Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Got a link?

Nice of you to equate possible Campaign Law Violations with Rumsfeld’s/Bush’s probable Torture/Murder Crimes.

Woody -

wnbc.com
newsday.com
and *gasp* the Bush administration knew about it!

… for more stories.

Is there any reason this should be a suprise.
Scandal and the Clinton name seem to be synonymous. They have been given that slap on the hand every time it has come to the attention of anyone. The left is not concerned about Campaign Finance law the only thing they want is to be back in power. Which they already had for forty year and helped to send this country down the wrong path of dumbing down the nation through our Screwel System which is imposed upon every school aged child in this country except their children who go to private school. Sorry got off track. So why is it that we see deflection to Bush\Rumsfeld because those who should stand up for what there party is doing or not doing only want to criticize others because it requires no intelectual thought. Any lame brain can criticize what someone should have done after the fact!! Hind - Sight is 20\20.
I’m from New York and I find her antics distasteful. This is a syptom of a much larger problem, LACK OF CHARACTER! Anything to remain in power even if you have to break the law!

Nothing should surprise us when it comes to the Clintons. Lying and deceit are their constant way of life. To even compare her most recent scandal to Bush is ludicrous; there is not an example anywhere of his lying to the American people.

Guilt by association, Dawn. Might as well dropkick Tom DeLay, if you’re using that standard. If she’s guilty, let her be punished. Otherwise, stop assuming the worse. I tell you what, Bush would have been treated kinder if you guys had not set the precedent of this sour discourse. Let the law take care of things, as appropriate.

I am not going to apologize for anyone’s criminal behavior, but if having one of your associates get indicted is a sign of poor character then Hillary Clinton can only hope to aspire to the sleaze level of Ronald Reagan. And it was W who appointed Elliot Abrams to the National Security Council. Start with the log in your eye…

Should be interesting how this plays out, but one thing is for sure, the Right and it’s media sycophants, will attempt to exploit, distort and indict it to the hilt. Why? Because, they’d rather not talk about Iraq!

But, one thing did jump out at me reading the article. In stark contrast to the ethics-challenged Rep. Tom Delay, her Senate Campaign Comte. is fully cooperating with the FBI. A welcome change to ‘The Exterminator’, who whines about a ‘partisan witch hunt’ every time he gets in front of a TV camera.

I once had a former boss who would twist peoples arms into hiring me when they called for references. I had no idea that this had happened twice. This person was trying to help me but just ended up intimidating people on my behalf. My point is sometimes people are trying to do you a favor and you are really unaware of how things fall into your lap. I am a good deal younger than Hillary though. And I think she is dishonest. But I try now to list references who will behave the way most reasonable professional people do. I was simply shocked and of course flattered when I found out. But there are no written records or forms, just anecdotes for me to go on.

It is just like the democrats to jump on any story to attack our President. If the terrorists are being tortured and humiliated to save Americans and our freedom than so be it, do you guys on the left not know that we are at war. I heard an idiot on Meet the Press (not a very sound program by the way) today say that the conflict we are involved in -is more like the cold war than a real war-. What a slap in the face to the troops on the ground. The insurgents will do anything to get at us so we should do anything we can do to protect our nation.

what else would you expect from Hillarious? Is Dennis Rodham her brother??

Though Hillary Clinton’s former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday, a move that spared the former first couple and the Democratic Party significant embarrassment during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign.

It must have taken great restraint not to use this information.

Bert
I see Iraq hourly on fox
But then go to NBC,CBS,ABC,PBS,MSNBC,oh and CNN
and these used to be mainstream media don’t twist to Democrat machine.

Woody,Stephen
I believe Hefler stood up to Delay and his shenanigans. Why is no one on the other side of the isle publically denouncing Senator Clinton, a bit of a double standard don’t ya think.

Shortly after Paul was indicted on the stock charges in 2001, he told ABC News that he had spent nearly $2 million to underwrite the costs of the Clinton fund-raiser. He said the Clinton campaign never reported his expenditures, which would constitute an “in-kind” contribution, according to federal election law.

Paul said he had spent the money to curry favor with then-President Bill Clinton, whom he hoped would help promote his Internet company and possibly pardon him for a 1979 criminal case in which he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and trying to swindle the Cuban government.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have previously denied Paul’s accusations.

This goes to my synoymous statement not the first time just a pattern.

Why is no one on the other side of the isle publically denouncing Senator Clinton, a bit of a double standard don’t ya think.

I’ll condemn Sen. Clinton if you can prove that she actually did something that doesn’t conform to the normal standards of the game. It is illegal to hold fundraisers on federal property, but Bush does it anyway and calls it “donor maintenance”, just like Pres. Clinton did. Clinton was lambasted for holding fundraisers (er donor maintenance) in the White House, so Bush did in the Naval Observatory.

As for the pardon, that is just blowing smoke. He didn’t get it, did he?

Dawn why haven’t you mentioned the Tom Delay outrage? Are you only outraged in partisan ways? I haven’t seen you post any disgust at those impropieties.

Well then Chris,

Maybe you can answer a few questions, as a defender of Fox News.

Why do 22% percent of Fox viewers believe WMDs’ were found in Iraq?

Why do 48% percent believe there is evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queda?

Which of the these Iraqi ethnic groups currently support going ahead with the Jan 30 elections: Sunnis, Kurds or Shias’?

Approximately how many foreign election observers are there, and where will they be positioned for the election?

Where is the largest Shiite political party getting a significant portion of it’s funding from?

Has or has not the polling equipment for the election been delivered and set up?

-Nice of me to equate…

Why would it matter what the crime is ? Crime is crime. The sentences may be different but the getting arrested part works the same.

-Why haven’t I mentioned Delay …?
Figured someone else would throw it in.
After all … if someone else has done the same bad thing, it’s not as bad for me to do it. Monkey see, monkey do? and … ‘He did it first!’

Then again, it depends on who you are, how you got caught, and who is in charge of the case.

Also. My putting that in there about Bush/Rumsfeld just saved me from reading ‘Bush and Rummy did …’

We had months of trying to discuss Kerry and what he has done or not done - what he may or may not do - and just about every time the R’s tried to have a serious discussion about him the D’s would bring it back to Bush and everything he does wrong.
I am actually a bit surprised there hasn’t been more of that in this thread.
Not Kerry -
saying that ‘Well.. the R’s are doing this … ‘

I realize that it is in our nature to defend, but , what I don’t understand is why some people feel the need to do it for people they have never even met, and to the death. Sometimes even after the person admits they did wrong.
There are still people defending Clinton on the Monica scandal. Blaming all of Clinton’s problems on the ‘Right Wing Conspiracy’. Was the ‘conspiracy’ in the oval office making him/her do those things?
Saying someone else did the same thing is not a defense and it seems that is how alot of these people are being defended in the public arena.
Yes.. this happens on both sides, but you won’t catch me defending someone to the death unless I know for sure they have done no wrong.

Stephen,
you said, “I tell you what, Bush would have been treated kinder if you guys had not set the precedent of this sour discourse.”

What are you saying?

Chris-

I think the Republican perspective on the media is what is twisted. There is in fact a liberal/moderate bias. But this bias is not one of the facts, but of the treatment of those facts. Open politics in liberal/moderate circles is not encouraged, nor seen as a positive part of journalistic practice. It is the Right wing bias that manifests itself in coloring of the stories and outright propaganda for one side.

Your side should have known better a long time ago, because you guys never really got full frontal opposition from a real liberal media. You’ve always, even from the beginnning, had to allege hidden factual biases, hidden practices that unfairly leave out crucial information. Your idea of the liberal media is a glorified conspiracy theory. But it’s one that the Liberal/moderate Media, biased towards a presentation of all sides of an issue, has proved vulnerable to. The irony is, if the media were as liberal as you say it is, you would have never convinced so many people so fast. Fact is, your people are rushing into a vacuum with this media bias, filling a space that has been open since the previous turn of the century.

The bias I describe, the liberal/moderate bias, has been towards professionalism, autonomy, fairness, and the exchange of general public trust for the taking of political sides. This was done so that Americans would not come to distrust their media.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have actively fanned the fires of that distrust, to the point that many Americans distrust substantially correct sources, simply because they don’t have a Republican imprimatur. The unfortunate result of this will be a downward spiral of reliability and quality of the stories that Republicans are told about their government. The Republicans are borrowing time in office on the credit of their media apparatus, which covers for and advocates their policies.

But sooner or later, that credit will run out, and both party and media organization will fall into disrepute.

So tell me: where were the Republicans publically denouncing Majority Leader DeLay, outside of the ethics committee? The Republican not only did not denounce him, they legislated to protect him.

It’s just magic-trick misdirection, in the end, kicking the Democrats when they’re down so you don’t have to do it to your own and risk all that power and prestige.

Dawn-
Continuing my point above, I’d guess it’s “remove the beam from thine own eye”. This especially when there’s little proof Hillary was told anything about the crime.

As for discussions about Bush- well, why not? He had screwed things up big-time, why give him a break? Trouble is, your moral crusades tend to pass right over your own people, and it makes you look like hypocrites to your targets. If Hillary is guilty, so be it, let the consequences come. But would you say the same for Bush or DeLay? Would you actively campaign your legislators to take action against them?

Democrats realize that Clinton caused many of his own problems, but we also recognize that this story was kept in the media and in the courts long after it would have endured on its own. I mean, tell me, why did an investigation into a land deal end up being simply about lying about sex? Hillary Clinton would later reflect that her choice of words was incorrect. It wasn’t a conspiracy- conspiracies are hidden. This was Billionaires and media moguls like Rupert Murdoch fanning the flames quite out in the open.

Right now, your president has killed nearly 1400 soldiers in his ill-advised, ill-planned war. He could have avoided the war with the right degree of intelligence work, and common-sense standards of quality. What does it tell you that in presenting a case to the UN, Powell had to edit out unreliable information coming from the White House?

This wasn’t simply information handed to them by the CIA. Bush and Cheney’s staff actively searched out these reports and bits of data, finding the reports that supported them and using them, regardless of their reliability. They must have known what they were doing. If they believed what they found afterwards would vindicate them, then they took a foolish gamble, when the means were at their disposal to find out if the WMDs were a sure thing. If they knew, then they knowingly mislead the American people, and thousands have died unnecessarily for it either way.

As for your quote of me, it’s quite simple. The Republicans took their attempts to unseat Clinton to the constitutional limit, an act of great hostility to the Democratic party, one that need never have gone through, and really should never have gone through. You made one act of immorality, a lie about sex, sufficient to almost unseat a president.

And now your president, apparently, has been quite dishonest, not about getting oral sex from an intern, but about the reasons and justifications for getting into a war where nearly Fourteen Hundred Americans have died. I mean, it’s pretty bad when Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean is telling you that the way you dealt with your authorization to go to war is impeachable.

It goes like this: The Authorization to use force required that Bush submit a report, called an Executive Determination, which demonstrated that

1)further U.N. proceedings would not protect the United States from the threat posed by Iraq, or lead to the enforcement of the UN resolutions;

and

2)That carrying out this authorization is consistent with the wider War on terrorism, including those that carried out the September 11 attacks.

The “and” is important. It means somebody couldn’t go either or on the authorization.

So what did Bush do? According to John Dean, he threw together a bunch of junk, then cut and pasted the introductory language of the bill and called it a Congressional finding. Never mind, Dean said, that Congress was asking for his findings, the whole extent of this evidence from Congress was just the political bullshit from the start of the bill.

“Whereas” Clauses, as they’re called, represent language in the bill meant to explain and pontificate on what the bill is supposed to be about. They do not constitute a report, nor do they act as binding law.

But Bush took this language and inserted it without the qualifying “whereas” straight into the report that was supposed to show that this war was justified. Why is it, with all the supposedly great information Bush used to support this war, that he ends up sending us to war on unreliable information from an unqualified source in a document that he was legally obligated to develop direct intelligence and evidence for?

We as Americans desire or should desire for the sake of our general welfare, a certain standard and quality of evidence, in order to make sure we go to war the right way, in the right place, with the right results. To short-circuit these processes in the name of expediting a war is to leave us vulnerable to the consequences of a poorly founded or unfounded war: the waste of resources, the degradation of our reputation, the unnecessary deaths of our soldiers in battle.

Bush does not have Clinton’s excuses for his dishonesty. People have been killed for this lie, for this deception. The war has become quite counterproductive to our cause, and it has deprived us of much necessary resources to fight other, more urgent wars. It has taken a previously unbeatable army and shown the enemy our vulnerabilities. People will learn from this war how to make our next wars more difficult for us.

In short, Bush thought he was too good to do this the right way, and America is paying for it. Furthermore, he’s made the mistake of trying to blame Democrats and Clinton for the extent of his mistakes and deceptions, a move that only serves to create newsworthy hypocrisy that a scandal fixated media and disgruntled Liberal and Moderate population has taken as a sign of unrepentance for his errors.

What the Republican party sowed in their hostility towards the Democrats and in their feeding of continued scandal to the media, they reap now with a voracious, sensationalist press, and a large segment of the population willing to believe the worst. And worse, there are real, ugly consequences for our national security and reputation resulting from it, so the feelings run pretty deep. Few could feel deeply about Clinton’s impeachment over sex, or his infidelity, because for most Americans those are private, often familiar circumstances. But this? This is something people really do register as a threat to their well-being.

Another politician caught up in Campaign finance scandals. I’m not surprised that a big outcry hasn’t began - even on WatchBlog - she’s a Democrat.

You’re right Dawn! - I agree, this clearly means that we Dems are hypocrites, while the Red Team is always completely balanced in its treatment of the news. Altho now that I think about it, I must have missed your similarly outraged postings about House Speaker DeLay, Dawn, who’s also been indicted. Not an underling, as I recall, but DeLay. Can you send me a pointer? I’d like to re-read them.

WOW!!! The idea that the Clintons have an issue with problems following them is too funny coming from the bushies!!!

The Bush/Walker families have had all kinds of “problems” since the turn of the last century, from aiding & abetting the enemy in two wars (Kaiser WW1 & Nazi’s WW2), many revolutions (funding the Bolsheviks in Russia to get at the Georgian Oil fields, Sandinstas) and numerous other “conflicts” (Iran, Iraq, Lybia etc all o for oil… hmmmm, I detect a pattern).

So now Hillary is the target for a couple thousand bucks while the Bush/Walker crime family oil businesses and their rich oil cronies, like Cheneys Haliburton, reap the billions from OUR TAX dollars and no one seems to care about that!!!

You are all quite amazing in your selective world view optics, as long as the corporate whores are making money, even at the expense of the American middle class TAX payers, its just all find and dandy by you folks eh????

Truly mind boggling!!!!

Dawn,
There was no need for you to bring up Tom DeLay.
It semms like Joel Hefley tis taking care of him.
If Hillary is gone after it will have to be the Republicans who do it. After all in order to go after someone on ethics you have to have some yourself.

Is there anyway to just put the Clintons and Bushes into a rocket and launch their corrupt families out into space somewhere? Normally, I’m not about polluting, but this one seems almost worth it.

It really has gotten to the point where accusations and facts read like an ad lib; all you have to do is subsitute the name.

Halibuton…Haliburton….squawk…squawk…
try something new….please Libs??

My point exactly!!!

Halibuton…Haliburton….squawk…squawk…
try something new….please Libs??

So you don’t care that a corporation, once led by the VP, was given a no bid contract by the VP, taking billions of OUR TAX DOLLARS and you truly don’r care????

Truly mind boggling!!!