|
| Posted by: James K Polk
- [51010719] Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:45
NRO article: Impeaching Bush -- Congressional Dems ready to avenge
Now, as the country braces for war, some liberal Democrats in Congress are preparing to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and perhaps members of his Cabinet, according to lawmakers and congressional aides.
Over the past few weeks, some of the most liberal members of the House have discussed the possibility of impeaching Bush. Talks have intensified this week, lawmakers say, largely because war with Iraq appears imminent.
At least one senior House Democrat has produced a draft impeachment resolution. It accuses Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft of more than a dozen "high crimes and misdemeanors," including bombing civilians in Afghanistan and constitutional violations in the domestic war on terrorism. Hadn't heard about this ... |
| | | 1 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:47
|
BTW, should also post this snippet from later on ...
Even some of the lawmakers and aides involved in the impeachment effort say they don't expect to actually impeach the president. Instead, they say their goal is to express their outrage with the administration's foreign and domestic policies.
Lawmakers sometimes introduce resolutions outlining articles of impeachment for purely political reasons, said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution.
|
|
| | | 2 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:49
|
Well I guess this will innoculate him if and when he decides to actually get sinister. 8/
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 0059248 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:50
|
Much as I disagree with the strategy, it was the Republicans who opened up this Pandora's box.
I didn't realize you could impeach cabinet officials, however.
pd
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 0059248 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:53
|
Interesting that Kucinich has not participated. I'm surprised to find that there are people to the left of him in Congress.
pd
|
|
| | | 5 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 13:55
|
we can only dream, we can only dream.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 6 | katietx
ID: 24142617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:00
|
Well, to avoid this I guess the Prez (Bush) just needs to shake his finger and stomp his foot, all the while telling Saddam, Bin Laden, et.al. You guys just stop it now!
Seems as though all the so-called solidarity that the Dems proclaimed after 9/11 has gone by the wayside. Imagine Hillary is all over this one.
Disgusting!
Oh, and bombing civilians in Afghanistan? Yes, of course we set about to do just that. After all, we are the evil tyrants aren't we? I do remember some of the Democratic members of the Congress & Sentate standing behind Bush on "the war on terrorism" - to the point of agreeing that it would take years.
Some of these idiots needs to take up peace signs and go to Iraq and march. Its just where they belong.
Again, disgusting! What a lovely way to show support for the men and women in uniform.
|
|
| | | 7 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:07
|
Some of these idiots needs to take up peace signs and go to Iraq and march. Its just where they belong.
Well, two of them did just that a few months ago.
Sometimes I think some Democrat pols are actually Republican moles planted to make the entire Party look ridiculous. What a dream come true this would be for Bush politically. Do they not realize this? It would force the other Dems to either support Bush actively or else be completely marginalized. maybe that's the idea.
|
|
| | | 8 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 0059248 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:08
|
C'mon, katie! Your anti-Hilary bias needs to be taken out for some air sometime. Hilary Clinton is having nothing to do with this.
pd
|
|
| | | 9 | katietx
ID: 24142617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:11
|
Not yet. "-)
|
|
| | | 10 | John Budge Donor
ID: 51042247 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:27
|
People need to understand the difference between opposing war and supporting our troops. They happen to be mutually exclusive despite what any of Rush's rubes might declare. If George W(armonger) decides to turn his back on the UN and invade Iraq, then I will support the troops (as I support the troops now). But, let the inspectors inspect. Why did we call for inspections if we weren't going to let the inspectors complete their work? Why didn't we just start a bombing campaign 3 months ago? BTW, once you start throwing the term idiots around, any credibility that you were hoping to achieve was summarily lost.
|
|
| | | 11 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 14:35
|
Not really, John.
|
|
| | | 12 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 15:56
|
#10 - what were the inspectors required to do according to 1441?
Verify Saddam has disarmed. Not to look for weapons and disarm him. And it says if he does not comply, extreme consequences will follow. It's about time to follow.
If half the country has no idea what UN RES 1441 or the resolution passed by Congress says, I can see why many people in this country say, "let the VERIFIERS do their job". How can the so called inspectors 'do their job' when Saddam has no plans to disarm IAW with UN resolutions [from Hans Blix]? I can see why they call the president a 'W'armonger. I can see why they think using the 'threat of force' and with the intention of using it to get Saddam to disarm is 'evil' and warmongering. And I can see why people that call the president a 'W'armonger have no credibility. And what's wrong with turning your back on an institution [UN] that has decided not to enforce disarming Iraq? Plus, it's hard to turn your back on something that may not really exist [UN].
========
MBJ [#7] - I'm with you. I think some of these democrats are republican moles. Or is our education system really that bad?
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 0059248 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 16:05
|
Steve, I believe Blix has pointed out how Iraq has made a number of heartening moves on their own in the last few days, including proving the detruction of a number of weapons and biological/chemical weapons in 1991.
I'll try to dig up the news link, from like Tuesday.
pd
|
|
| | | 14 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 19:48
|
PD..come on, Saddam is just playing games I guess because..he can. Clinton sent bombers into Iraq without anyone's consent, now it's time for Bush to do the same thing. Take out a presidential palace or two. Make every effort to avoid any civilian casualties. Uh, Saddam, we're not kidding this time. Uh, Saddam's generals and flunkies, might be a good time to think about ditching this loser. Yugoslavia was as potent a foe as Iraq, and we took them out in a few weeks with virtually no casualties(something Commander in Chief Clinton gets no credit for). I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric and posturing. Let's take out a couple targets and see what happens next. What, does anybody think the French are going to stand by Saddam?
|
|
| | | 15 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 19:58
|
Blix is not Clinton, or even Bush. He's got no reason to portray Hussein in any light other than the truth. When he says Hussein was providing a great deal more cooperation now I know of no one who believe this is just a game by Hussein and that Blix has been duped.
In fact, last Wednesday's report by Blix was downright depressing. Now, he appears hopeful.
Of course all this has been brought on by the US saber-rattling--of that there is no doubt. But ironically the worse thing for Bush right now would be to get everything he wants immediately from Iraq. It's easy to gear up for war, and harder to come down.
We're headed for a crisis one way or another, and in some certain way this will get resolved in the US' favor (French or no French).
pd
|
|
| | | 16 | Box Lunch
ID: 2811223120 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:04
|
PD It's all smoke and mirrors.
ask yourself,
why did he have them in the first place if he knew he shouldn't?
where did he get them?
how long did he have them?
were they modified for biological warfare?
how many more does he have?
what was the shelf life of the ones he destroyed?
Blix would have you believe he is a honest, fun loving guy, who wouldn't do anything against AMERICA.
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:11
|
BL: Read the link to answer some of your own questions.
You might not like Blix, or believe him to be confident, but he clearly has the confidence of the President even if he knows that Saddam is oily (so to speak).
pd
|
|
| | | 18 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:12
|
Box Lunch makes a great post and ruins it with the last sentence. Maybe Blix is concerned about the possibility WW3 is about to break out. Maybe he's going to do all he can to diffuse the situation so lots of lives won't be lost. What a jerk.
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:14
|
Should have read: "...believe him to be competent..." Kind of changed the meaning there!
|
|
| | | 20 | Box Lunch
ID: 2811223120 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:34
|
Pancho Villa We're far from WW3. They said the same thing last time.(and I was there)
|
|
| | | 21 | katietx
ID: 24142617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:41
|
Its really simple. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm. UN resolutions have done no good. Another one will do the same.
I agree that the saber rattling on his border has brought about this "attempt" at disarming. Get real. This guy has no intentions of disarming or he would have done so 12 years ago.
|
|
| | | 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:47
|
Agreed. No point in keeping inspectors there any longer. Next week's resolution calls for agreement that Saddaam is in violation 1441, right? It passes and their job, as I understand it, is done. They should be packing.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:48
|
Actually, katie, it seems to me that the reason he hadn't disarmed is because he didn't think he had to. Don't you agree? After all, Bush Sr. had him in his sights and blinked.
Now he really has to. I don't think Bush Jr would hesitate to take out Hussein if given the chance--he's less constrained by international diplomacy that his father was.
pd
|
|
| | | 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:50
|
No way, PD. As long as Saddam sits there, he won't fully comply. I think it's more likely he'd exile, and I don't think anyone has any reason to think that will happen.
|
|
| | | 25 | katietx
ID: 24142617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:50
|
Agree PD. I don't think he'll back down at all. However, I believe that the Congress is the one that virtually forced Bush Sr to back off.
I'm sure someone here has the info on that last statement.
|
|
| | | 26 | Punk42AE Donor
ID: 598521312 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:51
|
Anyone notice how Bush is such a horrible person because he is trying to prevent more terror attacks, and because he is a christan and lets it be known. But when Clinton got Monica's little blue dress, LIED to the courts, and did many other things it was all A-ok? I also don't remember us having any problem in '98 sending missle's into Iraq killing people.
|
|
| | | 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:54
|
sorry P42, but I think you are WAY off base there. No one I know of thought Clintons extra-marital activity was A-OK. Nor do I know of anyone who blasts Pres Bush BECAUSE he is a Christian. There are those who blast him because he is a Republican, but there are those who bashed Clinton solely because he was a Democrat. *shrug* There is nothing new there.
|
|
| | | 28 | Punk42AE Donor
ID: 598521312 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:57
|
No I have heard many times people Bash Bush because he has said he prays in the morning. I'll ask this, why is this not justified by us? When Clinton did this in '98?
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:57
|
katie, Bush Sr. has talked about pulling back many times in interviews. I've never heard him refer to Congress in any way about that decision (Congress gave him a green light early on, then left to go buy some flags to wave). I know many of the generals left the Gulf War believing the work to e half done--they certainly were proved right in the end. Too bad many Kurds had to die in the meantime.
Interesting speech by Bush tonight. Anyone else catch it?
pd
|
|
| | | 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:58
|
Great points Punk42AE! I've seen as many people bash Bush for being a Christian as subway rides I can buy with a nickle. And Clinton didn't hear a single peep about the Lewinsky issue, an entirely personal matter that had nothing to do with his ability to do his job. And all Clinton got for lying about that entirely personal matter that he should never been asked about in the first place, so little was made about it, that all he got was a little slap on the wrist called impeachment. Yeah, you barely even knew it happened.
|
|
| | | 31 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 14826271 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:59
|
Yeah, I saw it. He's really becoming committed to this idea of using Iraq as a template for ending autocracy in Arabia. That stuff keeps seeping out in his recent speeches.
|
|
| | | 32 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 21:00
|
No I have heard many times people Bash Bush because he has said he prays in the morning. I'll ask this, why is this not justified by us? When Clinton did this in '98?
What in the world are you talking about?
|
|
| | | 33 | Punk42AE Donor
ID: 598521312 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 21:00
|
Oh yeah, impeachment, you mean that thing he got when he lied to everyone for 2 years?
|
|
| | | 34 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22254617 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 21:01
|
Sarge, I don't know of anyone who felt that Clinton's fooling around was OK, but I know a lot of people who felt that it being dragged out publicly by Republicans, who really got him on a technicality, to be quite wrong.
Funny, many Republicans I know lament the fact that defendents who get off on technicalities are an afront to justice. Yet a technicality was all they had on Clinton.
pd
|
|
| | | 35 | Madman Donor
ID: 21020124 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:07
|
PD -- George Sr. made the mistake of agreeing to keep Hussein in power for political reasons vis a vis the UN and our other Arab allies. The big mistake in 1991 was in going to the UN and seeking international co-operation. Without those things, we could have gone all the way indeed.
As it was, Saddam was not in our sights.
Regarding PD 15 -- this *is* a game, and Blix is not being duped. Those two statements can be consistent. Saddam just needs to wait two more months ... or until he builds a bomb.
|
|
| | | 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:11
|
Two months?
|
|
| | | 37 | Madman Donor
ID: 21020124 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:28
|
MITH -- well, that's what I've heard so-called experts claim is the critical window after which military operations on our part will become increasingly difficult -- stale troops, worse weather, etc.
|
|
| | | 38 | Madman Donor
ID: 21020124 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:30
|
Yet a technicality was all they had on Clinton ... violating an oath of office is not a technicality.
That, BTW, is why I was calling for Bush Jr's impeachment more than a year ago.
Something simply MUST be done to put a halt to the hypocrisy and crassness that marks politics these days. I think an impeachment on the grounds I outlined last year would help on that dimension.
But not this crap. This just helps Republicans.
|
|
| | | 39 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:46
|
PD [13] - as far as I've got. In every statement, Hans Blix will make a point to say Saddam is improving, 'starting to cooperate more', but then in the same gathering make a point to say, Saddam has not made a real committment to disarm.
No matter when he speaks, you can find a comment to support any argument. As someone said tonight [I agree], he has a hidden agenda to play games with the Security Counsel and say whatever it takes to avoid war [even ignoring what 1441 says].
As George 'Will go as a last resort' Bush said tonight, there is one question, has Saddam complied with 1441 and disarmed? And time is running out for him to answer that question.
|
|
| | | 40 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 22:57
|
Steve H. You will probably be shocked that I agree with you and Bush at this juncture.
|
|
| | | 41 | smartone Donor
ID: 191119269 Fri, Mar 07, 2003, 00:34
|
as far as my logic goes, when I hear Blix saying "...starting to cooperate more..." I understand that SADdam doesn't FULLY COMPLY WITH HIS LAST CHANCE TO DISARM.... FR-GER-RUSSIA: "show-me-your-cards" (what a great sentence)... and can anyone imagine that the old-EU guys can claim that SADdam FULLY complies?
|
|
| | | 42 | katietx
ID: 24142617 Fri, Mar 07, 2003, 10:00
|
Once again...he has had 12 years to comply!
I'm confused as to why anyone believes he will now. He thinks he is bullet proof. The last 12 years has shown that, in his mind, he can do/say any damn thing he wants and get away with UN weapons violations, human rights violations, etc.
|
|
| | | 43 | Dec
ID: 27226613 Fri, Mar 07, 2003, 17:05
|
George Bush: "Condoleeza! Nice to see you. What's happening?"
Condoleeza Rice: "Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China."
George: "Great. Lay it on me." Condoleeza: "'Hu' is the new leader of China."
George: "That's what I want to know." Condoleeza: "That's what I'm telling you."
George: "That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?" Condoleeza: "Yes."
George: "I mean the fellow's name." Condoleeza: "Hu."
George: "The guy in China." Condoleeza: "Hu."
George: "The new leader of China." Condoleeza: "Hu."
George: "The Chinaman!" Condoleeza: "Hu is leading China."
George: "Now whaddya' asking me for?" Condoleeza: "I'm telling you Hu is leading China."
George: "Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?" Condoleeza: "That's the man's name."
George: "That's whose name?" Condoleeza: "Yes."
George: "Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?" Condoleeza: "Yes, sir."
George: "Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East." Condoleeza: "That's correct."
George: "Then who is in China?" Condoleeza: "Yes, sir."
George: "Yassir is in China?" Condoleeza: "No, sir."
George: "Then who is?" Condoleeza: "Yes, sir."
George: "Yassir?" Condoleeza: "No, sir."
George: "Look, Condoleeza. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone." Condoleeza: "Kofi?"
George: "No, thanks." Condoleeza: "You want Kofi?"
George: "No." Condoleeza: "You don't want Kofi."
George: "No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N." Condoleeza: "Yes, sir."
George: "Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N." Condoleeza: "Kofi?"
George: "Milk! Will you please make the call?" Condoleeza: "And call who?"
George: "Who is the guy at the U.N?" Condoleeza: "Hu is the guy in China."
George: "Will you stay out of China?!" Condoleeza: "Yes, sir."
George: "And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N." Condoleeza: "Kofi."
George: "All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone."
|
|
| | | 44 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 09, 2003, 23:06
|
Dec [43] I edited returns between replies to make your 'who's on first' post easier to read. Hope you don't mind.
Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US, From James Bone in New York
Perm Dude - this is the type of thing I mean when talking aboutr Blix. I'm not sure it's a 'smoking gun', but why would Hans Blix leave this out of his televised report to the world. "Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting ...
The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report ....
Unlike the outlawed Al-Samoud 2 missile, which was declared as a purportedly legal weapon, the drone was not declared.
|
|
| | | 45 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 09, 2003, 23:29
|
To go with #44.
Instapundit - HANS BLIX is going to be asked some pointed questions about the drones that he omitted from his report to the Security Council:
--------------- Times online The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.
Instapundit - I think that Blix's credibility took a bit of a hit with that discovery. He's now in a tough spot. If he lies, the United States and Britain can -- rightly -- call the inspection process a sham, and Blix partisan. If he tells the truth, it will become apparent that Saddam hasn't been complying at all, and that the inspection process has been, well, a sham.
If someone were trying to demonstrate the bogus nature of the inspection process they could hardly have done better than Blix himself has done.
UPDATE: Reader Michael Crane observes:
"If someone were trying to demonstrate the bogus nature of the inspection process they could hardly have done better than Blix himself has done."
Surely Blix knew this would not be overlooked. He must have known hiding it would make an even stronger case.....hmmmm.
Perhaps Blix is not the ally of the Franco-German coalition we think he is. I can't think of a more eloquent way for him to say everything by saying nothing. Disinterested to the end.
Instapundit - Hmm. I've certainly known bureaucrats that subtle. Is Blix one? We'll probably never know.
posted at 10:52 PM by Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit
|
|
| | | 46 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Mon, Mar 10, 2003, 08:25
|
Michael Crane's take on this is fascinating. To be honest, I think Blix might have indeed done this on purpose. He's always been exceptionally nervous about going to war or having a war being decided based upon something he said. He probably sees the handwriting on the wall, and also knows the problems that inspections have been having along with the fact that the only reason they are succeeding is the US military presence which can only last a little bit longer before either being pulled back or launched.
If he's laying on his sword for the good of the world ... wow. I have incredible respect for him for that. It's possible. We'll see how he reacts.
|
|
| | |
| | | 48 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Mar 10, 2003, 15:28
|
New developments
UN finds Iraqi missile designed to strew chemical bombletsUnited Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq have discovered a new variety of rocket apparently configured to spread bomblets filled with chemical or biological agents over large areas, United States officials say.
The reconfigured rocket warheads appear to be cobbled together from Iraq's stockpiles of imported or home-built weapons, some of which Iraq has already used with both conventional and chemical warheads. Iraq insists it has destroyed all its old chemical warheads, a claim the inspectors have not verified.
A United States official said that Iraq at first told inspectors the rocket was designed as a conventional cluster bomb, which would scatter explosive submunitions over its target, and not as a chemical weapon. A few days later, he said, the Iraqis conceded some rockets might have been configured as chemical weapons.
The distinctive appearance of the rockets' cluster munitions - heavy metal balls with holes in them - suggested their use as a way to disperse chemical or biological weapons, the official said. "If you take the kinds of fuses we know they have, and you screw them in there, when these things come out from the main frame and they explode inward, chemical agents come out," he said. "These can be used for biological weapons, too."
US officials said that the discovery, buttressed by information contained in a 173-page report by the inspection team, detailing the history of Iraqi weapons programs and the United Nations' attempts to enforce compliance with its disarmament resolutions over the last 12 years, showed that Iraq could not be trusted to co-operate with the inspectors.
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said on Sunday that the chief inspector for chemical and biological weapons, Hans Blix, should have made more of the evidence in that report when he appeared before the Security Council last week.
"When you look at page after page of what the Iraqis have done over the years to hide, to deceive, to cheat, to keep information away from the inspectors, to change facts to fit the latest issue, and once they put that set of facts before you, when you find those facts are false, they come up with a new set of facts - it's a constant pattern," he said.
It remains unclear whether the Iraqi cluster warhead is a newly developed one, devised during the absence of inspectors over the last four years, or whether its existence was kept secret before 1998, when the inspectors left.
The New York Times
|
|
| | | 49 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Mar 10, 2003, 15:59
|
This thread is starting to converge with our other Iraq war threads ... :)
Baldwin, just wanted to toss a couple links your way. You might find the list of links down the right-hand side of this page useful (and there's an archive of those links too).
|
|
| | | 50 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Mar 11, 2003, 03:46
|
JKP - I guess when the talk of impeachment is in part based on GWB's policies against terrorism and Iraq, it's hard for it not to.
I watched as much as I could take without wandering away because it all seemed like a 'bad' replay of last 'report'. I must have missed the part about RPV's by Blix. But the written report stated they violated sanctions [I think]. Oral report said investigating??
From your link JKP, is what the 'uproar' is about?
Did Blix mention the part about them going 500km in test track runs? That would seem to be part of the reason for the uproar. Maybe. I don't pretend to understand any of this.
Posted by: t.rev at March 9, 2003 01:52 AM
Nope; that wasn't in the written report or the oral report. That's something Powell has been claiming.
Posted by: Bryant at March 9, 2003 08:53 AM
======== Caught very end of a Miles O'Brian [sp] segment [of CNN - he's great to listen to on any aviation issues, he's a pilot]. Was either what we think Iraq has for drones, or what he thinks they could have or what report says they have. Was interresting. I will look for Miles O'Brian whenever aviation issues, accidents, etc come up [like Columbia]. He's good. Working on aircraft half my life, I enjoy listening to the 'facts' from someone who knows what they are talking about. =================
|
|
| | | 52 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Tue, Mar 11, 2003, 09:24
|
OK, I posted 51, and deleted.
I re-read Blix's oral report
What he said:
"Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq's programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area."
What the flap is all about, however, is that this isn't a matter of "engaging in examining". This is apparently a matter of FOUND.
If, for example, Blix had found a nuclear bomb, and he said "Inspectors are engaged in searching for nuclear bombs. A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and capabilities on the bombs we have found" that doesn't tell the story.
He is clearly understating the impact of the discovery of the drones... and that's what the flap is all about.
Instapundit definitely has it all wrong, however. Blix isn't doing this on purpose to initiate an attack. This is now too subtle, IMO. He's simply unable to call a spade a spade.
|
|
| | |
| | | 54 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 49132614 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 20:55
|
That's just embarrassing.
|
|
| | | 55 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 21:00
|
Are you suggesting that it is ridiculous to claim these UAV's are sophisticated enuff to pose the threat we are saying they are? Because if you are then you had better rethink it. They have GPS capability, a fully functioning dispersal system, and don't look unsophisticated at all to me. They look for all the world like USA prototypes one generation back.
|
|
| | | 56 | Tree Donor
ID: 38249212 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 21:14
|
baldwin - iraq doesn't even have missiles that can get out of their country.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 57 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 49132614 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 21:19
|
I have GPS capability, a fully functioning "dispersal system" and don't look too unsophisticated either. Well maybe a little. ;)
Ducttape and balsa.
5 miles.
I built one of those in the 3rd grade, except I had better materials.
|
|
| | | 58 | Tree Donor
ID: 38249212 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 21:41
|
i can throw a baseball a couple hundred feet. i bet if i put some pepper spray on that thing....hmmm...
or better yet, but rubbing alcohol on it and light the sucker aflame before tossing it.
|
|
| | | 59 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 21:58
|
iraq doesn't even have missiles that can get out of their country.
You've heard of al-Samoud missiles? It's been in all the news. Oh and the range of that UAV you've been sneering at? We know it flys at least 500km.
 Alleged test release of a simulated biological warfare agent from a modified drop-tank on an Iraqi Mirage F1 in 1991. The tank was said to contain 1,000 litres of Bacillus subtilis - used to simulate B anthracis. The agent was released over Abu Obeydi air base in January 1991. This photo is taken from a videotape supplied by Iraq to UNSCOM (Source: US Department of State)
Your sneering is inappropriate.
|
|
| | | 60 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 49132614 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:04
|
Got photos of the drone?
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:05
|
Baldwin, interesting news, but the caption details information that is 12 years old. Much of those two articles point to: "We believe that they now have the capability to do X, because years ago they could do Y and we've projected that out to X. And we don't know for sure that they destroyed what we think they've developed."
I've got a lot of respect for Powell, and listen to him more than any other Administration member. But this constant "Chicken Little" act is getting old.
pd
|
|
| | | 62 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:17
|
Then there are Iraq's other missile programs. numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650km to 900km.

Iraq has programmes that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly 1,000km. One programme is pursuing a liquid-fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200km.
As part of this effort, another little piece of evidence, Iraq has built an engine test stand that is larger than anything it has ever had. Notice the dramatic difference in size between the test stand on the left, the old one, and the new one on the right. Note the large exhaust vent. This is where the flame from the engine comes out. The exhaust on the right test stand is five times longer than the one on the left.
The one on the left was used for short-range missiles. The one on the right is clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200km.
This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see whats going on underneath the test stand.
Saddam Husseins intentions have never changed. He is not developing the missiles for self-defence. These are missiles that Iraq wants to project power, to threaten and to deliver chemical, biological and, if we let him, nuclear warheads.
Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) for more than a decade. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight the MiG21 and with greater success an aircraft called the L29 [ an East European Cesna copy - B]. However, Iraq is now concentrating on smaller UAVs, such as this, . . . well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. But you keep sneering and talking about balsa and duct tape. Sheesh
|
|
| | | 63 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:21
|
Interesting stuff, Baldwin. Keep them coming.
Of course, people who go overboard in talking about the chemical and biological weapon capabilities of the balsa wood drones do serious disservice to their own arguments. I certainly will sneer at stupid arguments on both sides.
pd
|
|
| | | 64 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:27
|
CIA assessment of Iraq's WoMD delivery systems.
 Does your talent with balsa and duct tape compare to this?
|
|
| | |
| | | 66 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:42
|
Unbelievably detailed report [in pdf format] on Iraq's WoMD programs and deceptions.
Taken from this great site.
|
|
| | | 67 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 22:56
|
 GENERAL DATA Countries of Origin: Italy, Iraq, Libya. Similar Aerial Platforms: Mirach 150, MQ-2 Bigua, C.22, Marakub 100 (Iraq). Role: Target drone, tactical cruise. Armament: HE warhead on cruise. Dimensions: Length: 13, ft 5 in (4.126 m). Span: 5 ft, 9 in (1.804 m).
|
|
| | | 68 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 589301110 Wed, Mar 12, 2003, 23:01
|
Caldeus is going to convulse with pure pleasure!
|
|
| | | 69 | Mr. Snrub
ID: 3409121 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 02:38
|
Here is a link to the Reuters article with a photo of the drone in question. Note the stylish duct-tape repair job, racing stripe and evil terrorists preparing the drone for battle.
Not exactly a toy, but the drone in the Reuters article that caused all the fuss looks just a little different than what you've shown there, Baldwin.
What does it say about the case for war when the administration feels the need to trot out "evidence" as flimsy as this?
|
|
| | | 70 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 03:42
|
In news reports lately I have seen the photos of the drone I linked to as well as photos of another drone made in Italy, both of which Janes lists as being in the Iraqi arsenal. This is the first I have seen of the one you linked to. That one seems to have more wingspan and range than the other two so I am thinking indeed that is the one they saw doing 500km routes and that had the ball chemical dispersers.
|
|
| | | 71 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 03:44
|
Baldwin - Saddam could drop bio weapons on tree and he'd say anyone who is for removing Saddam is exaggerating about how fast it will kill him. Plus he believes Saddam and the inspectors.
But keep the info coming for those of us who are truly interested in what's going on.
The length of the Predator is 27 feet and looks like a model. It's powered by a 4 cylinder propeller engine with 101 HP and has a range of 450 miles. And has blown up an SUV in Yemen. I bet they were laughing too when they saw pictures of it.
Miles O'Brian talked about the F-1 and MIG-21 UAV's.
Janes Defence
Steve - Iraqi's claim UAV only flew 3 nm on a test flight.
During [Powell's] presentation to the UN Security Council, Powell showed video footage from 1991 of an Iraqi Mirage F1 using a modified 1,200 litre external fuel tank to release a simulated load of anthrax agent. He claimed that an Iraqi source suggested that four such adapted spray tanks were produced for use by unmanned MiG-21s. No evidence has been provided to prove that these systems were destroyed, said Powell. [old news]
However, he said "Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes, but on developing and testing smaller UAVs" and associated spray devices'. Such a step would provide the Iraqi military with a more stealthy means of delivering such weapons, since a fighter-sized platform is much easier to detect than a specialised unmanned system. The latter could also offer an extended range capability.
Evidence of Iraq's covert UAV programme was acquired on 27 June 2002, when the US military tracked an automatically piloted UAV during a flight from its Samarra East air base around 100km north of Baghdad. Powell described this air vehicle as having achieved a range of over 500km during the sortie, which saw it fly in a tight race track' pattern [Steve - Iraqi's say it only flew 3 nm on a test - maybe 170 times - if someone runs ten miles on a quarter mile track, did they run a quarter mile or ten miles? - by Iraq's standards, just a quarter mile]. He said the evidence provided by this flight test clearly contradicts Iraq's 7 December 2002 declaration to the UN that it did not possess UAVs with a range capability greater than 80km.
===============
But the UN and the USA does not need any more smoking guns. Just Saddam's John Hancock on a cease fire agreeement over 4,000 days ago and 17 UN resolutions.
This would just be more icing on the cake. But some doubters are in the "I will never be convinced unless an Iraqi smoking gun takes me out" catagory, so I really don't care what they think anymore. They would rather keep 250,000 troops and 5 aircraft carriers in the area forever 'hoping' that contained Saddam. And then they would complain about the cost of that too.
Peace - from the coalition of the willing. And the last time I checked, no war has started. Just a real threat of force that some in the UN are trying to sabatoge. I have heard reports that there is rumbling in the Iraqi military. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair may be able to pull this off with no war yet, just the threat, in spite of the lack of world wide support to disarm Saddam. But it's tough with all the unintended support Saddam gets from the UN and even some this country.
|
|
| | | 72 | Tree Donor
ID: 38249212 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 07:06
|
steve - while saddam could drop bio weapons on me, he'd be doing us all a service if he dropped them on you.
i don't believe i ever said i believe saddam or the weapons inspectors. quite frankly, i don't care much for either - saddam is an evil bastard and one of the worst environmental terrorists in our liftime, and the U.N. is more-or-less useless.
however, much like the Electoral College (also useless), it's the way things are done.
the U.S. does not exist in a vaccuum. we exist on a planet with lots of other people. and we are in this together. none of this "for us, or against us" crap. because it ain't about that. it's about real people, and real lives, and sadly, real deaths.
if you sincerely fear that Saddam has the ability to actually injure you Steve, i presume you're sending in your postings from somewhere near baghdad, because reality speaking, Saddam doesn't have ANY weaponary that can come close to the U.S.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 73 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 11:08
|
he'd be doing us all a service if he dropped them on you. - Tree
Are you on drugs? Are you insane? A moron? What kind of person goes around openly wishing that on another member of this board? What did you possibly think you could achieve by saying that? I think we have a new definition of "over the top."
|
|
| | | 74 | Whitey Sustainer
ID: 4149189 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 12:36
|
I don't participate too often on this particular board, but as a lurker I can definitely say that was over the top.
From what I read, Tree rubs many people the wrong way to begin with, I think that statement was just the icing on the cake.
...and don't say that steve wished a bomb was dropped on you, because that is not what he said...
- silent majority
|
|
| | | 75 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 12:37
|
you're right Tree. We dont live in a vacuum. But much as a neighborhood watch will fail miserably unless the nieghborhood as a whole particippates, so too will the world fail, unless we all participate in cleaning things up. Saddam needs cleaning up. Nobody truly believes otherwise as far as I know. We all (figuratively) face a grave risk. Not necessarily from Saddam alone, but if we fail to act, what is to keep the next Saddam from being even worse? When crimes against humanity go unpunished, the message is clear. Its OK, we say through quiet aquiessence (sp?). I say NO, its NOT OK. While I disagree with some of Pres Bush's policies, I agree entirely with the man on this one. I didnt initially, but do now. This 'war' is necessary. For our own security and that of future generations. Yes, people will die. Yes, some are utterly innocent. If however we do not act, many inncoent lives will be surrendered to Saddam and to the next incarnation of Saddam Witness Hitler, and the attempts at appeasement made by Europe and the world prior to WWII. How far do you really think the ancients would have gotten trying to appease Rome, Genghis Khan or any of the myriad of 'expansion through conquest' leaders the world has seen? You do not appease the 'bully' by giving him your lunch money. When you try, the only thing you accomplish is to encourage him to demand your allowance too.
|
|
| | | 76 | walk Leader
ID: 4112711 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 13:08
|
I think Tree was merely dishing out what he felt was the same thing he got from Mr. Houpt. I doubt either one wishes harm on the other.
I also fall into the camp, as Steve puts it, that I won't be convinced until Sadam actually blows me up. I do not believe at all he has WOMD, would use WOMD, and is in need of imminent removal.
I think he is a bad man, and not good for the earth, but I believe this would-be war is all about stabilizing the oil-laden region and for finishing a job that was not completed some time ago. I don't even think Bush Jr is calling the shots. I think he's a pawn for Rumsefeld and Cheney and his dad and that administration.
I think that our country would be setting a bad precendent by pre-emptively attacking Iraq, and I think that we will cause just what the "administration" says we want to avoid. I fear for my safety and my family's safety working and living in NYC after we attack Iraq in the form of radical terrorist vengeance actions. I think war is absolute horror and should not be initiated unless there is clear overt harm being committed (against us, or against a large group of innocents; e.g. Kosovo). I think Bush's banter that the citizens of Iraq will rejoice after we remove Saddam is unfounded and arrogant. Let alone what happens to the government and rule of that country after we forcibly remove Saddam and wreak violent havoc in Baghdad.
Yesterday's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, from John McCain link makes several assumptions that I cannot buy. These assumptions have been stated over and over again, but the one towards the end blew me away: "Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? "
No, I don't think so. I think, but surely hope I am wrong, that it's going to be heck for us to pay in the form of terrorism here.
- walk
|
|
| | | 77 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 13:11
|
sarge - as i said, i don't think anyone disagrees. saddam has got to go. period.
however, there is a time and place for everything. now, is not the time and place, mostly because of the way the rest of the world feels.
it may take saddam shooting a missile at france..ok, bad example...shooting a missile at Russia for them to realize it's time to act.
but a war has to be handled with kid gloves. it really does. you cant be a bull in the world's china shop.
peace, Tree
p.s. i apologize if my "strong" words and opinions offend people. i've long felt that we liberals are waaay too freakin' nice when someone shoves us.
|
|
| | | 78 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 0059248 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 13:14
|
Tree, I also have to jump in here. "Sorry if I offended anyone" is just not an apology.
pd
|
|
| | | 79 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 13:45
|
PD - i wasn't really trying to apologize. more making a point.
if i had more inclination, i'd go back at all the posts in various threads where steve "called me out"...
if he doesn't want to be responded to, then don't toss my name out there, unless it's in a direct reference to something i said. instead, he referenced saddam dropping bombs on me, and also took it upon himself to invent an opinion for me on a particular position.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 80 | SmackDown Donor
ID: 49930317 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 14:48
|
10 John Budge YOU ARE AN IDIOT! Inspections huh?
|
|
| | | 81 | SmackDown Donor
ID: 49930317 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 15:02
|
72 Tree So you are friends with Saddam? How do you know what he has and doesn't have? I will trust the Administration and their Intelligence on this one and not you!
By the way do you have any other options available other than criticizing people in here?
|
|
| | | 82 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 15:08
|
Well any chance at salvaging this thread has been flushed.
By the way do you have any other options available other than criticizing people in here?
That's a pretty amazing sentence, given the source and his only two posts in this thread. Thanks for the contribution. I love the caps in #80.
|
|
| | | 83 | walk Leader
ID: 4112711 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 15:17
|
I don't trust the administration on this, SmackDown. Not at all. I think we will eventually attack, but I am not convinced it's necessary. Not even urgent.
Actually, where we are right now aint so bad. I would be willing (to bet my life, I guess, based on the apparent consequences that our administration has indicated -- imminent attack on the US by Saddam or a terrorist friend of his) that Saddam won't hurt us as long as the current level of scrutiny and threat exists. He has no breathing room to do so. Still, even if there were no imminent threat of force nearby or inspectors, I do not think he has these weapons and the lack of self-preservation to use them, or sell them to others to use (against us).
Of course, my bets, if allowed to speak on behalf of this country, would affect everyone else's sense of well-being, and by reading this thread and the most recent polls, it appears that many, if not a current majority, of Americans are willing to go to war against Iraq, now, without UN support.
I would go for a Saddam exile, a Saddman assassination (which I know is not logistically do-able), or some other less "attack a country" approach, but not a war.
I also do not understand why all of this fervor now. Did we recently discover a cache of WoMD? Some clear proof other than where are the old weapons, or here are some means to make weapons or here is a paper airplane that can deliver weapons he used to have and may still have? How come not in 1998 (Clinton was a wimp?), 2000? 2001? I guess I need a lot more proof. I am not comfortable merely playing it safe and taking action now, not when we are half way around the world.
- walk
|
|
| | | 84 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 15:18
|
lol careful MITH, your sarcasm is showing. ;)
|
|
| | | 85 | SmackDown Donor
ID: 49930317 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 16:35
|
83 walk First......Are you admitting Saddam has friends that are terrorist? I believe so but the whole Democratic Party claims Bush needs to PROVE IT! Gee Clinton did not have to prove anything to anybody! Second.....If you have the fire under control...why not just put it out!
I just think about all of the people before us that gave their lives to have what we have today. I was in the first Gulf war and I have no problem putting my uniform on again and making sure the job gets done this time. It is just hard for me to grip the fact we should do nothing. If our fathers before us used this attitude then we might not be here today? The numbers of men that died for all of the wars before make me sad and even more to realize that today we are scared to sacrifice 1 man. I estimate we lose less than 100 for this war and that is a far cry from 3000 plus in further terror attacks.
|
|
| | | 86 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 16:51
|
SD - while there are plenty of people who would "put on the uniform again", there are plenty who wouldn't.
my girlfriend was in the military. she hated the way they tried to brainwash her. she won't do it again. a buddy of mine was in panama - he said the worst thing in the world is taking someone else's life. he won't do it.
and a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. our fathers before us DEFENDED this country against attacks, and defended our allies AFTER they had already been attacked.
we fought AGAINST aggressive behavior. we were never the aggressors. period. except once. in the civil war, when we attacked each other. and more men died in that war than any other war in US History. we cannot be the aggressor.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 87 | SmackDown Donor
ID: 49930317 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 16:54
|
Tree, also @ work Ha Ha Ha LOL You are kidding right? C'mon you must be kidding?
|
|
| | | 88 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:00
|
no, actually, i'm not. and with the exception of the "we cannot be the aggressor", i'm not even giving opinions.
just facts. facts that can be researched.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 89 | Dec
ID: 27226613 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:04
|
Could it be possible that all this is a big poker game?
All we got is trash talking from everywhere but no "physical damage" was done yet. Sure, there is an imminent treat on Irak right now but as long as they keep it as a treat Saddam has to give his candies one by one.
I'm not agree with almost all the US administration says, they don't look credible at all but let face it Saddam either, maybe they deserve each other.
I don't want to base my jugment on what they say but on what they do and they have result right now.
My only and big concern is you don't send 200000 men for a parade and bring them back shortly after.
|
|
| | | 90 | katietx
ID: 54246128 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:07
|
At the risk of being vilified again by Tree, I must respond.
RE:#80 while there are plenty of people who would "put on the uniform again", there are plenty who wouldn't.
I find that statement somewhat odd since we have an all volunteer military.
we were never the agressors. Really? Might need to check your facts on that one. You are saying that the U.S. military has never been the aggessor in any conflict except the civil war? Do a little more research. And, no, I'm not going to do it for you.
|
|
| | | 91 | walk Leader
ID: 4112711 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:22
|
Hi SmackDown. No, I do not know that Saddam has terrorist ties (heck, I don't know nuthin'; I just have opinions).
;-)
I am stating this as a benefit of the doubt to those who say he does, and that if he does, this is one of the arguments I have heard: That we need to trample him now before he creates and potentially uses or potentially sells WoMD to terrorists. I am doubting he has WoMD to make the sale.
Regarding your patriotism and willingness to go to the Gulf again. I can only thank you as an American for serving our country and putting your life on the line, and willingness to do so again. I merely write occasional baseless posts in a message board forum (but am much more active on the hockey and baseball boards!). My concern is that the potential loss of innocent lives in Iraq, the potential loss of American (your) and other allied lives, and the potential loss of life (and increased "terror") as a consequence of an attack on Iraq is not worth the risk that we think that Saddam has WoMD and will use them against us.
I clearly see the reverse argument that this risk is worth it because if Saddam does have, and does use, WoMD against us, he can take out far more lives than what I have mentioned above (innocent civilians, American and Allied troops, subsequent terrorist reprisals). It's a risk-reward scenario, and I am "betting" that the current Saddam risk is non-existent.
Thank you for your support. - walk
|
|
| | | 92 | walk Leader
ID: 4112711 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:23
|
Dec: Yes, I agree with you 100% that this is indeed one, big, fat poker game. Quite interesting, but very scary poker at that.
- walk
|
|
| | | 93 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 18027195 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 17:55
|
Smackdown the whole Democratic Party claims Bush needs to PROVE IT!
Whats your deal here? Do you think you can come in here and throw around a blatent lie like that and get away with it or are you taking a shot in the dark chance that this might be true?
The president has overwhelming support from both houses which are pretty close to split down the middle. Hillary Clinton was one of the first senators to speak out in support for resorting to use force against a non-compliant Iraq.
About what I would expect from someone who would write a post like #80 and then just 4 minutes later display the audacity it takes to write:
"By the way do you have any other options available other than criticizing people in here?".
I support usuing force against Iraq too, and I'm embarrased to have you as an ally.
|
|
| | | 94 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 18:06
|
There's only one country threatening the use of WOMD, and that's us(OK, and North Korea). It's one thing to turn rock into rubble(Afghanistan), take out some bridges and infrastructure(Serbia), and quite another to take out a couple hundred thousand people who we are supposedly liberating. Part of the reason for the lack of worldwide support is because of the type of attack we're talking about unleashing. The threat of Saddam doesn't seem to merit the type of full scale assault being readied. Overkill.
That's not to say that we should do nothing. It would seem that our technology is such that the type of attack that freed Serbia from Milosovic would seem more reasonable than the Hiroshima like devastation that our own Pentagon says will occur. It's not nucleur weapons, but the effect is the same, minus the post-radioactive fallout. Bush has painted us into a corner with the type of war he's planned, which looks more like a conquering of an autonomous country than an action to bring Iraq in line with UN resolutions.
|
|
| | | 95 | katietx
ID: 54246128 Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 19:26
|
bring Iraq in line with UN resolutions
The only way to do that is by getting rid of Saddam. He holds the entire country in his grip.
I believe that Saddam has painted himself and his people (which he cares nothing about) into a corner.
|
|
| | | 96 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Mar 14, 2003, 14:26
|
Tree 72 - I mentioned you because you make statements with no facts, no thought, no links, no proof and it appears you actually believe what you post and no matter what or how anyone responds, you take your thought as fact. From reading your posts, I think it would take a bomb very close to you to get your attention.
And it does not surprise me that you think the world would be better served with me dead and gone. My guess is you think that about lots of people. Those who annoy you, do not agree with you. Par for the course. That's the real way people like you think and feel. Act like such a caring person, someone who cares about the world. But the catch is, only if they agree with you. If not, you wish they were gone for good. Just happened to slip out in print this time. If anyone questions you [hard not to - read your statements], wish them gone.
And I guess this is your plan to get rid of Saddam. Just say he's bad and should not be in power and wish him away.
|
|
| | | 97 | walk Leader
ID: 214581016 Fri, Mar 14, 2003, 14:31
|
That is more or less my plan, steve, to wish him away, as naive as it is. I honestly don't think we need to take this level of action -- nor do I think we need to imminently remove him. It's a nice to have, but not a have to have, IMO.
I would love the lazy easy way out, if he stepped down, was overthrown, was assassinated, etc., but realize that aint gonna happen. My naivete is clear in that perhaps the current situation is all about pressuring him to go away without a war from taking place -- it hasn't yet. However, the rationale that we must do something before it's too late assumes that Saddam has the weapons, capacity and will to attack us or his neighbors in a way that totally warrants our intervention, now. I just don't think so.
Of course, there are nicer ways for us to disagree, and I have always tried to do this, and would like to think that Tree will apologize personally to you, and you to him (it's a dynamic, always is), and we are back to the issues.
- walk
|
|
| | | 98 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, Mar 14, 2003, 14:45
|
FYI Steve - i have had a bomb land very close to me. Kiryat Shmonya, 1987, while in a bus with several other other students a bomb/missile flew overhead, and landed within 100 feet of our bus.
i never said we didn't need to get rid of saddam. i just said it's not time to go to war.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 99 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Mar 14, 2003, 23:59
|
From reading your posts, I think it would take a bomb very close to you to get your attention. - Source
Perhaps he is waiting for ground zero close.
|
|
| | | 100 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sat, Mar 15, 2003, 18:43
|
walk - 97. I would like to wish him away also. I'd have a big party if he went away.
Do I think we could contain him with 320,000 troops? Yes. Do I think we should leave 320,000 troops in the region? No. Do I think Saddam has been given a fair chance to disarm IAW with the 17th UN resolution? Yes. Has he even tried? No. Do I think he'd be willing to do something nasty by himself or by helping any type of terrorist group if left alone? Yes. Do I think inspectors can contain him? No [we have past proof that does not work].
If 9/11 had not happened, would we be as concerned about Saddam as we are? Probably not. But we would not be concerned about Usama bin Laden either [and we should have been for years - after 1st WTC bombing, US Embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing]. The same way we should have believed Bill Clinton back in 1998 when he said Saddam needs to go. But we [me included] did not pay any attention. Hey, life was nice, market going up, just retired, who needs to worry about Saddam or Usama bin Laden.
Now is as good a time as any. History shows waiting or ignoring usually does not work out. Gave him one last chance, so far he's not been smart enough to take it. Look at it this way. In the long run [I said longgggggggg run], we could remove almost all the troops and aircraft from Turkey we are using for the no fly zones [at least the northern NFZ]. We could greatly reduce our presence in Saudi Arabi [which is what really ignited UBL and Al Qaeda], which are only there to protect the Saudi's and Kuwait from Saddam. We could reduce the number of troops abd bases in Germany. We might actually be able to deal with PAO and Israel if Saddam was not around funding the suicide bombers families.
Lots of maybe's ..........
Lots of bad maybe's if we do nothing ........
NOTE: Not making any attempt to connect the Saddam and bin Laden directly. Just comparing them. Both are examples of what happens when you ignor terrorists [or evil as Prez likes to call them].
|
|
| | | 101 | walk Leader
ID: 3411442716 Sat, Mar 15, 2003, 20:33
|
Compelling points, Steve. And I think the two major difference lie in the assessment of risk: you think if left alone Saddam will inflict major harm to others (us), and I do not. I am not as concerned about whether they have complied over the last 12 years as I am about whether Saddam can and will inflict major harm against others. Enough of a risk to warrant our intense and comprehensive attack.
I am concerned about terrorism, particularly since it's where I live and work that was the focus of 9/11, but am not sure if taking out Saddam in the way Bush has planned will decrease or increase the likelihood of terrorism and mass conflict in the middle east. I guess I feel more harm can come from this than good. I don't know how else to explain it, but that is how I feel. Ultimately, it surely feels like a lose-lose situation.
What the world has come to.
- walk
|
|
| | | 102 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sat, Mar 15, 2003, 23:57
|
walk - Agree. The legitimate argument is really over assessment of the risks and if it's the right thing to do. Initial risk might be higher than status quo, long term risk could be lowered. Anything else is distraction from real argument.
Looking for the quote where Saddam said his biggest mistake in 1990 was going into Kuwait BEFORE he had nuclear weapons.
The only way inspectors found how advanced his nuclear program was before was after defectors gave info to UNSCOM. And if he did not think his only chance to rule the middle east was with WOMD, why has he tried to keep them for 12 years.
The diplomatic correspondent from the LA Times [female ?? a Ms Reich] in discussion with Tim Russert said she believes if Saddam had turned all his weapons over after 1991 cease fire and been a good boy, no economic sanctions, he could be even a richer man, have more weapons, but he has this thing about HIS weapons. So, he gave up $33 BILLION in oil revenue to keep his weapons and play this game. Scares me.
In a way, you could say Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden was mad at Saudi government for allowing USA bases on 'sacred' ground to contain Saddam. Thrown out of Saudi Arabia, started Al Qaeda. Why are we still in Saudi Arabia? To protect Saudi's and middle east from Saddam.
Like I said, I'm looking longgggggggggg run when trying to weigh the risks.
And I really think it should have been done long ago by the first Bush administration when Saddam did not comply with cease fire and first UN resolution, or by the Clinton administration when Clinton got Congress to pass regime change legislation in 1998 or when Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Saddam for the plot to assasinate Bush SR.
But just because we waited 12 years, does not make it an excuse not to do what is right. Go get him just so he can be tried for war crimes like Milosovic.
Remind me, why did the USA take out Milosovic? What threat was he to us? What WOMD did he have? And what UN resolution had he violated? I forget. :):)
|
|
| | | 103 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 34071820 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 00:04
|
Steve,
The Saddam "quote" wasn't him. It was people talking about North Korea vis-a-vis the US and Iraq.
pd
|
|
| | | 104 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 00:18
|
PD - you sure. I was sure I heard someone quote Saddam saying he said it after 1991, but it was not something I read, and I can't remember who said it to even try and check it out.
|
|
| | | 105 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 00:18
|
If we're really looking long term in the region, we must find a way to diffuse the Israel/Palestine issue. Getting rid of Saddam won't solve the terrorist issue which stems almost completely from our staunch backing(or at least lack of condemning) Israel's agressive policies in the occupied territories. This was the main problem before Saddam and will remain so once he's gone. Unfortunately, the adminisrtation seems too involved with Iraq to handle the diplomacy that is needed for some kind of stability in the region. As bad as Saddam is for the region, Arafat is his equal, and he's never been more politically vulnerable. The time is now to find and promote a moderate Palestinian leadership that can begin to build a Palestinian state that can co-exist with Israel. I'm afraid our current administration is severely lacking when it comes to diplomatic priorities.
|
|
| | | 106 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 00:38
|
PV - I also said that in post 100, but after Saddam is gone.
Why, one less threat to Israel and $25K less per Palestinian family of suicide bombers from Saddam.
There are two separate issues and tied together at the same time.
Al Qaeda and UBL originally could have cared less about the Palestinian Israli conflict. Was about US troops in Saudi Arabia and Saudi support of USA in 1991 Gulf War against Saddam. It's only been since 9/11 that UBL has ever mentioned Palestine/Israel conflict.
The world has been trying for 55 years to solve that conflict, so I don't think what else you do in the world can revolve around that, but it's a good argument and it is a BIG problem.
|
|
| | | 107 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 01:00
|
PD - I did find these quotes.
"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth" - Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991
What was the high tower of steel he was talking about? ============
"What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs." - Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)
Well, he was true to his word on at least trying this one with Bush Sr. =============
Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994 "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities - Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
Just a threat - he doesn't mean this one. =============
Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994 "One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." - Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
A serious threat from someone with no chemical weapons. ===============
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store." - Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996 ==================
Operation Desert Fox, December 1998
"If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should -- or rather we must -- place the swords of jihad on their necks..." - Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
Threatening his neighbors again. ======================
"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds." - Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper
USA and British interests? Has anything done that in last two years? ===============
U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..." - Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled) ==================
The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world." - Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001
"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings." - Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"[September 11 was] God's punishment." - Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?" - Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world." - Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)
"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..." - Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..." - Babil, October 8, 2001
|
|
| | | 108 | Tree Donor
ID: 38249212 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 06:56
|
PV - i read with interest your post, because of the mention of the israeli-palestinian conflict, as it mentions things that deeply agonize many of us close to the situation.
in my case, my dad and step-mom are over there right now, visiting my youngest brother, who finishes up his military testing in a couple weeks, and may, with one more test to go, end up a pilot.
i will not disagree that israel has been aggressive in the West Bank and Gaza - both in building settlements, and in military action. while i don't necessarily agree with the settlements, and i believe those people have to move to one day have peace in that region, i strongly believe the military action is warranted and justified.
it's a simple matter of fact and reality - if your terrorists come over here and blow up our women and children, we're gonna wreck you. period. i don't believe in war, and as i've posted many, many times, is a last resort.
when someone is coming into your country and killing your citizens, that is a last resort.
as for a moderate Palestinian, one has been appointed. Last week, Mahmoud Abbas - a moderate Palestinian who believes there should be no Palestinian state until the terrorism stops - was appointed Prime Minister by Yasser Arafat, and that was later approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council.
unfortunately, Arafat still retains the power to negotiate with the Israelis, so while we are closer, we are not there yet. I do not believe Arafat has the respect and trust of the Israelis, and he certainly doesn't hold any power over the various terrorist wings that want Israel eliminated, and that is a bad combination.
as for a Palestinian state co-existing with Israel, i have spent much of my live switching back and forth as to whether i believe it is possible. When Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, my hopes in peace began to fade again. 5 years later, those hopes were completely gone.
now, i have hope again.
but i temper that hope with reality - in 1948 the Palestinians were offered a state, and refused - instead, cheering on as the neighboring Arab countries attacked the infant state of Israel.
Again, in 2000, they were offered statehood, and again they declined.
There are many, many who want a Palestinian state, but only at the EXPENSE and eradication of Israel.
but there are also many who want the two states side-by-side, and if means less bloodshed in the region, more power to it.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 109 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 07:33
|
Outstanding find Source! I am always amazed when people do not take the words of the world's genocidal maniacs seriously.
|
|
| | | 110 | Revvingparson Donor
ID: 211232220 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 09:05
|
Tree would you agree that part of the problem of Americans is that we do not understand the long historical conflict between the Israeli's and the Palestinians? I personally believe that the Bible from Genesis chapter 12 on describes in great detail the conflict that has been going on between these two groups of people.
I also don't believe that many Americans understand the "geographical smallness" of Israel, which also makes it very difficult, in my opinion, for Americans to understand the difficulty in making two seperate nations.
|
|
| | | 111 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 09:19
|
RP, if I can jump in here:
I think that Americans' inability to understand the history of a region is used far too often as a crutch against doing something than it is actually true.
There are horrible things going on in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and neither side has absolutely clean hands (I'm not, BTW, saying both sides are equally at fault). But the only reason that there are not now two countries there is that the Palestinians rejected the idea in 1948.
pd
|
|
| | | 112 | walk Leader
ID: 3411442716 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 13:33
|
Good points steve, post 102 and eye-opening quotes from the source (well, really, Saddam) in post 107, thanks. It gives me pause.
In terms of risk, it seems we both agree there could very well be some serious short-term backlash consequences should we go to war against Iraq, but the long-term outcomes are where we differ -- and are likely even more uncertain.
My fears, maybe irrational, I dunno, are that if we attack Iraq, we get short-term blows in the form of terrorism, and potential short-term or long-term domino effects in the form of potential escalated confict (not that I envision WW3, but it seems conceivable). We attack Iraq, Iraq attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, many middle east countries retaliate against Israel, we retaliate against those middle east countries, and then somehow Russia or China or Indonesia or Pakistan or whomever gets involved and the whole thing spirals out of control. Not that I really know what I am talking about when it comes to alliances here.
And I guess, conversely, the opposite risk is conceivable, in that we do nothing intense against Iraq, Saddam builds and launches a WoMD, and we retaliate with a WoMD, and then everyone else gets involved, and we have an escalated conflict that way.
Ugh. Can someone please tell me the safest bet to get out of this situation with minimal bloodshed and happily ever after (rhetorical)?
Happy beautiful Sunday (at least here in the northeast; home posting because my 2 year old is napping -- back to playground post-nap where we ignorantly and blissfully run around with no fear/ I hope we can keep it that way).
Paste your tears here...aaargh.
- walk
|
|
| | | 113 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 13:53
|
Source, good quotes, but your post is a bit too pointed for my taste. Are you trying to challenge me in some way because I pointed out the previous Saddam quote was spurious? No one is arguing that Saddam has offensive intentions, nor that he has never had out interests in mind.
Two days after the attack, I posted:
Powell responding to a question about Iraq being the only country on the US' state-sponsored list not to respond to the attack: "I'm not surprised. Saddam Hussein is one of the world's leading terrorists. I don't believe that there is one drop of the milk of human kindness flowing through his veins. Next question." in this thread.
I've never said Saddam is not a threat, or that he's our buddy, or that we should even take him at his word. I have said, however, that passing off fake information about Iraq and Saddam in particular hurts the cause of the Administration as it tries to make its case to the American people and to the world regarding Iraq.
So there you go.
pd
|
|
| | | 114 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 46113919 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 14:17
|
#108.. "Again, in 2000, they were offered statehood, and again they declined."
If, by "they", you mean Arafat or the PA or PLO, Tree, then give us a break. It's not like there was some vote among the Palestinian people on whether or not they wanted their own state. I would imagine the consensus among the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank would be very positive for autonomy. The aid that Arafat uses for he and his cronies lifestyle and terroristic undertakings could actually go towards improving the wretched conditions in those areas, which would be a giant step toward a peace and stability in the region.
#107 For the sake of balance, recent quotes from the North Korean leadership and puppet press would be just as antagonistic, and the threats more realistic.
|
|
| | | 115 | Tree Donor
ID: 38249212 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 17:07
|
PV - not sure what you're meaning by "if by 'they', you mean Arafat or the PA or PLO, Tree, then give us a break."
no, there was no vote among the Palestinians, and yes, i do believe if Arafat allowed his own people to vote, they'd go for it.
but Arafat did turn down statehood, and he is, and was then, whether we like it or not, the defacto leader of the Palestinian people.
and yes, he gets tons of money while his people starve and live in filth. i have been to the West Bank, and i have seen it. i have seen human waste running down the streets, and children in barefeet walking through it. removal of Arafat's "power" is of utmost important to stability and peace in the region.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 116 | HARKen Energetic
ID: 391135227 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 19:42
|
what a violent threat err thread, but what can you expect under the topic Bush impeachment( snicker)
btw im peach ment does it mean they dub the shrub into some tub with some homogenized fruit ? And did you sense the suddenly violent undertone of the word "homogenize" if used in context with Bush ?
So many Questions and so few answers dooh
enough kidding
re #112 posting of my fav american psycho (speaking of American Psycho -what a sick movie)
" My fears, maybe irrational, I dunno, are that if we attack Iraq, we get short-term blows in the form of terrorism, and potential short-term or long-term domino effects in the form of potential escalated confict (not that I envision WW3, but it seems conceivable). We attack Iraq, Iraq attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, many middle east countries retaliate against Israel, we retaliate against those middle east countries, and then somehow Russia or China or Indonesia or Pakistan or whomever gets involved and the whole thing spirals out of control. Not that I really know what I am talking about when it comes to alliances here. Well the scenario is outlined by far more proficient thinkers already. Just the Beginning
Since this is a very long read that might challenge some, you can also watch a more entertaining fx version, which might not be as good a piece of journalism, but brings across the same point somehow, in some trendy 21st century style.
Who can say that in these peace challenged times there is no entertainment available.
"They misunderestimated me." G.W. Bush Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
|
|
| | | 117 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 20:47
|
PD - 113, no. I just thought what I heard was a quote from Saddam, but apparently [as you pointed out] it was not [could not find it - just found those 'interesting' quotes]. All I asked was "are you sure", nothing else. I do take it as fact that the comment was used by someone else to imply that was Saddam's mistake, i.e. the problem we have now with North Korea. That's what I get for only half listening sometimes when I have the radio or TV on.
I just happened to find those quotes looking for some type of 'nuke' quote. Not implying at all what you think of Saddam.
|
|
| | | 118 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 20:52
|
OK, cool. I won't "Tree" you.
:)
|
|
| | | 119 | walk Leader
ID: 3411442716 Sun, Mar 16, 2003, 21:04
|
Hark! That was great! Very cute animation, too. Yeah, that was kinda what I was thinking. Ugh.
- walk
|
|
| | | 120 | HARKen Energetic
ID: 391135227 Mon, Mar 17, 2003, 12:04
|
Quiz
Who said that ?
Quote ""Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Answer Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
|
|
| | | 122 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 10:10
|
My 102 post - In a way, you could say Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden was mad at Saudi government for allowing USA bases on 'sacred' ground to contain Saddam. Thrown out of Saudi Arabia, started Al Qaeda. Why are we still in Saudi Arabia? To protect Saudi's and middle east from Saddam.
The 12-Year War: The costs of "containing" Saddam include the rise of Osama bin Laden.
We cannot be sure that he has not already hit us. The opponents of disarming Saddam have sneered even at the possibility of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, but that is not the kind of linkage either side would advertise. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda members, among other curious facts detailed by Laurie Mylroie. Mr. Bush has declared a "war on terror" and Saddam's Iraq is terrorism with an address.
We know that if nothing else Saddam and al Qaeda share the common goal of punishing the U.S. and driving us from the Mideast. In his famous 1998 fatwa endorsing the murder of Americans, "civilian and military alike," Osama bin Laden mentioned two main complaints: First, that U.S. troops were deployed on the Islamic holy land of Arabia, and second that U.S. planes continued to bomb Iraq while enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zones.
Osama's jihad--and therefore September 11 itself--is in other words one direct consequence of the past 12 years of U.S. "containment" of Saddam. Without his continuing threat, American troops would not need to be stationed in Saudi Arabia and U.S. fighters would not still patrol the skies over Iraq. While fretting about the costs of going to Baghdad, those who favor a policy of sanctions and diplomacy have never been honest about the real costs of containment.
|
|
| | | 123 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 18:19
|
Perm Dude - found where I heard it. Was on C-Span over the weekend.
Los Angeles Times Debate on American Power & the Iraq Crisis
Christopher Hitchens [Vanity Fair], Michael Ignatieff [Harvard JFK School of Government], Robert Sheer [LA Times] & Mark Danner [UC Berkley Graduate School of Journalism] join a "Debate on American Power & The Crisis Over Iraq" at UC Berkely.
Does not make it true, but Christopher Hitchens said this in response to something Robert Sheeer said about Saddam [quote from Hitchens] - "He [Saddam] has only made one self criticism in his life and that was not having 'the bomb' before he invaded Kuwait".
|
|
| | | 124 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 27244818 Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 18:44
|
Ah, that's it! Nice work.
The New York Times had a long piece on him about 6-8 weeks ago, which is where I picked it up, but (as usual) I lost the attribution. An interesting guy.
pd
|
|
| | | 125 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 19:13
|
Forgot to mention, it was a good and interesting debate. Back and forth, moderated, no screaming over each other, etc. Mark Danner gives good arguments for opposition to war now [had never heard of him]. Scheer rubbed me the wrong way at times. Sarcastic arguments at times, but then could be serious. I think I may have read some of his articles in LA Times. And Ignatieff [never heard of him either] from Harvard sounded like a liberal who supports Bush on this issue. He was good too. And Hitchens was Hitchens. All had good intelligent counter points to whatever point the other side. As the moderator said at the end. This debate could go on for ever.
But there was definitely some brain power at work. Not many cliches, etc [except maybe the Hitchens statement - but Danner or Scheer did not counter].
Have to go play darts. Later I'll see if I can find if Hitchens ever used that 'quote' in any articles and if he has any references.
|
|
| | |
| | | 127 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 13:16
|
MITH - are you shocked that the Bush administration lied to and/or mislead people? that's been their M.O. all along....
|
|
| | | 128 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 533817 Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 13:58
|
Don't have time to find the actual quote, but I read in a link here the other day that Saddam may have been mislead about Iraq's weapons systems because Iraqi scientists were too afraid of him to relay the truth - that the weapons systems he had were bush league(pun intended).
I would not be suprised if Bush was getting the same kind of misinformation from some of his more hawkish advisers, not because they feared him, but because these advisers feared Bush might back off from the conflict if the truth about Iraq's woefully weak weapons systems was public knowledge. Bush should now identify those advisers, and relieve them of their positions, or if one was Cheney, find a new running mate for 2004.
|
|
| | | 129 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 14:35
|
PV, in spite of what the President and his cabinet have said at times, the threat of known WMDs being used on American soil was never a primary reason for going to war. The Administration's claim that they were was deliberately misleading even if they had every valid reason to believe they really existed. What's interesting today is that in his interview with Diane Sawyer, President Bush apparently admitted this (assuming that the portion of that interview pasted in another thread here at Rotoguru is presented in context) by suggesting that there is no difference between the threat from known WMDs and the threat from the possibility that Iraq could acquire WMDs. I agree with that assessment, but for someone like George W Bush who supported the claim that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US at home, it's appears to be a clear contradiction.
I said some time ago that President Bush should not be held accountable for the failure to turn over any WMDs, and I stand by that. But I do admit that I don't mind watching him squirm as the awkward questions about WMDs have continued since the early stages of the war. By making a more than realistic case for their significance as an immediate threat, he deserves to have that issue come back and bite him in the behind, as it has.
|
|
| | | 130 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 10:15
|
Sam Smith on the stoiry linked in post 126:
It not only looks like the Bush crowd were bigger liars than we thought but that the Senate is a good deal dumber than we thought
|
|
| | | 131 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 19, 2003, 04:31
|
Sen Nelson may have a hearing problem. Or he had a bad connection from Chile. Why would a Senator on a trip to Chile decide to make that claim at this time by phone. Every Senator has access to every other Senator on the Intel Committee. And access to the daily intel briefs put out for COngess. Something sounds fishy about this story. Or something is fishy about Senator Nelson [check the water in Chile].
This would probably be closer to the truth - U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson [should have] said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to Middle East cities on the coast. :):) :):)
I think he just got a little confused - he is a former space cadet.
========= President Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat. He said we have to stop Saddam BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat. So I agree - what's the difference between still having them or still trying to acquire them. All he had to do was prove he didn't have them.
=========
PV - Bush was getting the same intel Clinton got for eight years.
One way, which the Democrats have been testing gingerly in recent weeks, is to charge that Bush simply tricked America into attacking Iraq. Rob Reiner, the noisily liberal actor, put it succinctly in introducing Howard Dean to a Democratic audience in Iowa recently: "George Bush said we had to go into Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. He lied."
Reiner is peddling the theory that Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction, or had destroyed them before the American attack in March, and that Bush knew it. Since no caches of such weapons have yet been found, the charge has at least a superficial plausibility. All we need to do, to make it mesh with the known facts, is assume Bush is a liar.
But before Democratic orators follow Reiner down that seductive path, they had better look over their shoulder and notice what prominent Democrats were saying, according to media sources, just a few years ago: ==============
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
[T]he risk that the leaders of [Iraq] will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
[We] urge you ... to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Kerry and others, Oct. 9, 1998.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, fall, 2002.
We know [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has ... a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee), Dec. 8, 2002.
============
Now, when President Bush made exactly the same charges in justifying our attack on Iraq, there were just three possibilities. Either (1) the above Democrats were conscious liars, and Bush was just a belated joiner of their conspiracy, or (2) they were misled by faulty intelligence, and there is no reason to suppose Bush wasn't just as misled as they were, or (3) they were, and still are, right about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (as, on this theory, time will in due course demonstrate), and so was, and is, President Bush.
In short, whatever theory the Democrats adopt to justify the above-quoted statements of their highest and best-informed leaders will serve equally well to justify Bush.
==========
Well, if there was lying going on about Iraq, it's been going on for close to 11 years in the US and by the Intel Agencies of Great Britain, France, Germany and a few others who have all claimed Saddam still was a threat and 'had' WOMD or 'refused to prove' he did not have WOMD.
If I had gotten rid of the WOMD's or never had them after 1998, I would have done the same thing Saddam did to make the US look like they lied. I'd have said, come on in and attack me. Try and kill me. I don't want my country or palaces anymore anyway. I can live in a 6x8 hole for all I care. Never liked those palaces anyway. You can have Iraq, all I want is a nice little private cell if you catch me. But I didn't have WOMD and I didn't have to prove it if I didn't want to.
Yep, that's what I would have done if I didn't have any WOMD's. Moved into a 6x8 hole in the ground.
|
|
| | | 132 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3415339 Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 00:30
|
Four towns in Vermont say "Yes". Better late than never.
The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying. At least three other southern Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.
|
|
| | | 133 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 06:15
|
I coulda sworn Bernie was a self-identified communist, not an 'independent'.
|
|
| | | 134 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 06:19
|
Interesting that no one has countered 'The Source' for two years. That's what I call a powerful find.
|
|
| | | 135 | Astade Donor
ID: 214361313 Wed, Apr 19, 2006, 00:14
|
Not necessarily impeachment, but atleast a formal investigation by congress.
Also, a great comparison between Nixon's White House and Bush's.
A very good article by Bernstein.
|
|
| | | 136 | nerveclinic
ID: 512501920 Wed, Apr 19, 2006, 01:59
|
Punk 42AE
Point A) Anyone notice how Bush is such a horrible person because he is trying to prevent more terror attacks,
I think most people criticize him because they don't believe he is trying to stop more terrorist attacks, they believe he has other motives.
Point B) and because he is a Christian and lets it be known.
I don't think most people in this country care what your religion is as long as you don't try to use the government to inflict your religion on others. Nor do I really believe Bush is a Christian, he's just playing the Christian card for political reasons...IMHO.
|
|
| | | 137 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 10:43
|
I for one, dont despise shrub because he's christian. I despise him because he seems to believe that he is acting under divine guidance, with absolute infallability and absolute power/authority. The other day re rumsfeld, a video clip of shrub was aired, wherein he repeated himself at length; "I'm the decision maker. Its my decision to make. I decide not someone else...."
THAT is why I hold him in such contempt.
|
|
| | | 138 | Sludge
ID: 14411118 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 10:56
|
"I'm the decision maker. Its my decision to make. I decide not someone else...."
Umm... hmm...
Taking me a while to absorb that one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the frequent attacks on G. Dub that he delegates too much? Relies on his advisors too much? Listens to their advice too much?
Now, put this in another context. What if that exact quote were made in a conciliatory speech about, say, oh I don't know... anything really. But was immediately preceeded by "The buck stops here." See a problem with it then? Come on, be honest. Of course you wouldn't.
At least try to be consistent, sarge.
|
|
| | | 139 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 11:21
|
I agree, Sludge. It seems like many anti-Bushians here have said Bush doesn't take enough responsibility, and that he needs to be responsible for more decisions that have been made.
|
|
| | | 140 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 12:31
|
I'll go along with that. So when does he take responsibility for sending too few troops and providing inadequate rear security which allowed hundreds of tons of explosives to be stolen and used in roadside bombs against our troops? When does "the decision maker" standup and say, "Yep. I was derelict in my duty as CIC there.", vs glossing over it as though it is of no import? Hundreds upon hundreds of US soldiers are dead, partially due to that single lapse in standard military operating procedure.
|
|
| | | 141 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 13:03
|
I think Sludge and I agree that you can hold that standard you post above in 140, but don't come here and say you despise him for saying things like "I'm the decision maker. Its my decision to make. I decide not someone else...." Your post 137 and 140 contradict each other. Sludge and I aren't defending Bush, just pointing out that you have posted reasons why you "despise" Bush, which are opposite reasons for why you have clamored for his head to roll.
It's either Bush takes responsibility, or he doesn't. You can't get mad at him because he takes responsibility on issue A and also get mad for not taking responsibility on issue B.
|
|
| | | 142 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 13:28
|
When I posted the "quote" (to the best of my memory) of shrubs words, the written word unfortunately lacks the self-righteousness of the vocal inflection present when shrub was speaking. He was sounding more like a king making a declaration, than a policymaker setting a policy. It is that very arrogance, his apparent belief that he is beneficiary of divine guidance, that I find so reprehensible in the man. He is in point of fact, a religious fanatic. I find all such people, to be truly dangerous.
|
|
| | | 143 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 10:40
|
Sarge is tone deaf as usual. Bush's tone comes from the fact that he does not and should not allow 1) the NYT, 2) disaffected state department weenies who have always been inneffectual anti-american status quo suckups, or 3) whatever democrat dirty-tricksters who ginned up the current anti-Rumsfeld dog and pony show, to run american foreign policy in place of the elected president.
|
|
| | | 144 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 10:46
|
I think Colin Powell would be very surprised at your characterization of his former department.
I suspect that, as usual, you've allowed your anti-"liberal" bias to cloud whatever perception you might otherwise have toward reality.
Again, we'd have to try the "Baldwin Throught Exercise": What if a Democrat were saying and doing the exact same things as Bush? As we've seen for some time now, suddenly Baldwin would be all over the sarge position (except with a little more spite).
|
|
| | | 145 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 10:54
|
Well we don't have to be nearly that 'ivory tower' do we?
You've heard of the Balkans?
That little excersize where Clinton was not brow-beaten to seek UN or European approval, where Clinton was not abused by the MSM wing of the democrat party over his 'nation building' excersize, and where Clinton was not abused by the anti-american weenies like his man Strobe Talbot over at the state department.
|
|
| | | 146 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 11:26
|
I have never believed that Bush should be impeached. However, if he is the president who has appointed the "disaffected state department weenies who have always been inneffectual anti-american status quo suckups" during the past 6 years, maybe I am wrong.
We probably SHOULD impeach a president who places anti-Americans in the state department.
|
|
| | | 147 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 11:36
|
The state department is primarily manned by what is known as the permanent government. Civil servants who pretty much ignore elections and the will of the people. Impeaching Clinton over Strobe Talbot would have worked for me however. 8]
|
|
| | | 148 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 11:44
|
So Bush has chosen to ignore this situation, leaving all of these anti-Americans in place at State? If this is so, I say impeach the bastard!
|
|
| | | 149 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 11:56
|
*Roll*
Is this stuff really too esoteric for you guys?
|
|
| | | 150 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 12:05
|
The Shackman decree involved the fact that the government can't fire certain non-political employees for political reasons.
Your point, on the other hand, was that political employees of the State Department (who aren't covered under Shackman, and serve at the pleasure of the President) have a policy at odds with the President.
And your point then would be....?
|
|
| | | 151 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 12:15
|
That the work product [recomendations] produced by the state department that end up on the desks of the political appointees' desks aren't fit to line bird cages with.
For that matter the liberal holdovers [plame affair, etc] in every segment of government fall under that category.
|
|
| | | 152 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 12:18
|
You're now blaming the Plame Affair on liberals?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Whew! Good one.
You sound like the guy I heard the other day on my Christian radio station, who blames racism on "evolutionists."
Sometimes facts are just powerless against a really strong and made-up mind.
|
|
| | | 153 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 13:29
|
A) Plame was just a liberal sabotaging a republican president.
B) Hitler was very much operating from evolutionist tenents when he thot up his racist genocidal policies. Why do you think the 'monkey' epithet is so damaging?
|
|
| | | 154 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 13:41
|
Yeeeya.
Plame leaked her own name, of course. And declassified only those parts of the NIE which backed up the Administration's position. Then she got Bernadette M. Allen, Bush's appointment as Ambassador to Niger, to write up the same thing Joe Wilson did but send it in earlier than Wilson's trip to cover her tracks.
And, except for the fact that she didn't actually recommend her husband (the former Ambassador to Niger) she would have gotten away with it too.
Is the archetype of "martyr" so strong in your mind that you need to make your President one?
On your second point, we sure are lucky there was no racism before Darwin came around.
|
|
| | | 155 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 17:33
|
U.S. Generals Call for Resignation of Media Leaders
by Scott Ott
(2006-04-19) A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties.
I believe that its time for them to step down, said one unnamed retired three-star general. The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately.
Theyve formed a tight cabal that focuses only on news that reinforces their neo-journ ideology, said another unnamed general. Despite the urgent need for actual reporting from Iraq, they have failed to put enough boots on the ground in country.
As civilians, they make editorial decisions without any understanding of history or military strategy, said another retired officer, and theyre trying to run the war coverage from hotels in the cloister of the Green Zone, without consulting with our leaders and troops on the frontlines.
The generals who all requested anonymity, in the words of one, so I wont be bothered by a bunch of calls from reporters writing redundant stories, said the leading news media gatekeepers should be replaced by more centrist voices who will be honest with America, and not blindly devoted advancing the neo-journ agenda.
Wed like to see leaders in there who will cover the Iraq story as Americans, or at least as those who believe in liberty, said one active-duty general who has worked closely with reporters and editors.
Meanwhile, New York Times Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. brushed off what he called the incessant drumbeat of negativity from opponents of his administration.
You cant relieve your top commanders while your side is winning, Mr. Sulzberger said. Frankly, the Pentagon doesnt direct enough attention to the car bombings, sectarian strife and rumblings of civil war which show that were making progress in Iraq every day.
|
|
| | | 156 | Stuck in the 60s Dude
ID: 274132811 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 20:47
|
I can't imagine anyone more ashamed of our president than I am, but this tendency to go for impeachment is a bit absurd.
You don't impeach a president for stupidity -- or cupidity, for that matter.
Clinton's enemies set out to destroy him over a sexual dalliance and now we're told that if the Dems achieve a majority (and with it, the subpoena power) that they'll try to oust Bush.
Bush is stupid, incapable of rational thought, a tool of the monied oil interests and a blight on our national reputation. His decision to invade Iraq flew in the face of more than 200 years of American history. It required that we rewrite our civics textbooks (oh, yeah, we don't civics anymore) to account for the doctrine of pre-emption.
But he shouldn't be impeached. All Americans who voted for him should be forced, along with the rest of us, to wallow in the mess he's created. Don
|
|
| | | 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 22:11
|
I disagree Don. Shrub does deserve impeachment, on the charges of dereliction of duty and gross negligence resulting in the deaths of US Serviceman. He failed miserably in his duties as CIC.
|
|
| | | 158 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2430154 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 08:17
|
RE: 156
His decision to invade Iraq flew in the face of more than 200 years of American history. It required that we rewrite our civics textbooks (oh, yeah, we don't civics anymore) to account for the doctrine of pre-emption.
Gaddis
Gaddis knows the latter name may bring a number of his colleagues up short. Critics charge that President Bush is a lightweight, Gaddis laments, and they do so because the president is a generalist who prefers the big picture to its details. Over lunch at Mory's, Yale's tweedy private dining club, Gaddis suggests that academics underrate Bush because they overvalue specialized knowledge. In reality, as his new book asserts, after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush underwent "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V."
The Bush doctrine is more serious and sophisticated than its critics acknowledge -- but it is also less novel, Gaddis maintains. Three of its core principles -- preemptive war, unilateralism, and American hegemony -- actually hark back to the early 19th century, to the time of John Quincy Adams.
...
According to Gaddis, then, the big innovations of the Bush doctrine are the ones most reminiscent of the 19th century: Bush has revived preemption and backed away from institutional alliance structures. Everything old is new again.
...back to your regularly scheduled program
|
|
| | | 159 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 08:23
|
There is a reason we went away from unilateralism, it's shortsighted, simple thinking. It simply doesn't work long-term in the modern world.
|
|
| | | 160 | Tree
ID: 7331225 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 08:26
|
the difference, however, is that in 1812, the BRITISH attacked us, and we sought to right that wrong.
in 2001, Iraq did not attack us. we sought to right a wrong that nation had nothing to do with us.
|
|
| | | 161 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2430154 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 08:41
|
Gaddis II (Interview with PBS - Frontline)
How dramatic or new is this doctrine of preemption?
Well, the doctrine of preemption has a long and distinguished history in the history of American foreign policy. Our doctrine throughout most of the 19th century -- at the time that we were expanding along the frontier and confronted European colonies along the frontier, confronted Indians, confronted pirates, confronted hostile non-state actors along the frontier -- was very much one of preemption.
Preemption is how we took Florida. Preemption is, in some way, how we took Texas. Preemption is how we took the Philippines, basically, in 1898. So to say that preemption is an un-American doctrine is not right historically. However, preemption has not been the primary American doctrine for a very long time, and it certainly was not during the Cold War for pretty obvious reasons. Because preemption ran the risk, of course, of nuclear war, equally damaging to both sides during the Cold War. So, very little was heard about preemption, at least in public, during the Cold War.
But the idea is coming back, and it's coming back for some of the same reasons that it was there in the 19th century: because, again, we face a situation of domestic insecurity, of being insecure in our own homes and work places, which was the condition of frontier existence in the 19th century. So, in that sense, it's not totally surprising that preemption would come back.
|
|
| | | 162 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 19:02
|
Just as I said this liberal sabotage from inside the CIA is a very real ongoing problem.
|
|
| | | 163 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 20:45
|
Yeah, we should scrub the entire CIA of anyone who donates to the Democratic party. And anyone who does donate is a "liberal" who is "sabotaging," well, I don't know. But they are doing it. I told you so!
|
|
| | | 164 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 22:01
|
Yeah, we should scrub the entire CIA of anyone who donates to the Democratic party.
Works for me.
|
|
| | | 165 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 22:09
|
Sure. Fill it to the brim with the party that gave the neo-cons life.
|
|
| | | 166 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 17:20
|
Interesting conundrum, PD. Which is worse? A CIA full of disloyal America-loathing marxists or one full of uber-imperialist stealth Trotskyite neo-cons? How about we put conservatives in there instead? Even libertarians would be an improvement. [hmm...how do you get libertarians to work for the CIA when they don't believe it's neccessary?]
|
|
| | | 167 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 17:52
|
Josh Marshall with a sort piece in the CIA
Money quote: [F]rom the White House perspective, the failures of the intelligence agencies weren't not getting it right on WMD and other issues. It was getting it more right and then wrong and then talking about what had happened to the press.
Itals in the original.
|
|
| | | 168 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 17:55
|
funny way you have with words there boldy. As a liberal, you define me as "america-loathing marxist". Yet for 18 yrs of my adult life, I wore the uniform and defended the constitution, sometimes while underfire from her real enemies. I have an even better idea than gutting the cia, how about you learn that your way, aint the only way? sound fair to anyone else?
|
|
| | | 169 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 18:01
|
I chalk that up to your vestigal conservatism. We've actually agreed from time to time so there must still be pockets of sanity remaining in your character.
|
|
| | | 170 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 20:08
|
and I see our occassional agreement, as an indication that there just may be some humanity left in you.
|
|
| | | 171 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 20:52
|
Humanity is as common as sand. Spirituality is the prize.
|
|
| | | 172 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 23:25
|
not to all carbon based life forms.
|
|
| | | 173 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 03:12
|
Humanity without spirituality is tending animal.
|
|
| | | 174 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 08:05
|
at the risk of being redudant, see post 172.
|
|
| | | 175 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 10:06
|
Re: 171 So I assume any spirituality will do, right? Catholic spirituality? Hindu spirituality? Shinto spirituality?
|
|
| | | 176 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 13:56
|
Are we talking about inheriting God's kingdom, living forever and fitting in with the greater purpose of the universe or merely escaping an unexamined and meaningless animal existance?
|
|
| | | 177 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 14:21
|
Are you saying that the only way to be "human" and live an "examined" life is to believe in God? There are many non-Christians that have examined their existence far more thoroughly than you.
|
|
| | | 178 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 18:55
|
Get back to me after you figure out why your prefered form of government involving 'sharing and caring' athiests always end up with death camps.
|
|
| | | 179 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 18:59
|
Hopefully that isn't asking you to do too much self-examination.
|
|
| | | 180 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 19:31
|
I don't think the self-examination need be limited to Baldwin pointing to others here.
"Always" is just a silly term to use, like "death camps," in any political debate. It reflects (at best) lazy intellectual effort. At worst, its a reflection of a closed mind.
|
|
| | | 181 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 21:18
|
Point to the communist country that doesn't have 're-education thru working political prisoners to death' camps and I'll retract the word 'always'. Until then it's not silly to use the word in this context. It was a serious considered deliberate use of the word.
|
|
| | | 182 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 21:21
|
So Sarge's "prefered form" of government is communism? You don't really see the difference between "liberal" and "communist," do you?
There's really no reason for me to continue even responding, knowing the lack of discernment you exhibit.
|
|
| | | 183 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 22:18
|
The fact that Boldy is clueless enough to mistake a dictatorship for communism is quite remarkable, given that he's generally politically savvy.
|
|
| | | 184 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 22:20
|
difference between "liberal" and "communist,"
or
the difference between "secular" and "communist."
|
|
| | | 185 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 23:31
|
Marxists are marxists. The only difference is how much of a hurry they are in to establish the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It's quite remarkable that Bili isn't aware of that phrase. He's generally politically aware.
For the record I was responding to Razor, not Sarge.
|
|
| | | 186 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 09:08
|
I'm a Communist? Is this from the Ann Coulter school of thought where liberal = commie = traitor?
|
|
| | | 187 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 14:00
|
While I haven't seen you in your beret shouting slogans and wearing your Che T-shirt I wouldn't bet against them being in your wardrobe.
|
|
| | | 188 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 14:15
|
I thought you didn't bet. At any rate, the most communist thing in my warddrobe is the undershirt I bought off of eBay that was once worn by my hero, Joseph Stalin.
I guess I better bone up on my Karl Marx since I'm a communist now.
|
|
| | | 189 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 14:19
|
Baldwin pines for the return of the 60's so that he can spray all the flower children with herbacide.
|
|
| | | 190 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 15:23
|
and wearing your Che T-shirt
hate to break it to you playa, but it's 2006. wearing a Che T-shirt has very little to do with your political beliefs and everything to do with your fashion beliefs...
|
|
| | | 191 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 17:12
|
Bush Impeachment - From the Illinois State Legislature? The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois' 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.
|
|
| | | 192 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 17:25
|
From the state that brought you Dick Durbin and Carol Mosley Braun...*roll*.
|
|
| | | 193 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 17:28
|
Where Razor hails from marxism has been in fashion a long long time.
|
|
| | | 194 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299 Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 17:29
|
What's your beef with Braun?
|
|
| | | 195 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 09:18
|
Florida? Well, I guess we do have a lot of Cubans...
|
|
| | | 196 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 17:13
|
MITH
She was clearly one of the least qualified senators of all time. She just showed up at the ideal time to step in. I believe that was the election where a corrupt republican state party turned on one of the only honest principled politicians they ever produced [incumbant Fitzgerald] and allowed the democrat to walk in unopposed.
|
|
| | | 197 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 17:29
|
Remind me never to ask you for info on IL State politics.Moseley-Braun made history in 1992 when she was elected to the U.S. Senate, becoming the first black woman to do so. She upset two-term incumbent Alan Dixon in the Democratic primary and went on to defeat Republican candidate Richard Williamson.
|
|
| | | 198 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 18:07
|
I had it wrong. Fitzgerald beat her in 98. What happened was that Dems had a respectable senator Alan Dixon and she beat him in the primary over some fluky transient media thing. The Republicans already had a patsy sacrificial lamb in place to lose to Dixon. The national media went nuts in the 'year of the woman' and especially at the prospect of putting a black woman in the senate so her national contributions went thru the roof.
Still she was so obviously incompetent she barely beat the Republican unknown and unworthy in the liberal state of Illinois.
|
|
| | | 199 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 18:13
|
Someday I'll work up the stomach to tell you a few Illinois stories of corruption. It is so hopeless in this state I can barely watch the hogs at the trough in both parties.
Well I'll tell you one. The year Fitzgerald won the senate from Braun the Republicans lost every other race that year. The corrupt head of the Republican party actively and openly worked against the only guy they put up who won. That same party leader who opposed Fitzgerald was exposed as working for Rod Blagoyovitch, the current democrat governor of Illinois, making $800K placing bonds and lobbying for him.
|
|
| | | 200 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 23:58
|
Moseley-Braun was steeped in controversy from her Chicago days. In the Senate she was passable, but known for a courageous stand against what had been a yearly rubber-stamp action of the Senate regarding the use of the Confederate flag and the Daughters of the Confederacy. I remember this very well, and recall Daniel Moynihan's reaction of one of respect for the stance (he was quite a student of the Senate himself).
This Wikipedia article on her spells out some of the controversy that followed her into the Senate, and untimately caused her defeat.
She could have been a good Senator if she wasn't so slimy.
|
|
| | | 201 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, Apr 27, 2006, 00:21
|
but known for a courageous stand against what had been a yearly rubber-stamp action of the Senate regarding the use of the Confederate flag and the Daughters of the Confederacy. - PD
Oh yeah, a black in public life playing the race card. That is some rare profile in courage.
|
|
| | | 202 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, Apr 27, 2006, 00:37
|
Yeah, standing up to Jesse and Strom is really easy for a freshman senator. She should have just let the sweet Daughters of the Confederacy have their taxpayer money and go home. After all, the Civil War had nothing to do with race, right?
I suppose you're going to chastize MLK, Jr for playing the "race card" as well, eh?
|
|
| | | 203 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, Apr 27, 2006, 10:44
|
My my, I'll just bet Carol had nightmares of the slathering dogs, firehoses, KKK and lynchmobs she might face on the way to the senate floor, LOL, well there was always the risk she'd run into Byrd I guess, ROFL.
|
|
| | | 204 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Fri, Apr 28, 2006, 10:46
|
So Boldwin, are you going to substantiate your Razor is a Commie claims in any way, shape or form?
|
|
| | | 205 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 28, 2006, 18:26
|
I said marxist. Feel free to tell me any position you hold that marx wouldn't approve of. By now it's so infected the system you don't even realize it.
|
|
| | | 206 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 28, 2006, 18:36
|
That's right: You have to prove to "Everything to the Left of Me is Marxism" Baldwin that you aren't a Marxist. Better get writing.
|
|
| | | 207 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Apr 28, 2006, 18:42
|
It's not like I asked him to hand-copy the dictionary for me and turn it in tomorrow morning. How hard should it be come up with one non-marxist position?
|
|
| | | 208 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Apr 28, 2006, 18:46
|
For you, very hard indeed given your expansive, Coulter-like definition of political affiliations.
|
|
| | | 209 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Mon, May 01, 2006, 15:21
|
I'm a capitalist. Boy, that was hard.
|
|
| | | 210 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, May 01, 2006, 15:25
|
Whew. Better take a breather with some wine and the latest copy of Limousine Liberal Monthly. This month features: "Playing the Race Card Early and Often," "Palm Beach: Nice Place to Visit But Wouldn't Want to Vote There," and "Driving God Out of, Well, Everywhere."
|
|
| | | 211 | Tree
ID: 29082512 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 10:31
|
Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush
More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Known for picturesque autumn foliage, colonial inns, maple sugar and old-fashion dairy farms, Vermont is in the vanguard of a grass-roots protest movement to impeach Bush over his handling of the unpopular Iraq war.
|
|
| | | 212 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:34
|
Thanks Tree. Funny, I just read that article after finding it on today's Huffington Post. About time someone had the balls to raise this. These guys could not more incompetent, but the politics of the play are keeping Dems from considering it. I dunno what the right move is here, chess-wise, but I do wish that somehow, we can stop Cheney/Bush from governing, cos who knows what they will do next?
- walk
|
|
| | | 213 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:35
|
... cos who knows what they will do next?
pick me, pick me!!!
They'll invade Iran next. *nodding* yep, yep.
|
|
| | | 214 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:46
|
Yeah, I know, I am afraid of that. I think Webb has proposed leglislation that would make Bush have to get Congressional approval before doing anything against Iran, and I hope it passes.
- walk
|
|
| | | 215 | Perm Dude
ID: 3221379 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:47
|
there's no way he'll be impeached. Dems are too wimpy--they can't even pass a non-binding resolution on the surge, for god's sake.
And Cheney will resign "for health reasons" before he's ever brought up on charges.
|
|
| | | 216 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:55
|
... cos who knows what they will do next? i figured they would just retire to there fortunes they made off the war. do you guys really think we would invade Iran? I mean where in the world would the president get anysupport for this?
|
|
| | | 217 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 13:58
|
I don't think they want or need support. They are kinda mavericks I think, who think they are really doing what's best for America (and in Cheney's case, other financial intesrests).
- walk
|
|
| | | 218 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 14:47
|
support????? support???? shrubbery dont need our "support". He got a friggin mandate in the last election. He's said as much himself. Besides, he's the great "decider". (Hes said that too.) Oh yea...and God told him it was his destiny. (Hes also said that.)
|
|
| | | 219 | biliruben
ID: 52014814 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 15:08
|
 Check the lower right corner.
|
|
| | | 220 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 15:23
|
all too true, to be all that funny.
|
|
| | | 221 | R9 Leader
ID: 02624472 Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 15:39
|
The presidential system blows.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 224 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Fri, Apr 20, 2007, 14:27
|
I admit Republicans think Liberals are idiots and ignore them, policy wise, but atleast they are not so obsessed with them, they forget about trying to pass any kind of meaningful legislation and go a time wasting , money detracting, impossible dream quest for the purpose of partisan politics.
|
|
| | | 225 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Fri, Apr 20, 2007, 14:41
|
While there is something to be said for the supposition that Dems are seeking an impossible dream quest for the purpose of partisan politics, presidents have been impeached for being accused of far less than the current office holder, if memory serves me correctly.
|
|
| | | 226 | Tree
ID: 29082512 Fri, Apr 20, 2007, 15:05
|
partisan politics
i love this phrase in all its idiocy.
politics are supposed to be partisan. it's what seperates people of different beliefs.
|
|
| | | 227 | walk
ID: 15350139 Fri, Apr 20, 2007, 15:52
|
Instead, Jag, Congress should be subordinate to the Pres and take whatever bill he sends to them, stamp it, and give it back. That is really the way it should work, right?
I hope Bush signs a bill drafting just YOU to war, and Congress signs it over.
;-)
You have the biggest idiot or schmuck or zealot we've ever had in office and you trust his judgment...after all these years and mistakes? Freakin Paris Hilton would have better common sense than our Admin at this point.
- walk
|
|
| | |
| | | 229 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 15:32
|
bloggerman
OK, that is dated 9/18/06...
I would challenge any Bush supporter, to define what has changed since then.
|
|
| | | 230 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 15:35
|
<--not a huge fan of Sen Byrd for the most part, but what the man says in that link walk...I can agree with 150%.
|
|
| | |
| | | 232 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:18
|
Special Counsel to Investigate Rove
This could be a biggie. This is not a partisan Democrat thing, but an inside the Admin investigation into Rovian politics.
- walk
|
|
| | | 233 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 03:01
|
Mcgovern responds to Cheney
Too bad that few people will give him the attention or credibility, but I agree with this opinion piece.
- walk
|
|
| | | 234 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Jun 04, 2007, 13:41
|
June 3, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Failed Presidents Aint What They Used to Be By FRANK RICH
A few weeks ago I did something I never expected to do in my life. I shed a tear for Richard Milhous Nixon.
Thats in no small measure a tribute to Frank Langella, who should win a Tony Award for his star Broadway turn in Frost/Nixon next Sunday while everyone else is paying final respects to Tony Soprano. Frost/Nixon, a fictionalized treatment of the disgraced former presidents 1977 television interviews with David Frost, does not whitewash Nixons record. But Mr. Langella unearths humanity and pathos in the old scoundrel eking out his exile in San Clemente. For anyone who ever hated Nixon, this achievement is so shocking that its hard to resist a thought experiment the moment youve left the theater: will it someday be possible to feel a pang of sympathy for George W. Bush?
Perhaps not. Its hard to pity someone who, to me anyway, is too slight to hate. Unlike Nixon, President Bush is less an overreaching Machiavelli than an epic blunderer surrounded by Machiavellis. He lacks the crucial element of acute self-awareness that gave Nixon his tragic depth. Nixon came from nothing, loathed himself and was all too keenly aware when he was up to dirty tricks. Mr. Bush has a charmed biography, is full of himself and is far too blinded by self-righteousness to even fleetingly recognize the havoc hes inflicted at home and abroad. Though historians may judge him a worse president than Nixon some already have at the personal level his is not a grand Shakespearean failure. It would be a waste of Frank Langellas talent to play George W. Bush (though not, necessarily, of Matthew McConaugheys).
This is in part why persistent cries for impeachment have gone nowhere in the Democratic Party hierarchy. Arguably the most accurate gut check on what the country feels about Mr. Bush was a January Newsweek poll finding that a sizable American majority just wished that his presidency was over. This flat-lining administration inspires contempt and dismay more than the deep-seated, long-term revulsion whipped up by Nixon; voters just cant wait for Mr. Bush to leave Washington so that someone, anyone, can turn the page and start rectifying the damage. Yet if he lacks Nixons larger-than-life villainy, he will nonetheless leave Americans feeling much the way they did after Nixon fled: in a state of anger about the state of the nation.
The rage is already omnipresent, and its bipartisan. The last New York Times/CBS News poll found that a whopping 72 percent of Americans felt their country was seriously off on the wrong track, the highest figure since that question was first asked, in 1983. Equally revealing (and bipartisan) is the hypertension of the parties two angry bases. Democrats and Republicans alike are engaged in internecine battles that seem to be escalating in vitriol by the hour.
On the Democratic side, the left is furious at the new Congresss failure to instantly fulfill its November mandate to end the war in Iraq. After it sent Mr. Bush a war-spending bill stripped of troop-withdrawal deadlines 10 days ago, the cries of betrayal were shrill, and not just from bloggers. John Edwards, once one of the more bellicose Democratic cheerleaders for the war (I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action, he thundered on the Senate floor in September 2002), is now equally bellicose toward his former colleagues. He chastises them for not sending the president the same withdrawal bill he vetoed again and again so that Mr. Bush would be forced to realize he has no choice but to end the war. Its not exactly clear how a legislative Groundhog Day could accomplish this feat when the presidents obstinacy knows no bounds and the Democrats lack of a veto-proof Congressional majority poses no threat to his truculence.
Among Republicans the rights revolt against the Bush-endorsed immigration bill is also in temper-tantrum territory, moving from rational debate about complex policy questions to plain old nativism, reminiscent of the 19th-century Know-Nothings. Even the G.O.P. bases traditional gripes knee-jerk wailing about the tragedy of Mary Cheneys baby cant be heard above the din.
White America is in flight is how Pat Buchanan sounds the immigration alarm. All they have to do is go to Bank of Amigo and pay the fine with a credit card is how Rush Limbaugh mocks the bills punitive measures for illegal immigrants. Bill OReilly, while reluctantly supporting Mr. Bushs plan, illustrates how immigration is drastically altering the country by pointing out that America is now one-third minority. (Do Jews make the cut?) The rupture is so deep that National Review, a fierce opponent of the bill, is challenging its usual conservative ally, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, to a debate that sounds more like Fight Club.
What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they dont adhere to their bases strict ideological orders. If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq, a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be serious political consequences in 2008. In an echo of his ideological opposite, Mr. Limbaugh labels the immigration bill the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act.
But theres a strange paradox here. The decibel level of the fin-de-Bush rage is a bit of a red herring. In truth, there is some consensus among Americans about the issues that are dividing both parties. The same May poll that found the country so wildly off-track showed agreement on much else. Sixty-one percent believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq, and 63 percent believe we should withdraw by 2008. Majorities above 60 percent also buy broad provisions of the immigration bill including the 66 percent of Republicans (versus 72 percent of Democrats) who support its creation of a guest-worker program.
What these figures suggest is that change is on its way, no matter how gridlocked Washington may look now. However much the G.O.P. base hollers, America is not going to round up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants, or build a multibillion-dollar fence on the Mexican border despite Lou Dobbss hoax blaming immigrants for a nonexistent rise in leprosy. A new president unburdened by a disastrous war may well fashion the immigration compromise that is likely to elude Mr. Bush.
Withdrawal from Iraq is also on its way. Contrary to Mr. Edwards, only Republicans in Congress can overcome presidential vetoes and in so doing force Mr. Bushs hand on the war. As the bottom drops out of Iraq and the polls, those G.O.P. votes are starting to line up. The latest example came last Sunday, when the most hawkish of former Rumsfeld worshipers, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, joined his partys Congressional leaders, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, in talking about drawing down troops if something extraordinary doesnt happen in Iraq by the time Gen. David Petraeus gives his September report on the surge. No doubt Mr. Sessions, who is up for re-election in 2008, saw a May 12 survey in The Birmingham News showing that even in his reddest of states, nearly half the voters want America out of Iraq within a year and favor candidates who agree.
This relatively unified America cant be compared with that of the second Nixon term, when the violent cultural and political upheavals of the late 1960s were still fresh. But in at least one way there may be a precise political parallel in the aftermaths of two failed presidencies rent by catastrophic wars: Americans are exhausted by anger itself and are praying for the mood pendulum to swing.
Gerald Ford implicitly captured that sentiment when he described himself as a healer; his elected successor, Jimmy Carter, was (to a fault, as it turned out) a seeming paragon of serenity. We can see this equation at work now in Mitt Romneys unflappable game-show-host persona, in John McCains unconvincing efforts to emulate a Reagan grin and in the unlikely spectacle of Rudy Giuliani trading in his congenital scowl for a sunny disposition. Hillary Clintons camp is doing everything it can to deflect new books reminding voters of the vicious Washington warfare during her husbands presidency. Then again, even Michael Moore is rolling out a kinder, gentler persona in his media blitz for his first film since Fahrenheit 9/11.
Edgy is out; easy listening is in; style, not content, can be king. In this climate, its hardly happenstance that many Republicans are looking in desperation to Fred Thompson. Robert Novak pointedly welcomed his candidacy last week because, in his view, Mr. Thompson is less harsh in tone than his often ideologically indistinguishable rivals and a real-life version of the avuncular fictional D.A. he plays on TV. The Democratic boomlet for Barack Obama is the flip side of the same coin: his views dont differ radically from those of most of his rivals, but his conciliatory personality is the essence of calm, the antithesis of anger.
If it was a relief to the nation to see a president as grandly villainous as Richard Nixon supplanted by a Ford, not a Lincoln, maybe even a used Hoover would do this time.
|
|
| | | 235 | walk
ID: 2530286 Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 09:30
|
July 1, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Tears on My Pillow By MAUREEN DOWD
I miss Albania! W. wails. They know how to treat a president there. Women were kissing me and men rubbed my hair. The crowd kept yelling, Bushie!, and they almost grabbed the watch right off my wrist trying to get at me.
The concerned group huddling outside the presidents closed-bedroom door in Kennebunkport can barely hear him. His voice is muffled because he has his face buried in his feather pillow, which the Secret Service has carefully transported from Washington to Maine for the weekend, knowing that it would be needed. They guard it so conscientiously that they have even given it a code name. Since the presidents Secret Service name is Tumbler, his agents christened his beloved pillow Slumber.
Son, I know how you feel, Poppy calls in to him, trying to sound positive. Riding high in 2002, shot down in 2007. Thats life, as Sinatra says. You were a puppet and a pawn to King Dick and it screwed up your presidency and our party and the Middle East and the Atlantic alliance and the family legacy and Jebs future, not to mention the fate of the planet. But you cant just roll yourself up in a big ball and die, George. Your friend Vlad the Impaler is here, and I think you should come out and talk to him. You invited him and he came all the way from Russia, and you dont want to be rude.
Ive already taken him to Mabels Lobster Claw and out on the boat. He scared all the fish away. I dont know what else to do with him, George. He brained the Filipino manservant, the little brown one, with a horseshoe.
Putin steps forward. Let me try, he tells Poppy.
George, hey, its me, Ostrich Legs, Pooty Poot. Remember when you gave me those nicknames? Come out, and I show you my real soul. Dark, dark, dark. I put the Putin back in Rasputin. Listen, Albania stinks. Maine much nicer. I saw Moose and Squirrel in the woods. Lets throw horseshoes at them! I love this American sport.
Tumbler burrows into Slumber. Why doesnt anybody like me anymore, Daddy? he keens. Man, I miss Tony. My Iraq poodle left me with a porcupine. And I cant believe my own Republicans crossed me on the immigration bill. Now my Mexican buddies from Midland are saying, Adiσs, Jorge. Vice doesnt even want to be in the same branch of government as me. Where is Dick, by the way?
His mother steps briskly up to the door. Now listen, Georgie, Barbara says. We didnt invite Dick. Hes not our kind. He has utterly ruined your presidency. Theres a Washington Post series I want you to read. Ive put it in the kitchen by your bowl of Cookie Crisps. It explains all about how Dick played you for a fool on everything from Iraq to capital gains. He set up the West Wing paper flow in a way that undermined your goals and advanced his. He let you act like you were the Decider, dear, when you were really just the Dupe.
W. howls, Dick promised me I would never be a wimp and now Im a wimp!
Putin intervenes. No, George, dont blame Dick, he says. Dick good man. Shoots friend in face. But Dick too soft. Friend lived. He needs put more people in your Gitmo gulag, shut down newspapers, kill more critics. Ill send you some of my special polonium-210 pellets. They just like Altoids, curiously strong.
Clarence Thomas rushes up to the door, black robes flapping. I got here as fast as I could, he assures Poppy, before yelling in to W.: Im sorry about the Guantαnamo decision. I dont know what my brethren were thinking, applying the Constitution to Cuba. Whats law got to do with it? I should have fought harder. I was a little distracted by our decision to stop race from being a factor in making schools racially diverse. I needed to make sure that black children all over America would have none of the advantages I had.
Henry Kissinger oils his way across the floor. Mr. President, he rumbles through the door, its not so bad bungling a war. I got to date Jill St. John.
Condi joins the group, and wrinkles her nose at Putin. He puts his arm around her and gives her head a noogie. When I said U.S. aggression is like Third Reich, he tells her, with his most charming K.G.B. smile, I meant it in a good way.
Condi ignores him and coos to W.: Theres bad news and good news, sir. Or maybe its Vice versa. Cheneys going to pardon Scooter. And the Albanians have agreed to put your presidential library in Tirana.
|
|
| | | 236 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 11:36
|
A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease Bush, Grasping for Answers and Fixated on Iraq, Remains Resolute
By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 2, 2007
At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
These are the questions of a president who has endured the most drastic political collapse in a generation. Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Bush is seeking out those who are, engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration. For all the setbacks, he remains unflinching, rarely expressing doubt in his direction, yet trying to understand how he got off course.
These sessions, usually held in the Oval Office or the elegant living areas of the executive mansion, are never listed on the president's public schedule and remain largely unknown even to many on his staff. To some of those invited to talk, Bush seems alone, isolated by events beyond his control, with trusted advisers taking their leave and erstwhile friends turning on him.
"You think about prime ministers and presidents being surrounded by cabinet officials and aides and so forth," said Alistair Horne, a British historian who met with Bush recently. "But at the end of the day, they're alone. They're lonely. And that's what occurred to me as I was at the White House. It must be quite difficult for him to get out and about."
Friends worry about that as well. Burdened by an unrelenting war, challenged by an opposition Congress, defeated just last week on immigration, his last major domestic priority, Bush remains largely locked inside the fortress of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the seventh year of a presidency turned sour. He still travels, making speeches to friendly audiences and attending summit meetings, such as this weekend's Kennebunkport talks with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. But he rarely goes out to dinner, and he no longer plays golf, except occasionally chipping at Camp David, where, as at his Texas ranch, he can find refuge.
"I don't know how he copes with it," said Donald Burnham Ensenat, a friend for 43 years who just stepped down as State Department protocol officer. Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), another longtime friend who once worked for Bush, said he looks worn down. "It's a marked difference in his physical appearance," Conaway said. "It's an incredibly heavy load. When you ask men and women to take risks, to send them into war knowing they might not come home, that's got to be an incredible burden to have on your shoulders."
Bush is fixated on Iraq, according to friends and advisers. One former aide went to see him recently to discuss various matters, only to find Bush turning the conversation back to Iraq again and again. He recognizes that his presidency hinges on whether Iraq can be turned around in 18 months. "Nothing matters except the war," said one person close to Bush. "That's all that matters. The whole thing rides on that."
And yet Bush does not come across like a man lamenting his plight. In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.
"You don't get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can't tell you which."
A Parade of Setbacks
The reality has been daunting by any account. No modern president has experienced such a sustained rejection by the American public. Bush's approval rating slipped below 50 percent in Washington Post-ABC News polls in January 2005 and has not topped that level in the 30 months since. The last president mired under 50 percent so long was Harry S. Truman. Even Richard M. Nixon did not fall below 50 percent until April 1973, 16 months before he resigned.
The polls reflect the events of Bush's second term, an unyielding sequence of bad news. Social Security. Hurricane Katrina. Harriet E. Miers. Dubai Ports World. Vice President Cheney's hunting accident. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. The midterm elections. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Alberto R. Gonzales and Paul D. Wolfowitz. Immigration. And overshadowing it all, the Iraq war, now longer than the U.S. fight in World War II.
Since winning reelection 2 1/2 years ago, Bush has had few days of good news, and what few he has had rarely lasted. Purple-fingered Iraqis went to the polls to establish a democracy but elected a dysfunctional government riven by sectarian strife. U.S. forces hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, but the violence only worsened. Saddam Hussein was convicted, but his execution was marred by videotaped taunting. Perhaps the only unalloyed major second-term victory for Bush has been the confirmation of two Supreme Court justices who have begun to move the court to the right.
Other presidents have been crushed by the pressure. Lyndon B. Johnson was tormented by Vietnam War protesters outside his window shouting, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Nixon swam in self-pity during Watergate, talking to paintings and once asking Henry Kissinger to pray with him. Bill Clinton fumed against enemies and nursed deep grievances during his impeachment battle.
But if Bush vents like that, no one is talking. Kissinger, who advises Bush, said the president has never asked him to kneel down with him in the Oval Office. "I find him serene," Kissinger said. "I know President Johnson was railing against his fate. That's not the case with Bush. He feels he's doing what he needs to do, and he seems to me at peace with himself."
Bush has virtually given up on winning converts while in office and instead is counting on vindication after he is dead. "He almost has . . . a sense of fatalism," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who recently spent a day traveling with Bush. "All he can do is do his best, and 100 years from now people will decide if he was right or wrong. It doesn't seem to be a false, macho pride or living in your own world. I find him to be amazingly calm."
To an extent, Bush walls himself off from criticism. He does read newspapers, contrary to public impression, but watches little television news and does not linger in the media echo chamber. "He does a very good job of keeping out the extreme things in his life," Conaway, the congressman, said. "He doesn't watch Leno and Letterman. He doesn't spend a lot of time exposing himself to that sort of stuff. He has a terrific knack of not looking through the rearview mirror."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who attended a legislative meeting with Bush last month, said his impervious nature works both ways. "The things that make him unpopular also help him deal with all the pressure," Kingston said. "He's stubborn. He's loyal to his philosophy."
Reproached by His Own
The fabled loyalty of the Bush team, though, has frayed far more than might be apparent to him. The fight over whether Gonzales should remain attorney general has exposed a deep fault line. Bush remains convinced that his old friend did nothing wrong ethically in firing U.S. attorneys, and senior adviser Karl Rove angrily rejects what he sees as a Democratic witch hunt, according to White House officials. Yet beyond the inner circle, it is hard to find a current or former administration official who thinks Gonzales should stay.
"I don't understand for the life of me why Al Gonzales is still there," said one former top aide, who, like others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity. "It's not about him. It's about the office and who's able to lead the department." The ex-aide said that every time he runs into former Cabinet secretaries, "universally the first thing out of their mouths" is bafflement that Gonzales remains.
Some aides see it as Bush refusing to accept reality. "The president thinks cutting and running on his friends shows weakness," said an exasperated senior official. "Change shows weakness. Doing what everyone knows has to be done shows weakness." Another former aide said that no matter how many people Bush consults, he heeds only two or three.
Beyond Gonzales, the discontent with the Bush presidency is broader and deeper among Republican lawmakers, some of whom seethe with anger. "Our members just wish this thing would be over," said a senior House Republican who met with Bush recently. "People are tired of him." Bush's circle remains sealed tight, the lawmaker said. "There's nobody there who can stand up to him and tell him, 'Mr. President, you've got to do this. You're wrong on this.' There's no adult supervision. It's like he's oblivious. Maybe that's a defense mechanism."
Aides said they do challenge Bush. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten had what one colleague called "a lot of hard discussions" with the president after the November midterm elections to shock him into recognizing that his approach to Iraq had failed. Bolten set up meetings so Bush could hear from critics of his policy and sent him written material to emphasize the need for change, the colleague said. That led to the decision to send more troops.
Even if he tries to avoid the media surround sound, Bush cannot help running into criticism. A group of moderate House Republicans bluntly told him during a recent White House meeting that he had become a drag on the party. And when the president invited conservative radio host Laura Ingraham for a bike ride last month, she upbraided him for his position on immigration.
Bush's unpopularity appears to impose limits on where he goes. He turned down an invitation from the Washington Nationals to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day, pleading a busy schedule. The former baseball team owner instead hosted an invitation-only ceremony for a college football team in the East Room, where no one would boo. When commencement season rolled around, he stayed away from major universities, delivering addresses at a community college in Florida and a small religious school in Pennsylvania run by a former aide. And even then he was met by student and faculty protests.
Seeking History's Lessons
Amid the tumult, the president has sought refuge in history. He read three books last year on George Washington, read about the Algerian war of independence and the exploitation of Congo, and lately has been digging into "Troublesome Young Men," Lynne Olson's account of Conservative backbenchers who thrust Winston Churchill to power. Bush idolizes Churchill and keeps a bust of him in the Oval Office.
After reading Andrew Roberts's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900," Bush brought in the author and a dozen other scholars to talk about the lessons. "What can I learn from history?" Bush asked Roberts, according to Stelzer, the Hudson Institute scholar, who participated.
Stelzer said Bush seemed smarter than he expected. The conversation ranged from history to religion and touched on sensitive topics for a president wrestling with his legacy. "He asked me, 'Do you think our unpopularity abroad is a result of my personality?' And he laughed," Stelzer recalled. "I said, 'In part.' And he laughed again."
Much of the discussion focused on the nature of good and evil, a perennial theme for Bush, who casts the struggle against Islamic extremists in black-and-white terms. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, said it was clear that Bush weathers his difficulties because he sees himself as doing the Lord's work.
"His faith is very strong," said Novak, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Faith is not enough by itself because there are a lot of people who have faith but weak hearts. But his faith is very strong. He seeks guidance, like every other president does, in prayer. And that means trying to be sure he's doing the right thing. And if you've got that set, all the criticism, it doesn't faze you very much. You're answering to God."
Horne, the British historian, found himself with Bush on another occasion after Kissinger gave the president "A Savage War of Peace," Horne's book on the French defeat in Algeria in the mid-20th century. Bush invited Horne to visit. They talked about the parallels and differences between Algeria and Iraq as Bush sought insight he could apply to his own situation.
Horne said he is not a Bush supporter but was nonetheless struck by the president's tranquility. "He was very friendly, very relaxed," Horne said. "My God, he looked well. He looked like he came off a cruise in the Caribbean. He looked like he hadn't a care in the world. It was amazing."
Loyalists Lost
As Bush heads toward the twilight of his presidency, the White House feels increasingly empty. One after another, aides who have stuck with him are heading out the door. Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff for more than five years, stepped down last year. And now counselor Dan Bartlett, an aide for 14 years, is leaving.
Card and Bartlett were the aides who spent the most time at Bush's side. Bolten, Card's replacement, and Ed Gillespie, Bartlett's successor, each decided not to devote as much time to "body duty," leaving the president without their constant presence. Others who have left have publicly castigated the president. Bush was particularly hurt, friends said, when reelection strategist Matthew Dowd disavowed him.
Bush seeks solace in his oldest friends from Texas and Yale University, hosting an annual summer picnic and a Christmas party. He invites friends to the White House or the ranch in Crawford. But those experiences are strangely impersonal. "It can be kind of clinical," said a friend who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "You're in there and in that event it's all very controlled -- you come in for drinks at 7, you have dinner at 7:30 and by 9 you're back at your hotel."
Bush rarely leaves the White House for social outings in Washington, though lately he has tried to get out more, attending dinners last month at the homes of two old friends, attorney Jim Langdon and budget aide Clay Johnson III. Bush avoids politics in such moments. He reaches out for signs of normalcy, asking about business or mutual friends. "He wants to know if we've caught any fish," said Robert McCleskey, a friend since grade school.
Bush also deals with stress through discipline, routine and exercise. On a typical day, he wakes at 5 a.m., arrives at the Oval Office at 6:30, then leaves at 4:30 p.m. for a 60-minute workout. He returns to work for a while before retiring to the residence, where he turns in at 9:30. On weekends, he favors two-hour biking sessions at a Secret Service facility in Beltsville with companions such as Card or Alexander Ellis IV, a young cousin.
Friends say this does not make him ignorant of his troubles. "There isn't any doubt that he is totally and completely aware of all the existing circumstances around him," said a close friend. "There's not anything that he's not aware of -- how he's perceived, how his people are perceived, the problems his people have. He is the furthest thing from oblivious. . . . Somewhere in the back of his mind there's a pretty complete autopsy."
Yet Bush can seem disengaged. When he flew to New York to visit a Harlem school and promote his education program, he brought along New York congressmen on Air Force One, including Democrat Charles B. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The White House was in the midst of tough negotiations with Rangel over trade pacts. But Bush did not try to cut a deal with Rangel, chatting instead about baseball. "He talked a lot about the Rangers," Rangel said. "I didn't know what the hell he was talking about."
Still, that trip demonstrated that Bush cannot escape his burdens. King, the GOP congressman, introduced him backstage to a soldier injured in one eye. Bush teared up and asked the young man to take off his dark glasses so he could see the wound, King recalled. "Human instinct is when someone has a serious injury to look the other way," King said. "He actually asked him to take them off. He actually touched the eye a little. It was almost as if he felt he had to confront it."
As they headed back to Washington a few hours later, with the televisions aboard Air Force One tuned to the New York Mets game, King mused that Bush must be feeling the weight of his office.
"My wife loves you, but she doesn't know how you don't wake up every morning and say, 'I've had it. I'm out of here,' " King told him.
"She thinks that?" Bush replied. "Get her on the phone."
King dialed but got voice mail. Bush left a message: "I'm doing okay. Don't worry about me."
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment. Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
|
| | | 238 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 16:24
|
Try again
Look under the big glove above the fence during a live Giants game.
- walk
|
|
| | |
| | | 240 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 23:21
|

My photo albumn entry for walk.
|
|
| | |
| | | 242 | Jodin
ID: 46655714 Sat, Jul 07, 2007, 15:55
|
Help The Final Push to Impeachment
It's time! ImpeachForPeace.org is traveling to Washington DC at the end of this month to deliver thousands of Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Memorials to key representatives in the House! Support for impeachment is building. As of this writing, 14 reps are supporting Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney (H. Res. 333). Even if you've sent them to your congressperson before, Click here to send us your DIY Memorials before we go.
You may not realize that the only thing standing between where we are today and a nationally televised impeachment investigation is the House Judiciary passing this resolution, which is currently awaiting consideration in their committee. The head of this committee, John Conyers, has said recently that he supports the national impeachment movement.
All we need to push it over the edge is public support, and that's where we come in. Video of our trip will be posted on our website shortly upon our return. We'll let you know when it's up! Click here to be a part of this!
Here's a funny video about this unique strategy
|
|
| | | 243 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sat, Jul 07, 2007, 22:44
|
I'm all in favor of impeaching both of those self-righteous bstrds in the WH.
|
|
| | | 244 | walk
ID: 2530286 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 10:33
|
July 8, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist A Profile in Cowardice By FRANK RICH
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libbys silence. Now we have the answers, and theyre at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.
The timing of the presidents Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his fathers pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clintons pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.
But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.
That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didnt care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill OReilly in a bunker.
But if those die-hards havent deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libbys incarceration be the final straw? They certainly werent whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The only people clamoring for Mr. Libbys freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.
What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bushs highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheneys use of prewar intelligence.
Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libbys appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He cant testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million legal defense fund.
The presidents presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libbys jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. Thats the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.
When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely some bureaucratic red-tape issues.
Asked last week to explain the presidents poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind to describe Mr. Bush, its incompetence. But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bushs cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris.
Even The Wall Street Journals editorial page, a consistent Bush and Libby defender, had to take notice. Furious that the president had not given Mr. Libby a full pardon (at least not yet), The Journal called the Bush commutation statement a profile in non-courage.
What it did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, is that this non-courage, to use The Journals euphemism, has been this presidents stock in trade, far exceeding the wimp factor that Newsweek once attributed to his father. The younger Mr. Bushs cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.
People dont change. Mr. Bushs failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harms way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.
The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didnt stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus compromise that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.
Nowhere is this presidents non-courage more evident than in the signing statements The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office. Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a cowards escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.
In the end, it was also this presidents profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.
But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libbys obstructions of justice. Mr. Bushs cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfelds decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.
Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bushs commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of Bring em on to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after Mission Accomplished, by taunting those who want to harm American troops. Mr. Bush assured the world that weve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. The surge notwithstanding, we still dont have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.
No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.
|
|
| | | 245 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 11:08
|
Bush denies Congress request for testimony from aides
WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors. ADVERTISEMENT
The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
Invoking "Executive Privilege" but refuses to explain it. Once again, our great decider is deciding that he is above the law.
|
|
| | | 246 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 12:46
|
Mofo. Exec privilege, IIRC, is supposed to be used when testimony would undermine national security interests. How does the firing of US Attorneys (who failed to pursue bogus voter fraud cases or indict opposition party members) threaten our national security? If anything, it would enhance it, cos if they find out the real dirt, then the bozos mucking up our national security by stretching our military as thin as Nicole Ritchie after a bulimiathon with her jailbird bud Paris would finally be impeached.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, - walk
|
|
| | | 247 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 13:42
|
July 9, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Mr. Cheneys Minority Report By SEAN WILENTZ Princeton, N.J.
TWENTY years ago this week, Lt. Col. Oliver North testified for six days before a special joint House and Senate investigating committee. Permitted by the Democratic majority to appear in his bemedaled Marine uniform, and disastrously granted immunity, Colonel North freely admitted that he had shredded documents, lied to Congress and falsified official records.
Colonel North justified these crimes as necessary to protect two of the Reagan administrations covert policies: defying a Congressional ban on aiding the anti-Sandinista contra insurgents in Nicaragua; and selling arms to Iran officially classified as a terrorist state in order to free American hostages in the Middle East.
Mixing bathos with belligerence, Colonel North played the incorruptible action hero facing down Washington politicians and lawyers. He also suggested that, under the Constitution, the president and not Congress held ultimate authority to direct foreign policy.
Most of the Congressional committee members, Republicans and Democrats alike, expressed shock at Colonel Norths testimony. And despite the surge in Colonel Norths personal popularity, he failed to sway other Americans on the underlying issues. Clear majorities in opinion polls said that Colonel North had gone too far in his covert operations, especially in helping the contras. Roughly half of those polled believed that he had acted as if he was above the law. Sixty percent said that Congress was more trustworthy than the Reagan White House on foreign relations.
And Mr. North was eventually convicted of three federal felonies receiving an illegal payment, obstruction of a Congressional inquiry and destroying official documents, although an appellate court held that his testimony delivered under Congressional immunity may have affected jurors and reversed one conviction. (Prosecutors gave up on the other two.)
But there were dissenters. A number of House Republicans on the committee cheered Colonel North on. One who led the way was Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who praised Colonel North as the most effective and impressive witness certainly this committee has heard.
Mr. Cheney the congressman believed that Congress had usurped executive prerogatives. He saw the Iran-contra investigation not as an effort to get to the bottom of possible abuses of power but as a power play by Congressional Democrats to seize duties and responsibilities that constitutionally belonged to the president.
At the conclusion of the hearings, a dissenting minority report codified these views. The reports chief author was a former resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael J. Malbin, who was chosen by Mr. Cheney as a member of the committees minority staff. Another member of the minoritys legal staff, David S. Addington, is now the vice presidents chief of staff.
The minority report stressed the charge that the inquiry was a sham, calling the majority reports allegations of serious White House abuses of power hysterical. The minority admitted that mistakes were made in the Iran-contra affair but laid the blame for them chiefly on a Congress that failed to give consistent aid to the Nicaraguan contras and then overstepped its bounds by trying to restrain the White House.
The Reagan administration, according to the report, had erred by failing to offer a stronger, principled defense of what Mr. Cheney and others considered its full constitutional powers. Not only did the report defend lawbreaking by White House officials; it condemned Congress for having passed the laws in the first place.
The report made a point of invoking the framers. It cited snippets from the Federalist Papers like Alexander Hamiltons remarks endorsing energy in the executive in order to argue that the presidents long-acknowledged prerogatives had only recently been usurped by a reckless Democratic Congress.
Above all, the report made the case for presidential primacy over foreign relations. It cited as precedent the Supreme Courts 1936 ruling in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, which referred to the exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.
History, the report claimed, leaves little, if any doubt that the president was expected to have the primary role of conducting the foreign policy of the United States. It went on: Congressional actions to limit the president in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism. If they interfere with the core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down.
These conclusions went beyond what had long been considered the outermost limits of presidential power and they put a special twist on history. Hamilton certainly desired a strong executive, but warned that it would be utterly unsafe and improper to give a president complete control over foreign policy.
The Curtiss-Wright decision actually concerned a presidential claim of constitutional power to act in the absence of an act passed by Congress, not in violation of such an act.
One of the foremost constitutional scholars of the 20th century, Edward S. Corwin, stated in 1957 that the Constitution was an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy, and that in many cases the lions share of that privilege belonged to the president. But Corwin finally insisted that the power to determine the substantive content of American foreign policy is a divided power.
The Iran-contra joint committee majority in 1987, including some Senate Republican members, charged that the minority report, with tortuous illogic, reduced Congresss foreign policy role to nearly nothing. Senator Warren Rudman, a New Hampshire Republican and vice chairman of the Senate side of the investigating committee, paraphrased Adlai Stevenson and quipped that the minority report had separated the wheat from the chaff and left in the chaff.
His comments did not lead Mr. Cheney to alter course, as Mr. Cheneys actions as vice president demonstrate. Asked by a reporter in 2005 to explain his expansive views about presidential power, Mr. Cheney replied, If you want reference to an obscure text, go look at the minority views that were filed with the Iran-contra committee.
Nobody has ever read them, he said, but they are very good in laying out a robust view of the presidents prerogatives with respect to the conduct of especially foreign policy and national security matters.
In truth, as Mr. Cheney has also remarked, the struggle for him began much earlier, during the Nixon administration. A business partner says that Mr. Cheney told him that Watergate was merely a political ploy by the presidents enemies. For Mr. Cheney, the scandal was not Richard Nixons design for an imperial presidency but the Democrats drive for an imperial Congress.
Still, Mr. Cheneys quest to accumulate unaccountable executive power a quest that has received much attention of late took a major turn 20 years ago. And part of Iran-contras legacy has now become a legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, is the author of a forthcoming book on the Reagan administration and its legacy.
|
|
| | | 248 | Perm Dude
ID: 296341119 Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 00:24
|
Miers can't talk, Bush says
His interpretation of "executive priviledge" is overly broad, IMO. Don't just take my word for it. This reader at TPM nails it, IMO:
I'm not certain, but I believe that the White House Counsel does not enjoy privilege with regard to communications with the President. It's not a regular attorney/client relationship. In fact, Clinton's WHC had to file a motion with the Supreme Court asking for the privilege to be extended to the President/WHC relationship after lower courts had ruled that no privilege obtains. Look up In re Lindsey. I do not believe that it has been overruled. Also relevant, Hilary Clinton spoke to a personal lawyer in the presence of a WHC and the 8th Circuit ruled that the WHC was a third party for purposes of negating the privilege. See In re Grand Jury Subpeonas Duces Tecum. So maybe that's the problem for the President. Executive privilege wouldn't preclude testimony about when and where and in whose company Miers spoke to the President, only the content of those conversations. She might have been, as WHC, a third party present at an otherwise privileged conversation setting legal strategy. But to be honest, I think the Administration is just asserting privilege for privilege's sake in an attempt to thwart the will of Congress by any means necessary.
It is the "Nothing to Lose Administration."
|
|
| | | 249 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 00:30
|
more like the "nothing to gain, everything to hide" administration. This SOB in the WH today, has made a mockery of this nations national leadership. That some STILL cannot bring themselves to admit as much, brings almost as much shame upon our nationality identity, as shrub and his criminal bstrd cronies have managed to bring.
|
|
| | | 250 | Perm Dude
ID: 296341119 Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 00:39
|
I think it is beyond clear that the White House will negotiate in good faith with the legislative branch. We're long past the point that we need to keep beating out heads against the wall, while the Adminsitration stalls, lies, and breaks laws trying to evade responsibility and oversight.
It is time to get SCOTUS involved more.
|
|
| | | 251 | walk
ID: 2530286 Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 21:48
|
July 15, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Whos Sorry Now? By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON
Theres not much lately that wed like to import from China.
Certainly not the yummy steamed buns stuffed with shredded cardboard soaked in a caustic agent used to make soap. Or the tasty toothpaste laced with an antifreeze ingredient. Or the scrumptious seafood with a chemical kick. Or those pet foods with kibbles and bits of poison.
But there is one thing made in China we could use: mea culpas of high officials.
Zheng Xiaoyu, a top regulator who helped create Chinas Food and Drug Administration, accepted $850,000 in bribes from drug companies and became enmeshed in the mistakes that flooded the market with dangerous drugs. Before he was executed Tuesday, he wrote a short confession titled How I Look on My Mistakes.
Thinking back on what has happened these years, I start to see the problems clearly, he wrote in prison. Why are the friends who gave me money all the bosses of pharmaceutical companies? Obviously because I was in charge of drug administration.
I am confessing here that I loosened self-discipline, ignored the bottom line, he said, adding that he had to confess his mistakes as an act of saving my soul.
We would skip the execution although perhaps there should be ranch arrest for W., and Cheney could do community service passing out condoms at Gay Pride festivals.
But it is time for the lethally inept duo running the country to do some painstaking self-examination and confession. Just as the Communist Party helped the late Mr. Zheng compose his thoughts, I volunteer to ghost-write our leaders self-scrutiny:
How I Look on My Mistakes, by George W. Bush
The people trusted me with an important position. I didnt live up to expectations. I let Dick supersize the executive branch and cast Democrats as whiners and traitors. Why did I not suspect that Dick might be power-hungry when he appointed himself vice president? Why did I let him take over my presidency and fill it up with warmongers? I was so afraid to be called a wimp, as my father once was, I allowed Dick and Rummy to turn me into a wimp. I should never have allowed Dick to conspire with energy lobbyists and steer contracts to Halliburton. A tip-off should have been when Dick kept giving himself all the same powers that I had. Or when he outed that pretty lady spy.
If only I had kept my promise to go after the thugs who attacked us on 9/11, because now Ive made Osama and Al Qaeda stronger. I know my false claim about Al Qaedas ties with Iraq led to Iraqs being tied down by Al Qaeda. I see now that my bungled war on terror has created more terror, empowered Iran and made America less secure. Oh, yeah, and Im sorry I broke the military.
I stained the family honor when I ignored the elders of the Iraq Study Group. I should not have worried that I would be seen as kowtowing to my dads friends. The Oval Office is not the right place for a teenage rebellion.
I should not have picked that dimwit Brownie, and I should have trusted the gut of anyone besides that goof-off Chertoff to keep the nation safe. And what was I thinking when I said Harriet Miers should be a Supreme Court justice? That was loony. Im sorry I made the surgeon general mention my name three times on every page of his speeches. That was childish.
How could I have let Dick bring in his best friend, Rummy, my dads old nemesis? Dummy Rummy let Osama escape at Tora Bora, messed up the Iraq occupation and aborted a mission to wipe out top Al Qaeda leaders because he was protecting Musharraf, who was protecting Al Qaeda in the tribal areas. Even though I promised to get rid of dictators who helped terrorists, I ended up embracing a Pakistani dictator who helps terrorists.
Im embarrassed that the Iraqi Parliament is taking a monthlong vacation in the middle of my surge. Could I have set a bad example when I rode my bike in Crawford while New Orleans drowned?
Im sorry I keep pretending Iraq will get better if we stay longer. It wasnt very nice of me to push the surge when I knew it couldnt work. I just wanted to dump the defeat on my successor. I wish Hillary the best of luck.
If I had left the gym long enough to read about Algeria or even one of T. E. Lawrences Seven Pillars of Wisdom, then I might have not gotten bogged down in Iraq and let North Korea, China and Russia slide.
Being the Decider is so confusing. I regret stealing the presidency and wish I could give it back.
How I Look on My Mistakes, by Dick Cheney
Buzz off.
|
|
| | | 252 | walk
ID: 75112114 Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 12:50
|
July 17, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Heroes and History By DAVID BROOKS
I spent the first four days of last week interviewing senators about Iraq. The mood ranged from despondency to despair. Then on Friday I went to the Roosevelt Room in the White House to hear President Bush answer questions on the same subject. It was like entering a different universe.
Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored. While some in his administration may be looking for exit strategies, he is unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up the troops. If GeneralPetraeus says he can get by with fewer, Bush will support that, too.
Bush said he will get General Petraeuss views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment. He feels no need to compromise to head off opposition from Capitol Hill and is confident that he can rebuild popular support. I have the tools, he said.
I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.
All this will be taken as evidence by many that Bush is delusional. Hes living in a cocoon. He doesnt see or cant face how badly the war is going and how awfully he has performed.
But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events were not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.
Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: Its more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesnt exist.
Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.
Conservatives are supposed to distrust government, but Bush clearly loves the presidency. Or to be more precise, he loves leadership. Hes convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference.
When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. Before, it was Generals Abizaid and Casey. Now, its Generals Petraeus and Odierno.
When Bush talks about world affairs more generally, he talks about national leaders. When he is asked to analyze Iraq, he talks about Maliki. With Russia, its Putin. With Europe, its Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and the rest.
He is confident in his ability to read other leaders: Who has courage? Who has a chip on his shoulder? And he is confident that in reading the individual character of leaders, he is reading the tablet that really matters. History is driven by the club of those in power. When far-sighted leaders change laws and institutions, they have the power to transform people.
Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.
Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations from the bottom up.
According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They cant be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.
If Bushs theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.
|
|
| | |
| | | 255 | Perm Dude
ID: 6651178 Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 15:02
|
The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: Its more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesnt exist.
Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.
So, he likes his ideas and will stick with them because God is on his side. And he likes being "The Decider."
Not much news there, Mr. Brooks. A recipe for disaster.
|
|
| | | 256 | walk
ID: 75112114 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 13:50
|
Right? Scary stuff. How many more months? Like Cliff Robertson in "Escape from New York" or Martin Sheen in "The Dead Zone."
- walk
|
|
| | | 257 | walk
ID: 75112114 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 14:47
|
July 20, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist All the Presidents Enablers By PAUL KRUGMAN
In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits amazingly, they still exist to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. It might even be true.
What I dont understand is why were supposed to consider Mr. Bushs continuing confidence a good thing.
Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.
Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administrations own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bushs poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.
Sorry, but thats not reassuring; its terrifying. It doesnt demonstrate Mr. Bushs strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.
Actually, its not clear that he ever was in touch with reality. I wrote about the Bush administrations infallibility complex, its inability to admit mistakes or face up to real problems it didnt want to deal with, in June 2002. Around the same time Ron Suskind, the investigative journalist, had a conversation with a senior Bush adviser who mocked the reality-based community, asserting that when we act, we create our own reality.
People who worried that the administration was living in a fantasy world used to be dismissed as victims of Bush derangement syndrome, liberals driven mad by Mr. Bushs success. Now, however, its a syndrome that has spread even to former loyal Bushies.
Yet while Mr. Bush no longer has many true believers, he still has plenty of enablers people who understand the folly of his actions, but refuse to do anything to stop him.
This weeks prime example is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who made headlines a few weeks ago with a speech declaring that our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests. Mr. Lugar is a smart, sensible man. He once acted courageously to head off another foreign policy disaster, persuading a reluctant Ronald Reagan to stop supporting Ferdinand Marcos, the corrupt leader of the Philippines, after a stolen election.
Yet that political courage was nowhere in evidence when Senate Democrats tried to get a vote on a measure that would have forced a course change in Iraq, and Republicans responded by threatening a filibuster. Mr. Lugar, along with several other Republicans who have expressed doubts about the war, voted against cutting off debate, thereby helping ensure that the folly he described so accurately in his Iraq speech will go on.
Thanks to that vote, nothing will happen until Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, delivers his report in September. But dont expect too much even then. I hope he proves me wrong, but the generals history suggests that hes another smart, sensible enabler.
I dont know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasnt gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I dont think its standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.
In the article, General Petraeus told us that Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously. And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders are displaying courage and resilience and momentum has gathered in recent months.
In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that hell do the same thing three years later.
You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess were in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.
Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nations security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 259 | biliruben
ID: 35112816 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 18:21
|
How many countries can Cheney nuke in 2 hours? 5 tops, is my guess.
|
|
| | | 260 | Perm Dude
ID: 54650208 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 18:27
|
I guess Cheney's nightly vigil of waiting for Bush to fall asleep is over...
|
|
| | | 261 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 12:37
|
July 23, 2007 Editorial Observer Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War By ADAM COHEN
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesnt have the power to do it. I dont think Congress ought to be running the war, he said at a recent press conference. I think they ought to be funding the troops. He added magnanimously: Im certainly interested in their opinion.
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congresss side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitutions framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called the foetus of monarchy.
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europes history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.
Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed, he warned. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president commander in chief, a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be nothing more than first general and admiral, responsible for command and direction of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bushs assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congresss control over spending as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.
As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congresss role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clintons questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, he wrote. Mr. Edelmans response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an invitation to struggle among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.
|
|
| | | 262 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 13:11
|
great article there. for a few years, we were really in the grips on post-9/11 fear, and i think that's what allowed the balance of power to slip, and the hubris of Bush-Cheney, to grow.
it's a damned shame we have a president - that some people still support - that is more than willing to destroy 225 years of what this nation has stood for, for his own personal games.
|
|
| | | 263 | walk
ID: 2530286 Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 10:12
|
Bush Appointee Blocks Health Report
It's news like this, conducted by clearly extreme cronyism and misguided purpose, that fuels my negative feelings towards our administration. To boot, this gatekeeper and decision-maker, Steiger, has a degree in LatAm history, nothing to do with health and medicine. How is he in charge of this branch, making these calls?
|
|
| | |
| | | 265 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 15:34
|
This arrogant SOB Shrub, just doesnt get it!!
President Bush said Friday that Congress must stay in session until it approves legislation modernizing a U.S. law governing eavesdropping on foreigners.
So far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign, Bush said at FBI headquarters, where he was meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials. Weve worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short.
...
Earlier Friday, the White House offered an eleventh-hour accord to Democrats in the negotiations over the matter, saying it would agree to a court review of its foreign intelligence activities instead of leaving certification up to the attorney general and director of national intelligence.
But it attached several conditions that could be unacceptable to Democrats: that the review would only be after-the-fact and would only involve the administrations general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases, said a senior administration official speaking on condition of anonymity to more freely discuss internal deliberations.
Hold to your guns Congress!!!!!!!
|
|
| | | 266 | Perm Dude
ID: 3775538 Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 15:42
|
If it is one thing we can say for sure, it is that "good faith" can't be applied to or by this Administration.
pd
|
|
| | | 267 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 16:08
|
So far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign, Bush said at FBI headquarters, where he was meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials. Weve worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short.
why does this read like an i told you so should the terrorists attack again. Not to sound like a conspiraciest but....
|
|
| | | 268 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 20:31
|
This is a little off topic, but a long time ago Sarge and I discussed bringing Rumsfeld up on charges according to the Uniform Military Code of Justice(?). In principle, I agree with him. Given that Sarge is a lot more learned on that code than I am, I've been waiting for Sarge to come forth with specific violations against specific codes.
Carry on.
|
|
| | | 269 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 21:44
|
which I did, quite some time ago....
leading the list, is "Dereliction of Duty"; exasperated by "resulting in the deaths of US Military personnel".
An Op-Order (Operations Order), contains 5 specific elements. One of which, is "Security". The failure to provide sufficient personnel to secure KNOWN munitions storage depots, with KNOWN quantities of KNOWN explosives/munitions. is a basic failure in the most elementary of military planning stages/criteria.
There are more, but dinner is ready.
|
|
| | | 270 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Aug 04, 2007, 15:17
|
additionally, the CJCoS is required by Federal Law to brief the President. Rummy didnt allow this, instead taking the briefing himself, then after filtering it, relaying to the Pres. Former Chairman have tried to bully by him, but failed and were replaced or not considered for the position when THEIR position re this requirement was made known. This is a deliberate action on rummys part which in direct contravention of Federal Law.
|
|
| | | 271 | Seattle Zen
ID: 86541617 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 23:16
|
|
|
| | | 272 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 15:05
|
Inside Legal view of Admin Thinking
This article would likely be way too long to paste here, but it's a NY Times article that may require registration (and potentially a subscription). Let me know if I should copy & paste...
|
|
| | | 273 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 18:10
|
Nine months later, in June 2004, Goldsmith resigned. Although he refused to discuss his resignation at the time, he had led a small group of administration lawyers in a behind-the-scenes revolt against what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror. During his first weeks on the job, Goldsmith had discovered that the Office of Legal Counsel had written two legal opinions both drafted by Goldsmiths friend Yoo, who served as a deputy in the office about the authority of the executive branch to conduct coercive interrogations. Goldsmith considered these opinions, now known as the torture memos, to be tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed, and he fought to change them. He also found himself challenging the White House on a variety of other issues, ranging from surveillance to the trial of suspected terrorists. His efforts succeeded in bringing the Bush administration somewhat closer to what Goldsmith considered the rule of law although at considerable cost to Goldsmith himself. By the end of his tenure, he was worn out. I was disgusted with the whole process and fed up and exhausted, he told me recently. In my opinion, this is the topic of grave importance for which Bush will be remembered by those in the legal field.
The article is not blocked to non-members, but I think the link will go dead in a week. I cut and pasted the article into a Word document and saved it myself. It's a must read. Thanks, walk.
|
|
| | | 274 | walk
ID: 2530286 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 22:17
|
Sure thing SZ.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 277 | walk
ID: 2530286 Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 05:56
|
Bush/Gonzo/Cheney and Harsh Interrogations
Long but disturbing article shedding more light on the extent to which our administration granted the CIA approval to use severe interrogation methods (i.e. torture).
|
|
| | | 278 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 14:20
|
Impeachment: If not now, when?
On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation's founders were truly represented. The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table. In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution. Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly. Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, "The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration." Happy Thanksgiving indeed. While I'm against impeaching every President for the slightest disagreements, President Clinton for example, I think Cheney impeachment hearings would be jaw dropping. As we see again with Scott McClellan's book, those close to Bush and Cheney end up so disgusted by their actions that they are more than willing to give them up. Bring it!
|
|
| | | 279 | Perm Dude
ID: 161012259 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 14:37
|
Dems can't even muster a vote on withdrawing from Iraq. Impeachment isn't going to happen, IMO. Dems lack the balls.
|
|
| | | 280 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 15:58
|
I didn't know this was an impeachable offense: threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.
Then the author is, Linda Boyd is director of Washington For Impeachment, www.washingtonforimpeachment.org. Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney, in Olympia: www.citizensimpeach.org
Yeah, no bias there.
|
|
| | | 281 | Tree
ID: 461041257 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 16:36
|
Yeah, no bias there.
you did read that big ol' word at the top of the linked page, right? you know, the Big O - "OPINION"?
i realize that the people who you support want to squelch any opinion that dissenting, but it's still legal to have one - although, barely.
|
|
| | | 282 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 17:30
|
Is "threatening aggression" an impeachable offense Tree?
|
|
| | | 283 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 17:35
|
I didn't know this was an impeachable offense:...
What is or is not an impeachable offense is for Congress to decide. The Constitution is deliberately murky.
|
|
| | | 284 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 17:42
|
Do you realize the precedent that will be set if that is a successful criteria or do you really not care and you'll agree with your buddies Zen & Tree lockstep no matter what?
|
|
| | | 285 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 18:25
|
I don't think you'll have to worry about it, Boxman.
|
|
| | | 286 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 20:09
|
You ever calling Zen or Tree to task for their idiocy or the precedent of making "threatening aggression" a cause for impeachment? You know what, nevermind.
|
|
| | | 287 | Perm Dude
ID: 161012259 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 21:28
|
In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolutio
Not stunning at all. It was a purely polital move, designed to fracture the Dems, who didn't have the balls or votes to have a real hearing.
On the other hand, "threatening agression" was one of a long series of charges. I look forward to Boxman's forthcoming multi-part thread, "Defendng the Vice-President--Against Himself."
There's no doubt the Administration is guilty of impeachable offenses.
|
|
| | | 288 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 21:39
|
Boxman can't even pick a fight well.
|
|
| | | 289 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Sun, Nov 25, 2007, 23:40
|
You know, Boxman is awfully cavalier in tossing around the term "idiocy". It appears he is a strong proponent of "stick with what you know", and boy, does he know idiocy.
I link to an opinion piece because I found it interesting that a presidential candidate introduced articles of impeachment. I didn't opine on the merits of the charges because I have not read anything more than this little article.
Yet in a stretch of logic that only Karl Rove would approve, you accuse me of supporting everything in the articles and everything in the editorial. Guess what, Boxy, I agree with you. I think threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran is not an impeachable offense.
But what of the others? Can we infer from your Bill O'Reilly act that you are diverting the attention away from the manufacturing intelligence and lying to Congress accusations because you know these are to be true? I'm not going to make that assumption, but I seriously doubt that you will make a post refuting these charges because it is beyond your abilities of debate. MITH said it best: Boxman can't even pick a fight well.
|
|
| | | 290 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 03:41
|
Liberals love to say they just state the facts, but I can not think of a group, who uses propaganda, half truths and lies more than the Left. There was no manufactoring of intelligence, unless there was a world-wide conspiracy.
|
|
| | | 291 | Tree
ID: 61030265 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 06:43
|
Liberals love to say they just state the facts, but I can not think of a group, who uses propaganda, half truths and lies more than the Left.
one of the grandest, most sweeping, most entertaining, and downright hysterical posts in the history of this board, and another example of why i think Jag is a "gimmick" poster, the Colbert of this board.
|
|
| | | 292 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 09:41
|
True, Tree, that was a pretty Colbert-ish post #290.
There are clearly many impeachable offenses by our VP and Pres, but the bigger pic is that clear trend or pattern of management they have exercised in running our country that is counter to what the office was intended. I don't want to impeach Bush without also impeaching Dick or just Dick cos obviously Dick is the fallback to no Bush, and that would be, duh, far worse.
Lying to congress (WMD; warrentless wiretaps), outting a covert spy, sheer incompetency (poor Iraq war plan and lame execution), warrantless wire-tapping, manipulating elections (bogus voter fraud; US Attorney scandal), exploiting the vague "war on terror" to justify Guantanamo, suspension of heabeus corpus, subverting the Geneva Conventions, failing to supply subpoena'd doc's, excess authority of the executive branch, fiscal irresponsibility in military spending (both in terms of budgeting and also spending on protection and contractors), very high degrees of nepotism in choosing cabinet members, no-bid contracts to war-based firms that have not accounted for large fiscal losses, and ultimately a war for oil based on false pretenses (first a non-existent threat to the U.S. and then based on our compassion for those under the rule of Saddam).
A lot of this stuff could have been circumvented to some degree by a stronger Congress, but the first Congress was republican and went along with their bosses and the second is from the sissy party who just won't risk standing up to the big cheeses.
Impeachment should not be about lying about marital infidelity (particularly when so many of the accusers are also "infidels") or other interpersonal faluts, but about competence and consistency in making policies and decisions that are truthful and in the spirit of helping the country, not those in power. Corruption and deceit vary along a continuum, so it's not that other presidencies did not have their share of scandals or incompetencies, but the pattern of this presidency seemingly includes a high degree of greed, lies and overall bad judgment. Recently, a few CEOs have been fired in the financial services industry due to poor judgment related to the recent subprime mortgage credit fallout. Analogously, I see our Pres & VP being fired for similar poor judgment, 2-3 years ago.
|
|
| | | 293 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 12:25
|
Lying to congress (WMD; warrentless wiretaps), outting a covert spy, sheer incompetency (poor Iraq war plan and lame execution), warrantless wire-tapping, manipulating elections (bogus voter fraud; US Attorney scandal), exploiting the vague "war on terror" to justify Guantanamo, suspension of heabeus corpus, subverting the Geneva Conventions, failing to supply subpoena'd doc's, excess authority of the executive branch, fiscal irresponsibility in military spending (both in terms of budgeting and also spending on protection and contractors), very high degrees of nepotism in choosing cabinet members, no-bid contracts to war-based firms that have not accounted for large fiscal losses, and ultimately a war for oil based on false pretenses (first a non-existent threat to the U.S. and then based on our compassion for those under the rule of Saddam).
Point proven, half truths flow through this pure propaganda piece and even if it were true the majority are not impeachable offenses.
Let's see if the posters here have the abilitiy to examine Walk's paragraph and determine what is fact and what is conjecture. It is an 8th grade exercise and I bet 90% would fail.
|
|
| | | 294 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 12:47
|
If you say so, Jag. Impeachable offenses are treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. I think that Bush/Cheney have committed some crimes and misdemeanors. However, until you see their offenses as proven in a court of law, which is what impeachment and subsequent convication would do, then they have not done these alleged acts yet. Fine.
So, as you see it, Bush/Cheney did not knowingly or even actually: invade Iraq on either false or inaccurate pretenses, did not hire a horse trainer to manage the poorly executed federal response to Katrina, did not fire US Attorneys for political reasons, did not out Valerie Plame cos her husband disclosed our false intel as the premise for the Iraqi war, did not withold documentation about many of the ongoing investigations, did not suspend habeus corpus, did not subvert the geneva conventions by allowing extraordinary rendition and aggressive interrogations by the CIA, did not implement warrantless wiretapping without proper authority, did not have any ties to bogus voter fraud allegations and subsequent election procedures, did not fail to provide adequate armor and forces in Iraq, did not undermine our military and budget by over-spending on subcontractors and security firms with clear ties to the Administration. One could argue that they are even treasonous because these actions, particuarly Iraq, have undermine the government or national security (even though they allegedly intended to do the opposite).
|
|
| | | 295 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 12:49
|
Well, the first three are easy (WMD, warrantless wiretaps, the Plame affair). Perhaps you think Cheney didn't lie about WMD, doesn't engage in warrantless wiretaps, and had nothing to do with outing a CIA officer?
|
|
| | | 296 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:07
|
Walk I will rip your arguements soon enough, because you have not made even one statement that was not either misleading or a fabrication, but this is the perfect opportunity to prove the liberals on this board can not objectively tell what is propaganda and what is an actual fact.
My guess is many of the posters are younger and were never taught AvC (Americanism vs Communism). Maybe if they did have this class during their High School days, they wouldn''t be so socialistic, instead of the 'Why America Sux' and "Castro is a God' now being taught in the institutions of higher learning.
|
|
| | | 297 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:11
|
And your guess would be wrong, Jag. I'm just a dumb 45 year old.
Please rip away...head in the sand man.
|
|
| | | 298 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:15
|
What does Bush pillaging our treasury and constitution have to do with communism, Jag?
Start rebutting or butt out. Your bizarro generalizations that miss the mark by by about half the orbit of the moon are entertaining in a sad way, but it would be nice to see something from you that's even worth trying to refute.
|
|
| | | 299 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:29
|
Right now we have an Executive Branch which feels we can arrest anyone, anywhere, and hold them without charges as long as they want, without access to legal counsel. Being a citizen doesn't matter. Under this Administration you have no rights unless the Administration gives them to you.
Sounds a lot like the old USSR, Jag. So if you want to talk about the difference between America and "Communism" you've got a problem with this Administration, which continues to fail on its own merits to make that distinction clear.
|
|
| | | 300 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:30
|
For full disclosure purposes, I am writing a book, which will be a humerous and thought provoking look at Liberals and Liberalism. One of my assumptions will be Liberals do not have the ability to dissect the truth. I truly believe Liberals have a medical condition that hinders their ability to process information.
This is a simple exercise to help prove my point. You can not read an article an tell whether it is fact or opinion.
I will be writing the book with a friend, so my semi-literate ramblings will be put into a more coherent form.
|
|
| | | 301 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:40
|
I truly believe you have a medical condition, Jag. To say something like that, "Liberals have a medical condition," is just you trying to be like Ann Coulter. Nice role model.
|
|
| | | 302 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:43
|
Coulter already wrote a poorly written book or two disparaging liberals.
If you aim to upstage Anne, your sole supporter Baldwin will disown you.
Unless you are female and anorexic. Actually, female probably isn't necessary. I think it's anorexia that really gets him hot.
|
|
| | | 303 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:46
|
I truly believe Liberals have a medical condition that hinders their ability to process information
Which, of course, is not covered by the health plans of a Republican Administration.
So Jag "truly believes" that there is some unknown and undiscovered biologically-based medical condition which makes "truth" slippery to them? How ironic.
|
|
| | | 304 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:53
|
I have my own style. but I would be be lying if I said I wasn't trying to get a share of her market.
There is scientific evidence of people being more prone to a certain political persuasion. The study was actually done on why some are more likely to become a religious zealot, but I have found Liberals can be just as fanatical, than even the most fervent Bible thumper. I could probably win the Nobel Peace Prize with my studies, if they weren't controlled by the Left. Maybe I can ask them to donate there bodies to science, to see if the left side of their brain, which dictates emotion and imagination, is larger than the right side. I do believe their is is a left side brain dominating presense with all fanatics.
|
|
| | | 305 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 13:59
|
You mean to duplicate the work of the Nobel winner Robert Sperry, except with a twisted, far right bias, which actually refutes Sperry's findings of the left side of the brain controlling logic, facts, and reality?
Do you work for The Creationist Institute, by any chance?
|
|
| | | 306 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:06
|
PD, I know you have experience in this field and if my ramblings haven't completely offended you, i would like to pick your brain on a few items. My e-mail is kidd184@hotmail.com
|
|
| | | 307 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:10
|
Creationist institute?!?
Not those wacked-out, drug-addled, hedonist lefty, pinko bastards.
Jag's a real American. He splits his time between the Promise Keepers, the border Militia and the Aryan nation.
You know - centrists.
|
|
| | | 308 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:12
|
Jag, I'm not offended at all (truly). But your premise is the exact opposite of the currect literature on split brain research.
|
|
| | | 309 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:15
|
Nice article and that is what I will be researching for one chapter, although I had the sides trasposed, which kills some of the humor.
|
|
| | | 310 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:18
|
My guess is many of the posters are younger and were never taught AvC (Americanism vs Communism).
while far from being complete, the thread here... was a recent indicator of the demographics of this board.
forty three posters responded, with a mean and median age of over 36 years old.
|
|
| | | 311 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:28
|
I would be be lying if I said I wasn't trying to get a share of her market.
You'd do better going after Colbert's market, since his book is #1 and Coulter's latest book tanked.
Not only is Coulter's book currently languishing in the mid-30s, she's behind such literary luminaries as Nikki Sixx and Slash.
|
|
| | | 312 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:31
|
One of my points will be Liberals lack of understanding for hyperbole and facetiousness. This would explain the extreme hatred for Coulter, since most can't figure out when she is kidding. You would have an easier time explaining a Right wing joke to a room full of blondes, than one filled with Democrats.
|
|
| | | 313 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:40
|
Coulter herself says she isn't kidding, Jag. It isn't that "Liberals" can't figure it out.
I realize that painting her books as intentionally over-the-top makes it easier to dismiss the outcry her lies generate as merely a "misunderstanding." However, you have one big problem in that theory: Coulter herself says she is not writing hyperbole or satire.
|
|
| | | 314 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:43
|
I pretty go under the assumption that everything out of Anne's mouth is a joke. Simply a really bad joke.
Maybe it's rightwingnuts who have a mental deficiency which makes them lack the humor gene.
|
|
| | | 315 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:45
|
See - that's where you made your mistake, PD.
When she said she was being serious - she was only joking. Sheesh. 'Tupid librls.
|
|
| | | 316 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:48
|
Agree with bili on Coulter.
Agree with PD on everything else.
Jag, it is going to be hard to write a (satirically funny, giving you the benefit of the doubt) book about bio bases of liberalism if you are not somewhat familiar with biological bases of behavior. I think your book though would do a lot better if you focused on biological bases on extreme political views, be it right or left, than on just left. Then again, you may hit the mark by indicating that there is some part of the brain that is liberal and potentially augmented or moderated by exposure to certain environmental factors (my psych background is popping up). Enjoy yourself.
|
|
| | | 317 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 14:57
|
There are some outrageous statements Coulter stands by and others that were satirical.I don't read Coulter's books or Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Bill O'Reilly's, for that matter, although, I do occasionally read their articles. I don't need any talking head, from the Left ot Right, to help me form an opinion. I prefer to be given the facts and form my own.
|
|
| | | 318 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:05
|
Where do you get your facts, Jag?
|
|
| | | 319 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:26
|
Walk, the biomechanical aspect of Liberalism will be a small aspect of the book. Liberals are a hodgepodge many fanatical beliefs united under one flag to overthrow conservatism, not unlike Republicans and the religious right, but even you would have to admit many of your allies are nuts. One example will be the leader of PETA blaming global warming on cow farts. I will have a field day making humerous cracks on such Leftists as Rosie O'Donnel, Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte.
Guys, don't get me wrong, some of my best friends and some of the most intelligent people I know are Liberals and I truly like them, but I also strongly believe somewhere along the line their wires have been crossed.
It will probably take a year or more for me to see this project through to fruition and even if nothing comes of it, I will enjoy the process, to me arguing politics is enjoyable and all your rants and raves towards me increased the pleasure, my favorite moments on this forum were getting Sarge and Tree to call me an Arsehole.
My book will not be full of venom as many of the Right wing authors, but more of a self-help manual for the politically challenged Left.
|
|
| | | 320 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:32
|
Why any cordialties are ever wasted on discussing current events with such numb-minded morons are entirely beyond me. The amount of time he must spend wiping drool off his keyboard alone would preclude him from the ability to decently reseaarch any topic. Really, its like complimenting a chimp on how far he can accurately lob a fistful of his own scat.
|
|
| | | 321 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:38
|
Bili, I listen to ever major newscast, PBS (to check on the enemy) and search the net on topics that interest me. Non-bias reporting has become a pet peeve of mine. I find myself on almost every news item, whether it be television or print, determining if it coming from a Left, Right or Neutral position. The worse offenders of bias reporting are NBC and MSNBC, while some may have a natural inclination to one side or the other, these 2 networks have made purposeful move to be Liberal.
|
|
| | | 322 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:46
|
Right. Like the recent NYT article about Pakistan in which you whined to the forum about supposedly anti-Bush material that was almost precisely the same as was found in an article on FOXnews.com?
|
|
| | | 323 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:52
|
As I explain on that thread, Fox News, rightfully so, brought how Bush policy affected the situation 10 paragraphs after giving the primary information, the NYT made it the 2nd paragraph. That was one of the more subtle examples of Liberal bias, there are many more overt ones.
|
|
| | | 324 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:55
|
Subtle? You called it a "BS editorial" and a "trash job".
|
|
| | | 325 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 15:59
|
Ya, that sounded better than subtle propaganda. Still does.
|
|
| | | 326 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:08
|
As I said in that thread, its amazing how the simple placement of a single piece of entirely relevent information makes the difference between responsible reporting and an editorializing hit job.
You really must have a very keen eye for this sort of thing.
|
|
| | | 327 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:26
|
Actually, I do.
Here is an example from my local newspaper, that even far Leftist should be able to identify as propaganda. When Bush first got his tax cuts passed, our local newspaper read 'Bush Institutes Tax Cuts for the Rich' I cancelled my subscription the next day. Even you MITH would have to admit this had an agenda and be able to think of what would of been a non-bias headline.
|
|
| | | 328 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:31
|
You're right. It should have said, "...overwhelmingly for the rich".
That's a big word to jam into 40 pt font, however.
The subtlety could have been saved for paragraph 1.
|
|
| | | 329 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:48
|
Liberals are a hodgepodge many fanatical beliefs united under one flag
i'm pro-israel. and a leftist. i suppose it doesn't get more fanatical than that.
right at post 290, this thread became amusing.
Jag - if you want to be successful in your writing endeavour, i'd suggest writing a book that is a parody of those on the right - like O'Reilly, or Coulter or Hannity or the others you claim not to read - who like to generalize and lump all those who disagree with them as propaganda spewing liars with their wires crossed.
Stephen Colbert definitely has the top spot in that field. But based on your gimmick here, you could probably be a reasonably close number 2. or 8. but certainly top 10.
however, if you're going to write a book which will be a humerous and thought provoking look at Liberals and Liberalism, you may want to re-consider. not only is your writing not even remotely humourous (except in the way i noted), you may have some of the least thought-provoking posts in the history of the message board.
|
|
| | | 330 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:50
|
See, you are being intellectually dishonest. I know you have the ability to come up with a non-bias headline, but it would have the equivilance of Baldwin denying God.
|
|
| | | 331 | walk
ID: 7952415 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:56
|
Bush and Cheney should still be impeached though, Jag. They have harmed the country, and broken laws. You know it. It aint liberal thinking.
I find it interesting how you repeatedly claim that the whackos out there are liberals (e.g. the PETA whackjob), but don't similarly cite the other side's whatckos like Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, or Hannity -- and at the same time, claiming you are neutral or moderate.
(MS)NBC is not more liberal than Fox(News) is conservative. That's like saying Boston is more southern than Biloxi. Ba-dum-pish!
|
|
| | | 332 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 16:59
|
Is it wrong to write an article about who will overwhelmingly benefit from tax cuts?
If a Democrat President were to cut taxes along a scheme that greatly favored the poor, would it be biased to report it with a headline that read, "Clinton Snubs Middle Class With Tax Cuts"?
|
|
| | | 333 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:02
|
Okay, Jag - I know you hate actually talking about specific facts. It really tends to make your arguments look even sillier when we drill beyond the vast over-generalizations, but how am I being intellectually dishonest?
Because I referred to it as a tax cut at all, instead of a tax deferral whose burden is shifted largely from present-day rich to our future children and grandchildren? If you look at the deficit, it's almost entirely due to the tax-deferral for which future tax-payers will eventually have to pay. The remainder is due to the war.
In retrospect you are right. It wasn't a tax cut at all. Very dishonest of me.
|
|
| | | 334 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:08
|
One isn't being "conservative" by borrowing other people's money to pay for your own pet projects.
|
|
| | | 335 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:19
|
I disagree with much O'Reilly says, but he is far from being a wacko and actually makes some great points at times, Rosie O'Donnel, Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte, however, are crackpots and offer nothing of relevence.
I have never heard the Right wing equivilance of cow farts causing global warming.
MITH, your headline would have a conservative bias.
All the Liberal hatred towards Cheney is unfounded. No one truly knows the influence he has in the administration, except he and Bush. I am not a Cheney fan, but I find myself defending him, because the attacks from the Left are some of the most vicious and unwarranted diatribes I have ever seen.
|
|
| | | 336 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:24
|
I have never heard the Right wing equivilance of cow farts causing global warming.
never mind that there is something behind that, but, as bili pointed out, dealing in facts is not your strong suit.
I have never heard the Right wing equivilance of cow farts causing global warming.
read World Net Daily. or, listen to just about anything Fred Phelps and his followers have to say.
|
|
| | | 337 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:28
|
All the Liberal hatred towards Cheney is unfounded
All? And the most vicious? Apparently you we're around during the Clinton Administration, when some conservative "think tanks" hired people, full-time, to dig up and publish dirt on the Clintons.
A far more interesting book, to me, is one that details how this Administration has taken on the worst attributes of what it ascribes as "Liberalism" (runaway spending, programs which have no goals except to spend money, no accountability, fighting a war on terror so badly that we're actually less safe, allowing Pakistan and North Korea to both get the bomb on their watch, etc), but somehow are still called both "conservative" and "Republicans." The Administration, like them or not, bears no resemblance to conservative political philosophy.
Obviously, reflexive partisanship (as displayed by Jag in this thread) plays a part in propping up such a far-left Administration. But the media I think plays a part as well, and there seems to be a real disconnect between inside-the-beltway political reporting and outside-the-beltway political reporting.
|
|
| | | 338 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:34
|
Bili, you prove my point, once again. One item I would like to discover is if Bili truly does not possess the ability to spot propaganda or if he is in denile. He obviously can not step out of Left-wing mode to answer what should be a non-political question. What scares me is these type of personalities are dominating our college professorships, people completely incapable of having objective opinion.
|
|
| | | 339 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:39
|
I will be reporting on the silliness of the Left, bad behavior on the Right does not justify or excuse the Left.
|
|
| | | 340 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:47
|
I wasn't asking you to change the theme of your book. You don't have it in you to report dispassionately on this Administration, particularly one that abandoned completely your own core values and yet continues to be defended by you. It's a pride thing--I understand.
I'm just saying that it would be a good idea if such a book were to be written.
|
|
| | | 341 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:48
|
Once again, you show a complete lack of ability to explain what on earth you are talking about. Good luck with that book. I recommend using Dr. Seuss as your muse rather than Coulter.
If you look through these posts you will find that I have shown a strong and sustained ability and logical thought which often runs strongly contrary to standard liberal positions. You aren't worth even the time it is taking to write this paragraph as you are mental midget not even vaguely capable of recognizing your vast and substantial limitations, but I'll give you some starting points to where I differ from standard liberal ideals:
Gun control Education Second Hand Smoke Seat belts Helmet laws Taxation Health Care Pacifism
Spend some time looking up my positions, then perhaps rethink your book.
Perhaps something more suited to your talents, like. Hop on Pop. You can rhyme, can't you?
|
|
| | | 342 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:52
|
PD, your post exemplifies one point I will be making, Liberals are like the menopausal wife, who stands over the husband telling him everything he is doing is wrong, without a clue on how to do anything herself. I am sure this is something to which every guy can relate. I know I am going back to generalizing, but when I tried to discuss specifically how bias can applied to the media from both the Left and Right, it fell flat.
|
|
| | | 343 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:52
|
Is that subtitled "The Larry Craig Story"?
|
|
| | | 344 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:56
|
PD, I have a Liberal friend, who repeated post 340, almost by verbatim.
|
|
| | | 345 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 17:56
|
Or, perhaps as in this breaking news, The Trent Lott Story ?
|
|
| | | 346 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 18:44
|
Jag - To what do you attribute the manner in which so many who have served in the Bush administration have come out with such negativity towards him and Cheney after leaving their jobs with him, The latest being Scott McLellan ?
Do you believe that these persons, who have pretty much been conservatives during their political careers, have suddenly experienced some sort of physical transformation making them suddenly become unreasonable backers of the dark side? Are they now suffering from the same physical attributes that make liberals so close minded and unable to recognize the goodness in Bush or Cheney?
|
|
| | | 347 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:01
|
Trolls have no friends, can't write books much less coherent paragraphs, and waste bandwidth. Why in the world do you bother to ask him questions? Ignore him and he'll slink away.
Boxman, on the other hand, slinks away when you ask him questions...
|
|
| | | 348 | Tree
ID: 431012618 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:04
|
this thread is still really fun. but, kind of sad too. i feel like we're making fun of a retard, or at least the town fool.
|
|
| | | 349 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:09
|
I am not a Cheney fan, but nor do I believe he is the 2nd coming of Lucifer. When I hear superfluous remarks like 'We went to war because Cheney wanted to help Haliburton' or 'Ultimately a war for oil based on false pretenses' that I find myself defending the Bush administration, when I actually just want to refute such ridiculous statements.
|
|
| | | 350 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:18
|
'Ultimately a war for oil based on false pretenses'
is not a ridiculous statement.
'Ultimately a war to spread democracy to the ME'
or
'Ultimately a war in defense of the United States'
would be ridiculous statements.
|
|
| | | 351 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:20
|
Glad to see all those blunts haven't dulled your wit, Zen. Your humor is as pognant as your political insight.
|
|
| | | 352 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:20
|
So go ahead and show us you can refute something. I, for one, don't think you have the ability to refute the sun revolving around the earth.
All I've seen you do is say "Cheney's Evil. Hah, hah. See how silly that is!"
Brilliant.
Are you even capable of making any sort of reasoned argument? If so, I haven't seen it.
|
|
| | | 353 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:26
|
Excuse me, poignant.
I am just curious if Tree or Zen will actually ever make a relative post? Not that I don't find Zen's cut and paste cartoons or Tree's 6th grade smack talk fascinating.
|
|
| | | 354 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:27
|
It is one thing to be against statements which, at best, are over reaching when it comes to Cheney. It is another to, essentially, put yourself out as naive or lying with All the Liberal hatred towards Cheney is unfounded.
I guarantee you that if a Democratic Administration made such strongarm attempts at the accumulation of unchecked Executive power while hiding behind "national security" that you'd be running in the streets crazed with anger.
|
|
| | | 355 | biliruben
ID: 471081612 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:34
|
All the worthwhile conservative posters with good ideas and the means to communicate them have either hid their heads in shame on converted to another party (it's amazing how many Ron Paul signs I see in the conservative, wealthy enclaves of Seattle), and here we are reduced to poking a stick at the only moron with not enough sense realize there is no defense of the current administration and no ability to justify it if there were.
Pathetic.
|
|
| | | 356 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:48
|
Boxman, on the other hand, slinks away when you ask him questions...
Not true really. It's just comical to watch Mith defend you and Tree ad nauseum. Mith actually plays the Politics Forum The Home Game. You guys are all buddies on fantasy teams and whatever so he never takes you to task. I remember in response to one of my posts about you he directed me to a thread where you discussed your ecstasy addiction and he just dismissed your behavior. As if he'd ever give Baldwin, me or Jag the same consideration.
I mean really look at this thread. Someone knocks a far left wing opinion piece and you, Tree, and Mith come out guns blazing. The problem is that you guys shoot blanks and lack credibility.
Biliruben: It has boggled my mind for as long as I've posted here that a sports site is chock full of a bunch of left wing loons. A bunch of you guys are probably the same limp people that complain about dodge ball in gym class because it hurts the feeeeelings of the weaker kids; yet on the internet you guys multiply like crabs in a whore house.
The conservatives that have posted here in the past probably just lurk and giggle when Sarge cries about Wal Mart and demands price controls for darn near everything yet he tries to tell you he'll vote Republican, Zen posts a cartoon, Tree makes a dumb remark (24/7), and Mith does his best bully impersonation.
The liberal cause is discredited simply by the fact that ANY descent, as microcosmed (check the spelling on that one) in this forum, is met with an immediate blitzkreig swarm that would have Rommel jealous. You people are so insecure in your own belief system that you need sad saps like Zen and Tree to pat you on the back and tell you everything is OK and the right is full of BS.
I do enjoy the stock conversations with Nerveclinic and the misc. discussions immensely however.
|
|
| | | 357 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:54
|
Back to the feelings, thing, eh? I understand you not wanting to get involved in the content of Jag's assertions, Boxman, but it is sad that you mock people for caring how others feel in a post which is all about how you feel and is iself content-free.
|
|
| | | 358 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 19:56
|
PD, you don't see any of the sociological behavior on these forums that I have suggested?
|
|
| | | 359 | Perm Dude
ID: 5610352615 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 20:25
|
I think it is co-relational rather than causal. Jag's argument draws the condemnation of those on the forum, all of whom are on the "left." This itself isn't bias if the argument is bogus and nearly everyone still on the boards is on the "left."
BTW, Bush's "state secrets" coverall is getting a closer look. About damn time.
The principle was established a half-century ago when, ruling in a wrongful-death case brought by the widows of civilians killed in a military plane crash, the Supreme Court upheld the Air Force's refusal to provide an accident report to the plaintiffs. The government contended releasing the document would compromise information about a secret mission and intelligence equipment.
Left unsaid is that the information was eventually released, nearly 50 years later, and the information actually had no secrets at all. Also left unsaid is that the information was not provided to the court not just the plaintiffs.
Like a stack of lies. Bush relies on a "state secrets" doctrine which is based upon a court case decided by a lie. The Bush Legacy in a nutshell.
|
|
| | |
| | | 361 | Building 7
ID: 41943112 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 20:44
|
Boxman #356 Mith actually plays the Politics Forum The Home Game.
#356 is one of your best posts ever.
|
|
| | | 362 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 21:10
|
a bunch of left wing loons
I can't imagine anything more looney than starting a major war without doing prior due diligence as this administration did. Yet, I doubt the term right wing loons never crosses your mind.
The problem for those of us with that lean libertarian, is that this administration gave us all the worst of conservatism(reckless, expensive military adventures; rampant corporate and lobbying abuse; assault on civil liberties) and none of the positives of conservatism(limited government; sensible spending).
To me, Tom DeLay is every bit the loon that Nancy Pelosi is.
But there is no one on this forum that fits the loon description more than Jag.
|
|
| | | 363 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 21:40
|
I don't know, PV. At least in his dealings with me, Boxman makes a very strong case.
Boxman, I pointed to Zen's description of himself as a way to help you understand where he's coming from. Twisting that into a defense of the recreational activity he described in that post is a testament to your small-mindedness. As are these rediculous demands of yours that I lambast every idea that you assume I should disagree with.
****** Think about it you idiot: why should I call him out on his support for the precedent in post 278 when he never expressed any such support? And how do you know I disagree with such a precedent, anyway, fool? I have no idea whether I ever defended Zen's recreational extacy use, but if I did on what grounds tdo you take an acusatory tone with me for doing so? In both cases I never bothered to share my opinion with you on the issue -- so you took it upon yourself to assign me opinions (conveniently aligned with your own, no less) and then chastized me for not defending it with hostility! ******
Are you really that desperate to turn the tables on me for regularly pointing out the inconsistancies in your own stated worldview and opinions? Desperation combined with stupidity and ignorance make you one extra special package my friend.
The "home team" notion is funny, too. My scrapes with Tree are not infrequent and sometimes not at all mild either and Zen is perhaps the least position-conflicted current regular at this forum. When I do disagree with him I tend to know exactly where he's coming from and why he feels that way, unlike you and others present who front false paradigms and then react and behave contrary to those ideals. If you're tired of being exposed as a fraud you're not going to fix it by trying to make me look like one.
|
|
| | | 364 | walk
ID: 2530286 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 22:13
|
Per #359, and Bush and Cheney should STILL be impeached (every 40 or so posts about Jag and his mockery of our mockery of the administration) must be brought back to task.
So, Jag, if it's lunacy that some (I) think the Iraq war was about oil and started by false pretenses, why do you think we invaded Iraq?
|
|
| | | 365 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 22:33
|
Boxman -
Why do you bother coming to the Political Forum? I cannot remember a single post from you of any depth. On the other hand, when the topics of televisions or HD DVD v. Blu Ray appears, you expound with dissertation-level eloquence. Hey, that's fine, most people don't follow politics with anything more than a passing interest, few people can raise a strong argument on political topics. So, why do you visit?
If you believe that impeaching Cheney or Bush is a mistake, make that argument. One good way of doing that is to take each argument in the article and refute individually. One line dismissals are useless. Hey, topics like habeus corpus are not simple, but you would learn a lot by crafting an argument supporting this administration's policy as it regards the "detainees". Hell, you might even rethink your own positions.
Instead, you carp on the "sociology" of the group. Without contributing to the discussion, why should anyone care about your criticisms?
Your crack about my "ecstasy addiction" had me rolling (pun intended!) Yeah, doing X twice in the last four years, it's amazing my body is still working. Yeah, I'm addicted to X like Carl Lewis was addicted to the Olympics. Look, like many, many other things in life, you don't understand drugs and I'm not going to bother to explain them to you.
I do enjoy the stock conversations with Nerveclinic
Yeah, that's the one thing that is perfectly clear, you love to talk about yourself, but not really yourself, you like to talk about the stuff you have bought for yourself, as if it defines you. We all know about the cars and TV's that make you so proud, but I believe it says somewhere in that book you like so much that a rich man has the same chance of ending up in heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Perhaps you have a philosophical side, perhaps you discuss matters of real import with others away from here, but I suspect you don't. I think you will find that if you tried to make a conservative argument using strong logic, backed with facts, people would applaud and respond, either with praise or well reasoned refute.
As for the cartoons, well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. David Horsey is one of only two two time Pulitzer Prize award winning editorial cartoonists ever. I think he is brilliant and y'all should thank me for sharing many of his highlights.
|
|
| | | 366 | Tree
ID: 431012618 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 00:07
|
It's just comical to watch Mith defend you and Tree ad nauseum...You guys are all buddies on fantasy teams and whatever so he never takes you to task.
this thread just gets better and better. please bring whatever you're smoking to my place, because right now you are on the high of all highs.
MITH has probably taken me to task more than anyone on this board. his words are battering and bruising, and often, not at all friendly.
and regarding fantasy teams? i'm hopeful that this at least made MITH chuckle like it did me, because he and i certainly don't see eye to eye in fantasy sports, specifically in one league in which i am no longer a manager.
A bunch of you guys are probably the same limp people that complain about dodge ball in gym class because it hurts the feeeeelings of the weaker kids;
this is one of the better generalizations right wing nut jobs put forth. i love hearing it, because it's so absurd. i've met a few of the leftists on this board, and i'm pretty confident in saying that if push came to shove, they could pound somebody pretty solidly...
|
|
| | | 367 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 00:12
|
I tried to keep an on topic discussion on what is bias. This could of been done by 6th grade elementary students, but not one Liberal here on this forum could make an intelligent statement on topic. They had to expound on their Left-wing ideology, instead of having a decent discussion. If they agreed with bias, than it was not bias. I must admit I fell back to my generalization of Liberals afterwards, but the futility of trying to have an objecty study took it's toll. You guys really need to look in the mirror, I half jokingly calling Liberals the biggest hypocrites in the world, but this thread had shown to any objective person, the Left here have absolutely no substance. It is a shame, there was a time when I could pick a good fight here and get intelligent feedback even if i didn't agree with it. Other than PD, not one of you has made a thought provoking statement. Keeping with your usual tenet I am sure it is one of the conservatives fault for this digression. You guys are becoming the comic relief I generalize you to be and be truthful, that is not my opinion of all Liberals. I am seeing this trend not only on this forum, but with Liberals as a whole. I believe there is fustration people are not understanding your ideology and it never occurred to you, that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong and the majority know it.
|
|
| | | 368 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 07:00
|
I tried to keep an on topic discussion on what is bias. This could of been done by 6th grade elementary students, but not one Liberal here on this forum could make an intelligent statement on topic.
Well there's yer problem! A discussion about bias in a thread about impeachment is not on-topic. Too bad you're not a 6th grade elementary student, perhaps then you would have been able to figure out what the topic was.
|
|
| | | 369 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 09:12
|
there was a time when I could pick a good fight here and get intelligent feedback even if i didn't agree with it.
Therein lies the problem, Jag. Nearly every post you've made in this forum contains one of the following words:
Left Libs Liberal
Scan the list of threads on the main politics page. There are numerous topics that beg for comment free of a left/right dichotomy. But it doesn't seem like contribution based on a moderate position(you claim to be a moderate, after all) interests you in the least. As you honestly stated, you come to pick fights, based on emotionalism, generalization, and insults.
When challenged, you resort to not one Liberal here on this forum could make an intelligent statement on topic.
You claim that I don't read Coulter's books or Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Bill O'Reilly's, for that matter, although, I do occasionally read their articles. I don't need any talking head, from the Left ot Right, to help me form an opinion. I prefer to be given the facts and form my own.
yet you parrot these pundits almost verbatim.
You want to recognized as an individual, but you don't want to afford others the same consideration. You want to make determinations based on Liberals as a whole.
Guess what? There is no such thing as Liberals(or Conservatives) as a whole, not on this forum, not in this country, and not on this planet. It's just a very lazy way to approach politics, and the antithesis of moderate.
|
|
| | | 370 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 09:19
|
Why do you bother coming to the Political Forum? I cannot remember a single post from you of any depth. On the other hand, when the topics of televisions or HD DVD v. Blu Ray appears, you expound with dissertation-level eloquence. Hey, that's fine, most people don't follow politics with anything more than a passing interest, few people can raise a strong argument on political topics. So, why do you visit?
I explained to Toral, who quit these forums by the way because he got sick of the lefties around here, that I do not have the time or the inclination to put forth a masters thesis on a political topic.
I would argue that your little cartoons don't do jack squat in that department either, so why do you bother posting?
What does Tree's little b!tch sniping do? Mith's bullying? Why do they bother posting?
Do you guys really think conservatives have left this board en masse because you are correct?
I do love helping people out when they've got a purchasing decision of some sort to make or some other type of issue. It's in my nature to share what I've learned in life and try and help people. Unlike this specific forum, people don't really resort to name calling and gang banging tactics when you're talking about shopping on Black Friday or debating Blu Ray vs. HD-DVD. The stock market discussions are really more informative than traditional debating. Whatever strategy Nerveclinic or whomever uses, as long as it works for them and makes them $$$, I think that's outstanding. I have a particular road I follow that's done very well for me so I don't mind sharing it and seeing what I can learn from someone like Nerve.
|
|
| | | 371 | Baldwin
ID: 4610171922 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 10:43
|
It's pretty hard to have an intelligent debate with an ideological group committed to the tactic of inciting the mob to boo to drown out intelligent debate.
They've been leaning on that crutch since guillotines were set up in French public squares and the term 'politcal left' was invented. The few conservatives who pop up regularly and attempt to offer them a fair debate have been wasting their time.
What purpose booing to an empty stage serves them is anyone's guess. I would suggest it's the left figuring that if they are incapable of an intelligent debate then no one gets to have an intelligent debate. Only fair way to equalize things for the mentally deficient sheep and equality trumps truth for them every time.
|
|
| | | 372 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 11:01
|
outed:
For full disclosure purposes, I am writing a book, which will be a humerous and thought provoking look at Liberals and Liberalism. One of my assumptions will be Liberals do not have the ability to dissect the truth. I truly believe Liberals have a medical condition that hinders their ability to process information.
This is a simple exercise to help prove my point. You can not read an article an tell whether it is fact or opinion.
I will be writing the book with a friend, so my semi-literate ramblings will be put into a more coherent form.
Jag = AC
|
|
| | | 373 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 11:14
|
re 356...Box...show me one post, one time, where I have called for or endorsed, Federal "Price Controls". Either show it to me, or quit claiming that I have done so. (Hint: I havent. What I HAVE called for, is some form of wage increase based on longevity or profit-sharing for the hourly workers. As I have said many tiomes in the past, the problem to me isnt the minimum wage, its the fact that too many employers KEEP hourly workers at the minimum wage, even after 5, 10, 15 years of continuous employment. If a worker is worth keeping on the payroll for 10 years, then they are worth paying more than minimum wage.)
|
|
| | | 374 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 11:34
|
It's pretty hard to have an intelligent debate with an ideological group committed to the tactic of inciting the mob to boo to drown out intelligent debate.
ROFL! The party of the Swiftboaters, Terry Schiavo's "rescuers" and "the institution of marriage is in peril" are all about quiet and thougtful debate, eh?
Don't look now, Baldwin, but the Republican boat has left the dock. When granted virtually unchecked power to institute policy based upon their political philosophy, Republicans in Washington actually act like the worst things they say their political opponents would do.
I suspect that many otherwise intelligent Republicans have quit because their party has abandoned them. You, on the other hand, insist upon fighting the 60's again.
|
|
| | | 375 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 11:48
|
i have been busy and not been reading as much, but i totally agree with boxman in post 370 and have to say some of the technology and stock threads have been the best to read and most of political threads of recent have become pretty boring and one sided.
|
|
| | | 376 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 11:53
|
It's pretty hard to have an intelligent debate with an ideological group committed to the tactic of inciting the mob to boo to drown out intelligent debate.
Pat Buchanan's article on TownHall today
Response to Buchanan's article by poster True Conservative:
Pat and Other Idiot Liberal Posters So Iraq cannot be "democratized" ... do any of you fools remember the Iraqis ENTHUSIASTICALLY voted in real elections for the first time ... cannot be democratized indeed. Would the world be better off, not to mention the people of the Middle East if their were more democracies there? Can you idiots and Pat answer that one?
In a world where 9/11 is just the beginning, you morons keep up this charade that isolationism can work ... when a nuclear missile can hit us in less than 30 minutes; let's disengage and take our chances. What incredible idiodicy! Bush makes more right choices in a morning than Pat and his acolytes will make in a lifetime!
I won't even comment on the fantastic stupidity of the assertion that Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were a direct consequence of Wilson's policies ... following something in history does not make that a CAUSE of said events; but I'm afraid that's the extent of the intellectual firepower of Pat and his ever mindless posters!
This is a typical response to a Buchanan article. So, you're right, it's pretty hard to have an intelligent debate with an ideological group committed to the tactic of inciting the mob to boo to drown out intelligent debate. The same holds true for today's radical brand of conservatism which will gladly eat their own if they dare stray from the "Libs are traitors" rhetoric.
|
|
| | | 377 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 13:37
|
Box -
Do you guys really think conservatives have left this board en masse because you are correct?
no, i don't. i think they left this board, slowly, over the past several years, because there was no point in defending the indefensible. from the get-go - be it Bush's (s)election in 2000 to his run up to the war, many of us in the left were giving pretty specific warnings - and many of them actually did come to pass.
but that's not why those on the Right have left this board. They left this board, like they left their party - or, rather, their party left them.
This is not your father's Republican party. heck, it's not even your older brother's Republican party.
|
|
| | | 378 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:15
|
Actually I don't agree with Tree there at all.
Boxman
Numerous regulars who were valuable contributers left the forum for various reasons.
Madman: left around the time he got married. Shortly after he ceased contributing to the blog he helped establish and extensively contributed to.
Steve Houpt: I don't know why Steve left.
Both of these people were active for years discussing politics with Biliruben, Tree, Seattle Zen, me and other lefties. While debates were not always civil, they kept coming back for years and to my recollection didn't cite any specific problem with "liberals" here.
Toral: despite your claim that he "quit these forums... because he got sick of the lefties around here" actually left over much more general frustration with the deteriorating quality of posts here. Two prominant pieces of evidence that his issue was with overall quality and not just that of liberals: 1. The only new regular contributers of the past several years are both conservatives (term applied very loosely) - Boxman and Jag. 2. Post 210 in this thread. While he soon after apologized to "anyone he may have offended" he certainly didn't take back any of the harsh things he said about your and Jag's contributions to the forum, either.
And of course there are an equal number of formerly prominant and valuable non-rightist posters who have also departed:
Jame K Polk: left at around the same time as Houpt.
Jazz Dreamers: posted less and less frequently over time and hasn't been seen here in a long while.
Soxzeitgeist: same as Jazz Dreamers, though I believe we'll still occasionally see him pop his head in from time to time.
|
|
| | | 379 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:19
|
Lying to congress (WMD; warrentless wiretaps), outting a covert spy, sheer incompetency (poor Iraq war plan and lame execution), warrantless wire-tapping, manipulating elections (bogus voter fraud; US Attorney scandal), exploiting the vague "war on terror" to justify Guantanamo, suspension of heabeus corpus, subverting the Geneva Conventions, failing to supply subpoena'd doc's, excess authority of the executive branch, fiscal irresponsibility in military spending (both in terms of budgeting and also spending on protection and contractors), very high degrees of nepotism in choosing cabinet members, no-bid contracts to war-based firms that have not accounted for large fiscal losses, and ultimately a war for oil based on false pretenses (first a non-existent threat to the U.S. and then based on our compassion for those under the rule of Saddam).
I said I would dissect this paragraph and point out the errors, so here we go. Lying to congress (WMD; warrentless wiretaps)
There is absolutely no proof the Bush administration lied about WMD, at worse they got misinformation and the general belief is Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD. The wiretaps issue is a point of order for the courts, Bush's interpretation is he can wiretap non US citizens. I hope the courts do not change this policy, it may be our greatest asset for fighting terrorism. To even mention this items for grounds of impeach shows pure flash over substance.
outting a covert spy Someone misinformed could bring this point up, but everyone on this forum knows there was no malice to the outting and the offender was one of the most Liberal friendly members in the administration. It was a poorly kept secret of little relevance. She was not a field operator and arguably married to a gloryhound seeking the spotlight. To bring this item up for grounds for impeachment is just plain silly and disingenuous. Walk points like these are not even debatable unless you just want to argue, I know you more intelligent than to believe these are impeachable offenses and you are just playing 'Gotcha' games.
If incompetence was a crime Jimmy Carter and every Liberal politician would be under the jail. again, this is silly and not worthy of you. I am sure with foresight, Bush would have done things differently, but I truly believe if Liberals possessed time-travel ability, they would still screw up. They will always try to fit that square peg in the round hole for as long as they live.
manipulating elections (bogus voter fraud0 This is a bit of joke and I know accusations have flown around, but none at Bush himself. The most noted voter fraud offenders are A.C.O.R.N. Why even mention this unless you are just looking for filler to make your charges longer. Again, not even worthy of debate.
exploiting the vague "war on terror" to justify Guantanamo
How would you word that for impeachment?
fiscal irresponsibility in military spending (both in terms of budgeting and also spending on protection and contractors)
There has never been fiscal responsibility, ever by any party at any time.
I could rip ever arguement here, but come on, is this worthy of a lengthy debate. I don't think the posters here believe there is grounds for impeachment. We could impeach every politician in office with nonsense like this, from the lowest Alderman to the President.
|
|
| | | 380 | walk
ID: 7952415 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:20
|
I dunno. I think there's more folks from the right side who openly and maybe for fun frequently bash "liberals" as having [fill in the blank negative characterstics,] and that's not intellectual discourse. Jag, you are a prime culprit here. I think then, in defense, some of us "liberals" counter by attacking the said generalizers and that heightens the tensions cos we are making it direct, to the individual. However, I try not to make blanket generalizations about "conservatives" or "republicans," but since 2000, focus my intensities towards politicians in the republican party (the party sorta responsible for the way things are in our country right now) making policy decisions. I defintely spew anti-Cheney and anti-Bush sentiment, but I think they have mucked things up on several fronts, and I don't think it's just "liberals" who feel that way, and I don't think the muck-up's are slight.
So, to some extent, I do suspect that Tree is correct that it's hard to defend the indefensible, but I'm also thinking that when one is aligned to certain political party, and that party who is governing consistently makes some big and erroneous decisions, it's very difficult to turn against one's own hard-grained beliefs and loyalties. I guess there's always the two sides thing, and that there's really a firm belief that Bush/Cheney have really done nothing wrong, and that they have helped the country, and are protecting the country. I say this not believing it myself, but coming off of an intense debate with a buddy who is smart, informed guy who believes just that: that our country has not been attacked since 9/11, that national security comes first, that we cannot take chances, that the civil liberties traded off for national security are not really felt by the average joe, that Saddam was really bad and had to go, that the war cannot be judged for another 10 years, and that he'd rate Cheney "neutral" in terms of his effectiveness. I disagreed on all of these points, opinions, etc., but I guess it shows that there's various viewpoints.
I'm incredulous that anyone could really think that the Iraq war was necessary, and that we cannot definitely conclude that it has made things worse in the world and worse for our national security. On the other allegations that the Admin has had much cronyism, some corruption, outsourced too much, engaged in very intense partisan politics (Rove tactics, Plame, Alberto Gonzales' US Attorney thing, driven up the debt too much), the responses were "not true, it's Democrats playing hardball." I just don't think so.
|
|
| | | 381 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:32
|
Bush's interpretation is he can wiretap non US citizens
Actually, Bush believes he can wiretap anyone, citizen or not, domestically-original call or not, without a warrant.
Someone misinformed could bring this point up, but everyone on this forum knows there was no malice to the outting and the offender was one of the most Liberal friendly members in the administration. It was a poorly kept secret of little relevance. She was not a field operator and arguably married to a gloryhound seeking the spotlight. To bring this item up for grounds for impeachment is just plain silly and disingenuous. Walk points like these are not even debatable unless you just want to argue, I know you more intelligent than to believe these are impeachable offenses and you are just playing 'Gotcha' games.
It is hard to choose one of the many mistatements being made in this nugget. Pretty much everything in this statement is wrong.
-Malice: No one here mentioned "malice." This is a red herring word. Yet, we know that the outing was made as a direct response to Joe Wilson's NYT article.
-poorly-kept secret: This was either a secret or not (it was never "poorly-kept"). It became a "not secret" by the administration.
-"not a field operator": This is a lie Simply repeating the right-wing talking point doesn't make it truthful. From the article above:
Yesterday's story about Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert. That conclusion is consistent with the initial 2003 determination of the CIA that she was covert, the subsequent confirmation from the current CIA Director (handpicked by Bush and Cheney) that she was covert, which in turn was confirmed by Plame herself when testifying under oath, all of which led the Republican federal prosecutor to emphatically state this in court.
-"arguably married to a gloryhound": I think you meant "married to an arguably gloryhound" or simply "married to a gloryhound." No one is making an argument that she wasn't married to Joe Wilson.
:)
|
|
| | | 382 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:35
|
Prosecute Armitage then.
|
|
| | | 383 | walk
ID: 7952415 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:35
|
Hi Jag, I cross-posted #380 with your #379, so my post is not in response to your #379, so here goes:
Ultimately, I don't think you refuted any of the allegations I provided, but they have been discussed at length in separate individual threads anyway. You pretty much just summarily dismiss them as "not worthy, a joke, not genuine, beneath me, a filler, not even debatable," etc.
How could you possibly know that Plame was not outted in malice or was not a field operator? How could anyone know that?
Incompetency surely applies cos impeachment includes "undermining our national security," and I think a poorly planned, executed and bogus war has undermined our national security (e.g. we have far fewer defenses at home; our military is taxed and not ready in the event we had to go to war with a real enemy)
IMO, the leader is accountable for the behaviors of those he or she hires. From the war in Iraq, to Katrina, to the US Attorneys, to everything else mentioned, it adds up to poor leadership. I'll then gladly accept one or more of Cheney/Bush's "crimes or misdemeanors" as literally the excuse to get them out of power. They are poor leaders. Poor leaders should be fired; it's not that big of a deal. Happens all the time. You can have your Jimmy Carter. We can go back to the future and you can impeach and convict him. Fine by me. I don't even know what he did that was so bad, but if he did stuff as bad as these two, then I'd say it's same standard (that the sum total of his policies and actions, including subverting the constitution and 8 gzillion signing exceptions). Whatever. It's not a personal thing against Bush & Cheney; just like I feel we are a country that is losing ground, losing stature, losing credibility, losing respect, losing $ value, losing fuel, and just LOSING. They are losers. I don't want my country to be a loser. I like my country. I So, get rid of the managers. I want my country to be well-run.
|
|
| | | 384 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:42
|
Lying to congress (WMD; warrentless wiretaps)
There is absolutely no proof the Bush administration lied about WMD, at worse they got misinformation and the general belief is Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD. The wiretaps issue is a point of order for the courts, Bush's interpretation is he can wiretap non US citizens. I hope the courts do not change this policy, it may be our greatest asset for fighting terrorism. To even mention this items for grounds of impeach shows pure flash over substance.
Numerous Intel Analysts have stated that they were directed to word their findings in such-n-such a way so as to support the contention of WMDs at best, and to not dispute such a contention at worst.
Specifics escape me atm, but recollection seems that many of these came to light, when Bolton was nominated as US Representative to the UN.
As for the wiretaps. Noone I know of disuputes the authority to tap foreign suspects. However, DOMESTIC lines have been subject as well, and this was done without getting a warrant via the FISA court as required by Federal Law. Bush is on record as stating that HE decides when and if he needs a warrant. Thereby admitting, that he did so without seeking the courts permission, even though the law allows him to get such a warrant AFTER the fact!! He STILL declined to do so.
outting a covert spy Someone misinformed could bring this point up, but everyone on this forum knows there was no malice to the outting and the offender was one of the most Liberal friendly members in the administration. It was a poorly kept secret of little relevance. She was not a field operator and arguably married to a gloryhound seeking the spotlight. To bring this item up for grounds for impeachment is just plain silly and disingenuous. Walk points like these are not even debatable unless you just want to argue, I know you more intelligent than to believe these are impeachable offenses and you are just playing 'Gotcha' games.
Gee your Honor...I only stole $50 from that bank, so its no big deal. YOUR interpretation of how valuable an asset so-and-so was/is, (or of how much/little relevance) is not relevant to the case law. Subverting US Intelligence assets, is I believe a treasonous act?
|
|
| | | 385 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:56
|
I can't believe people bring up Katrina for Republican incompetence. The Democrat Mayor and Governor have to go down in history as the most incompetent politicians of all time. Take the California fires for example, many of the politician would like financial aid , but no other part of the Federal Government. I live in Florida and we hurricane diasters yearly and the local response is amazing, the Federal Government would be in the way here for first responding, just give us some FEMA mney and get the hell out of the way. Talk about criminal, the Governor of Louisianna and the Mayor of New Orleans could not have done a worse job and this is the type of people you want leading the country! Many exaggerate the problems of our country to further their own agenda and say it couldn't be any worse, it can be worse, much worse.
|
|
| | | 386 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:58
|
Heckofa job Brownie.
|
|
| | | 387 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 15:59
|
Unless Bush told Armitage to oust Plame, all your arguements are erroneous.
|
|
| | | 388 | walk
ID: 7952415 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:00
|
Hey Jag. I brought it up as part of the pattern of incompetence. I am not the only one who has indicated in this nation that the federal gov't did not do a good job in response (and in addition to the state and city gov'ts) to the Katrina disaster. Others have also argued that a lack of national guard troops due to deployment in Iraq along with the cronyism appointment of an inexperienced and inappropriate federal disaster supervisor, Michael Brown, by Bush, contributed to the failed federal response. These allegations are not stretches, Jag.
|
|
| | | 389 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:11
|
all your arguements are erroneous.
Uh, #278 is about Cheney, not Bush.
|
|
| | | 391 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:16
|
PD, Are saying Cheney ordered Armitage to oust Plame?
|
|
| | | 392 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:18
|
I worked for FEMA, I know the role FEMA plays, if you want to change the role for FEMA fine, but not during the middle of a diaster. I am not sure you can find a system to idiot proof an incompetent Mayor and Governor. Local Governments are more familiar with the logistics of their area, it is a scary thought the Federal Government taking charge, here in Florida, after a hurricane.
|
|
| | | 393 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:22
|
No. I don't think Armitage was the source. He might have been ordered to fess up, however, as part of a pattern of coverups by the Vice President's office.
And Novak, of course, refuses to say his source. An odd thing for a reporter to hold onto the name of hi source when the "source" comes out himself. Odd, unless Armitage isn't actually the source.
|
|
| | | 394 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:30
|
PD, I don't think those remarks would hold up well at an impeachment hearing, nor do the Democrats want the incompetence of their brethen, during Katrina, rehashed.
|
|
| | | 395 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:38
|
It was during Katrina that I developed a strong dislike for Pelosi. I remember after a meeting with the President, she recounted, when she addressed the problem about FEMA to President he responded, "What problems". Pelosi, immediately ran to press and called the President dangerous for those comments. Did she address what the problems were or how to fix them? No, she ran and played politics during a crisis. As far as I know, no Democrat has addressed the changed role FEMA should play after a natural diaster.
|
|
| | | 396 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 16:47
|
Jag dont worry the dem governor of LA lost to republican because of katrina. i think people relized that both sides failed there.
|
|
| | | 397 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 17:02
|
It was during Katrina that I developed a strong dislike for Pelosi
Nonsense. Your dislike began as soon as you realized she was a Democrat.
|
|
| | | 398 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 17:03
|
Bush failed as a leader. I am not sure much could have been done on the Federal level, but he should of been on the frontline and atleast given the appearance he was on the job. He is the worse public relations President since Nixon.
|
|
| | | 399 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 17:04
|
But it wasn't a stong dislike.
|
|
| | | 400 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 17:05
|
or strong even
|
|
| | | 401 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 18:17
|
I can't believe people bring up Katrina for Republican incompetence.
and
it is a scary thought the Federal Government taking charge, here in Florida, after a hurricane.
For the record, no one is citing the federal Katrina response as an example of Republican incompetance. But that you see it that way is telling.
Anyway, if you worked for FEMA you might know that it is their job to coordinate disaster relief when a local government is overwhelmed. The scope of the Katrina disaster was clearly enough to overwhelm even competant state and city governments. The Red Cross announced weeks before the storm hit that New Orleans was not capable of a city-run eevacuation. Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, 8/26. The storm made landfall early Monday 8/29.
I have no idea what tasks you performed for FEMA in your employment with that particular agency but since you stated that you don't know what could have been done on a federal level here is what the bipartisan Congressional committee assigned with assessing the response to Katrina found:Critical elements of the National Response Plan were executed late, ineffectively, or not at all It does not appear the President received adequate advice and counsel from a senior disaster professional. Given the well-known consequences of a major hurricane striking New Orleans, the Secretary should have designated an Incident of National Significance no later than Saturday, two days prior to landfall, when the National Weather Service predicted New Orleans would be struck by a Category 4 or 5 hurricane and President Bush declared a federal emergency. The Secretary should have convened the Interagency Incident Management Group on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, or earlier to analyze Katrinas potential consequences and anticipate what the federal response would need to accomplish. The Secretary should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then-FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretarys PFO decisions. A proactive federal response, or push system, is not a new concept, but it is rarely utilized. The Secretary should have invoked the Catastrophic Incident Annex to direct the federal response posture to fully switch from a reactive to proactive mode of operations. Absent the Secretaryfs invocation of the Catastrophic Incident Annex, the federal response evolved into a push system over several days. The Homeland Security Operations Center failed to provide valuable situational information to the White House and key operational officials during the disaster. The White House failed to de-conflict varying damage assessments and discounted information that ultimately proved accurate. Federal agencies, including DHS, had varying degrees of unfamiliarity with their roles and responsibilities under the National Response Plan and National Incident Management System. Once activated, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact enabled an unprecedented level of mutual aid assistance to reach the disaster area in a timely and effective manner. Earlier presidential involvement might have resulted in a more effective response.
DHS and the states were not prepared for this catastrophic event While a majority of state and local preparedness grants are required to have a terrorism purpose, this does not preclude a dual use application. Despite extensive preparedness initiatives, DHS was not prepared to respond to the catastrophic effects of Hurricane Katrina. DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response. The readiness of FEMAs national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response.
Command and control was impaired at all levels, delaying relief Lack of communications and situational awareness paralyzed command and control. A lack of personnel, training, and funding also weakened command and control. Ineffective command and control delayed many relief efforts. The military played an invaluable role, but coordination was lacking The National Response Planfs Catastrophic Incident Annex as written would have delayed the active duty military response, even if it had been implemented. DOD/DHS coordination was not effective during Hurricane Katrina. DOD, FEMA, and the state of Louisiana had difficulty coordinating with each other, which slowed the response. National Guard and DOD response operations were comprehensive, but perceived as slow. The Coast Guards response saved many lives, but coordination with other responders could improve. The Army Corps of Engineers provided critical resources to Katrina victims, but pre-landfall contracts were not adequate. DOD has not yet incorporated or implemented lessons learned from joint exercises in military assistance to civil authorities that would have allowed for a more effective response to Katrina. The lack of integration of National Guard and active duty forces hampered the military response. Northern Command does not have adequate insight into state response capabilities or adequate interface with governors, which contributed to a lack of mutual understanding and trust during the Katrina response. Even DOD lacked situational awareness of postlandfall conditions, which contributed to a slower response. DOD lacked an information sharing protocol that would have enhanced joint situational awareness and communications between all military components. Joint Task Force Katrina command staff lacked joint training, which contributed to the lack of coordination between active duty components. Joint Task Force Katrina, the National Guard, Louisiana, and Mississippi lacked needed communications equipment and the interoperability required for seamless on-the-ground coordination. EMAC processing, pre-arranged state compacts, and Guard equipment packages need improvement. Equipment, personnel, and training shortfalls affected the National Guard response. Search and rescue operations were a tremendous success, but coordination and integration between the military services, the National Guard, the Coast Guard, and other rescue organizations was lacking. Of course none of that is to defend defend or excuse the governor, mayor and chief of police for their own failures, but to point out that this disaster was neglected and incompetantly run from the federal level as well as the state.
|
|
| | | 402 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 5910352717 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 19:31
|
RE: 393
PD, I thought Novak revealed his three sources in his two columns below.
Armitage's Leak
Washington Post
Thursday, September 14, 2006
...
First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source.
...
Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source.
...
Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.
My Leak Case Testimony
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
But on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
...
|
|
| | | 403 | Jag
ID: 14828255 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 19:37
|
I just read all of the committee points and it is political speak, nothing of substance.
There is no doubbt in my mind if Jeb Bush had been Governor of Louisiana, we wouldn't be talking about the Katrina failure. Relief was there and was blocked, the National Guard is at the disposal of the Governor and she called them up late.
http://newsbusters.org/node/2072
The biggest failures during Katrina were, the poor evacuation, slow reponse of relief aid and delay in calling the National Guard, none of which could be blamed on FEMA.
I was a contractor for FEMA and the training is a joke. 2 days on how to access damage and write the check. This was during the Clinton years and I am sure it hasn't gotten better. How it works is the Federal Goverment contracts the job out to 2 or 3 contractors and they each in turn hire sub-contractors to access the damage and give aan appraisal for the repair. Many had no clue what they were doing and there were no check or balances for accuracy. You got 25 bucks for doing an inspection and faster you went the more you made. If you did 20 inspection a day you were called an All-star and I never heard of even one person questioned for accuracy.
|
|
| | |
| | | 405 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 19:43
|
Your link doesn't work.
|
|
| | | 406 | Perm Dude
ID: 251012710 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 19:57
|
#402: Novak hasn't named his primary source, though he did say Armitage was one source he used. It is interesting that Novak does some devastating damage to Armitage's story as well.
Of course, Armitage's story has a lot of holes anyway, probably because it was offered up, and repeated all over the conservative media, in response to Fitzgerald's prosecution of Libby. Just as Armitage's talk with Novak was in response to Joe Wilson's NYT op-ed (the talk was two days later).
|
|
| | | 407 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 5910352717 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 23:33
|
In the first chapter of Novak's book, Prince of Darkness, Novak wrote the following:
CIA leak: Now it can be told
...
Then, in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to agree unexpectedly to my request and set up the appointment for July 8.
Neither of us set ground rules.
It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on "Meet the Press" ** with an account of his Niger report that he said contradicted 16 words in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address: ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.")
I was ushered into Armitage's big State Department inner office promptly at 3 p.m. Neither of us set ground rules for my visit. I assumed, however, that what Armitage said would not be attributed to him but would not be off the record. That is, I could write about information he gave me but would not identify him by name. During a long career, I had come to appreciate that sort of thing in countless interviews without putting it into so many words. I viewed what Armitage told me to be just as privileged as if he had made me swear a blood oath.
Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.
I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.
Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?
"Well," Armitage replied, "you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger." "His wife works at CIA?" I asked. "Yeah, in counterproliferation."
He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: "That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?" I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.
The exchange about Wilson's wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.
I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. *** Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.
...
** and *** -- Elizabeth de la Vega's Ken Duberstein's connection is interesting.
*** -- Novak wrote that Armitage acknowledges being the primary source (without acknowledging that Armitage is?) Very Interesting.
Also, Elizabeth de la Vega's Machiavellian theory is brilliant -- from two perspectives.
1) For de la Vega for conjuring it.
2) For Rove et al for operating it. (If they did.)
The it (Machiavellian theory): (from your link)
...
At the same time, from the perspective of the White House, Armitage's "admission" would get Rove and Libby off the hook. If the investigation had focused solely on the genesis of the disclosures that led to Novak's column, as the Bush administration obviously thought it would, Libby would not have been at risk at all and Armitage's story would have absolved Rove as well. Armitage claimed he had acted inadvertently and Rove, on his part, was merely confirming a rumor to a trusted columnist. This is, in fact, just what Rove and Libby have been saying all along.
Coincidentally, this MO for the two leaks to Novak precisely mirrors the information-laundering technique Rove is famous for using, especially with Novak. As Corn and Isikoff explain, Rove will frequently give information to Novak off the record, suggesting that Novak call someone else to confirm it, thereby using "Novak to play political brushback without leaving any fingerprints."
...
|
|
| | | 408 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210222722 Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 23:44
|
How can Armitage acknowledge he was the primary source? He didn't know the other sources. And his own story says that he didn't know anything until October 2003 (which was a ridiculous assertion on its face).
The point about Rove at the bottom of your post is well-known but bears keeping in mind. His job was to wipe fingerprints while planting intelligence and counterintelligence in the media.
|
|
| | |
| | | 410 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 23:14
|
i feel slighted that i wasn't mentioned and felt that i have asked for civil debate numerous times and at that point the thread dies. with the last being about the schip veto.
oh well
|
|
| | |
| | | 412 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:28
|
Bush really has been flying under the radar lately i guess someone felt that they needed to bring that fact up.
|
|
| | | 413 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:54
|
I found it interesting to find that editorial in the Washington Post. Anyway, it's not likely to happen, which McGovern acknowledges. I think his points are that, taken together, these leaders have gotten away with quite a bit when it comes to laws broken and net results to the country.
|
|
| | | 414 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:13
|
i think it is interesting to see that one president can be lauded as hero and others can be seen as goats for many times the same offenses. james madison and the war of 1812, andrew jackson his total disreguarded for the constitution on many occasions, vs the likes of bush.
|
|
| | | 415 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:26
|
From Walk's McGovern (subdue snicker) editorial.... After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign
Wow 2 paragraphs in and he's . lying
|
|
| | | 416 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 14:02
|
Good find, MBJ. Once again, a good argument can be made by McGovern and he takes a big swing and a miss.
|
|
| | | 417 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 14:15
|
Volokh has a good comments section on the point, btw.
|
|
| | | 418 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 15:38
|
PD - Volokh was my point of reference...
Leaving aside whether there is a good argument to be made - using McGovern as a citation to authority is a pretty dubious enterprise.
|
|
| | | 419 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267 Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 15:46
|
I agree. Certainly someone like McGovern (or, on the Right, Limbaugh) cannot have loose language in an essay like that and not expect to get slammed for it. Maybe he meant something slightly different, I dunno. But he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
| | |
|
|