode and disappear at increasinly exponential rates.

I find it ironic that now the Democrats are calling for fixing some of these, but only after they have used those expanses to their own gain and increase in political power, not when it mattered, before they were introduced.

but then even you’re not that old. The “good ole days” didn’t have 300 million people, no frontiers, and weren’t that good to start with.

I’m not sure what this even means or how it has anything to do with wanting to fix issues and problems with our country today.

You didn’t just digress, you wandered into a quagmire of wishful delusions.

Again, no idea what you are suggesting, I’ve just explain the history of our current political landscape. Is there something SPECIFIC you have an issue with regarding our history that you would to debate?

As to McClellan’s book, lying to the press isn’t impeachable, and impeachment, being a political process, rather than criminal law, …ain’t gonna happen. No one in Washington wants to overly remind us of the incompetence and capricious politics that pervades. The Dems will simply remind us throughout election season which party eroded our liberties, killed thousands, and lied to us, while ignoring the Democrats own complicity. Nancy’s job is to get more Dems in the Congress. After all, she has patronage to support.

Yup, it’s all about the gain in political power, nothing to do with protecting liberty and exhibiting principles.

At least we finally agree on something!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 25, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #239254

Rhinehold,

Thanks for your responses.

I’m still not sure why you seem to view the New Deal as more significant than the points of history I noted. We have had expansion of the Executive powers and encroachment of liberty on a continuem since the ratification of the
Constitution, which was the substance of my point.

While you may fimd my terminology oxymoronic, I find your position on the New Deal more politically biased and blind to the realities of the thirties than explanatory.

Another reality that I feel that is often ignored is the change from a largely rural to a largely urban culture, (Jefferson thought it degrading to humanity to live other than as a farmer). I suspect that is adctually the largest contributer to yours and others feelings of loss of liberty.

Please expand.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 26, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #239291

The New Deal was far from a perfect deal. But, what parts of it survived the Supreme Court, did in fact, prepare America’s economy and workforce for entrance into WWII.

Without the New Deal, the economy and work force would have been devastated by a decade of dust bowls, food shortages, banking and market shocks, higher unemployment, less education, higher homeless rates, and even a higher death rate, possibly a lot higher. The Tennessee Valley area would not have been electrified and brought into the 20th century, now a vibrant part of our economy.

There were indeed grave executive authority overreaches, but, the worst of them were ruled unconstitutional and nipped in the bud. Social Security was to be an insurance program. Not an entitlement or retirement savings program. The compromises struck to get it passed turned out to be economically unsound. And paved the way for the the 40 trillion dollar unfunded Medicare mandate facing America square in the face. Had Social Security retained its Insurance foundation, America likely would have led the world in universal health care insurance, instead of trailing the developed democracies in this area.

The New Deal was what it was. Salvation for millions of bread winners and farm land of the day and the economy, and harbinger of unsustainable entitlement programs and political vote buying and pandering by politicians on a scale never seen in federal government before 1950’s and 1960’s.

It was far from perfect. It was the responsibility of politicians to follow to amend its imperfections. Clearly, in some areas, they failed that responsibility, and compounded them in others.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 26, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #239326

Exactly. David.

What Rhinehold ignores was the real threat of true Socialism in this country. The Laissez faire group assumes that enough time has passed that Americans will forget the reality of the Depression.

Hoover was a great guy personally, but failed to understand, swaddled in his own wealth, the revolution boiling beneath the feet of America, due to the preditory capitalism of the twenties.

Of course Smoot Halley didn’t help, and it was only the build up for the war that finally taught economists that expanding (stabilizing) the money supply was the solution to economic contraction.

Sadly, guys like Ron Paul who understand the need for lessening some regulation usually get it wrong when confronted with corprorate market domination, which is a throw back to Mercantilism, rather than anything that Adam Smith talked about.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 26, 2007 9:49 PM
Comment #239333

Hmmm, Ron Paul.

Would you like to bookmark this page?
Yes No

Yes

Posted by: left out at November 26, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #239344

Sorry David and googlumpugus but history just does not pan out with the assertions that ‘the New Deal’ made us great. It in fact put the country in a further depression. It was only when the onset of WWII along with some political changes to move away from some of the New Deal that brought us out of the depression.

In fact, it was inferferrence by the government that got us into the whole depression to begin with. The Stock Market crash was not what CAUSED the depression, it was another symptom. As one person said, the answer by FDR for too much government was MORE government.

And you completely ignore the fact that during the attempted court packing, one justice decided to change his vote on key New Deal programs and ruled them constitutional when just the year before they were not. One person, Justice Owen Roberts. He switched positions and began voting to uphold New Deal measures, effectively creating a liberal majority in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation thus departing from the Lochner v. New York era and giving the government more power in questions of economic policies. Journalists called this change “the switch in time that saved nine.”

BTW, labelling me as Laissez faire’ isn’t exactly accurate either, as I am for strong anti-trust laws and believe that monopolies are the enemy to a free market. Does that fit in with what you call Laissez faire?


The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act, which established a system of universal retirement pensions, unemployment insurance, and welfare benefits for poor families and the handicapped. It established the framework for the U.S. welfare system. Roosevelt insisted that it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund; he said, “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

That’s the problem with injecting POLITICS into things that it should be left out of, it just takes a few years before all of the well meaning promises are out of the window and power grabbing takes hold. The people charged with minding the store are now running it and there is little to nothing that we can do about it.

And that is why the New Deal era of 80 years ago is so important. Had the expanses been temporary or scaled back when shown to be not only anti-liberty but damaging as well, then we would be an even stronger country today, without the slave class that they have created as such a large voting block. And it would just be a simple footnote in the history of the country, a way to step in and fix the problem and then step back out again.

The New Deal was what it was

Sadly it was much more than that….

But the government didn’t step back out again. Instead, the fascists of the time who believed in a ‘planned economy’, the progressives, got ahold of a major party and never let go. What the democratic party has morphed into today is nothing like it was once FDR used it for his own political purposes, starting a class war that endures, and has been getting stronger and stronger, to this day.

But the worst thing is that the timeframe ushered into America fascism that still exists, and is also expanding.

The term “fascism” in the 21st century has connotations of mass murder and death camps. However, in the 1930s it meant the planned economy and corporativism exemplified by the economic plans of Benito Mussolini in Italy. And, comparisons have been made between the economic systems of Fascist Italy and the New Deal programs. Communists, classical liberals, conservatives, and Herbert Hoover used the term fascism in that manner at that time. Likewise, modern-day paleoconservatives argue that the New Deal was a major milestone in the rise of America’s managerial state.

Discontent with the economic downturn in the U.S. had stimulated widespread interest in the fascist programs of Italy and Germany. Benito Mussolini praised the New Deal as following his own economic program, saying in the New York Times, “Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation.” Roosevelt’s personal letters reveal that he was impressed by what Mussolini was doing and said that he kept in close touch with that “admirable gentlemen.” Ronald Reagan, who had at the time been a strong supporter of the New Deal, later reversed positions and claimed in 1976, “Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.” Journalist John T. Flynn, a former socialist, in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, said that “the New Dealers…began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system…and in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism.”

Just as the neo-conservatives of today use the fear of terrorism and the event of 9/11 to enact expanses of the federal government, some of which are fascist in nature, so did the progressives of the 1930s use the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the following depression, that their own programs exacerbated, to enact a form of fascism into the US that we still have to deal with on a daily basis.

What we need is to get POLITICS out of our economy, except when necessary (to prevent fraud, monopolies and trusts) so that a fair, to all, marketplace can exist. We don’t have that now, we’ve never really had that at all. I am not anti-regulation, but I am anti-OVER-regulation. I am not anti-government, I am anti-OVER-government. And I am not definately pro-liberty, something we sadly gave up decades ago for a failed experiment that is now killing us at the knees.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 27, 2007 12:54 AM
Comment #239345
Another reality that I feel that is often ignored is the change from a largely rural to a largely urban culture, (Jefferson thought it degrading to humanity to live other than as a farmer). I suspect that is adctually the largest contributer to yours and others feelings of loss of liberty.

Um, nope. As this has been suggested before (is there a website you guys pull this out of, btw?) it’s an invalid agrument. I’ve NO desire to go back to the days of 1785, ick. But I do think that the principles of liberty, as I’ve detailed in other posts of mine you can read, are still valid. We still need to have dignity in ourselves by being allowed to make our own decisions, not have others dictate them to us. Something that the modern left and modern right have forgotten in the past 80 years.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 27, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #239347

BTW, David, remember that all you have to do to change the foundations of the country is appoint enough judges to the supreme court and scare any others that get in your way!

Several portions of the New Deal were struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, and some saw these rulings as saving the U.S. from having a long-term fascist corporate state. In response to the Court’s striking down the NRA as unconstitutional, Huey Long said “I raise my hand in reverence to the Supreme Court that saved this nation from fascism.” In 1936 the Court in striking down the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act stated that “a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government…”

The Supreme Court failed to strike down similar laws after 1937. Also, these and other laws were later passed by the Supreme Court. Some claim that it was due to Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court, and the apparent sudden shift by Justice Owen J. Roberts from the conservative wing to the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (“the switch in time that saved nine”). Also, Roosevelt appointed 9 Supreme Court justices during his over 12 years as President.

Much like we are seeing with Bush in regards to the current Supreme Court. You know, the one that say it’s ok for the government to take your land and give it to another private individual if it improves the taxbase. Just all part of the planned economy by politics!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 27, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #239371

Rhinehold,

If you think the Democrats are going to be the US’ savior, I’m afraid you’re going to be dissapointed. They didn’t do much better when they were in charge either.

Is that an acknowledgment that they didn’t do worse when they were in charge?

Between too evils, take the less one.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 27, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #239372

Previous post of mine: “two” evils, sorry.

Rachel,

Millions of Iraqi refugees are returning home happy
Facts? Figures? Reality? Millions????

Happy?????

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 27, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #239385

Rhinehold:

I’m glad to see you are for strong anti trust enforcement and “adequate” regulation ( as opposed to “over”),whatever that means. However the current state of politics uses those positions to advance corporatism. How is the average Joe going to distinguish between your position and Republican quid pro quo patronage?

I am bothered by your belief that the Depression was “caused” by the government. That sounds like a theory from the Austrian School of Economics. A Daft theory at best. I didn’t realize Wall Street or Capitalists were absolved of any role.

My statements about returning to 1785 have nothing to do with the “Way back Machine” or returning to Slavery or horsedrawn carriages. It has to do with a belief that a modern Urban culture of 300 million can have the same level of regulation that a frontier nation does.

When you talk about abolition of the Federal Highway Department of Department of Education, I think that is a little on the “nutty” side of believing that literacy or freeways have not served us well.

I do agree with your ideas about the Supreme Court and expansion of the Executive powers in the New Deal and Today, but Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln TR and a few others played a role in the continuem of turning the presidency back into a monarch like position.

Which brings us back to why I mostly agree that Congress should have impeached Bush (too late to bother, now), but won’t.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 27, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #239450

googlumpugus

When you talk about abolition of the Federal Highway Department of Department of Education, I think that is a little on the “nutty” side of believing that literacy or freeways have not served us well.

I’m not sure that’s what the man said!

He didn’t say literacy and freeways have not served us well!

Why isn’t the Federal Highway Department just a coordinator of the many State Highway Departments?

Why doesn’t the Department of Education consist of 15 or 20 educators touring the world asking questions of students and teachers in other countries and bringing that information back here?

Freeways have served us well but now they are falling into rivers. Education is valuable but now it’s more about schools than it is about students. Teams instead of grades. Shootings instead of achievements.

The federal government has no mandate to control either of these facets of our lives.

Our problem is we just don’t see it that way.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #239533

Rhinehold said: “BTW, David, remember that all you have to do to change the foundations of the country is appoint enough judges to the supreme court and scare any others that get in your way!”

To an increasing degree, I agree with you. The politicization of our Courts was one of those unanticipated outcomes of drafting a Constitution without foreknowledge of the coming political parties. Definitely one of the weaknesses in our Constitution being exploited to the hilt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #239535

Rhinehold said: “Sorry David and googlumpugus but history just does not pan out with the assertions that ‘the New Deal’ made us great. It in fact put the country in a further depression.”

What an absurd postulation. Putting people to work deepened the recession? Soil reclamation projects deepened the depression? The depression caused by the dust bowls would have endured without the New Deal efforts. The TVA created vastly more wealth and opportunity than its projects cost and became an economic boom for an entire area of the country. Biases are clearly tainting your comments on history.

You got it right that WWII production hastened the end of the depression. But, the New Deal did not deepen it, it secured the future against prolonging the depression on net. Like the SEC and banking regulations secured the future against similarly caused recessions and depressions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #239557

Perhaps the perpetuation of these programs past their expectations have led to the modern day problems we face now.

I think our constitution is a give and take, ebb and flow document that is at odds with the federalist point of view.

Right now the federalist point of view is coming under the scrutiny of the people infected with it’s shortcomings.

A man, a pottery maker, will spend his years making a pot. He tries and he fails and he starts from scratch. He never looses the clay to make the pot. He looses the labor trying to make the pot.

His obcession with trying to make the pot the same way time after time is his obsticle. His wife and children criticizing every pot he makes is another obsticle.

The solution he comes up with is to rent a building and hire a guy to build pots for him.

Why on earth would he let his wife and children oversee the guy he hired to make the pots? Why would he restrict the guy to a failed procedure?

There comes a time when a man has to tell the women and children to just shut up and sit down and let the guy do his job.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #239607

Weary Willie,

While I agree that there is waste on both the federal and state levels in any bureaucracy, saying that our schools are failing and roads crumbling is a vast overstatement.

Rhinehold has stated in other posts that he advocates the abolition of these departments.

Roads are aging and will need repair and replacement, and schools while far superior to what existed in the 1920’s and 30’s still need improvement. Abolishing the agencies that brought them to the superior levels that is extant today won’t get us there. Thus, my conclusion that this is nutcase rhetoric.

As to making pots….I have no idea what that has to do with anything. The use of Federal agencies to organize and coordinate making better and more consistant pots is reason to leave them alone and let them make the pots. Not the converse. Perhaps some libertarians have been smoking the pots and have forgotten real history and substituted some some smoky fantasy.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at November 29, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #239658

Thank you for agreeing there is waste at the federal and state levels. In our schools and our roads there is waste.

Rhinehold is correct if he truly supports the abolition of these entities at the federal level. It is not in the federal government’s perview to dictate how we educate our children or build our roads.

As to making pots?

You have focused on a very pertainent problem in our society. You have associated an honest profession with something that is percieved as illegal and subjected to fines and punishment.

You are an alien from another planet.
It is obviously not populated by citizens of these United States.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #239678

I find it remarkable Democrats can bash President Bush.

Bash this…

President Bush kept the White House THEFT a secret.
‘Ole Hillary and Bill were forced to return the STOLEN property.

President Bush had the backing of the following Dems in Sadams downfall:

BILL CLINTON:”If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

MADELINE ALBRIGHT: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

SANDY BERGER:”He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST… NANCY PELOSI:”Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

HAD PRESIDENT BUSH NOT LISTENED TO THEM….WHERE WOULD WE BE?

Posted by: PAT at November 30, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #239679

SANDY BURGERS? HARD TO SWALLOW

I find it ironic, more and more people choose their
representatives by ‘looks and appeal’ rather than viewing their public service records. I blame the media for this. Now, for the dems, it’s OPRAH/Obama verses BILL/Hillary.

Let’s get down to facts. I need these questions
answered before I would vote for Hillary.

1. Why did Bill Clinton install a computer database
in the White House known as “WHODB”?
(If you, as a voter, do not know what this is…
find out) Next time THEY speak of violating
your privacy…..you’ll think twice.

2. It is a well known fact that Bill and Hillary
STOLE from the White House. (Check out what they
were forced to RETURN and their excuses) Is this
the MORAL CODE you truly want representing you?

3. Why has Hillary been taking donations from China?

4. Do people remember who SANDY BERGER is? Why is he
in the background of Hillary’s campain? Could it
be PAYBACK for destroying documents proving Bill’s
LACK OF CONCERN about Osama? Busy with something
else BILL?

5. With our economy falling, why would Hillary PROMISE
$5,000 to each new baby born in the USA? Could it
be for the ILLEGAL VOTES (illegals that have a child
here stay, because the child is now a USA citizen)
Where is that money coming from?
Shall we close “Military Bases” AGAIN as Bill did in his reign?

So far, it’s not looking good for HILLARY if you truly
acknowledge the FACTS.

I agree with others, our choices are not great….but
at least choose on WHAT your candidate stands for.
Republican or Democrat …does not matter anymore. It’s about US

Posted by: PAT at November 30, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #239705

Weary Willie,

Of course,there is waste in any huge bureaucracy. Just like there is in Toyota and Google. What’s the point? That big shouldn’t exist? Let’s abolish everything larger than 30 people? Gee, THAT’s a good idea. Sheesh!

The federal government HAS had a role and IMPROVED education and roads. The old libertarian Constitutional argument was argued long ago and decided in favor of the Commerce Clause for Roads (actually federal highways were started by Eisenhower as a part of a defense plan)

It ain’t broke even though you want to whine about it, so it don’t need fixing. The roads and schools are better than they were in the 1950’s. Sorry, but that is a simple fact.

OK, my pots joke fell flat, but your argument yields the opposite result of the one you seem to be making.

Federal involvment and (eek!!) horrid bureaucracy made these institutions better. Sure everyone likes to bitch about them. But the reality is literacy is higher and roads are easier to travel and safer.

I’m only an alien in your mind, which is apparently too weary to think logically. I’ll leave your willie out of it if you leave my zorg alone.:)


Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at November 30, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #239750

That’s funny! I laughed. I also looked for links to students shooting students and teachers in the 1930’s and I couldn’t find anything.

Probably because of those darn republicans.

Anyway.

Our roads are a state issue. Our schools, are to big, and are a state issue.

No federal involvement is needed.
.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #239766

Agreed, there weren’t to many school shootings that I’m aware of, but then many left school in the eighth grade to work on the farm.

In my grandmother’s time (circa 1915) she repeated eighth grade because the school offered nothing beyond it.

That issue is about society in general and overpopulation, in my opinion. It will increase as urban population density increases. While the movie the Gangs of New York was fiction, the urban blight and violence was real enough, even way back then.

Schools ARE largely run locally by school districts. If you don’t like how they are run maybe you should go to school board meetings or run for a seat on the board. The feds only enforce standards and reallocate funds, so that we don’t have “equal but separate” nonsense which meant that blacks didn’t get anything compared to white schools in the 40’s andn 50’s.


Posted by: googlumpugus at December 1, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #239767

Weary,

Repeating a mantra doesn’t make it any truer.

Posted by: googlumpugus at December 1, 2007 8:51 AM
Comment #239771

Tell Libby and Gonzales that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #239772

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/

The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.

Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.

Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.

Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.


Want to support Dr. Paul’s views on Education?
Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #239773

http://www.ontheissues.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm

America’s high schools are obsolete. (Sep 2007)
Pay kids as incentive to learn math and science. (Sep 2007)
Removing God from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity. (Dec 2006)
Removing “God” from Pledge assaults our identity. (Dec 2006)
Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education. (Dec 2006)
Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance is not ceremonial. (Dec 2006)
Introduce competition among schools and teachers. (Dec 2006)
Encourage private sector in math and science education. (Dec 2006)
Waive interest on student loans for math & science grads. (Sep 2003)
Support charters; insist on change for failing schools. (Jul 1998)
Private scholarships for students at hopeless schools. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

How about Newt Gingrich?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #239777

Either of these have better solutions for our education system than the failing “Stay the Course” mentality you seem to be supporting.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #239804

Weary Willie, Gingrich is the epitomal proof that intelligence does not guarantee proper values or sound solutions. He’s a smart guy who continues to his credit to think outside the box, but, to his often discredit, comes up with the stupidest ideas.

Paying kids for grades conditions them to learn for money, not for the vastly greater wealth of knowledge and wisdom. Really BAD IDEA, but, fits neatly into the Republican philosophy of the marriage of God and Dollar to produce a green race of people working feverishly for the almighty dollar in ‘HIS’ name.

Inserting God in the pledge of allegiance was an assault on our Constitution, in which the word God never appears, even once.

Patriotism is uniformity, and thus lies at the heart of all authoritarian, bigoted, and discriminatory regimes and policies. Multiculturalism is true democratic observance, especially in a nation of multi-cultural immigrants.

I love this idoitism of Gingrich’s: “Introduce competition among schools and teachers.”

In other words, commercialize education pitting one student’s performance against another’s. Education is a competition with one’s own ignorance. Guess that explains why Gingrich comes up with the stuff.

Why private scholarships for students at hopeless schools? Puts the cart before the horse. Convert hopeless schools to exemplary schools and scholarships are not necessary. Ah, but private scholarships can indoctrinate through endearment of the provider by the student, that’s the hidden seed of Gingrich’s proposal. As anti-social, borderline Hitler Youth concept as one can get away with in America.

Preferential government treatment of schools allowing prayer? No wonder he had to give up taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That damned 1st Amendment was constantly in his way.

Newt Gingrich, the most ignorant and anti-American educated man in the U.S. He is an Ann Coulter wannabe.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #239809
Weary Willie, Gingrich is the epitomal proof that intelligence does not guarantee proper values or sound solutions.
How so?
He’s a smart guy who continues to his credit to think outside the box, but, to his often discredit, comes up with the stupidest ideas.

Stupid to those in the box?

Paying kids for grades conditions them to learn for money, not for the vastly greater wealth of knowledge and wisdom.

Why isn’t learning for money and wealth of knowledge and wisdon considered the same thing inside the box?

Really BAD IDEA, but, fits neatly into the Republican philosophy of the marriage of God and Dollar to produce a green race of people working feverishly for the almighty dollar in ‘HIS’ name.

Ok, Budda! Lighten up just a little.

Inserting God in the pledge of allegiance was an assault on our Constitution, in which the word God never appears, even once.

Our creater was mentioned at some point. I’m not going to do the link and quote thing because it’s been done before. I’m more concerned that it may not be a freedom of speech issue any longer. Why shouldn’t we say “God”?

Patriotism is uniformity, and thus lies at the heart of all authoritarian, bigoted, and discriminatory regimes and policies. Multiculturalism is true democratic observance, especially in a nation of multi-cultural immigrants.

I’m leaving that alone right now.

I love this idoitism of Gingrich’s: “Introduce competition among schools and teachers.”
In other words, commercialize education pitting one student’s performance against another’s. Education is a competition with one’s own ignorance. Guess that explains why Gingrich comes up with the stuff.

He didn’t condone pitting students against each other! He does think school choice is good. I think school districts monopolize the education system and won’t allow any diversity.

Education is a competition with one’s own ignorance.

There is not a truer statement to be uttered.


Why private scholarships for students at hopeless schools? Puts the cart before the horse. Convert hopeless schools to exemplary schools and scholarships are not necessary. Ah, but private scholarships can indoctrinate through endearment of the provider by the student, that’s the hidden seed of Gingrich’s proposal. As anti-social, borderline Hitler Youth concept as one can get away with in America.


I thought of Hitler when you posted this:

Patriotism is uniformity, and thus lies at the heart of all authoritarian, bigoted, and discriminatory regimes and policies.
Preferential government treatment of schools allowing prayer? No wonder he had to give up taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That damned 1st Amendment was constantly in his way.

The Judiciary, if it was true to the separation of church and state, (whatever that is?)
would not consider hearing any case involving someone’s religous beliefs.

To do so would be against the other party’s religous beliefs and would infringe on those beliefs. Religion should not be an issue in the U.S. Judiciary.

Amen.

Newt Gingrich, the most ignorant and anti-American educated man in the U.S. He is an Ann Coulter wannabe.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2007 09:35 PM

This whole betrayal thing is getting to you, Yes?
Not so good getting laughed at.

Is it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2007 12:39 AM
Post a comment