Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Good points - I’ve been curious about this for a long time.

You hear it over and over and over - ‘this administration doesn’t tolerate dissent’ and I wonder how many people have been jailed for speaking out against the administration. What’s most curious about it is that it is usually the most aggregious, outspoken left wing commentators (like Ted Rall or Michael Moore) who say this, making me wonder that if there was any truth to this, then why aren’t they themselves shackled to a wall in a dark dungeon somewhere?

The fact of the matter is that there is not one example of anyone being punished for speaking out against the Bush administraton or the war (unless you count the Dixie Chicks, but have you ever heard their music?)

:o)

Posted by: OttO at August 21, 2005 12:20 PM

Jack,

Good article.
I think the biggest problem the left has to deal with is the fact that there message IS getting out, but is being rejected!
To make matters worse, the MSM (alphabet network news), that once was the only option for news, is being rejected as well.

Most would agree that the internet has changed to world?
What it all boils down to, is just more information available, other points of view on a subject, and people now understand they had never been told the “rest of the story”, as Paul Harvey would say.
Voting records of anyone running for re-election are just a mouse click away, damn hard to spin that!
Politics is moving back to the center, and theres not a damn thing the left, or the MSM, can do to stop it now.

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2005 01:01 PM

“People complaining on television and in major newspapers that they are being denied the right to speak out. This is the about as close to perfect an instance of a self-negating argument as I have ever seen.”

Surely then you’ll now concede that L. Brent Bozell is wrong to claim that conservative views are not fully represented in the “liberal media” right?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at August 21, 2005 01:05 PM

Jeff -

Conservative views are grossly under-represented in the ‘liberal’ or ‘mainstream’ press. Which explains their falling ratings and readership and explains why there is such a powerful market for talk radio and cable news, especially FOX, which has soared past it’s competition.

Posted by: OttO at August 21, 2005 01:11 PM

Otto,

MSNBC had a chance to gain back some market share fro FOX with that new “Tucker Carlson” show.

They moved him from 9pm to 11pm. Why? Must be they were afraid to have a conservative show in prime time? You could hardly call him “right wing”, he is pro-choice and anti-war. He is a conservative though, but he had a lesbian as a guest every night, seems like that was balanced?

He was replaced at 9pm est. by Rita Cosbey, a chubby blond they stole from Fox, she will report news about aruba, the jackson trial, fluffy BS like that. Atleast Fox had the good sence to put “Gretta Van Facelift” on at 10pm with her BS program.

Do they have an ajenda, or are they just stupid?

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2005 01:45 PM

“You hear it over and over and over - ‘this administration doesn’t tolerate dissent’ and I wonder how many people have been jailed for speaking out against the administration.”

Is that how we define intolerance? You must thrown someone into jail? I would tend to define intolerance a bit more broadly — any attempt to suppress, silence, or unduly usurp freedom or power. By that definition, there’s a long list of examples showing why the Right has been particularly intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

“The fact of the matter is that there is not one example of anyone being punished for speaking out against the Bush administraton or the war.”

Is the slander of Cindy Sheehan not a punishment? Or what about Valerie Plame being outed? Has she not suffered? Has the security of this country not suffered? Or Joe Wilson, Max Cleland, Scott Ritter, and many others who have had their reputations publically tarnished because they stood in the way of the Administration’s agenda?

In most of the cases of character assassination, opposing politics has not been the reason behind disagreement. People were exercising their right to speak out because they obviously saw corruption in this Administration. Rather than allowing these voices to be heard and publicly debate the merits of their claims, the debate has been spun into McCarthy-like “guilt by association” tactics and character smears.

In the interest of public debate, don’t you think we ought to debate the message, not the messenger?

It’s prtty clear that the Right systematically shifts the focus because they have ZERO to stand on when it comes to the message being put out there.

Simply put, Joe Wilson’s and Cindy Sheehan’s arguments are right, and the Bush administration and their mouthpieces know it.

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 02:14 PM

Actually, I really don’t think anyone objects to someone saying that Sheehan isn’t qualified to make policy pronouncements: it’s when they say she’s an anti-Semite and unpatriotic for not supporting the war that killed her son.

Example of the effects of this kind of argument: I’ve never heard anyone specifically refute any of Michael Moore’s more significant contentions from Fahrenheit 9/11. However, if you even state his name now, you are relegated to the lunatic fringe because he has been so roundly and personally attacked by those who didn’t even see his movie. Liberals are scared to even say his name now for fear of being shouted down.

By the way, I love that the author here purports that’s it’s OK to completely avoid perspectives that he doesn’t agree with, then posture oneself as an expert on them — very circumspect. I suppose you not only think it’s OK not to eat the egg, it’s OK to avoid going to the grocery store and starve yourself so you won’t get agitated.

Moreover, I’m not sure qualifications for making policy really matter anymore, when the people who allegedly ARE so qualified make poorly justified, self-interested decisions with regard to foreign policy. I’d take Sheehan’s policy pronouncements over Bush’s any day of the week and thrice on Sunday.

Posted by: unkind k at August 21, 2005 02:38 PM

Andrew,

Do a poll of the Dem. base (mostly under 35), fully half wouldn’t know who Sheehan or Max Cleland is.
Dem.’s need to advertize on the cartoon channel, thats where most of their base spends their time.
Well, perhaps not there, but the “simpsons” attracted the viewers of most of the base.

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2005 02:56 PM

Andrew

Cindy Sheehan made herself the issue. If you look at the comments about her, very few are ad hominem. Most are ? like mine ? that she just has no qualification to speak about anything other than the grief she personally feels.

We still don?t know who “outed” Valarie Plame, but her picture on the cover of Vanity Fair indicate she was not much worried about the punishment. Wilson doesn?t seem to be suffering at all. In fact, I am sure he commands much higher speaking fees etc. I just wish I could be punished like Joe Wilson.

Max Cleland?s problems didn?t come from being a critic, rather they stem from an acrimonious election campaign. Rather like the accusations about Bush’s national guared service. The infamous Texas NAACP ad or the recent anti Roberts screed.

Scott Ridder based his criticism on his own personal expertise. See the discussion above about ad hominem arguments and personal expertise.

I expect that these are the BEST examples you have and they all are good examples of what I was saying above.

Unkind
Re Michael Moore, let me just give you something I know about personally. Moore makes a big deal about the fact that some bin Laden relatives left the U.S. on September 21. He implies that they needed special help to get a plane out at that time and it was a nefarious Bush thing. Was scheduled to travel on September 11 to Europe. My flight was cancelled. I managed to get a flight to Rome on September 17. The special string I pulled was that I called Delta and asked them if I could get a ticket. They said yes, and even upgraded me to business class because the plane was so empty.

I have to admit, however, the Moore is a good example of ad hominem. I am convinced that he helped Bush get reelected just because people thought that if this guy is working so hard against Bush, maybe we should vote Bush.

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 02:59 PM

Andre L,

“It’s prtty clear that the Right Left systematically shifts the focus because they have ZERO to stand on when it comes to the message being put out there.”

The same can be said of the Left. The partake in character assisination too, and cannot prove their stances any better. Thus, their Freedom of Speech is definitely intact.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 03:00 PM

What I consider interesting along these lines, is how the Left has painted Bush’s policies regarding WMD completely ineffective. And yet, in this article, Muammar Gaddafi is asking to meet with Bush to improve relations between the US and Libya after promising to give upon WMD and accepting responsibility for a bombing.

Obviously, Bush’s strategy isn’t nearly as bad as the Left would have us believe.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 03:07 PM

“Ad hominem” is defined as

A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.

Which is EXACTLY what the swift boat vet ads were - attacks on Senator Kerry’s person instead of addressing ANY of the issues he tried to discuss.
It is also exactly what a lot of people in THIS BLOG have done to Mrs. Sheehan.
It’s also being done here, Beagle:

Dem.’s need to advertize on the cartoon channel, thats where most of their base spends their time.

And let’s please dispense with the myth of “liberal bias” in the news media. There’s no such thing.

Thanks for bringing up Max Cleland. If you look in the dictionary for “ad hominem attacks”, you’ll see his picture as a victim. Right next to a picture of the Bush campaign’s 2000 smear of John McCain, a fellow Republican.

There are serious problems in this great country. But instead of trying to seriously discuss them, the wrong wing seems intent on sliming anyone who disagrees with them. I’ve come to the conclusion that all too many of you wrong wingers hate the left more than you hate anyone else - you in fact HATE AMERICANS FIRST.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 21, 2005 03:26 PM

Jack,

I’ve heard that before. Even if that’s the case, that’s hardly one of the more important indictments of the film.

Nevertheless, your story is already deficient as a refutation for a few reasons:
1) The bin Ladens fled the country when all other air traffic was grounded, including you. The fact that you managed to get a ticket once air traffic resumed is irrelevant.
2) The government already admitted to taking steps to getting the bin Ladens out. It’s not like they denied it, so it’s not some insane conspiracy theory. It’s the motivation that matters.

But whatever, this isn’t even important. I don’t want to get hung up on it, or even on the point of Michael Moore. The point is that there was never, to my knowledge, a genuine discussion over the contents of the movie, just people who never saw the movie judging Moore because of what Fox or their party told them to think, and now the dialogue has pretty much been foreclosed.

I find this trend irritating, because issues don’t get genuinely examined. A liberal makes a point, then some veteran or Fox sycophant calls someone unpatriotic or rattles off some fuzzy bit of non-thought like, “What have YOU done to preserve freedom?”

Stephanie:

The Gaddafi thing, if I understand correctly, has more to do with the sanctions we’ve been imposing on Libya for decades than it does with any of Bush’s policies. So Bush shouldn’t dislocate his shoulder patting himself on the back.

Posted by: unkind k at August 21, 2005 03:28 PM

Elliott, you posted;

“And let’s please dispense with the myth of “liberal bias” in the news media. There’s no such thing”

You are correct there. With all the new media out there now, people can bypass all the biased news if they wish.

Isn’t that really what the left is pissed about?

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2005 03:39 PM

A defensive article for a defensive time when the polls are putting Republicans in a defensive position as the 2006 elections move closer.

Then there is all that bleating about the media never getting the President’s or Republican’s message out, must be the lefties muzzling the media.
Laughable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2005 03:41 PM

ElliottBay,

Unfortunately you prove your point in reverse:

There are serious problems in this great country. But instead of trying to seriously discuss them, the wrong wing seems intent on sliming anyone who disagrees with them. I’ve come to the conclusion that all too many of you wrong wingers hate the left more than you hate anyone else - you in fact HATE AMERICANS FIRST.

How myopic have we become? We choose to see what what we want to see and ignore the rest. Your post is a perfect example of a failed argument.

Posted by: discerner at August 21, 2005 03:50 PM

while i know i should avoid this GOP hug-fest, I need to point out this comment:

beagle wrote:”Do a poll of the Dem. base (mostly under 35), fully half wouldn’t know who Sheehan or Max Cleland is.
Dem.’s need to advertize on the cartoon channel, thats where most of their base spends their time.
Well, perhaps not there, but the “simpsons” attracted the viewers of most of the base.”

i know this is beagle’s attempt at humor, by saying that all us Dems under 35 are a bunch of cartoon watching slackers, or as OReilly likes to call us “stoners”.

while both untrue and unfunny, it does point out one thing most accurately…it shows you have nothing more to say than name calling. it’d be the same if I came on this page and started calling you all facists…its untrue and blatantly discredits any legitimate grievance i have with conservatives.

if you want to be a jerk, fine. but if it’s all you have to add to the discussion, then what is your point?

Posted by: views at August 21, 2005 04:28 PM

I mention this one example because I am 100% sure that it is true. You repeat the same lie that Moore does. The bin Laden ?escaped? on September 21. NOT when air traffic was down. I know this because I ?escaped? four days earlier with the help of the woman at the Delta Airlines telephone line. I guess my contacts were better than theirs.

There were a lot of discussions of the facts of the Moore movie at the time. I remember them. But pointing out things like the inconsistency I mentioned was called attacks, so maybe you didn?t notice them.

David

My point is only that nobody is muzzling the liberals. That accusation is very common. I was accused of trying to silence Cindy Sheehan right on the blue side of this blog and accused of not giving her credit for her grief when that I conceded that point at the very beginning of my post. It is evidently a Democratic talking point to repeat this anytime any questions their logic.

If the liberals are silent, how come we hear so much from them?

I worry not at all about polls at this time. I heard that Kerry would win the election last time. I heard that the Republicans would pay a price in 2004. I heard Jeb Bush would be out as governor.

I have seen many of the polls Dems are so happy about. Some predict Dem gains, but NONE of them predict Dems will take over either house of Congress. I guess that is enough of a victory to satisfy Dems these days, just like they were so happy with when they almost won in Ohio (nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor,nearly stood up to the viscious Chicken of Bristol and who had personally wet themselves at the Battle of Badon Hill)

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 04:34 PM

“It’s prtty clear that the Right Left systematically shifts the focus because they have ZERO to stand on when it comes to the message being put out there.”

The same can be said of the Left. The partake in character assisination too, and cannot prove their stances any better. Thus, their Freedom of Speech is definitely intact.”

Um, great retort. Way to support your argument.

“Andrew

Cindy Sheehan made herself the issue. If you look at the comments about her, very few are ad hominem. Most are ? like mine ? that she just has no qualification to speak about anything other than the grief she personally feels.

We still don?t know who “outed” Valarie Plame, but her picture on the cover of Vanity Fair indicate she was not much worried about the punishment. Wilson doesn?t seem to be suffering at all. In fact, I am sure he commands much higher speaking fees etc. I just wish I could be punished like Joe Wilson.

Max Cleland?s problems didn?t come from being a critic, rather they stem from an acrimonious election campaign. Rather like the accusations about Bush’s national guared service. The infamous Texas NAACP ad or the recent anti Roberts screed.

Scott Ridder based his criticism on his own personal expertise. See the discussion above about ad hominem arguments and personal expertise.

I expect that these are the BEST examples you have and they all are good examples of what I was saying above.”

Cindy Sheehan did not make HERSELF the issue. The Right wing smear machine has made her the issue. Just because she has taken a public stand does not mean that she is the issue — the issue is her cause and we should debate that before we debate her. Also, she has been quite clear that she does not want to be the issue and that the focus should remain on the argument she’s bringing into the public debate: Bush’s accountability.

As for Valerie Plame, get out from under your rock. We DO know who outed her, Rove and Libby. Your bringing up the Vanity Fair cover is the exact type of character assassination that is so typical of the Right. She was already outed, and while I agree it wasn’t the most prudent choice on her part, does it in any way justify her outing? Why do you feel you need to hold a victim up to the microscope, but you’re so willing to give the attackers a free pass? Isn’t that a little backwards?

“Andrew,

Do a poll of the Dem. base (mostly under 35), fully half wouldn’t know who Sheehan or Max Cleland is.
Dem.’s need to advertize on the cartoon channel, thats where most of their base spends their time.
Well, perhaps not there, but the “simpsons” attracted the viewers of most of the base.”

Beagle, do a poll of the Republican base and the vast majority of them would only be able to regurgitate the Republican Talking Points and don’t have an original thought in their pretty little heads. The vast majority are also ueducated, selfish, arrogants pricks.

So what’s your point? Do you really want to engage in a pissing match?

Try responding to a claim with a coherent response for once.

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 04:39 PM

Andrew,

Don’t your statements like this:

“do a poll of the Republican base and the vast majority of them would only be able to regurgitate the Republican Talking Points and don’t have an original thought in their pretty little heads. The vast majority are also ueducated, selfish, arrogants pricks.”

tend to support the claim about inability to discuss intelligently from either side. How can you condemn one side when you make the same type of comments?

I will disagree with you that Sheehan did not make herself the issue. Anyone who drives around in a bus that says, “Impeach Bush” or any other political message like that is trying to make themself an issue.

Posted by: Mike P at August 21, 2005 04:48 PM

Mike P.,

I was being sarcastic in my response to Beagle, and I’m sorry if that went over your head.

As for whether or not Cindy Sheehan is “making herself an issue”, all I can say is that by your logic, anyone with a cause is making themselves an issue. Because most people with a cause are trying to bring publicity to that cause.

I don’t think that means the person leading the charge should necessarly be a lightning rod.

I’ll offer you a great example: Lance Armstrong. Here’s a guy who got testicular cancer, in all likelihood, because he was taking vast quantities of performance-enhancing drugs. (Don’t believe me? Think Jason Giambi, Steroids, and a mysterious Pituitary Disorder. Probably not a coincidence with him, and probably not a coincidence with Lance either)

Lance’s story has been inspirational to those with Cancer and his LiveStrong bracelets have promoted Cancer awareness and I’m sure brought in millions and millions to Cancer charities.

Now do you suppose we should tear down Lance Armstrong and investigate the numerous pieces of evidece out there that strongly suggest he used performance enhancing drugs? Should we start calling him a fraud and ridiculing Cancer awareness?

Or we could overlook his potential character issues and realize that the PR he’s brought to this cause has done an unbelieveable amount of good.

So we can keep our focus on the cause, or put the focus on the leader of the cause. But you ought to be willing to be consistent.

So which one is it for you, Mike P?

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 05:36 PM

Jack-
An Ad Hominem fallacy is one that addresses the person making the claim rather than the claim itself. A perfect example is that soldier complaining about armor back in December. People argued that he was a dupe or a co-conspirator with somebody trying to burn Rumsfeld (and therefore the administration) politically without ever addressing the charges.

Instead of debating whether Bush should answer his accusers (an obvious yes in a democracy), the debate is made as to whether Cindy Sheehan is fit to ask that question of the president. She is portrayed as a radical, a political opportunist, a betrayer of her son. Nobody can ask whether she has standing to talk as a grieving mother- her son is dead, and she is his mother. You can debate her military strategy, bringing facts to bear and all of that, and not take the course of trying to make her look like a traitor or hypocrite.

I don’t believe what Bush says, because Bush has a track record of making claims that aren’t true which he should know are not true. It is not ad hominem to bring in a track record or other kinds of evidence.

What is ad hominem is saying she can’t comment on our strategy in Iraq because she’s not a general. There is another point of view from which one can comment on miltary strategy, one of comparable importance: whether the average American should support the war.

We can talk about the big politicians, and the foreign policy and military experts all we want to, but in the end it’s American citizens who have to fight this war, and the human cost cannot be counted out of the equation.

American can accept big body counts in their war, if they can believe in their leadership. If not, then they will feel worse than muzzled: they will feel as if theirs are the voices out in the wilderness.

The Real problem here is that ad hominem arguments have become THE currency for the Right’s argumentation. News figures are disregarded as too liberal. News sources are utterly disregarded for having a liberal reputation. People debating y’all folks are tarred and feathered with charges of disloyalty to their own country and weakness in its defense for not showing enough loyalty to the president or the GOP. Because of this, people following the leadership of the GOP are substantially less informed than viewers of The Daily Show, essentially a satire on the news, because they don’t read the papers, don’t watch the television shows, and don’t listen to the folks who learn things separate from the GOP party line.

And no, this is nowhere near what the Democrats have, because the so-called liberal media tends not to hew any party line in particular, where as the self-indentified conservative media practically publishes the GOP talking points without a second thought. This is why the GOP has been able to make such inroads in the media- they fight against an imaginary opposition. It’s easy to push out people don’t know they’re supposed to be fighting a media war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2005 05:38 PM

—-
Obviously, Bush’s strategy isn’t nearly as bad as the Left would have us believe.
—-
Really? 2 out of the 3 axis of evil are now nuclear powers. The third is a recruiting ground for every enemy we could even consider conjuring up.

The one incident with Muammar Gaddafi was based on sanctions that were put in place years before Bush W. - so how the heck do you call this a Bush W policy.

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 05:41 PM

btw - I am a lefty - so if you don’t understand a lefty’s point of view, ask away… (I’m cooking dinner for my kids right now, free-range salads… so after that I’ll come back and discuss more.)

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 05:43 PM

Andrew L,

“I was being sarcastic in my response to Beagle, and I’m sorry if that went over your head.”

Sarcasm doesn’t make you any less hypocritical for using the same tactics you’re arguing against. You just further prove that such attacks are not merely a Republican problem, as all Bush-bashers do when they attack the President. Sorry, you’re logic is lacking and your attacks have no merit when you the same tactics to make your claim.

“Now do you suppose we should tear down Lance Armstrong and investigate the numerous pieces of evidece out there that strongly suggest he used performance enhancing drugs? Should we start calling him a fraud and ridiculing Cancer awareness?”

How about drawing attention to his drug abuse to better inform the next generation of the possible consequences of using performance enhancing drugs?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 05:57 PM

Stephen,

“Instead of debating whether Bush should answer his accusers…”

Cindy Sheehan had her chance to talk to the President. He’s unwilling to change his schedule to meet with her a second time. That’s already been addressed. You just don’t like the answers.

“You can debate her military strategy…”

That’s also been done.

You say we don’t debate the issues, when we do so right here on Watchblog.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 06:03 PM

tony,

“The one incident with Muammar Gaddafi was based on sanctions that were put in place years before Bush W. - so how the heck do you call this a Bush W policy.”

If Bush were really as bad as the Left loves to portray him, then no sane leader of a foreign country would go out of his or her way to have dealings with Bush, they would simply wait Bush out until his term is done. Instead Gaddafi is inviting Bush over to his country.

The Left has said repeatedly that the whole world hates us and hates Bush. Obviously, that’s not true.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 06:06 PM

Andrew,

“I was being sarcastic in my response to Beagle, and I’m sorry if that went over your head.” - Surely you are not using that old excuse that if someone on the other side does it then it is wrong but you can use the same insulting technique and it is “just sarcasm”? If you are going to criticize someone for a technique then you should not turn around and do the same thing or the criticisms you use are just as applicable to you.

“As for whether or not Cindy Sheehan is “making herself an issue”, all I can say is that by your logic, anyone with a cause is making themselves an issue. Because most people with a cause are trying to bring publicity to that cause.” - Nice of you to put words in my mouth. My comment was that anyone who drives around in a bus with the words “Impeach Bush” on it (or other political slogans like that” is making themselves the issue instead of fighting for a cause. Of course the person leading the charge is the one who becomes the lightning rod. It always happens that way.

How about some evidence that Lance used performance enhancing drugs - assuming of course the you mean illegal ones instead of vitamins etc.. Bear in mind of course that Lance has been one of the most tested athletes for those types of drugs unlike Giambi. Can not believe you use a baseball player who has probably not been tested as a comparison.

“Now do you suppose we should tear down Lance Armstrong and investigate the numerous pieces of evidece out there that strongly suggest he used performance enhancing drugs? Should we start calling him a fraud and ridiculing Cancer awareness?” - It appears that you are the one who is trying to tear down Lance without the evidence. Shades of the SwiftBoaters or is that where you learned that technique?

Can you show me where I was inconsistant. By the way it is possible to examine both the cause and the motive of the leader for most people.

Posted by: Mike P at August 21, 2005 06:19 PM

Muammar Gaddaf’s country needs economic sustainability. He can no longer continue on the path he choose years ago because his country is financially dead.

1 - Containment worked.

2 - The policy was started long before W - the single point you say that makes Bush’s failed policy better than we perceive. In fact, W does not think containment works (another argument for attacking Iraq) and this proves otherwise.

3 - W is negotiating with a known/admitted terrorists… which he has stated consistently that he would never do.

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 06:23 PM

Stephanie,

“Stephen,

“Instead of debating whether Bush should answer his accusers…”

Cindy Sheehan had her chance to talk to the President. He’s unwilling to change his schedule to meet with her a second time. That’s already been addressed. You just don’t like the answers.

“You can debate her military strategy…”

That’s also been done.

You say we don’t debate the issues, when we do so right here on Watchblog.”

Fair enough… Now how abouting debate the REAL REASON that Cindy is protesting Bush. All this other stuff you’re willing to debate is tangential to the core issue: ACCOUNTABILITY.

So please offer a rational argument in regards to President Bush’s Accountability for this War. Has he been held accountable enough? What was the reason we went to war? Is that reason consistent with what he offered the public as justification for war? Are we guilty of mission creep? Did he mislead or lie to the American public? Has the cost of this war been worth it? In retrospect, did Bush exhibit sound decision-making and execution of his role as President and Commander in Chief?

Cindy called this Bush’s “Accountability Moment”, and that’s all she’s REALLY asking him to do — BE ACCOUNTABLE.

Cindy speaks for those of us who want an explanation that is plain and clear. It’s not sufficient to reply with “He’s already given his reasons for war, you just don’t like what he’s said.” The American Public wants to know NOW, given everything that as occurred, if it all adds up. Bush and his supporters ought to be able to do this very simply AND to the satisfaction of the American public.

Thus far, they have been both unwilling and unable to do so. What do you think that says?

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 06:29 PM

A number of these issues have already been addressed, but let’s recap anyway, shall we?

First of all, is it too much to ask when someone is writing an article about ad hominem attacks for that person to know what one is and to define it properly?

“Ad hominem attacks refer to situations where we dismiss an argument because of the person who makes it.”

That’s not correct at all. An ad hominem attack is when you make a personal attack at someone instead of addressing the issue they are talking about. Case in point - Joe Wilson. The White House could not condemn what Joe Wilson actually said in his op-ed piece, because it was true. In fact, they admitted such immediately at the time.

Fleischer:�Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

So they turned personal and said his wife sent him on the trip (not quite true) and that he was a leftist partisan (completely untrue). That is an ad hominem attack. Another example would be if someone were to say that they “hate Karl Rove because he was gay”. This doesn’t address any of the issues of Mr. Rove’s political actions. It is simply a personal attack on his sexuality.

Now that we know the correct definition of ad hominem, apparently a couple people here need to learn the definition of sarcasm as well, but I’ll let them look it up on their own.

Regarding Moore’s 9/11, there are legitimate questions about some of his claims. Regarding the Saudis, many of them (although not necessarily the Bin Ladens) left on September 13th on chartered aircraft. This was the first day that air space was open. Most air traffic was empty planes returning to airports they needed to be at when normal flights started to resume. Now, you may argue that no special assitance was given to these Saudi nationals only 2 days after the attacks, but my guess would be different. If nothing else, the 9/11 commission report indicates that the Saudi government did, in fact, ask the U.S. government for help in getting these Saudi nationals out of the country. So we know the Saudis asked for help, and we know that they managed to fly out the first day possible. That might indicate some help was given. But that’s just me.

Another issue - as has already been pointed out, it doesn’t take jailing someone to punish them for expressing their opinions. Rove has a long history of pursuing this strategy, and as can see by the large medals that have been pinned on George Tenet, not talking against the administration has its rewards no matter how poorly you do your job.

Again, as has already been pointed out, the disarming of Libya began during the Clinton administration, and thankfully, the Bush administration picked up where they left off. See, look at that, credit for the Bushies doing the right thing.

But let me just finish by giving congrats to Stephanie for finding the one person who loves Bush - Mommar Gaddafi.

Posted by: Burt at August 21, 2005 06:35 PM

Mike P.,

I didn’t put any words in your mouth — I simply applied your logic to similar situations. So are you adding a qualifier now that if you use any type of strong rhetoric you can be smeared? I’m not putting words in your mouth, I just want you to clarify you position because right now it’s not clear to me.

As for Lance Armstrong, the public is so naive about athletes and performance-enhancing drugs it’s laughable. Lance’s standard PR line is that he’s always tested negative. Great. Most of the designer steroids used in recent history were undetectable. Marion Jones never tested positive but if you saw the BALCO interview on 20/20 you’d know that there’s stacks of evidence against her.

Likewise for Lance, it’s pretty commonly accepted outside of the US that Lance was using. I think our MSM likes to build up heroes and doesn’t want to give any credence to allegations that would bring him down but the evidence is fairly convincing. If you’re curious, there’s a book detailing all the allegations and evidece called “L.A. Confidential” http://www.tdfblog.com/2004/06/la_confidential.html

“By the way it is possible to examine both the cause and the motive of the leader for most people.”

Fair enough. Why are you so unwilling to do so for Bush?

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 06:51 PM

Some things just aren’t true, even if a lot of people believe them. One of the best examples is that critics of the Bush Administration are being muzzled. We hear this all the time. People complaining on television and in major newspapers that they are being denied the right to speak out.

What’s interesting is that this is, like the purported charges of the “lefties” themselves, a charge without specifics. Who said this? When? What examples did they use? Without the specifics, there’s nothing much to discuss or learn here.

There are, of course, some quite specific examples of how the “liberal” press failed to question many of the Bush Administration’s assertions before the war. Perhaps the most famous example is the New York Times relative lack of coverage of those who were skeptical of going to war. Is this is the kind of thing those “lefties” are talking about? And, if so, isn’t there some validity to their point?

Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 21, 2005 06:57 PM

“As for whether or not Cindy Sheehan is “making herself an issue”, all I can say is that by your logic, anyone with a cause is making themselves an issue. Because most people with a cause are trying to bring publicity to that cause.”?

If you are unaware of my logic then just ask instead of telling me how my logic applies to issues that were not the topic of discussion. My opinion is that Sheehan is making it an issue because she has painted “Impeach Bush” on the side of the bus which is not what her stated purpose is. If she is after impeachment then why not just say it instead of claiming that she just wants to meet him again? Or why not paint something on the bus regarding her position about the war?

Coomonly accepted, etc. does not mean that it happens. HOw about some evidence instead of innuendo. I realize that “innocent until proven guilty” tends to be a thought of the past and many athletes do illegal performance enhancing drugs but that does not mean that everyone does.

Just curious what I am unwilling to do for Bush and what you base that comment on. I realize that to many because I do not just go along with Sheehan that makes a person a Bush supporter but try and open your eyes.

Posted by: Mike P at August 21, 2005 07:07 PM

Well, Mike, you just completely changed the question. The question in the excerpt you had immediately before your post was, how did Sheehan make herself an issue?

Your answer includes evidence that she’s making impeachment an issue, and that she wants to talk to the president about what her son died for. So, the question remains, how do you figure that she is making herself an issue?

Are all rightards incapable of answering direct questions?

Posted by: unkind k at August 21, 2005 07:20 PM

“My opinion is that Sheehan is making it an issue because she has painted “Impeach Bush” on the side of the bus which is not what her stated purpose is.”

I think the “Impeach Bush” sign isvery consistent with her stated cause. Her stated intent is to hold Bush accountable. She wants to hold him accountable by having him meet with her and answer her question. She hopes to hold him accountable through impeachment proceedings. I’m sure she hopes to hold him accountable in several other ways. Some of it may be far-reaching rhetoric, but that doesn’t mean its inconsistent with her overall point.

“Just curious what I am unwilling to do for Bush and what you base that comment on. I realize that to many because I do not just go along with Sheehan that makes a person a Bush supporter but try and open your eyes.”

Given that you are weighing in so heavily on Sheehan, all I’m saying is that it would seem appropriate that you’d want to follow your own advice and dissect both the motives of Bush and the merits of his cause. After all, he is the President and his motives and his agenda have much bigger implications, don’t you think? So would you care to offer an opinion on him?

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 21, 2005 07:22 PM

You are entitiled to your opinoin but I disagree that impeaching Bush is consistant with her stated cause of meeting with her. Two completely different things. If her goal, as per her statements, is to meet Bush so she can ask him about why her son died then that is completely different than the crusade to impeach Bush.

Much of this thread has been weighing in on Sheehan ro of course I am giving my opinion on that. If in your mind a person who has a different perspective on Sheehan makes them a Bush supporter then that is as narrow minded as those on the far right.

As for my opinion of Bush that covers a lot of area. Which specific Bush opinion would you like?

Posted by: Mike P at August 21, 2005 07:31 PM

Andrew L.,

“So please offer a rational argument in regards to President Bush’s Accountability for this War.”

Bush made some serious mistakes. I do not deny that whatsoever. His “Accountability” is to clean up his act, admit his mistakes, get the war process back on track, and defeat the s.o.b.s that are killing the peaceful Iraqis. I admit he’s not doing this well enough, IMO.

“What was the reason we went to war?”

IMO, he’s fighting the right war, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time. Saddam should have been disposed of after the Gulf War.

“Is that reason consistent with what he offered the public as justification for war?”

Of course not.

“Are we guilty of mission creep?”

I’m not familiar with the term. So, I can’t answer your question there.

“Did he mislead or lie to the American public?”

Honestly, I don’t know if he did, since it would have to have been intentional to qualify in my book. He may have honestly believed that Saddam was pursuing WMD, I don’t know and neither do you. The fact that he followed faulty intelligence is neglectful certainly, but not necessarily a lie.

“Has the cost of this war been worth it?”

No, it will only be worth it if and when the peaceful Iraqis are free and safe. If we don’t accomplish that then all our sacrifices are for naught. Unfortunately, that is exactly what a troops withdrawal would gaurentee, which is why I cannot support Sheehan.

“In retrospect, did Bush exhibit sound decision-making and execution of his role as President and Commander in Chief?”

No, but I don’t have to support Sheehan, just because I don’t support Bush any more.

“Cindy called this Bush’s “Accountability Moment”, and that’s all she’s REALLY asking him to do — BE ACCOUNTABLE.”

NO! She’s asking him to withdraw our troops from Iraq and leave the place in chaos so the militant enemies of Iraq who’ve been killing the peaceful Iraqis can control their lives, killing them even more indiscriminately then they are already doing.

I advocate change. I advocate Bush do his damned job and come up with a successful strategy to WIN in Iraq. I CANNOT accept that America, with all our strengths and resources, cannot defeat the militant criminals in Iraq. I CANNOT accept the belief that Iraq isn’t our problem, isn’t our mess to clean up. Bush got us in there. He was wrong to do it the way he did it. However, that does not justify leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered by their enemies.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 07:49 PM

Burt,

“But let me just finish by giving congrats to Stephanie for finding the one person who loves Bush - Mommar Gaddafi.”

I wasn’t even looking, so I doubt he’s alone.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 07:54 PM

Mike P.,

“My opinion is that Sheehan is making it an issue because she has painted “Impeach Bush” on the side of the bus which is not what her stated purpose is. If she is after impeachment then why not just say it instead of claiming that she just wants to meet him again? Or why not paint something on the bus regarding her position about the war?”

In all fairness, she’s made her intentions to get Bush impeached quite clear.

In her letter to Bush she said:

George, I must confess that I and my family worked very HARD to re-defeat you this time, but you refuse to stay defeated. Well, we are watching you very carefully. We are going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people into a disastrous war and for mis-using and abusing your power as Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 08:00 PM

Last time I checked - it was Congress, not grieving mothers who impeach a President. So, what’s your point about Impeachment with Sheehan? Maybe she’s suggesting that if Bush can not support arguments against her claims, then he deserves to be Impeached…??? Could you blame her?

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 08:08 PM

Stephen

We discussed the Cindy thing on the other side. I don’t disagree she has the right to speak. But why are we listening to her? Only because of her status as a grieving mother. If not for that, she why would we listen? We wouldn’t. So that leads us to the question of her qualifications. You could say that she got our attention in one way, but we still should listen. If her arguments were new or compelling, we would also listen to her. But they are not. They are the same ones we have heard, with a little more vitriol, thousands of times before. Those of you who believe them, still believe them. Those who us who don’t, still don’t. Sheehan is irrelevant to our decisions. She is only relevant as a symbol, so it is legitimate to question her bona fides as a symbol.

The ad hominem is common on both sides. We are currently seeing this with John Roberts. It probably started in its current form with Robert Bork and it wasn’t a Republican thing.

There was some ad hominem against Cindy Sheehan, but most was legitimate questioning of her credentials. There was some ad hominem against Kerry, but he opened the door by making such a big deal of his time in Vietnam in general and specifically with false statements such as the story he told about being in Cambodia on a Christmas during when Nixon was president

But stipulating ad hominem attacks, there is not indication whatever that anyone is being muzzled. The left has plenty of outlets. Everybody knows what Cindy Sheehan thinks. Barbara Boxer has no trouble getting noticed. Michael Moore is treated as a hero in many quarters. We even hear a lot from Al Franken, painful as it is to listen to him. Rich guys have bought Air America airtime that it can’t earn with ratings.

So nobody has been able to overcome the simple, logical fact that since we hear so much from the left, since all you have to do to hear criticism of the President is turn on the television the critics are obviously not silenced. No matter how Lefty’s tries to play the victim, the role doesn’t fit.

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 08:11 PM

tony,

“Could you blame her?”

Yes, our country is already torn to shreds. How is an impeachment going to help us. It would make fighting this war even more difficult, costly and disastrous.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 08:11 PM

Burt,

“But let me just finish by giving congrats to Stephanie for finding the one person who loves Bush - Mommar Gaddafi.”

I wasn’t even looking, so I doubt he’s alone.

Stephanie,

That’s priceless! Thanks for making my day.

Posted by: Burt at August 21, 2005 08:15 PM

You’re welcome.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 21, 2005 08:18 PM

Jack,

Your argument that liberals aren’t “muzzled” also applies to the conservative complaints about college campuses. Obviously, we can hear them, too.

When John Kerry made his time in Vietnam a central qualification to be president, it was not ad hominem to question this experience.

True, but that doesn’t give anyone license to lie. If Bush says he loves his wife, I can’t go on TV and say he screwed the Olsen twins.

It is a symptom of our quick information society that we are too interested in credentials and not interested enough in truth.

Truth is an abstract philosophical concept. The question is how to find. I think the problem isn’t overreliance on experts, but reliance on fake experts who look good on TV.

You hear it over and over and over - ‘this administration doesn’t tolerate dissent’ and I wonder how many people have been jailed for speaking out against the administration.

Otto,

I think it is clear that this administration does not tolerate dissent within the government. People who said there are no unauthorized WMD in Iraq were shouted down. And they were right.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2005 08:47 PM

—-
Yes, our country is already torn to shreds. How is an impeachment going to help us. It would make fighting this war even more difficult, costly and disastrous.
—-
I agree that an impeachment now would be bad, but it’s almost pretty much an impossibility - since the REPs control both the Senate and the House.

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 08:59 PM

Woody

His Vietnam experience was questionable. His own narrative was that he was an unblemished hero, but his behavior on returning from the war was deplorable. His statement about Cambodia being seared into his memory was clearly inaccurate. Kerry made Vietnam an issue. Consider that John Kerry reporting for duty line. He had not been in the military for thirty years. Why reach back that far? After thirty years of experience, few people still define themselves by the GPA in college or their athletic prowess on high school playing fields. If they do, we have a right to wonder why.

Bush never made his military experience a big part of his biography. Yet people investigated it and spread actual fabrications using false documents on the CBS News.

Both oxen were gored in this exchange.

No president tolerates very much dissent within his government. He can’t. The system is like this. Before a decision is made, you have the chance to dissent. After it is made, you work to make the policy a success. You can still dissent, but you do it privately. What else would you propose? Should everyone go public with their own ideas and undercut their president? Do we have thirty or forty foreign policies? How much dissent do you recall in the Clinton Administration? Madeline Albright and Donna Shalala must have known or suspected what Clinton had done, but they stood with him and pretended. We should not have expected anything else.

There was clearly disagreement among Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell. None of them were fired. Most intelligence analysts believed in WMD. It was the Clinton appointed head of the CIA who called the evidence a slam-dunk. Bush made his decision based on what he was told was good intelligence.

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 09:23 PM

Jack,

I stand by what I wrote earlier re Kerry and Vietnam. The subject itself was fair game, for both Kerry and Bush. You can’t put one candidate under a microscope but not another. That would clearly invite claims of bias.

The irony of the forged memo was that it didn’t go very far beyond what was known from Bush’s official military record. It is rather like someone had forged a hotel receipt showing that Bill Clinton spent the night with Gennifer Flowers. Bill would have been pleased as punch by such a development. Bush Sr.’s allies would naturally wonder just which side the forger was on…

No president tolerates very much dissent within his government. He can’t. The system is like this.

I think even a lot of Republicans are wishing Bush had tolerated more dissent now.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2005 09:37 PM

—-
false documents on the CBS News
—-

Just to clear it up - the documents were never proven to be false… they just did not met the standard for publishing a story as quick as CBS did. CBS made a horrible mistake/misjudgement with that… but those documents remain ‘suspect’, but not ‘false’.

—-
Bush made his decision based on what he was told was good intelligence.
—-
That’s garbage. Bush knew the sources of the intelligence… ‘screwball’, for instances, who provided a large amount of the intelligence was known to be suspect. This bit of information was omitted when shown to Congress, but not the President.

Also - he still made a bad call. He has yet to own up to that, at least.

Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 09:38 PM

Jack,

It does seem strange that Bush didn’t use his military “service” as a big part of his campaign. I mean, it was so illustrious.

I bet you’re glad that Paul O’Neil got fired. You know, the Secretary of the Treasury who told Bush and Cheney that deficits were bad. Out on his ass.

Posted by: Burt at August 21, 2005 09:48 PM

Tony

The documents were false in the sense on not true. What else can we say about them. They contained formatting not invented at the time. Their provenance was suspect. CBS should never have accepted them.

As for them proving what was known, if that was known why were the documents news at all. And if there was no other evidence except the documents, it wasn’t known. I remember the Dem idea at the time. Essentially it was that the proof we offer doesn’t prove what we say, but we say what the documents don’t prove is true.

Tenet called the evidence a slam-dunk, not Bush. Tenet was a Clinton appointee. Most intelligence analysts believed in WMD because Saddam had definitely possessed them as late as 1998 and nobody knew – and nobody still knows – what happened to them.

Remember this about WMD – it is simple to make and it is simple to hide. That is why it is dangerous. Mustard gas that Saddam used in 1914 technology. Remember that it took the Germans only a couple of months to mass-produce the stuff – with technology that is now nearly 100 years old and they had to start from scratch.

The reason Saddam was dangerous was NOT that he was the most sophisticated enemy. He was dangerous because he had shown himself willing to develop and use such weapons. We were playing a deadly shell game with Saddam. The decision to take him out made sense at the time and it probably still makes sense today.

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 09:52 PM

Tenet was a Clinton appointee.

An oft-repeated and lame argument. Bush was one in charge when we invaded Iraq. He had the power and the responsibility that goes with it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2005 10:10 PM

Jack,

You can argue that Bush did not know that the information he was using was inaccurate in many ways and you may have a point. However as the President shouldn’t he reinforce on his administration that information given to him is timely and accurate? It seems that he accepted information that was suspect because it supported the position he wanted. You would be techincally correct that using this information does not make Bush a liar however how about the responsibility of his administration to present all relevant information to Congress?

Posted by: Mike P at August 21, 2005 10:16 PM

Mike& Woody

It is the difference between the executive and the legislative branches.

I point out that Tenet was a Clinton appointee because it shows that it was not a bunch of Bush insiders doing all the talking. Members of Congress on the relevant committees also had access to the same intelligence Bush had. (Kerry BTW was on the Senate Intelligent Committee) Beyond that, those committees had been working on the problem longer than Bush. He came into office in January 2001. Many on the Committees had been working on intelligence for decades. Remember also that the Senate was controlled by Democrats in 2001 and 2002.

Intelligence is a trick business. Masters of deception are working hard to deceive us. Some of them (like Saddam) are very good at what they do. We get all kinds of conflicting indications. At some point, somebody has to make a decision in the face of great uncertainty and risk. This is getting off topic, but that is how it works. There is just no reason to believe that Bush lied or that he was taken in any more than other world leaders or previous presidents. In a utopian world, he should have and could have been omniscient.

Beyond all that, there were plenty of other good reasons to want to depose Saddam Hussein. You all are treating him like a suspect on law and order who has the cops on a technicality.

Posted by: jack at August 21, 2005 10:43 PM

Technicality?!

A technicality is the cops finding a drug dealer’s stash without using the right form to get a search warrant. Here there is a problem of fact: no stash.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2005 10:55 PM

Remember this about WMD � it is simple to make and it is simple to hide. That is why it is dangerous. Mustard gas that Saddam used in 1914 technology. Remember that it took the Germans only a couple of months to mass-produce the stuff � with technology that is now nearly 100 years old and they had to start from scratch.

Jack, not all WMDs are that simple to make and hide. And frankly, the ones that are that simple to make and simple to hide wouldn’t really be a threat to us. Especially not without a delivery system capable of reaching us, which is a lot harder to make, let alone hide.

Come on, this is just getting silly now. Mustard Gas as representative of all WMDs, and thus a justification for invasion? That’s ridiculous.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 21, 2005 11:42 PM

Woody

More like the dealer has flushed the stash down the toilet, but has the capacity to get more as soon as you leave … and has done things like that recently.

Let’s move to this subject on a different thread.

Posted by: Jack at August 21, 2005 11:42 PM

Burt, to follow up on your comments about the Suadi flights: The bin ladin’s were evacuated on the 14th. And yes, it did require special dispensation, and the administration has fully admitted that they specially cleared the Saudis to evacuate. For those of you that thought this was a debateable point, it isn’t.

As for the CIA information given to justify the war, all you need to do is read the Bush-approved Woodward book that clearly states that the CIA felt very iffy on their intelligence. There were 5 (Five!) total spies in Iraq. They simply didn’t have reliable info, and they knew it. The doubtfullness of their info, however, was not reported to congress. In addition, congress gave Bush the right to go to war if he saw no other options AND if Iraq was an immediate danger to the United States. Iraq was not an immediate danger.

Now, did many Senators believe that Iraq WAS an immediate danger? Sure. Did they ask for source documentation for intelligence? No they didn’t. Is that immoral and wrong? yes it is.

If you are going to risk someone elses life for a cause, you’d better make sure your information is sourced. It doesn’t take much to learn, in fact all it takes is asking: “What is the source for this information?” As a decision maker, you should not authorize a war without knowing the answer.

A lot of senators and congressman should be fired. And if Bush saw the source data for the rationale for war, and authorized it anyway, he should be fired too.

Posted by: Julia at August 22, 2005 12:04 AM

Julia

The ban on flights was lifted on September 13. Some Saudi officials left the day after. The “bin Laden” flight didn’t get out until September 20. I got out on September 17. A lot depended on whether or not you could get a flight. A poor guy like me on tourist class had less of a chance than the rich guys from Saudi. Yet I got there sooner than the bin Laden relatives.

BTW - I understand that bin Laden has 57 brothers and thousands of cousins. One of his cousins I saw on TV is an actress in New York. Has there ever been any indication that any of those who left on Sept 20 were connected with 9/11?

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 12:43 AM

Jack-
How can you prevent people from listening to her? Be more eloquent, compelling. Don’t tear her down, become the better spokesman for your cause. Now is not the time to take public opinion for granted. Look at the trends, and see if they’re positive. I guarantee you they’re not.

Roberts is getting nowhere near the grilling of Bork. I don’t see many big obstacles to his confirmation, unless some truly bad things come up in his records. Can’t you see the good side of putting a man to the test who will be able to sit on the court for the rest of his life?

On the SwiftVet thing, I think Kerry opened himself up to it by daring to be a Democrat running on a stronger war record than the Republican candidate

The Cambodia thing is a nitpick for pundits. Nothing definitive was proven ill about Kerry’s character. All the documentary evidence supported him, rather than the SwiftVets. Eyewitness accounts, even from adversarial witnesses, support his version of events.

As for people exploiting their old military status, I’ve got two words for you: Mission Accomplished. Does that ring any bells? A landing on an aircraft carrier, a triumpant walk out in a flightsuit? Bush made Kerry’s military experience an issue by doing that. Kerry wasn’t the only target. Bush stood by while another man denigrated John McCain, longtime POW, for not doing enough for Vets and POWs, and said nothing. This is John McCain we’re speaking of here, a guy who can’t lift his arms to comb his hair because of the torture inflicted on him. There seems to be an inferiority complex in this White House about real military service.

A president should not tolerate hamstringing by his underlings, but he sure as hell shouldn’t discourage independent thought and initiative. Bush did more than discourage open dissent, he discouraged it behind closed doors, within the institutions. It is part and parcel of what made the errors of Iraq possible.

As for George Tenet, I would say he was a better politicians than he was a head spook. As for who hired who, I would warn you that FBI head Louis Freeh was a favorite of the Republicans who’s influential friends made it difficult to fire him without a GOP political backlash.

Your evidence, if it suggested movement, would have suggested where. It wouldn’t have suggested to David Kay, former armchair WMD enthusiast, that he find a new line of work.

Last but not least, WMDs maybe simple to make, but the shit’s toxic, and making a lot of it requires big infrastructure, and chemical feedstocks which he wasn’t getting under sanctions. Saddam was not dangerous because had no opportunities or means to be so. It was not the distraction we need at the time.

You guys are so full of reasons to do things, but when it comes time to give the official cause, to justify this according to the laws of our land and the world’s you offer lame rationalization.

When will the greater responsiblity come into play here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 01:53 AM

Hey Jack, how do you explain Helen Thomas, Mike Allen, Dana Milbank, and others who had their access cut off for asking President Bush the tough questions?

Members of Congress on the relevant committees also had access to the same intelligence Bush had.

The vast majority in Congress did not have the same info. They were given intel with all the caveats and dissenting opinions stripped out.

I was watching that CNN special, “‘Dead Wrong:’ Inside an Intelligence Meltdown”, and it was interesting to hear one of the few who had all the facts say that it was against the law for him to say that what the President was peddling wasn’t the same as what the committee was seeing.

You could hate the guy for not having the balls to blow the whistle at the time, but it doesn’t negate the fact that President Bush deliberately mislead Congress and the American people.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 22, 2005 08:02 AM

Andrew, Views,

I’ve re-read my posts, I can’t see where I called anyone names.

The cartoon channel part was joking, the simpsons wasn’t.
Whem my son was in college he said when the simpsons was on, every TV in the dorm was tuned to that. Few if any watched the news.
Those are just facts, not a personal attack on anyone.
I read an article the other day that said Hollywood was dumping its advertising in newspapers. They claim that most movie-goers are in the 30 and younger group. The study claimed that fewer than 20% of that group read newspapers.

Its common knowledge that those under 35 make up a large % of the Dem. base, if you can get them to the polls.
I’m sorry if I struck a nerve, but it wasn’t a personal attack.

Its an old joke that if an election looks close, and someone broadcasts a Star Wars movie marathon on election night, a Republican will win every time. There might be some truth in that.

Posted by: Beagle at August 22, 2005 09:26 AM

Beagle,

Facts? The fact is that people in your son’s dorm watch the Simpsons. How is it a fact that most of the Democratic base watches the Simpsons? Or the fictious poll you create that says most Democrats don’t know who Cleland or Sheehan are?

You guys are really funny when trying to talk about the media. Network news isn’t losing ratings because people don’t like the liberal slant, it’s because there are hundreds of more channels to choose from than in years past plus the internet from which to get information and entertainment. Same with newspapers. It’s that simple.

Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 11:02 AM

Burt,

“Facts? The fact is that people in your son’s dorm watch the Simpsons. How is it a fact that most of the Democratic base watches the Simpsons? Or the fictious poll you create that says most Democrats don’t know who Cleland or Sheehan are?”

Burt, I didn’t create a fictious poll saying that the Dem.’s all watch the simpsons, nor did I say that most don’t know who Sheehan or Cleland are.

I said you could do your OWN poll to find out.

Do you dispute the fact that those under 35 make up a large % of the Dem. base?
Do you dispute that most every study and poll, shows that a small% of that group watches the news, reads the newspapers, or even makes it to the polls to vote on election day?

I give my opinion about politics, issues, and political engineering, if you don’t agree, thats fine, I respect your right to do so.

I could likely post some links to back up my opinions, but would it matter?
You’re a clever fellow, you could search the net on your own to check if you wished?

Posted by: Beagle at August 22, 2005 12:02 PM

Stephanie,

our country is already torn to shreds. How is an impeachment going to help us.

Interesting statement, because that’s exactly what some of the Clinton supporters said a few years ago. So it was wrong then, but right now?

All,
The left’s claim that they’re being muzzled makes about as much sense as the right’s claim that the “liberal media” is biased against them.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 22, 2005 12:10 PM

Jack,

We can argue round and round, but the FACT is that the Saudis required special approval to leave the country, and their request to leave was expedited:

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

I doubt Richard Clarke was asked if you were authorized to be flying on Sept 17th. Now, I didn’t say it was wrong for them to be cleared, I stated that it is not debateable that the Saudis required special clearance, and that the clearance was expedited. And IT IS NOT DEBATEABLE. Richard Clarke and all the rest have stated that the Saudis NEEDED SPECIAL CLEARANCE and that they EXPEDITED THE PROCESS. Shall we track him down and explain to him that the Saudis didn’t need special clearance, because regular air traffic had resumed, and it really made no sense for him to personally expedite the request? I suppose we could, but it doesn’t change the FACT that he did it. And that all the government authorities agree that it would take special clearances to let the Saudis go home.

Seriously. All it takes is a google search.

Elliot,

As for the left being muzzled, I dont’ buy it either. What I do buy into is that the truth is being buried. The media parrots the talking points on both sides, and talking points (in general) are misleading and hysterical.

This Saudi thing is a perfect example. Sure, it may have been totally legitimate that they were given special dispensation to leave the country. But it is NOT ARGUEABLE that they received special attention at high levels of government so that they could leave. If Timothy McVeigh’s dad tried to fly to Mexico two days after his son was fingered as suspect #1, do you think it would happen?

Instead of having the actual facts in the public mind, however, I consistently see this all or nothing version of the truth. Either it was all secret, or it was totally routine.

The closest version of the TRUTH is the link I provided above. It’s information we should know. It’s information covered in the 9/11 report. But we don’t know it. Hence, the truth is buried under the hysterics of the media and the extremists.

And THAT’S a problem.

Posted by: Julia at August 22, 2005 01:38 PM

Julia

All diplomats technically require a special clearance to come and leave the country. That is was expedited (I believe you) would seem to make some sense, given the possibility of backlash. These things aren’t important stories and would not be interesting in themselves.

Moore implies that these guys got out when NOBODY else could. He further implies that there was something nefarious about it. Should we have imprisoned the bin Laden’s relatives just for having the misfortune of being related to the bad guy? That is something else Moore implies, otherwise – again – he doesn’t have a story to tell.

This is typical of these kinds of conspiracy theories. When you dig to the bottom, there is nothing unusual. But you are still left with the feeling, and that was Moore’s goal. He has succeeded in making us talk about something that is routine and understandable like it is strange and special.

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 02:37 PM

Hi All: Miss Me, I didn’t think so:

Sorry that I did not see this earlier:

Good points - I’ve been curious about this for a long time.

You hear it over and over and over - ‘this administration doesn’t tolerate dissent’ and I wonder how many people have been jailed for speaking out against the administration. What’s most curious about it is that it is usually the most aggregious, outspoken left wing commentators (like Ted Rall or Michael Moore) who say this, making me wonder that if there was any truth to this, then why aren’t they themselves shackled to a wall in a dark dungeon somewhere?

The fact of the matter is that there is not one example of anyone being punished for speaking out against the Bush administraton or the war (unless you count the Dixie Chicks, but have you ever heard their music?)

:o)

Posted by: OttO at August 21, 2005 12:20 PM

No OttO, you are correct, No one in the public eye has been jailed or fired for having views that don’t quite measure up to the “Brow Beatings” the GOP Leaders want us to believe.

They have better ways of getting even, just ask Victoria Plame what she thinks

Posted by: wayne at August 22, 2005 02:44 PM

the following line should also be credited to OttO
Also:

“Good points - I’ve been curious about this for a long time.”

Sorry for the mix up.
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at August 22, 2005 02:48 PM

The point Moore was trying to make was that we suspected Bin Laden of carrying out the 9/11 attacks, and we immediately let all the members of his family leave the US without being questioned.

If a man commits a murder, and you notice the rest of his family packing their bags to leave the country… wouldn’t you want to keep them around for a bit. Even if you don’t expect them of being directly involved, you would expect that someone would have information that would be helpful in tracking him down.

Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 02:58 PM

I do have to say after reading these blogs it makes me chuckle. I am 23 and I am a dem and I first have to say I haven’t watched the Simpson since I was 10. However I do not read the newspapers but what I do read is the news sites everyday might I add, I just hate that darn ink on those papers it gets my fingers all black and then before you know it I have smudge marks on my pants or face. However that wasn’t what I came here to really say.. The majority of you guys are here arguing your side b/c you think your side is the right one for doing this or the wrong one for doing that whatever the case maybe but what in the heck happened to people just being open minded allowing them to take in all views and fully understand where each party is coming from instead of attacking one another. Yea I agree Bush mislead us in this war but regardless, what is done is done and if we back out now we are once again sending out the wrong message however this message would be that they defeat us and we went home scared. The smart thing is to finish what we were lead into right or wrong doesn’t matter now it’s something that needs to be finished so we can get back to our own priorities in our own country. Anyways I know some of ya’ll take all of this seriously in every word you say and some well they just like the arguement whatever it maybe that is fine it’s great that we live in a country where we can have our so called free speach and we are capable of having our own opinions but sometimes neither party is right or wrong we should all be more open minded and come together as a country instead of a divided country. Some people are just full of hate cause people don’t see it their way it’s really all BS at least be open minded and realize where another human being is coming from we are all the same just different beliefs but that doesn’t mean that we should hate eachother and attack eachother.

Posted by: Sarah at August 22, 2005 05:06 PM

Good point Tony I agree.

Posted by: Sarah at August 22, 2005 05:10 PM

Does it ever get tiring, for most of you, that you live with the mentality of a high school football fan? I mean, honestly… “My side is better than your side, nee-ner nee-er. Your mommy stinks and my mommy is perfect, nee-ner nee-ner!”

Good lord, grow up.

This is America. We are supposed to embrace freedom in this country. Freedom is not waking up to find your most intimate life’s choices taken away from you. Freedom is not having someone else’s religion rammed down your throat just because the particular religion has a sizeable active population. Freedom is not having “certain members” of society labeled as second-class just because they don’t fit within the limited confines of some repressed person’s ability to understand. Freedom cannot simply be equated to capitolism.

American freedom is equal representation for ALL her citizens. It is not for just the white. It is not for just the male. It is not for just the Christian. It is not for just the heterosexual. It is for ALL of her citizens. It is for all those who contribute to the health of this nation.

So stop with your simpleton arguments and take a look at what it is you embrace in your ideal of freedom. Does your ideal take freedom from another living, breathing American citizen? If it does, you are a hypocrit and have no right to claim your patriotism or citizenship of this great country. You are the thing that our founders despised most and the reason they began our nation…

It’s as simple as that.

Posted by: MJShaw at August 22, 2005 05:40 PM

No. That was not the point more was trying to make, or he could have just said it. He implied that they got out when airspace was still closed, when nobody else could move and that there was something nefarious about it.

Bin Laden has lots of relatives. He has more than 50 (half) brothers. Some are a whole generation older than he is. He has thousands of cousins. If Moore thought that these guys were in on the attacks, he could have said so. But – four years later – there is no indication of that. You can well understand why these guys would want to get out of the U.S. Moore implies what he can’t support and relies on visuals and most people’s ignorance of the chronology involved to imply what he can’t support.

Consider this logically. If your name in bin Laden and you have previous knowledge of an attack, do you stick around until after it is over and only then rely on special dispensation to get you out?

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 06:05 PM

Sorry - the point MOORE was trying to make.

Posted by: jack at August 22, 2005 06:09 PM

No - his point goes like this: Why, when most other commercial flights are still gearing up to fly - why when you know these people are related to the person behind 9/11 - why when they might information that could lead to his whereabouts - why is your first reaction to help them leave the country immediately?

Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 06:37 PM

tony,

“I agree that an impeachment now would be bad, but it’s almost pretty much an impossibility - since the REPs control both the Senate and the House.”

If Clinton couldn’t be impeached as things stood, I don’t think Bush has that much to worry about at all. However, even calling for impeachment is divisive in a way this country has already seen too much. While I realize there’s little chance I’ll get what I want, what I want is for us all to work together, make compromises and actually accomplish something. The die-hards on both sides prevent this from happening.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 22, 2005 08:03 PM

Stephanie -

That’s why I love face-to-face political discussions… It forces you to work within polite society, and it generally drives people to find similarities… It’s amazing how close we all are when we start looking at points we can agree on. From there, the differences start to look petty.. But no one ever got power that way, so…

Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 08:18 PM

Stephen,

“Bush did more than discourage open dissent, he discouraged it behind closed doors, within the institutions.”

Can you back that up with facts?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 22, 2005 08:34 PM

Stephen,

“When will the greater responsiblity come into play here.”

When more people realize we are responsible for the Iraqis too now.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 22, 2005 08:40 PM

ElliottBay,

“Interesting statement, because that’s exactly what some of the Clinton supporters said a few years ago. So it was wrong then, but right now?”

First, let me establish that my opinion of right or wrong concerning Clinton didn’t mean anything at the time, because I was under 18 years of age, and I did not speak of my opinion in public. So…

We are at war now. We are more divided now then we were while Clinton was in office. Those two factors make for a very poor combination. Add an impeachment process, and there will be no way left for us to win the war.

While I realize that is Sheehan’s goal, it is my right to disagree with her and call attention to that.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 22, 2005 09:08 PM

tony,

“But no one ever got power that way, so…”

The truly sad thing is that political power in this country wasn’t (at its founding) supposed to be so damned tangible and desireable. Holding a political office used to be a service, and now it’s power. I find that very sad indeed.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 22, 2005 09:40 PM

Bin Laden has lots of relatives. He has more than 50 (half) brothers. Some are a whole generation older than he is. He has thousands of cousins.

That’s right, Jack. Moore’s point was that one of them might be able to help us put a GPS guided bomb on bin Laden’s head, but Bush let ‘em all go because he has close ties with the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family.

It’s a valid point.

If you’re going to argue that detaining and torturing people who might have info about al Qaeda is all fine and good, I’m not sure why you’d want to protect bin Laden’s family.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 07:40 AM

I guess there many different ways to hold another man’s hand.

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 08:25 AM

Let’s be honest here, folks - the wrong wing noise machine completely dominates political discussion in this country. The title of this very thread (“Lefty Fallacies”) is nothing more than another wrong wing attack on the left.

Furthermore, the attempt by the wrong wing to impeach a sitting President for lying about his sex life is one of the reasons why we’re in this predicament today. The wrong wing was more preoccupied with the Presidential Penis (how’s that for alliteration?) than they were in doing anything about the growing threat of terrorism. They had only ONE objective - to take control of this country by any means possible, and they focused on that the the exclusion of anything else.

After all, the wrong wing cause is noble and it justifies any tactics used. If your enemies use torture, they’re evil. If your own troops use torture, it’s justified, it wasn’t really torture, it was just a few bad apples. If Clinton lied about his sex life, he’s evil and must be run out of office. If Newt Gingrich (or several others) lie about their sex lives, it’s an honest mistake, and not indicative of a character flaw, and doesn’t require their departure from office. If Clinton avoided the draft, he was a “draft dodger”, but wrong-wingers Cheney, Ashcroft, Hastert, Armey, DeLay, Frist, Rove, Gingrich, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Buchanan, Bennett, Hannity and others weren’t. Max Cleland or John McCain or John Kerry, all decorated war heroes, get in your way? Slime them - accuse them of aiding and abetting the enemy, of fabricating their heroism, of having illegitimate children. The mainstream news media reports things that aren’t complimentary? Intimidate them by falsely accusing them of bias. Saddam tries to kill your dad? Make up excuses and invade Iraq, costing almost 2000 American casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties - not to mention the economic cost. Do people disgree with your policies? Slime them - accuse them of treason, of endangering the troops, of being divisive, of being unpatriotic. Use the excuse “We are at war now” to try to stifle dissent.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 23, 2005 12:44 PM

I just read a post waaaaaay at the top about how Valerie Plame suffered as a result of this adminsitration’s policy. Now that I have returned from vomiting in disgust I will dignify that idiotic comment with a response:

1. She has the same job she had before she was “outed”
2. She lives in the same house she did before she was “outed”
3. She did an interview and cover shoot for Vanity Fair
4. Her husband wrote a book and made a lot of money
5. She can’t keep her face off the television

So, this woman who was so protective of her identity that she exposed herself to the world was victimized by the administration? She is the example of a stifled left? Puh-lease!!! Can you sink no lower???

Posted by: Average Joe at August 23, 2005 01:58 PM

Avg. Joe,

I just don’t understand that argument, but it is one that you and a number of people on the right make.

Timeline in chronological order:
1) Valerie Plame works for the CIA, although this is secret, classified info.
2) Plame is outed in a Novak article.
3) The cover corporation that Plame “worked for” is outed in a subsequent article by Novak.
4) Plame and her husband appear in a Vanity Fair article about the outings.

How in the world are you able to twist logic enough to claim that Valerie Plame “exposed herself to the world” when her identity became public knowledge because of the Novak articles?

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 02:20 PM

Average Joe,
The problem with outing Plame is not danger to her, although that exists. It is the danger to the contacts and sources she had, and the loss of a CIA cover organization, and the information on WMDs that comes because of those losses. In short, our national security suffers, not just Valerie Plame.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 23, 2005 02:32 PM

Burt,

And you just named the cause: “…when her identity became public knowledge because of the Novak articles?” (emphasis added)

Is Novak in trouble? Are all you people who complain about the national security aspects outraged at what Novak did? I am. I’m disgusted that Novak would endanger our national security by outing a CIA operative, just so he could have his story!!!

Am I the only one who’s pissed off because of that?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 06:10 PM

Stephanie…

I am with you 100%. Damn straight… I have no idea why he has not been reprimanded or knokced off the air… something. Unfortunately, some people will continue to support him.

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 07:02 PM

Stephanie, you’re not the only one. Many agree, including myself.

What I don’t understand is why there isn’t more outrage that Bush says he hasn’t even talked to Rove about the issue. Hasn’t even talked to the man about an issue like this?!?

Either he’s lying or intentionally unaware of what goes on in his administration. Take your pick.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 07:20 PM

tony,

Thank you!

Burt,

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Bush has said that he’s talked to Rove and Rove told him that he (Rove) had nothing to do with it. So… I can’t really comment without seeing the quote you’re talking about. Then I’d have to go find the quote I remember. And then…well, it would be messy if we both could do it.

Anyway…I’m not saying whoever in the government shouldn’t be held accountable. But…they are not alone responsible. If Joe Blow from the CIA told Jane Dame from CBS that Don Wan was a CIA agent, and Jane Dame then called FBI and told them what Joe Blow did, then Don Wan could keep his secrecy from the nation at large and Joe Blow could go to prison. It would have been a done deal. Now, if Jane Dame told the FBI, and a few weeks saw Joe Blow still whistling his same tune free as a bird, THEN Jane Dame could tell a story about Joe Blow and the FBI, and wouldn’t even have to mention Don Wan. THEN Joe Blow could go to jail, along with whoever dismissed the tip at the FBI.

And that’s why I think Novak REALLY needs a talkin’ to, if you know what I mean. Freedom of the press doesn’t negate the responsibility of every citizen to stand up for the laws of this country.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 07:40 PM

Stephanie,

Here’s what I was talking about with regards to Bush. It does seem odd considering his position and his earlier statements, don’t you think?

Ken Herman writes for Cox News Service: “President Bush, saying he is temporarily muzzled by a special prosecutor, declined Monday to say how or when he found out that top aide Karl Rove had talked with a reporter about a CIA operative’s identity.

“And, while indicating that all he knows is what he has read in newspapers, Bush gave Rove a ringing endorsement.

” ‘Karl’s got my complete confidence. He’s a valuable member of my team,’ Bush said, adding that internal fact-finding has been hampered by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request that the White House not discuss the inquiry.”

As the transcript shows, reporters pursued Bush aggressively on Rove and the CIA leak, but the president stubbornly refused to say anything more.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 10:40 PM

Burt,

Oh, so now Bush refusing to interfer with a special prosecutor so he can talk to journalists is a bad thing. Sorry, doesn’t wash, at least not with me. The journalists shouldn’t even be asking while the investigation is on-going!!! If you can’t understand that the journalists are part of the problem, then I guess we really don’t have common ground to work from. But, please remember, while somebody in the government told Novak who Valerie Plame was, it was Novak who published it for all the world to see!

If the special prosecutor finds that it was Rove who leaked it, then Rove should be punished and if he isn’t Bush should be held accountable. However, whatever punishment Rove receives, Novak should receive in kind. Novak could have done the RIGHT thing and reported Rove, but instead decided to the PROFITABLE thing and out Plame. Novak is equally responsible for his decision.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 11:10 PM

Stephanie,

Well, we can agree that the journalists are part of the problem. But let me let you in on a little secret. Bob Novak is not part of the left wing media. But then, you knew that already.

So let’s get to the initial question of Bush’s supposed knoweledge or lack thereof. I’m not questioning Bush staying mum on reporter’s questions. I’m questioning the fact that he indicated that all he knows about the issue is what he has read in the newspapers. This isn’t disturbing to you?

First of all, as you’ve indicated, it directly contradicts early statements from the White House.

But secondly, if true, it indicates an enormous lack of engagement on behalf of the President. Can you imagine a scandal that’s this big whereby the President doesn’t even ask the parties involved, who he speaks to on a daily basis, if they had anything to do with it?

And don’t talk to me about a special prosecutor. There was a large gap of time from the start of this scandal until the time a special prosecutor was named (that in itself is a potential scandal because John Ashcroft refused to recuse himself). Are you telling me that Bush would at no time even drop in a “Hey, Karl. Did you have any involvement in the Plame thing?”

Either the President is simply lying, or just completely detached from reality. Like I said, take your pick.

Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 11:32 PM

Burt,

“Either the President is simply lying, or just completely detached from reality. Like I said, take your pick.”

Or Rove lied to the President and he pretty much knows it now.

Now, I’ve said my piece against Novak, and that’s all I’m going to say until the investigation is OVER. I don’t like the fact that this has gotten so much noise while an investigation is on-going and I am not going to participate further.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 11:52 PM

If Rove is so guilty of something, I believe they might have done something by now. If it’s not Rove, it’s Delay, or Rumsfield, or anyone else to try and discridit the Bush administration. The fact is Clinton let the country’s priorities go to hell while he chased every skirt around him. We are playing catch-up now to straighten it out………..go Bush

Posted by: John at August 24, 2005 09:42 AM

Stephanie-
There was plenty of commentary about Clinton during the Whitewater investigation, plenty of speculation- it’s what people do. Our government is required to go through this process in order to punish somebody for a crime. We aren’t. Mark my words, this thing will get deferred forever by those who are politically and not factually minded about this case. When the indictment comes, they’ll say wait for the trial. When the trial comes, they’ll say wait for the verdict. When the Verdict comes they will say he was the victim of political allies of the Democrats and his only real crime was loving his country. This is how the political establishment on the right can justify the actions of men like Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy- playing the game of politics as if that is all that matters. It doesn’t matter you have people convicted of making arms deal to an avowed enemy, and burglarizing their political opposition’s offices.

Sooner or later, we have to realize that this political game is not a law to itself, and that it is a source of injustice and evil. We must all be subject to the laws, even when it hurts our political causes. If we don’t do that, where is the discouragement to these people to do further wrong? The Republicans and independents out there have let their right-wing heros get out of control. They need to remind them that they answer to higher authorities than their own political benefit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 10:06 AM

Stephen,

“There was plenty of commentary about Clinton during the Whitewater investigation, plenty of speculation- it’s what people do.”

That doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t mean I have to participate.

“Mark my words, this thing will get deferred forever by those who are politically and not factually minded about this case….”

I am not politically minded in the sense that you are implying. I have no stake in Rove’s guilt or innocence. I do, however, have a stake in whether or not guilt is punished, but guilt has yet to be established. I will not discuss the details while the case is on-going.

As for your waiting game… Try to remember that the Clintons played the “victim,” too. As late as 2004 Hillary was saying the whole thing was a smear on her husband. Oh, but of course, it’s different when your side does it.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 11:49 AM