Leak Hypocrisy
The Bush Administration's new offensive against leakers just reminds us that when the President's political standing is at stake all is fair if the purpose is to protect the Pres...., er I mean the nation. Too bad George Bush did not express the same outrage when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others in his employ, told eager journalists that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. I guess divulging secrets is okay if the White House needs to discredit Joe Wilson and his claim (subsequently proved true) that the President had misled the nation during his January 2004 State of the Union address. Plus, it offers the added benefit of warning the rest of the intelligence community--shut up or else. You can't have whistle blowers coming out that would tarnish the President's image as a tough guy waging war on the terrorists.
I also seem to recall that the Bush White House used leaks in the midst of the 2004 Presidential campagin to burnish the President's image and keep Americans on edge. Remember the name of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan? His name was leaked to the New York Times in August of 2004 while Khan was still cooperating with Pakistani, CIA, and British authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's network. On the eve of the Republican convention, unnamed senior NSC officials told New York Times reporters that Mr Khan was being used to send e-mails to al-Qaida members as part of a coordinated effort to identify and dismantle terrorist networks. Just because this leak destroyed the secret program's effectiveness was no big deal because he helped remind Americans that George Bush was the only one who could keep us safe.
So, what's really behind the latest anti-leak crusade?
For those outside the Beltway it is essential to recognize there are two kinds of leaks--officially sanctioned and whistle blowers. The ones described in the previous paragraphs are the "officially sanctioned" variety. These are not unique to the Bush Administration or Republicans. Politicians through the years have shared classified information with journalists as part of a public relations effort to build support for a policy or attack critics.
Then there is the whistle blower variant. This is more important and, in my opinion, the most valuable. It exists to keep politicians honest and alert the public to serious policy disputes. The two most recent examples are the revelations that the United States was holding possible terrorists in secret prisons around the world and that George Bush was circumventing the law and approving illegal electronic surveillance inside the United States. While the Bush White House is certain that those responsible for these leaks are political partisans hell bent on damaging the President, it is really a sign that folks on the inside with a conscience finally decided to speak out.
I recall back in 1989 that the United States was engaged in a variety of "covert" activities in Panama as part of a campaign to provoke Manuel Noriega into a war. The wiley Panamanian dictator kept his powder dry and wouldn't take the bait. More fascinating for me was to be told in hushed tones inside the Central American Brach of the DI about these secret operations and then to read the very next day a full description of those very secrets on the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times. The secrets leaked because folks at State Department and the Department of Defense had qualms about the policy. When there is an internal disagreement over a particular policy, leaks happen.
What is truly shocking is that many in the media, both print and electronic, seem ignorant of the difference between official and whistle blower leaks. In fact, some seem eager to carry water for the White House and feed the myth that the whistle blower leaks are putting us in jeopardy. Not surprisingly these are the same "journalists" who sought to excuse the leak of Valerie Plame's name as no big deal. Christmas is past and Hannukah is winding down. But I do have a gift request for 2006--can we have more journalists like Sy Hersh, Jim Risen, Jon Landay, Warren Strobel, and David Kaplan, who speak truth to power, and fewer Bob Woodwards, Chris Matthews, Tim Russerts, and Judy Millers, who value their invitations to the White House Christmas Party over challenging the status quo? That's what I want.
December 31, 2005 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen
December 31, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it fun living under a dictator - a malevolent and stupid one to boot. It's time to study how other dicators including Hitler used similar techniques to take over governments. Everyone's New Years resolution should be to exert all the pressure we can to get this dimwit impeached and removed from office. I don't think George the Last will permit us to do it even if we get the votes. I'm sure someone of John Yoo's mindset will write a memo explaining how a "wartime" President can't be impeached.
December 31, 2005 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is more than just telling that the FSA leak investigation wasn't started a year ago, when the WH first knew that that the NYT had the story, and thus that there were leaks,
Only once it wasn't successfully repressed, only once it hit the general public conciousness was something wrong and worth investigating. Yet again, the purpose is to suppress political damage, and not to keep the secret actually under wraps.
December 31, 2005 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
the reporters who brought this to the attention of the American people are doing exacty what good citizens should do. If you see a crime or any suspicious activities you are supposed to report it
This is my BILL OF RIGHTS. this was a guaranteed right in which no president or legislative branch was supposed to mess with. No trumped up war so as to suspend these rights.
The government and the people agreed to this compact and the government was told their limits.
This president and any surrogates that circumvent these rights should have our JUSTICE DEPT vigorously prosecute the law breakers who violate MY BILL OF RIGHTS
December 31, 2005 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, what? I couldn't hear your question over the counteroffensive to the liberal assault on Christmas.
December 31, 2005 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder, would finding a leaker and charging them with a crime force a court decision on the legality of the spying if the person claimed protection under the whistle blower protection laws.
December 31, 2005 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is yet another play out of the GOP-Rove playbook with roots going back to the Nazi tactic of blame-the-victim. It was used not-so-effectively when BushInc showed its disdain and contempt for the poor and other helpless victims of Katrina; it was also a part of the programme to villify Wilson and out Plame; and it is part and parcel of the current campaign to portray anyone who cares about the laws and the Constitution as weak or as enemies of the Nation. BushCo with all their policies in shreds, and the bunker burning all about them, can only resort to last gasp intimidation and the Big Lie.
December 31, 2005 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder, would finding a leaker and charging them with a crime force a court decision on the legality of the spying if the person claimed protection under the whistle blower protection laws.
Unfortunately, we now have a president who labels people "enemy combatant" and locks them up without access to a lawyer or a trial. So, yes, a trial would bring the issue before a court, but there wouldn't be a trial. It is hard to overstate the necessity for impeaching Bush.
December 31, 2005 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
is it possible that all the phones to these reporters are now buggged, the IRS is now investigating past records of income, any and all calls to the paper, so that the administration can get ahead of any stories, the list could go on with the abuse that could be directed at anyone with the audacity to queston his highness.
If we had hoped that other whistleblowers would step forward, will this new assault on freedom discourage those who would expose Government abuse
December 31, 2005 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that announcing a leak investigation amounts to a PR counter-offensive. And, it's at least partly designed to lead to a false equivalence between the revelation of warrantless domestic espionage and the Plame case.
While I've given up trying to predict how these abuses of power will play out, I would think this one has to end up in the Supreme Court. The question is: can a high government official use the cloak of national security to commit a crime?
I'll note one other thing: unlike the Pentagon Papers, the White House hasn't issued any warrant preventing the NYT or WaPo from further reporting on either of these two cases. Instead, they're using the chilling effect of a leak investigation to stifle reporting.
December 31, 2005 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush called for and ordered his staff to cooperate with the investigation into the Plame leak. The only hypocrisy is yours. If it hurts Bush it's good, you don't care about right and wrong.
December 31, 2005 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you haven't got enough votes to beat him in either election, and there's no way the Dems will pick up seat in 06 spouting the insane stuff y'all do here, we'll never have to worry about this rediculous claim.
December 31, 2005 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I do have a gift request for 2006--can we have more journalists like Sy Hersh, Jim Risen, Jon Landay, Warren Strobel, and David Kaplan, who speak truth to power, and fewer Bob Woodwards, Chris Matthews, Tim Russerts, and Judy Millers, who value their invitations to the White House Christmas Party over challenging the status quo? That's what I want.
Great wishes, Larry. I'll adopt them without revision.
it is really a sign that folks on the inside with a conscience finally decided to speak out.
That's right. The leaks to the NYT demonstrate that there are quite a few distraught people within certain government agencies who are desperate to stop the abuses and lawlessness of the Bush administration and do not want to be a part of them.
And yes, it is interesting to see how quickly the Justice Dept. jumped on investigating these leaks and how it had to be prodded into the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak.
And a Happy New Year to all!
December 31, 2005 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush's call for his staff to fully cooperate in the investigation of the Plame leak was fully comparable with Nixon's taped "But that would be wrong." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
If the little putz had meant it, he would have acted on it.
And are you really a Sergeant First Class? Or a reincarnation of George Wallace? In either case shouldn't you be about your mission?
December 31, 2005 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are right, and he did, then why didn't he fire them for NOT fessing up after he gave the order?
It is ridiculous to even argue over such blatent, obvious lies; I can tell you that not one of my three teenagers would try to put BS like this past me.
IT is all so sick and twisted. We try to make sense out of it, but unfortunately the only way it makes sense is to understand that these people are just low-lifes who care only for power and money. That is the only thing that makes them tick. They are the most corrupt, despicable people, and are no better than their worst enemies (now enemies -- that is a growing list of which they are truly wealthy).
December 31, 2005 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, it is interesting to see how quickly the Justice Dept. jumped on investigating these leaks and how it had to be prodded into the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak.
As Dell noted in his/her comment above, if Bush really had any interest in the security aspect of that leak he would never have waited a year, hoping the NYT wouldn't find the guts to publish the story, before starting the leak investigation. I think this was intended to provide the righties with their talking points on this issue - "it was treason to reveal a top secret security program!" My bet is that no investigation will ever start.
December 31, 2005 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hogwash! It is damn obvious that if they had foiled any actual plots they would have trumpeted them to the housetops. Look at Jose Padilla—the dirty bomb, the mid-day press conference, the headlines all over America. They have held the poor guy for three years without charges because they have no real evidence.
On one of the PBS Friday talk shows, Krauthammer parroted that point. "Why do you think Bin Laden has never scored another attack since 9-11?"
Mark Shields came back with a zinger. "Charles, considering all the Bush administration has done to America in the name of 9-11, Bin Laden didn't need another attack."
December 31, 2005 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The claim that the illegal wiretaps has worked reminds me of a PEST CONTROL COMPANY Advertisement
Guaranteed dinosaur control, since we have been spraying for these pest have you seen any? therefore it works
December 31, 2005 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A new year is upon us and it promises to be an interesting one, as 2006 will be a Congressional election year.
Already, candidates are making themselves known, the best of them distancing and distinguishing themselves from the disaster currently encamped at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in our nation’s besieged capital.
I have addressed my concerns about the Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan case to the headquarters of one such candidate.
His staff promptly responded with several questions.
My answers follow?
"As per your request....
1.) The Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan case is important because:
a.) The leak of Noor Khan's identity compromised the real security of the United States and our allies.
b.) It abruptly and prematurely aborted a joint intelligence operation involving the United States, the United Kingdom and Pakistan.
c.) It may have discredited the United States in the eyes of those two governments (and others watching around the world).
d.) It 'caused the British to have to swoop down on the London al-Qaeda cell to which he was speaking. As it was, five of them heard about Khan's arrest and immediately fled. The British got 13, but it was early in their investigation and they had to let five go or charge them with minor offenses (such as immigration irregularities).' [Dr. Juan Cole]. Eight were charged.
e.) Mr. Noor Khan's laptop 'contained plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway system, as well as on financial buildings in both New York and Washington.' [ABS News].
f.) We all know what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 resulting in the deaths of over fifty men and women.
g.) Our own intelligence agencies, as well as those of our allies, deserve reassurance that neither their operatives nor operations will be exposed and endangered by the Executive Branch of our government sworn to defend both the citizens and Constitution of the United States.
h.) This act is treasonous and intolerable.
2.) The possible outcomes are:
a.) Most likely: This issue will be ignored altogether and obscured by the other innumerable scandals emanating from this White House.
b.) Best-case outcome: An new independent commission finding all the facts of the case, resulting in the dismissal of lower level White House staff and, if applicable, the impeachment and removal of Executive and Cabinet-level officials and the trial, conviction and life-time imprisonment of all.
c.) Compromise outcome: A Congressional mandate to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to include the Noor Khan leak within the scope of the Valerie Plame case, rendering the same final results given for the "best-case outcome".
d.) Worst-case outcome: An 'investigation' that whitewashes this outrage and exonerates the culprits.
3.) [The candidate's] position ought to be as follows:
a.) Like Senator Chuck Schumer, he should demand answers from the White House.
b.) Unlike Senator Chuck Schumer, he should tenaciously and relentlessly follow up on this leak.
4.) My own personal involvement is as follows:
a.) I live here. I love New York and she remains a target.
b.) I was present in the World Trade Center on Tuesday morning, September 11th, 2001 and lost friends.
c.) This leak may indeed endanger the New York Subway and buses, just as it imperiled the London Underground and buses.
d.) I have family and friends who use the subway on a daily basis.
e.) Although, as a long-term result of '9/11', I needed to find work outside of Manhattan and no longer use the subway daily, I still use it to go to church on Sunday, when my car is in the shop and generally on evenings and weekends.
f.) An 'el' runs outside my kitchen window. An attack on the transit system may endanger my home.
g.) I am infuriated that the Administration used the attack by men from one theocratic monarchy (Saudi Arabia) planned in another theocratic oligarchy (Afghanistan), to wage war against a secular dictatorship (Iraq) that had NOTHING to do with what happened to us.
h.) When a real issue of national security and a possible terrorist threat arose in 2004, the White House aggravated the situation by exposing real efforts to thwart an act of terror.
i.) I enjoy traveling abroad. I am proud of my country, but ashamed and appalled by the buffoonery and criminality in the Oval Office."
Please click here and sign the petition for an investigation of this case.
http://petitiononline.com/noorkhan/petition.html
Please spread the word...
December 31, 2005 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 31, 2005 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC - We are loyal Americans who love our country and the people in it. We are trying to wake them (including you) up to the fact that our rights are being taken away. Unlike Bush we act legally.
December 31, 2005 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, that;s what's it's designed to do. These guys have broken all kinds of laws and they are gaming the system to try to avoid accountability.
December 31, 2005 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since he steals elections (Florida 2000) (Ohio 2004) you're probably right. Go research those two elections.
December 31, 2005 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I read about the Justice Department embarking on an investigation of the leaking regarding Bush’s home grown spying habits the first thing that came to mind was, hey, wait a minute what about Valerie Plame?
Keeping in mind what you said about presidents using leaks to improve their image despite the damage incurred here is a quote from Bush speaking on the leak.
"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Is Bush saying we are the enemy?
December 31, 2005 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's behind the anti-leak crusade?
Simple... they're for leaks, when they think the leaks will work to their advantage.
They're against leaks when they don't.
January 1, 2006 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't have to research them, I've heard every crazy argument y'all have offered up for both elections. How about trying this one. You lost!!! Get over it!!! Quit trying to make up a bunch of crazy BS about the people who beat you and figure out a way to win the next one!!! Hint: making goofy conpiracies about PNAC and the Zionist plot to rule the world, ain't gonna do it. Try coming up with a plan to save Social Security (fically, not from Bush's secret attempt to privatize it thereby enriching his cousin's - wife's - aunt who is in the banking industry).
January 1, 2006 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. The Administration may conduct warrantless eavesdropping between overseas-to-overseas calls any time.
2. The FISA law allows for eavesdropping on domestic calls without a warrant for up to 72 hours but it must go to a court to continue.
3. This warrantless-Approval must be signed off by the attourney general (and a couple of other minions).
4. The NSA could be monitoring a call from Osama Bin Laden to Iman Alzarwuiri recording everything, they hook up with Jose Padilla in Chicago on a 3-way calling and bam!!! Cut the line, call the AG and get his signature so we can continue with the recording.
and you guys wonder why even when you send up what you consider a war hero, you still lose on "National Security" issues.
January 1, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're the only one mentioning "Zionist plots".
January 1, 2006 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, tlees. I think I will declare a moratorium on SFC Wallace. It is like trying to explain toilet training to a 2-month old.
January 1, 2006 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No correct me if I' wrong
No one said that the NSA couldn't listen in on conversations. As an American citizen, guaranteed with a BILL OF RIGHTS against unreasonable searches, I want the assurance of oversight.
This president and his Administration tried to put one over on the Congress and the people, and according to Tom Daschle the Administration was admonished that it needed to follow the guidelines covering wiretaps, USE the FISA COURT. or Go before Congress and change the law. (You know that little issue of seperate but equal clause )
The President and his Administration,who after years of a track record of arrogance and above he law attitude said the Heck with The Law (WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN BADGES)
So correct me if I'm wrong Who came under this blanket search, QUAKERS, PETA, how about GRENPEACE, How about GRANDMOTHERS AGAINST THE WAR,
ARE YOU SURE?
Was the president really looking for terrorists or was he looking into anti Republican organizations. Could this info be useful in the upcoming elections, Who's giving who money
Without oversight, this wiretap provision could be abused and knowing to what lengths this president will go to get power, ask John McCain during the primary, ask John Murtha a real hero who was smeared by chicken hawks, and who was the one from the south with both legs shot off and was smeared by the Bush team.
The character has been tested and Bush is no Hero
January 1, 2006 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bet is that no investigation will ever start.
Hoppy, that is my bet too. Who knows what dirt an investigation of the leaks would turn up that would reflect badly on the Bush administration?
January 1, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, tlees. I think I will declare a moratorium on SFC Wallace. It is like trying to explain toilet training to a 2-month old.
Interesting. You don't seem to realize that your argument (and I use that term loosely) is just you claiming a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. Then expressing anger when I don't immediatly agree with you. What I'm saying is you have no facts, you just say "Bush is a criminal and should be impeached) yet you don't know what happened with the NSA monitoring. You know what was claimed in the New York Times, and what has been claimed by Ted Kennedy, but still no investigation of any kind has been conducted to determine any facts as of yet, and you are already calling for impeachment. That is proof of your inability to look at facts and make an intelligent decision based on those facts. You just line up with the rest of the villagers, grab your pitch fork and charge up the hill screaming "she's a with, burn her!!!"
January 1, 2006 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything I put in quotes to show the over the top kookiness on this site, has been pulled directly from the kooks on this site, I don't make it up... I couldn't in my wildest dreams make up some of the stuff that is presented here as fact. That's why I'm amazed by how many of you believe it and regergitate it like it was gospel.
January 1, 2006 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, dude, that is what the whole controversy is about, the NSA listening in on foreign agents, and then not turning off the recorders immediately when on of the foreign agents called a number in the US. All the rest of the PETA and "Presidents enemies" stuff is the falacious arguments by the left trying to inflame the nuts out there into thinking they are being followed around the library by a CIA agent.
Without oversight, this wiretap provision could be abused and knowing to what lengths this president will go to get power, ask John McCain during the primary, ask John Murtha a real hero who was smeared by chicken hawks, and who was the one from the south with both legs shot off and was smeared by the Bush team.
There was oversite, Congress was briefed on these activities (which is obvious since one of them leaked it to their buddies at the NY Times). Murtha wasn't smeared by anyone, he was simply "called out" on his desire to "immediately redeploy" from Iraq (his own words on his own web page if you would just go look). Oh, and "the one from the south" was Max Clealand of Georgia, and he didn't get his legs shot off, he picked up a grenade he found on the ground at a hellipad and it went off and he lost both legs and part of an arm; but since truth and facts haven't appeared anywhere else in your rant, why should they matter here.
January 1, 2006 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The “fallacious argument” you suggested really didn’t address as whether it was the truth.
Is it really possible that your not aware of the technology that agents really don’t have to follow you. Were you aware that library records can be accessed remotely, did you know that your internet activities can be observed remotely.
For example if I wanted to read something from Noam Chomsky I could link to his site and could be monitored, did you know that if wanted to read a Red Book from some Chinaman I could possibly be monitored.
If I wrote to you and said I saw a movie and it was a B--b I could be monitored
I really would like to read the passage in the Bill of RIGHTS that once the Executive branch briefs the Congress that it’s okay to violate my rights.
The semantics you play with shot vs. being removed by an explosive device with shrapnel Forgive me for not being more exact. So that you would miss the real point.
I heard the right wing insinuate that if we redeploy it would be considered Cut and Run. He wasn’t just “called out”, in so many words he was called a coward
Never mind that
The quagmire in Iraq is like a man sinking in quicksand and the president suggests going deeper as the way out.
January 1, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greetings Larry, good to see you tap-tapping your way into the New Year -
My question: Since such nefarious surveillance activities ordinarily enjoyed nearly automatic legal sanction by the secret FISA court, the object of the exposed "super secret" activity could only have been to bypass the FISA court itself. A leak about the former might arguably compromise "national security" ; but the leak about the latter undermines only the secret evasion of the FISA court. Therefore, what about the FISA court made the Bush administration consider it to be such a potential security risk, such that even its secret powers were insufficient to its purposes?
January 1, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you like living with a president who neither protected us nor protects our rights?
January 1, 2006 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2000 Gore won. That is the fact and many more people intended to vote for Gore. Isn't it time you get over that?
January 1, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there was no spying by the NSA why is Bush ordering an investigation into the leak? You are right maybe there was no illegal spying. Do you expect the Republicans in the Congress or the Justice Department to investigate it no matter where the evidence goes? If there was spying why do you support it?
January 1, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You either really don't get it, or maybe you're even PAID not to get it, but when you say,
You just line up with the rest of the villagers, grab your pitch fork and charge up the hill screaming "she's a with, burn her!!!"
...you are describing the Republican mantra. "You're either with us or you are against us." So much for dissent, or even intelligence when one is looking into the face of baldfaced lies.
You see, if we don't trust Bush's "facts" we are told we are unpatriotic...but you know that. It is part of your play-book.
If Saddam had WMD's aimed at the US, and was working with Osama to ruin the US ---RIGHTEO! We belonged in Iraq! Don't give me the BS that Clinton thought so too. He took care of Saddam's wmd problem. OK, it was the UN thing, and had flaws. but...no wmd's when bush attacked. So, no need for 2200+ dead soldiers--billions that could have been used on our own infrastructure -- hello Katrina?????????????
The good old "Ownership Society!" If every citizen could invest his/her retirement $ and expect to get 10% per year when it is time to relax and take it easy, we'd all be livin' la vie da loca" ...problem is--- 10% comes right out of Bush's ass. It only applies to those who get special treatment like DeLay (Russian Mafia--ONE CHECK for $1,000,000,000 for the Family Values BS, or Frist (the blind trust and videio diagnosis king).
If the very people who are making the complicated and ridiculous rules about medicare and medicaid WOULD EVER HAVE TO FACE THOSE RULES THEMSELVES we could MAYBE trust them to do a good job. Ever wondered why you can bring back anything you buy from any country except 1. Cuban cigars, and 2. Legal Prescription medications (produced by American companies who don't get the same sweetheart deal in Canada that they do here in the good ol' USA)
If 5-deferment Cheny, and AWOL Bush ever had to cower in a foxhole, you can bet we would not be at war in the first place! (Probably because they would never have survived!) How can those bastards sleep at night? Oh, yeah! I forgot! They are sociopaths! HI NSA!! How's it goin'?
If we all understood that we should step back and see the big picture in this world rather than flagellating the abortion and gay marriage noodle, maybe we could make this world a place that would be better for all those born into it.
So that's it FSC - I guess you don't care about the world your children will inhabit. But this is my last response to you.
All I can say is that if you are stuck someplace without friends and any help, you better hope you are near me and my family rather than Bush and his.
January 1, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep wondering about all these people that can find nothing wrong with this administration. What transgression would be to much? Considering the activities of this administration clearly they have not gone far enough to get the ultra right to criticize them. What would it take? Would strangling a baby on TV do it? Apparently only an illicit sexual affair is bad enough. But certainly many of the ultra right have already done. that. What would it take?
January 1, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't reply to me about stuff I didn't say. Reply to the person you claim said it.
January 1, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now wait a minute. Someone replies to me about kooky extremist right wing ant-Semitic conspiracies and I don't have the right to tell them don't address me, address the person you say said it? And I get a 1 for saying that. You have got to be kidding me!
January 2, 2006 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for not equating "different with dumb" like Larry Johnson seems to enjoy doing. Oh, and the only person I'm indebted to is USAA Federal Savings bank (I bought myself a new F150 for Christmas and they hold the note on it).
Here's where our disagreement is, you think Bush intentionally minipulated the prewar intell, decieving the people and Congress and the world so that he could get into a war for personal gain and to enrich his buddies. I think he had faulty intel (remember the head of the CIA said itr was a "slam dunk" that WMD's were there) the Russians Germans and French didn't want to invade (for what ever reasons they had) but they all thought Sadaam had WMD's, the Brithish Intel reports said he had WMD's Egyptian and Jordanian Intel said Sadaam had WMD's. I think we were wrong about WMD's (the stock pile part, remember we did get small anmounts of mustard gas rounds and other banned weapons just not up to date Nuclear and Chem and Bio warfare materials). There were 15 reasons listed in his speech for removing Sadaam, only 1 has turned out to be wrong, and only partly.
the Republican mantra. "You're either with us or you are against us." So much for dissent, or even intelligence when one is looking into the face of baldfaced lies.
Bush's statement "You are with us or against us" was made immediatly following an attack on innocent Americans and was specifically talking about the terrorists hiding around the world. He said we were going after them, and anyone who supports them, so you need to join us or get out of the way. It has nothing to do with political dissent. The problem with you and many on your side is you aren't dissenting, you are "bearing false witness." If you don't like a policy like the war in Iraq cll for an end to it, but you make up stories and assign "extra" BS to the supporters of the President and his policies. Our side can be wrong without being evil, just like your side can be wrong without being traitors.
The good old "Ownership Society!" If every citizen could invest his/her retirement $ and expect to get 10% per year when it is time to relax and take it easy, we'd all be livin' la vie da loca" ...problem is--- 10% comes right out of Bush's ass. It only applies to those who get special treatment like DeLay (Russian Mafia--ONE CHECK for $1,000,000,000 for the Family Values BS, or Frist (the blind trust and videio diagnosis king).I have no idea what all that's about, which shows the level the "Mania" you feel has reached. If you are talking about Social Security, it is going broke. We either have to raise taxes, cut benifits, raise the retirement age, means test it, or change the program. Come up with a solution, and we'll listen.If 5-deferment Cheny, and AWOL Bush ever had to cower in a foxhole, you can bet we would not be at war in the first place! (Probably because they would never have survived!) How can those bastards sleep at night? Oh, yeah! I forgot! They are sociopaths! HI NSA!! How's it goin'?Does this mean that anyone who has not served in the military is not qualified to be President? I believe ther was a question about the last guys desire to serve and I somehow don't think you felt the same way then.I think you are wrong, not stupid or a moron or any of the other names you and your gang like to call people, I do think it's interesting that you guys get so upset when you think dissentors on your side are unfairly treated, but you are some of the most violent at trying to silance opposition.
January 2, 2006 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the club tlees, now take that feeling of disbelief and imagine it on 4 out of 5 of your comments, then you'll start to understand why I get a little frustrated sometimes.
January 2, 2006 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you I strive to be informative, and entertaining.
you use the words immediately to describe shutting down the recorders, when in reality the courts have been very lenient in providing for 72 hours to get a warrant.
Only if it was signed off on by the AG and the other steps that are required by the law, which has to be done "before" the monitoring takes place. So if Osama dials up Padilla the line still has to be cut, that was the whole "information wall" between domestic and foreign intel that was at the heart of the 9-11 commission debate, the question was "Why couldn't we connect the dots?" Democrats wanted to know why the CIA and FBI didn't share intel to stop the attacks, now they want to put the wall back up, and use a phoney cause to do it.
I really would like to read the passage in the Bill of RIGHTS that once the Executive branch briefs the Congress that it’s okay to violate my rights. When, exactly were your rights violated?The semantics you play with shot vs. being removed by an explosive device with shrapnel Forgive me for not being more exact. So that you would miss the real point. The semantics are your's, the left likes to select "heros" when it's convienient. Max Clealand was inside a US base got off a helicopter, looked down and saw a grenade lying on the ground, he committed one of the basic mistakes that we train soldiers on from the day they enter the Army: Never pick up UXO (Unexploded ordinance). Mark it and notify EOD (Explosives and Ordinance Disposal) he picked it up it went off, it was tragic, I wish we never had any accidents in the Army during war or in training. However, making a mistake and getting injured by it doesn't make you a "war hero" and being a war hero doesn't make you a military expert, and finally being a military expert doesn't make you immune to critisism. That's the point I was trying to make.I heard the right wing insinuate that if we redeploy it would be considered Cut and Run. He wasn’t just “called out”, in so many words he was called a coward Not true, if we "redeploy" that's fine, depeding on what leads to it, a successful take over of security by Iraqi security forces and a stable democraticly elected government in place followed by "redeployment" is a good thing. "Immediate redeployment" like Murtha called for (it's still on his web site if anyone is interested in fact checking) is cutting and running, period, it would be a failure.The quagmire in Iraq is like a man sinking in quicksand and the president suggests going deeper as the way out.The only people who see an unwinnable quagmire are on the left, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean. It's amazing to me that intelligent politicians would set themselves up so that the only way they can win is if the country loses; and you guys wonder why you can't win an election. We don't have to cheat to beat you guys.
January 2, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink