Friday Open Thread
Quaoar has another diary up on dkos about more surging to come - Another surge: Petraeus wants 3,000 more troops . I have a question for all the liberals - what if the surge works and the situation in Iraq keeps stabilizing and improving enough for serious progress? What then? This is a personal as well as political question. What do you personally think should happen, and what do you think Democrats will do in the event of improvement in Iraq?
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2007-03-16 07:56
Tags:
Comments :
btw this is what is going to happen
in all of the foreign trials of our CIA agents
(which obviously should not be happening):
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I also do not think
that CIA agents should be put on trial in allied nations for incidents involving their official duties.
If the CIA broke Italian law in carrying out a mission, that is a matter that should be handled between the two governments, not by the courts. It's a political issue.
OTOH, if an agent is in another country and gets caught with cocaine or gets drunk and shoots someone in a bar, that's a different matter entirely.
qui tacet consentire
How long will it take?
According to Sen Durbin--shd America come to the resue everytime Iraq calls 911.
The Iraq War is hurting our economy and 3200 soldiers have died.
How much sacrifice economically and soldiers lives does America have to give--and for what end?
So that Halliburton gets its headquarters in Dubai?
This debacle cost $500B to $ 1 Trillion---1/9th of our national debt. And for what end?
Afghanistan is a greater threat because Taliban is surging.
What if......
It's a big if, and the goalposts have moved. Mission accomplished now means a wild victory, democracy, liberation......... no, just the a for stability.
I hope for the sake of the people in Iraq that Iraq does stabilize so the Iraqi's can have their country back.
The Democrats will celebrate as will all Americans. Then we will have to pursue the real perpetraters of 9/11 as we should have all along. 500 Billion dollars later.
The key is the oil revenues and who gets them.
IF you are alluding to the Dems obsession with Bush's incompetance...... which is clearly evident in the way he prosecuted the Iraq war, well, there is plenty the dems still have to work with, the theme is the overall incompetence and the abuse of executive authority. So the Dems will have plenty to keep them busy.
I'm only half stupid
TPM has a timeline up of the US Attorneys firing
along with e-mails back and forth from Republican officials and Administration folks
. It pretty much confirms that the bush43 administration started planning the closet takeover of the local US Attorneys as early as 2004. Rove, Alberto, Sampson, Harriet Meirs were all involved up to their eyeballs.
The Sampson e-mails released yesterday and previously last week confirm the administration's whole desire was to subvert inquiries into their illegal operations (the NSA spying stuff that Gonzales had the President not give the Justice Deptartment investigators security clearance so as to quash the probe of their illegal actions), as well as stop investigations of corrupt elected republican officials and only put forth investigations of Democrats. That tallies nicely with the 298 investigations of Democrats at the national, state & local level vs. the 67 investigations of Republicans
. They also seemed to go out of their way to stop any more Republican Congressmen from getting the Duke Cunningham treatment, stopping an inquiry into Congressman from catching any additional corrupt officials 
. See this NY Times article for more piling on 
.
So....turn the State Apparatus into a Republican election politiboro, use those same tainted officials to smear Democrats just before elections to continue the Republican Costra Nosa at the expense of a democratic nation. These guys that the righties here make excuses for day in and day out did their most to make this nation a carbon copy of Stalin's Soviet Russia, complete with rigged show prosecutions, covered up corruption, and government to the highest bidder.
Why is it that this Administration has any backers left? I just don't get it. I saw Jon Stewarts 3/14/07 show last night (yea, the 8:00 rerun) and his final line to President Bush said it all. He was using the repeated phrase used by this administrations lackys and bootlicks of "I serve at the pleasure of the President", he ended his segment with a statement to President Bush, which he doesn't usually address directly, but did this time. He said:
"Our previous President also had certain people serve him as his pleasure....Now that, I get. You on the other hand, seem pleaseured by having incompetant and corrupt people surround you and make policy for our nation as your pleasure....that, I don't get." or something very close to that effect.
It's Nixon on steroids. Barry Bonds is a nickle and dime thug compared to the pumped up children that top our great nation. Let's hope we can weather the next 1 3/4 years without them sinking us all down the rat hole.
The Plame hearing
is going on right now, with live internet streaming
. Plame herself just took the oath.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am all ears and eyes!
Whoa!
Under oath she is testifying she was a covert agent until the day she was exposed by Robert Novack's column!
Thank God I don't have to work today :=)
My question is how will the wingnuts spin this?
She was in charge of gathering intelligence for WMD and had a whole crew working for her that was exposed.
Truth sacrificed for politics and ideology. Do we see a theme here!
(Partisan Rant: How many careers as Karl Rove destroyed. I wonder how Daddy Bush is going to take this.)
I'm only half stupid
No ambiguity on the Covert Status
Making it clear over and over and over....... under oath!
How fun to watch the R's have to ask the beautiful blonde questions that go against the Republican talking points repeated endlessly on Fox News and the wingnut blogs!
How flummoxed they are asking questions of an intelligent beautiful blonde, woman with a charming smile. Ha!
I'm only half stupid
I think we have additional testimony
on this point coming later from Victoria Toensing...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Victoria Toensing
is a professional liar
. That you would use her to back up your claims only shows how far out of reality you are.
from the wikipedia page that you link to
What that really means is - a bunch of liberals wrote a hit piece. Sorry, I don't believe you.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Interesting.
I read the wikipedia piece you referenced. Where in there does it claim that she is a "professional liar".
I did find a number of references to her legal bona fides, and this little gem:
So she not only has vast legal expertise, but is particularly well qualified to speak on what the legislation at the very heart of this matter says.
How is this helping your position in this debate?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow.
Valerie didn't suggest her husband for the trip to Niger, and in fact wasn't happy about the idea, because she was afraid to be home alone with a couple of two year olds.
Hmmm.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4To his credit,
Westmoreland comes across as a dull-witted rube, but his questions are sharp under the surface.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Two-year-olds
are the worst kind of terrorists.
qui tacet consentire
True dat! :-) n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Having gotten all of the Democrat points on the table ...
Waxman summarily shuts down any additional questioning by the minority party ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Selective there, eh?
Waxman's been shutting down the Democrats mid-question, too. He's keeping the clock.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You miss the point.
R's obviously have additional questions for this witness, whereas the D's apparantly do not. So since the D's have made their points why allow any additional time for the R's to ask questions.
Hence he has decided to not allow any more rounds of questions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why don't they just ask them, then?
Westmoreland got two rounds of questions, thanks to yielded time. Do you feel he used those well? He used time in both to claim he wasn't being given enough time!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because there is not enough time
alotted to ask all of the questions that he has. It's kind of hard to ask much in 10 minutes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yep. It really sucks doesn't it?
When you want to investigate something further but the other party won't let you.
Damn, that sucks!
I'm sure glad this was the first time it's ever happened.
qui tacet consentire
This is a question of ethics.
Are you suggesting that because other investigations may have been conducted unethically that it is OK to allow this one to be conducted unethically as well?
Why are you arguing that all information should not be out in the open if you are truly out to find the truth (as opposed to merely putting on a dog and pony show to advance a political agenda)?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4National Security
A Dog And Pony Show
Attack Dog Cheney rides the Fox News pony.
If it was "no big deal", then why did they retract the infamous sixteen words?
And why were so many in the White House involved in a concerted effort to discredit Valerie Wilson?
I'm only half stupid
So many? Concerted effort?
Wrong on both assertions. No one from the White House was even charged for the supposed crime of outing Valerie Plame, and it has already been established that Richard Armitage was the leaker. Even further, this apparently was known by Fitzgerald almost from the very beginning of this dog and pony show.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There was a concerted effort
led by Dick Cheney, who instructed his staff to dig up dirt on Joe Wilson. The effort to discredit Joe Wilson by attacking his wife, was shopped to the press.
The reason no one was every charged with the original crime is because Scooter Libby threw sand in the prosecuters eyes, by lying and obstructing justice.
Nevermind that what you are most concerned with his partisanship when in fact you should be more worried about how our National Security Interests were threated by the outing of a Covert CIA agent who was working on a highly classified mission of gathering intel on WMD in Iraq.
Nevermind the National Security Threat that was posed when Valerie Plame's network of connections, including Iraqi scientists and scholars that were willing to talk to her agents was exposed because the Vice President was covering up the phony intel on Iraq that was coming out of his office.
Just because no one was charged does not mean that no one was guilty. Our national security was put at risk by the Vice President. But this doesn't bother you? Why?
I'm only half stupid
enough time
for you to get it through your head, that Valerie Plame was a covert operations officer, gathering intel on WMD in Iraq?
Her outing ruined all her connections......... As a strong proponent of protecting our National Security, you would think that would set off alarm bells for you.
I'm only half stupid
I prefer to hear all of the testimony
before drawing any such conclusions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't think it would make
any difference how much testimony you heard..... your conclusions will stay the same. You think Valeria Plame lied under oath.........and that she was never covert.
Cue the calls for the obstruction of justice charges from the right.
I'm only half stupid
Actually, I wouldn't say that.
Valerie who admits that she is not a lawyer and hence not qualified to judge her status under the law, may well have actually believed that she was covert.
As the testimony later points out, there are multiple definitions of "covert". There is the ill-defined informal definition used by the CIA operatives amongst themselves, and then there is the legal definition as laid out in the relevant Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
So while Valerie may have been sincere in her testimony it was based on a flawed definition of the term covert as it applies to the law which had supposedly been broken.
Further, I would not say that she was never covert, even under the definition in the law. Clearly she was. She just wasn't covert under that definition at the time that Novak's article was published.
Given the furver with which Fitzgerald pursued this prosecution, I can only assume that if he felt that she was, indeed, covert and that she was, indeed, outed under the law that someone would have been charged. They weren't. Not even Richard Armitage who is now the acknowledged source of the alleged leak.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You can use word play
if you choose.
Which again is a complete denial of the fact that she was a covert operations officer on the Joint Task Force for Iraq in charge of a network of other covert operations officers gather intel on WMD.
She doesn't need to be a lawyer to know that her staff, her front company for operations, and her cover was blown.
Blown as in compromised. As in the Iraq scientist that would speak to her will no longer give her valueable info and may now well be dead.
No word play there. Cover blown. Operation compromised. Get it.
You can't conclude what Fitz would have found out if Scooter Libby had not obstruced justice, as in lied to protect his boss the Vice President.
Can you acknowledge that she was covert and that her mission was top secret and that her whole network was compromised, no matter what legal games you want to play with the words.
The ferver Fitzgerald showed is because outing a covert agent is treason..... just in case you didn't know.
If you want to play with words, let's see if you understand what obstruction of justice means. It means you lied so that the investigation was stymied. It is a very serious charge.
The bottom line is how can we protect our National Security when outing of a CIA agent is so trivialized by the right.
I'm only half stupid
Clarifications.
I do deny this:
at least as it applies to her at the time that Novak's article was published, which I believe is what I conveyed above.
I have never denied this:
which is a clearly established matter of fact.
You can keep saying it as often as you like. But if under the law she was not considered covert, she had no cover to blow.
Well, actually I can. In order to know that he lied, we must also know the truth that contradicts what he said ... and presumably with enough confidence and evidence that we can convict him of that crime.
In this case it is all moot because Richard Armitage, and not Scooter Libby, and not Karl Rove, and not Dick Cheney was the source of the leak. Again, Fitzgerald already knew this BEFORE Libby supposedly lied.
I can't acknowledge this:
because she wasn't under the law. I can acknowledge this:
because it is obvious.
I don't believe that this is true. No one was ever even considered being charged with Treason, only violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 which I don't believe is considered Treason under the law.
This is not necessarily true, ...
but this is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4By the way,
given that this happened in 2003, and we're having a hearing almost four years later, I really don't mind cutting the "this isn't important enough for us to investigate" Republicans out of the decision-making process. They tried to push this away for years.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hmm, even more interesting.
So your position is basically, if you chose to avoid an investigation that you felt was unnecessary and should that investigation none the less go forward that you now have no right to conduct that investigation in a thorough manner?
Isn't the point of the investigation to get at the truth? Isn't the point of the investigation to put it to rest once and for all? How can it possibly do either if it leaves lots of unanswered questions hanging out there in the air?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So your position
is that it's so unneccessary that they need more time to investigate the witnesses thoroughly?
?!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
No.
My position is that the investigation is unnecessary, but if we are going to undertake it anyway we should do it correctly (i.e. we should seek to allow all sides to have their questions answered).
If your goal is simply to get to the truth why would you object to trying to get all of the information out in the open? By effectively limiting the ability of one side of the issue to ask all of their questions you are, in fact, controlling the information that makes it into the open and thereby skew the results in your favor.
Waxman is very aware of this technique.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Did I hear that right?
Was Valerie just asked whether it would be a violation of an executive order to give knowledge of her covert status to someone without a need to know?
(Sorry I was distracted during that section ...)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Missed it -
I'm grading papers in the background, unfortunately. :(
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Waxman violates the rules
of official notification of the witness lists. R's should have been given 3 days, they were only given 1.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow.
The D's just issued marching orders to "The Daily Show" to dig up embarrasing footage of President Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow
Hannity wants pictures of Gore
getting on private planes to embarrass him. Politics. What's new?
It shouldn't be too hard to find the footage of Bush, BTW.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
You miss the point.
Hannity is a private citizen, not an elected official issuing marching orders to the media.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Now
the "Daily Show" is part of the official news media?
I'm sure they just asked for the footage (as in hand it over), not to go out and get it (as in intentionally go out and film it).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
It was a minor point.
I just found it funny to hear them talking about letting The Daily Show do their dirty work.
I have no doubt that the footage being discussed at the time "The President Promising an Investigation" exists. Actually, strictly speaking, was Fitzgerald operating under Bush's authority during his investigation? I mean his authority was delegated to him through the AG, wasn't it?
So in a sense, to avoid conflict of interest issues with the investigation, Bush through Gonzales (or was it Ashcroft?) appoints Fitzgerald to do the investigating. Gee, isn't that the ethical way to handle this whole mess anyway?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Check this out.
It was Cheney's push to crack down on leaks that put in place a stronger priority for investigating leaks. So Fitz was responding that that priority.
(Fitz is a conservative btw, and kept the investigation very narrow to avoid any whiff of partisanship on his part)
Cheney's Call
Here is a link to the article in National Journal. It is quite long, but explains how Cheney's desire to go after leakers, was part of the impetus for the investigation which the CIA asked for and was okayed by the DOJ.
I'm only half stupid
Toensing's opening remarks
make some very good points about how Plame's identities were being handled within the CIA.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The CIA was aware the column was coming
and did nothing significant to stop it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hmm
and whose responsibility was that? Oh yeah, republicans had oversight for that, didn't they. Kos already nips this point in the bud with this diary
.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Not even going to look.
Kos has no credibility on anything anymore.
Nothing he has to say can change the facts.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ok
You have the right to close your ears all you want. The fact is that it was still under the republican's watch. If you want to blame the CIA, that is fine, but realize that the republican congress was in charge of enforcing the CIA to follow its rules. It does not excuse the CIA's behavior then. Oversight. Simple as that.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Assuming that the CIA truly
considered her covert status to be something still worth protecting ... I agree.
So we are left wondering whether the CIA (not the Whitehouse) was negligent in this matter, or whether they knew that she was not really planning on being "covert" anymore anyway. I seem to remember something about her having put in the paperwork to change her status but it simply hadn't gone through yet ... but I may have the timing off slightly.
I'll try to dig up a reference for that last bit if you really want me to. (Please don't)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The CIA allowed Plame's name to be included
in reports where it would have threatened her identity.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4See my point above
about oversight. The republicans should have not allowed this to happen.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I was just trying to capture the main
points being made. I figured we could analyze them after the fact.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Waxman is being
pardon my language, a dick. He's not letting her answer questions, trying to pin her into yes or no answers that are not honest.
I'm not enjoying this.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I love the
heap of garbage being poured on her at dkos. She is an f'n bitch and on and on. The hate is amazing.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Have you checked
out what the "other side" is saying about the beautiful Plame?
I mean there is hate on both sides.
I'm only half stupid
I don't think
calling Plame a liar is anything comparable to the slew of personal insults I saw on dkos.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
no question
I don't care for it either. Part of the reason I don't play at the kos much any more.
You seem to be attracted to finding insults like a magnet to steel.
I'm only half stupid
Hysterical
Rush is taking too much viagra.
On the radio he say that Plame is one hot babe..... and that he wouldn't mind hooking up with her......!
Rush Limbaugh.... the love stud of right wing radio.
I'm only half stupid
More like the Pillsbury Dough Boy
of rightwing radio.
But Valerie
is not a 12 year-old Dominican girl
. I didn't think blond and over 15 was his taste.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
OK, I read the whole article you referenced.
Where does it say anything about 12 year old Dominican girls?
Perhaps you are projecting your own pedophile tendencies onto Rush? Better be care about that, the internets have ears.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you remember when Rush was caught coming back
from the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra in someone elses name? That's when. The Dominican Republic is a huge prostitution mecca and it is very well reported that many of the prostitutes are underage. I don't mean 16 or 17. I mean 10, 11 & 12. Rush himself said he was in the Dominican having a little vacation. Blowing off some steam.
What do you think a single man blowing off steam with a large bottle of Viagra (in someone elses name) was doing? Saying his "Our Fathers" and doing good deeds in the local church?
Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb & your not.
Wow...
I'm touched. I really am. Right back at you.
Now, as for the Rush story. The reference that Specter provided was the story about exactly the incident you are discussing. That reference says nothing about prostitutes or anything of the sort.
I honestly don't know anything about the Dominican Republic's prostitution rings. I was there for a week a year or so ago and stayed at a nice all inclusive resort. Had a great time. Traveled into the city for some souvenir shopping and didn't run across anything like this either. Everyone I met was nice and personable. Obviously I didn't travel over every part of the country, though.
I believe at the time Rush said that he went there to visit one of the big cigar growers. As I am sure you are aware Rush is a huge fan of cigars, so this is hardly a stretch to believe. Also, the places that Rush tends to frequent (based on the types of resorts he visits here in the US on golf outings) are hardly the types of places that have 12 year old hookers lining the front step.
I understand that you might find him repulsive, but there are many women in the world who would be attracted to the power he has. He has been married after all, so there you have an existence proof if nothing else. So to conclude that he had to resort to under age hookers to make use of the Viagra is somewhat unfounded without at at least some proof of some kind.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh jeez
It's just a joke making fun of the situation. I wasn't trying to prove anything.
Second, to try to make the case for Rush's sexual attractiveness is repulsively beyond comprehension.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other...
but the fact remains that he is powerful and some women are attracted to powerful men.
:-)
I just thought this particular joke, considering the pedophile implications was just a little over the top.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I definitely do not
find her attractive. It's all a matter of opinion in her case.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
To each his own...
It's a matter of opinion in any case.
Sic semper tyrannis
I disagree
He is trying to keep her on point. Hardball yes. Dishonest no.
She does not have any hard evidence to support her claims as facts. That is what he is getting at.
This highlights the war inside the Marble Halls that was going on between the CIA and the VP's office. The VP wanted all intelligence to be cleared thru him, what the CIA said be damned.
Novak is already on Fox News calling Valerie Plame a liar.
I'm only half stupid
Toensing makes the very relevant point
that Plame was not covert under the act.
Waxman badgers the witness and tries to get her discuss definitions of the word "covert" which are not applicable under the act.
Waxman continually asserts that he is not interested in discussing the meaning of things as defined in the act.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4ooh, smack.
Rep. Watson just caught her. Smooth, smooth. It doesn't matter if she's not covert under the act - "improper disclosure of classified information violates the executive order even if it does not violate the criminal statute." Toensing admitted that this is correct.
And to Watson's credit: no badgering, no lost temper, no shouting. Smooth as silk.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Jinx
you owe me a coke. Posted at the same second, same point
. I admit yours was more elaborately stated, though.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Would you settle for a beer?
I don't drink soft drinks, sorry. :/
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
ha!
The executive order, to go after leaks from organizations unfriendly to the administrations agenda......! In this case it backfired.
Agree Watson was smooth.
I'm only half stupid
Hopefully
this is the segment that will be picked up by Fox News fair and balanced coverage.
I'm only half stupid
I have to think about this one.
I want to go back when the transcripts become available and double check this point. There clearly was an exchange there along these lines but both sides were being particularly careful with the wording involved.
I don't remember it exactly so want to reserve comment until I can review it.
I sort of remember the main point Watson making was that it was possible to violate the executive order without violating the law. Toensing answered in the affirmative.
What is not clear in my memory is whether the question was worded so as to say that such a violation had actually occured in this instance.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Toensing makes the very significant
point that the act covers employees stationed abroad, but not stationed in the US as long as they have NOT been stationed abroad within 5 years.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Democrats continue to press the
use of a definition of "covert" which does not even apply to the definition under the law.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As Stewards Of Our National Security
You would think the White House would care about blowing the cover of an intelligence officer working at the Joint Task Force for Iraq that is working on WMD intelligence gathering....... oops that didn't fit theh VP's agenda.
I'm only half stupid
The part of the "administration" most
directly involved with and knowledgable of her status was the CIA. I doubt that the VPs office is privy to or even interested in the internal workings of the CIA at this level.
The fact remains that those in the government that were most knowledgable of and directly responsible for the protection of her "covert" status (as defined internally within the CIA and NOT as defined under the law in question) was the CIA, that they were aware of the fact that the column was going to be printed, and that they did essentially nothing to stop it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She admits
her outing violates an executive order.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Agreed.
Clarification: I think that the way things were worded was that someone could violate the executive order without violating the law.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Minor correction:
Executive orders do carry the force of law. The distinction here is that it's not the criminal statute they may have violated, but an executive order.
Although a lawyer on dkos has brought up the fact that Toensing may have been dishonest
about the statute under discussion:
from the statute
(which I linked to so you don't have to sully your eyes at dkos):
The two key words there are the ones I highlighted. Toensing argued that Plame would have had to been living abroad within the last 5 years, which is not what the statute says. The "or" effectively means that Plame could fulfill all the requirements of A (she did) and not be bound by B or C, although Toensing was arguing on B alone.
There's always the possibility that Toensing just slipped, but having so forecfully declared herself coauthor of the statute, I can't imagine that's the case. Too bad for her she was under oath, too.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Toensing dishonest......
shocking.
Things I Did Not Kknow
Since "the other side" scoffs and cries nepotism.
The small circle of friends, nepotism, and political agendas.
I'm only half stupid
Well, I'm no lawyer, but ...
if I played one on TV I would definitely say that things sort of comes down to the meaning of the world "serve" in this context, as well as what it was meant to imply at the time it was written.
Serve, in the context of being a military or governmental employee, generally and traditionally is used to refer to where you are stationed. In other words, where you live.
I served in Germany, for example, means I lived in Germany not that I happened to be in Germany one day for a meeting. I served in Vietnam means I was stationed in Vietnam. I served in Iraq means I was stationed in Iraq.
I served outside the United States means that I was stationed outside the United States. In other words, my primary living and working arrangements on a daily basis were outside of the United States.
Valerie clearly would not meet such a definition given that she was working at Langley.
As usual the left is seeking to play clever semantic word games to make a case that they clearly have no foundation for.
So, in terms of credibility on what the statute was intended to mean, should I believe some random bozo on dkos or one of the original authors of the legislation? Hmmm. Which should I choose?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More red baiting
"As usual the left is....." "The alt-reality is......" The liberals......" Yeah, just say that before every statement and then you get to have your own facts.
Interesting that Bob Novak was close friends with the author of the law, isn't it.
Not that she would have an "agenda'.
You do sound like a lawyer, with all the as if's....
which still misses the point that Valerie Plame's cover and the cover of her entire operation blown and we don't have a conviction because Scooter Libby obstructed justice.
I'm only half stupid
I did not qualify everything
here as being "As usual the left ...". I only used one such statement which was refereing to the dkos lawyer who is, by virtue of where he/she is posting, most likely on the "left".
I don't view that as being inaccurate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not what Toensing argued,
and that distinction you're trying to make may explain why she never used the words "served abroad" but only "lived abroad". Here's where your argument has a rougher time: if the two are intended to be overlapping, why does article B list "resides" as a separate category?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because ...
Only section (A) would apply to Valerie because she was clearly an employee of an intelligence agency.
Section (B) is clearly meant to apply to United States citizens who are not otherwise members of the Military or an Intelligence agency. Since they are not members of either of these the proper term to use for them is "resides" rather than "serves". They used different words for Military/Intelligence personnel than they did for ordinary citizens because that is how we use the terms in ordinary every day speach.
Section (C) is clearly meant to apply to anyone else and, again, would not apply to Valerie because she is clearly covered under (A).
They used the conjunction "or" between these clauses because they were obviously thinking of someone as being a member of group (A) OR group (B) OR group (C).
It is not a stretch to imagination that someone drafting this legislation would try to think of the logical groupings of people that needed to be addressed, and that in so doing that they would first think of (A) Intelligence and Military Personnel, (B) Other US Citizens, and (C) Non-US Citizens and then draft a clause fo cover each of them separately because each has pertinent and unique characteristics in this context.
The dkos lawyer, probably a member of the ACLU, is just looking for loopholish ways to construe and contrive a meaning where there is none, nor where one was ever intended given a plain reading of the text. That is, after all, one of the primary legal techniques used by the ACLU.
And you are correct, she definitely stressed the concept of "lived outside the US" which is the point here after all. When we refer to where we have Intelligence/Military personnel stationed, we typically say that is where they serve, not where they reside.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is great:
But isn't that what you're doing, trying to construe "has served" as necessitating "lived", even though it doesn't say that? Joe Wilson served the CIA in Niger, and he was only there for a couple days!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
When you ask any service person
where they served, are they going to give you a list of every place they ever were or are they going to tell you where they were stationed? If they were stationed in the US for some time and then in Germany, for example, they are likely to tell you which military base in the US and then in Germany (and possibly also mention a military base in Germany). If they happened to also go to a conference in Italy, will they say that they "served in Italy"? Most likely not.
I am not construing anything. I am giving you the definition of the word as it is commonly used in the military and intelligence communities.
What does it mean when a service person says, "I served oversees?" Does it mean that they spent a few days there or that they lived there for some significant amount of time?
Come on, be honest.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Military = intelligence?
Military service = intelligence service?
So overseas missions by intelligence operatives don't count as service, in your book?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Sure it does.
But you can't deny the obvious parallels between clauses (A) and (B) and the fact that when you refer to where someone in either of these services was stationed (i.e. lived while part of that service) that we typically use the term "served there" as opposed to "resided there". Or do you deny this?
I'm not actually sure why that is the case, but I suspect that these people still think of "home" as being here in the US and so "where I am living within the context of my military service" becomes "where I served".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just for the record
this is a new line of argument. The original claim advanced by most on the right was that Plame had a desk job only and had not been outside the US (in a professional role) for 5 years before she was outed.
So you perhaps understand if it appears conservatives are shifting goal posts here.
Having said all that, I think you have a reasonable point and I think the alternative interpretation is reasonable too. Not being an expert here, I'd go by the CIA's evaluation of the situation. The CIA appears to be claiming, if I understand correctly, that Plame was covert.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair enough.
But to be honest, I was not familiar with Toensing's rationale before yesterday and now having read the relevant statute I can understand why she was stressing the point about where Plame lived. If the clauses are meant to be mutually exclusive (which isn't even a stretch given the groups they each cover) then the parallel between "resides" when applied to non-service personnel and "serves" when applied to service personnel lends credence to Toensing's position, at least IMHO, especially when viewed in the context of traditional terminology within those services.
The desk job AND the having not been outside the US for 5 years are BOTH still integral parts of the argument. Given this I don't really see the goals posts as having been moved. These have always been stated as the reasons that she was not covert, were they not? That's why they were being brought up.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What I meant was
it's my understanding that it's now generally conceded that she was, in fact, outside the US in a professional capacity within 5 years of being outed. So the original claim that she had a strictly desk job appears to be incorrect.
Obviously it's hard to be specific on these things, and it's a lot easier to claim she wasn't covert than to prove she was, since you can't just point to a list of secret missions that she ran as evidence of her covert status. That's why my inclination is to trust the CIA here, with the caveat that I understand there may be political reasons for the CIA to want to undermine the White House at the moment.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
OK, understood. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you honestly believe
that clauses (A), (B), and (C) were NOT intended to be mutually exclusive groups?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We'll see how this plays out, I guess.
But of all of us and those people in the hearings yesterday, the person best qualified to testify as to what the intent was when the legislation was drafted, it was Toensing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are confusing
being covert....... which Valerie Plame unquestionably was.
With The definition of the Toensing's law, which sets out qualifications of the knowledge of the leaker of the name, who has to have knowlingly known that the agent was covert.
Knowingly knowing that an agent is covert, to convict said leaker of a crime, has ZERO bearing on whether that agent is covert.
You are confused.
I want to see the agent that talked from the CIA that talked to Novak testify.
And that still doesn't mean that we put a huge void in our national security intel by revealing Valerie's identity.
I'm only half stupid
Not confused.
I am directly responding to the definition of "Covert Agent" found in the statute and provided by pico here:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1050#comment-44576
All of my points made today have been focused on that definition which does NOT even mention the point about whether the leaker knew she was covert or not. The question is whether she meets the definition of "covert agent" as clearly specified within that statute, regardless of any definitions used within the CIA internally.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4White
Black
I'm only half stupid
Black
White
White
Black
Left
Right
She testified under oath her cover was blown, so I guess you are calling her a liar.
I'm only half stupid
I'm not afraid to call her a liar.
She's a liar.
But within the context of this discussion the only point I was making is that she was using a different definition of the term "covert" than the one defined in the statute, which of course is the one that means anything from a legal perspective.
That, in and of itself, is not actually calling her a liar. It is merely syaing that she was "mistaken".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Already
knew that.
She was using the CIA definition. The top super secret clearance type stuff, related to having built a whole company as a front to investigate WMD, replete with secret missions overseas. The whole spy thing.
No big deal. Minor stuff.
Curveball was probably a much better source of info than the Plame network anyway. At least that's what Dick thought.
I'm only half stupid
But not according to the definition found in the statute.
which is all that matters, at least from a legal perspective.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Toensing supports the decision by the
Whitehouse to not start an overlapping investigation to avoid obstruction of justice concerns.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Toensing points out that David Corn was the
first person to actually highlight that Plame was covert in print.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4after her cover was blown
and she had had to resign her position.
That might be relevant.
I'm only half stupid
Fair enough.
Her point was only that Novak called her an "operative" and David Corn called her "covert".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Toensing testifies that based on her experiences
with covert agents that taking a desk job at Langley is laughable.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Waxman calls Toensing a liar and states that
he intends to insert additional information into the record if he can to contradict her testimony. He sounds like he is not happy that he ended up allowing her to testify for the minority.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She did a nice job
of challenging the 'covert' status, but part of her testimony was damning for the republicans--the violation of the executive order and the lack of oversight.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I will admit that I am not happy with the
lack of internal Whitehouse action in this matter. They came off as very weak on that part. Still, the concerns of obstruction of justice with an overlapping criminal investigation are pretty serious.
I'll count that as a dodged bullet.
Be honest, if Fitzgerald had consistently been running into witnesses that had already been contacted as part of the Whitehouse investigation what would the Democrats have done with that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Toensing is a tough cookie
and her agenda is highly partisan. Worse she is smart.
Toensing can also insert additional information if the record is left open, yes!
I'm only half stupid
Creating good will...
All you liberals out there that don't think we are creating good will in the region, put on those "Ray Ban's" and surf on over to read this piece at Michelle Malkin's
. It has some info (which I am not going to copy here) from a soldier in Afganistan that speaks to that very point, IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4When I hear the same material
from my own contacts in Afghanistan, I'll take that more seriously. These are not the stories I'm getting from the horses' mouths.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
addendum:
I'm not saying the experiences of those soldiers are invalid. War involves a lot of people in a lot of different positions. I'm not going to change what I'm hearing about the war because I'm hearing different experiences from one or two people, any more than I think you would hearing the decidedly less optimistic accounts other people would give you.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Fair enough.
I expect that personal experiences will vary and we should definitely take them in totality, would you agree?
I raise the point only because folks on the left have done such an excellent job of highlighting one side of the story that I felt a little highlighting of the other side of the story is in order.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Happily
With the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, the day after the o6 elections, and with the appointment of Robert Gates, and the good Gen. Petreas, the administration started taking the mission in Iraq seriously. For years it seemed the mission was "unsupervised".
So we are happy that we are not spending billions of tax dollars on incompetent stratgies and and throwing money down the drain on private contracts that produce nothing but profits for the heads of said companies.
We think the Iraqi people deserve to have electricy, clean drinking water, a functioning govt, and streets safe enough for their children to walk to school.
I'm only half stupid
One "side"?
All due respect, the other "side" controls not only a major media outlet (Fox), but also the actual foreign policy. I find it hard to take that criticism seriously, considering that unflattering articles on CNN are nothing compared to unwise military decisions by the Commander in Chief.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well, yea, one side.
Whoever controls the foreign policy is irrelevant with respect to how the actual events get reported.
Now, as for the reporting, we have "Fox" which is basically providing "balanced" information versus "Every other major media outlet in the world" which are basically providing "clearly liberally biased information".
Now, when one looks at what one sees on those other major media outlets and compares it to what one sees on Fox I can understand why you would feel that it is "conservative leaning" even though in reality it is merely "balanced".
Your alt-view of the world is so skewed that you misinterpret "balanced" for "conservative leaning".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Basic definitions here:
if "everything but Fox" is left, and Fox is "balanced", then by definition Fox is on the right.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
In a relative sense ...
that is correct and it was precisely my point: when viewed relative to the remaining media outlets (which clearly have a liberal bias) Fox will appears to be to the right, politically speaking. I am glad that I got that across accurately.
This does not, however, mean that Fox in any actual sense has a "conservative bias". Again, Fox is merely balanced in an absolute sense on the entire political spectrum.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Really?
Then your scale is a little off. If you consider American news outlets left-leaning, I have a few old issues of Pravda I can mail you.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Why doesn't this surprise me?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He's
getting his Ph.D in Slavic languages (Russian and some eastern European languages).
I own a copy of Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto, None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Profit Over People. Make sense of that.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Ha, I did laugh at that.
Fair point, fair point. Although I'm currently teaching the ultra-right-wing Dostoevsky, so talk about a bipolar day.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
There is no doubt
that individual soldiers are doing their absolute best.
I'm only half stupid
Here's something GoRight and Ender can cheer about:
Secular Islam Summit about various groups of moderate Muslims and ex-Muslims standing up to radical Islamic violence
.
Yea, you'll love it....well, all exept the part that they don't want ANY governments run by ANY theocrats....So much for making the US a "Christian" nation or Israel being a "jewish" nation. Honestly, on that level, I completely agree with the writers of the article. Theocracies always, ALWAYS treat the minority religions terribly.
please stop lying
US is not a Christian nation, and Israel is a Jewish nation in a sense of GODDAMN ETHNICITY not RELIGION. It was founded by secular zionists.
I really hate all this damn whining about Israel when 95% of all the damn countries in the world are a home to a specific ethnicity and jews can't have their own damn country. WTF.
Whining about someone making US a Christian nation is baseless and annoying but expected on a continuous basis from people trying to redirect the focus from Islamofascism threatening the world.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Actually,
there are a lot of ethnicities that don't get their own nation, and that's part of the problem we're having in shifting world politics nowadays. President Wilson, who I both admire and dislike in equal measure, opened a whole bag of worms when he said that every people has a right to self-determination. That's great to say, but... every people? Where's the Basque nation? Spain's not going to give it up. Where's the Navajo nation? I don't see them splitting from Arizona anytime soon. Where's the Kurdish nation, given that they're playing such an important role in Middle Eastern dynamics? Should Turkey and Iraq both give up land to them?
So no, Jews don't deserve their own nation because no one "deserves" their own nation. The reason I support Israel's existence is plain ol' realism: they're already there, and you can't reverse history.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
eh my point was from the opposite angle
It's not that every ethnicity deserves a nation, but that a vast majority of nations are and have always been homes to specific ethnicities.
Based on that, to whine about Israel (as the latest and totally justified addition - justified due to continued attempts to exterminate the people in the diaspora) as somehow racist or theocratic is incredibly disingineous.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Didn't read it.
Don't have time. But I can respond to your comment.
I think that you must be laboring under the mistaken impression that Ender or I want to turn the United States into a "Christian Theocracy" or a "Christian Nation" or anything else along those lines. (Correct me here, Ender, if I am wrong about this from your perspective.)
I, personally, am not religious so I have no particular leanings towards Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other faith. I sort of prefer what we have now, a government which is agnostic to such issues.
I can't recall anywhere where I, nor where I have read Ender, suggesting that we should discriminate against the members of any particular religious group. So, why are you trying to imply that we want to create a "Christian Theocracy" in the United States?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4of course not
no one here has suggested it, nor is there a serious effort underway in our country to do so, despite the most overblown rhetoric from the left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You're kidding, right?
You, who make claims all the time about atheists trying to destroy religion in this country - based, I might add, on flimsy and often inaccurate comments - are going to claim that there aren't people in this country trying to make this into a definitively Christian country?
High comedy, Ender. At least pass popcorn around if you're going to do a comedy routine.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
eh
that is silly pico... I talked about atheist leftists (and non-atheist leftists) trying to destroy our religious heritage and all the references to religion, as well as supress any speech related to religion. Has nothing to do with defending US being a "Christian" nation or promoting Christianizing our nation.
You are not being honest by conflating these completely unrelated concepts.
Also just because there are Christians, who are upset over this leftist purge of religious references from our public life, and want to protect or reinstate that, it does not mean they will make US a Christian nation. US has never been a Christian nation (in the sense that you mean) even with all the religion in the public square.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Understood:
atheists are trying to destroy our religious heritage and supress speech = perfectly reasonable
Christians are trying to establish that this a Christian nation = hysterical hyperbole from the Left
Got it. Thanks, teach.
(The funny thing is, when I gave you the ACLU's record on religion, including defending the rights of religious people to express their religion, you dismissed it outright. And I suppose the sometimes successful efforts of people on the Right to impose creationism in schools is part of the hysterical hyperbole from the Left. But here I'm just "conflating" again.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
How does ...
complaining about atheists attacking Christians equate to the desire for a Christian Theocracy? We would complain about the atheists attacking any religion, as should everyone. We live in a country which is agnostic to religious views at its very foundation.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hopefully it sill stay that way.
I'm only half stupid
I agree. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes and no
With all due respect Pico, I do think the left is a bit too paranoid about this "they want to force us all to be Christians!" thing.
Maybe it's because so many on the left are atheist/agnostic that any smell of religiosity smacks of theocracy, but in all honesty I don't see it. Sure there are people who profit from and live their lives by religion, but are they trying to turn this into a "Christian country"? I dunno, but I don't think so.
Prayer in schools does not a theocracy make. Neither does a nativity scene on the courthouse grounds at Christmas. I think that religious freedom is so well entrenched into our culture that the vast majority of folks, even the devout, will stand for anyone's right to be an atheist or an agnostic or whatever.
There are few sites sadder than the Kirks of Amsterdam. . . . dead and empty. I don't think we want to remove religion from America to that extent.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Exposing to the light of day
and being paranoid are not the same.
Just because it is mentioned, doesn't mean "the left" is paranoid.
Specifically, David Kuo, resigned the Faith Based Initiatives program, because it was raising more for the Republican party and not the poor.
Awareness and paranoia are not the same thing.
I'm only half stupid
what the hell
does David Kuo's resignation have to do with the subject of making US a Christian nation or the Left trying to remove references to Christianity? Why mention it?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It's relevant.
Tax money being used to fund religous intitatives, from an office in the White House is kind of a big deal to some people.
If it was fair use, then we can presume that funding would also go to support all faiths, including Islam.
I'm only half stupid
The problem is
when one person -- and it only takes one -- files a lawsuit that says "you can't have [Christian symbol] on public property / time / money / etc."
Now most folks are reasonable and tolerant and really don't mind the nativity scene / commemorative cross kind of stuff, or the ten commandments on the courtroom wall. But some minority of people feel it necessary to enforce the extreme letter of the law with regard to the separation of church and state. Therefore, the risk of lawsuits become so much a consideration that the actions of the one overweigh the opinion of the many.
It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
What's extreme about that?
How many of the commandments are actual laws in this country? Three out of ten.
I don't want a place where I'm going to receive judgment reflecting back at me a series of moral imperatives that I have no interest in following. I'd flip it back on you: why do they have to be there? You can have it in your home, you can have it in your Church or a Synagogue, you can display them in your car, you can wear it on a t-shirt. Why do you need to put someone else's moral imperatives as a representation of foundational ethics in a place that's not supposed to be taking them into account?
Why don't we just put stuffed monkeys in the courtrooms, eh? You don't have anything against stuffed monkeys, do you, stuffed-monkey hater? What are you, some kind of deranged, stuffed-monkey-hating minority?
More benign, too. At least the stuffed monkeys aren't shouting "You shall not!"
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I loved the Monkeys
Mickey was my favorite.
Make you a deal. When it's your courtroom, you can decorate it as you like and I promise not to complain about your taste and its possible effect on your judicial abilities. But be careful. My wandering thoughts while figuring out how to get out of jury service could go something like this:
I mean, really, how can one trust a judge who paints flowers on his walls. . . he must be a lurid, vulgar man and besides, there's no requirement to love gardening in the law, and I hate flowers . . .he's probably wearing Birkinstocks under that robe and bought his degree from one of those website thingys on the internets. . .geesh what is this country coming to. . .
:}
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Mickey wasn't
a 'Monkey' technically (arguable I suppose on some levels), but a 'Monkee'. Not a huge fan, though I just rediscovered "Porpoise Song
" through a friend, which is a true beauty. Check it out if you get a chance.
Tradition, decoration, personal style, or whatever, I believe we should follow the laws. There is no law in the constitution regarding flowers, birkenstocks, or monkeys. There is one regarding religion. Religion and the government should not mix. It's in the Constitution plain as day.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
nothing like that is as plain as day
it's certainly what constitutes an "Establishment of religion" that is in question and we strongly disagree on that. Something hangs on the wall of a court for a 100 years and suddenly libs declare to it to be unconstitutional? The hell it is.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Uh-oh.... reality bites:
The most celebrated, media-covered removal of the Ten Commandments from a courtroom was the Alabama fiasco
. That monument to our nation's history had been there since waaaaaaaay back in 2001.
Of course, I'm sure he just had history and tradition in mind, right?
Right.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
those libs
always excercising their free speech rights.
Presumably you would be okay with an American Judge that was a muslem decorating his courtroom however he wanted even if there were islamic traditions? Establishment clause and all.
I'm only half stupid
Well said. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So many on the left who are atheists?
You mean the whopping 10% or so?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't know about that
but from what I've read on the blogs, for example, it seems that the politically active left does have a greater proportion of the non-religious than the right does. Or maybe a better way to put it is that the non-religious right doesn't worry about theocracy, while the non-religious left seems to be too worried about it.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It is real simple
You can be as religous as you want.
There is a separation of church and state. The left wants to make sure that line doesn't get blurred. That is reasonable.
The right keeps injecting the meme that our constitution was written with a Christian God in mind. There is a whole crew on the right that continues to insist that our country has gone to hell because there are not enough Christian mores in govt.
The left only brings it up because the right keeps blurring the lines that separate church and state.
The danger lies in the church being taken over by the state.
I'm only half stupid
This is true:
dkos has a much larger percentage of atheists than the population at large, even than the Democratic population, which is overwhelmingly Christian.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Do these people (Christian Democrats) want a
Christian Theocracy then?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Naw, but they're the sane ones.
They are Democrats, after all. ;)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
By the way,
sell me that line when your kids are bringing home textbooks arguing that evolution is "just a theory" because everything may have been created, and both views are equally correct. That doesn't a theocracy make, either.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes, but
haven't the people of Kansas finally come to their senses? And the courts in Pennsylvania (?) did what they're supposed to do and ruled against intelligent design?
I'd worry if I thought that kids actually read textbooks. Or maybe I'd just be happy that they know how to read. Half the kids that get into high school here drop out, and half of the rest are functionally illiterate anyway. There are bigger problems in the schools than a paragraph or two in a textbook.
Yes, I'm trying to lighten the mood. There are certainly specific battles that will always have to be fought (like the textbooks -- wait until the anti-global warming folks get ahold of them) but vigilence is the price of democracy.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Agreed, but
why isn't that sufficient evidence that a group in this country is working to impose their views, while the ACLU's court cases are cherry-picked ostensibly to show that they're trying to remove religion from everyday life? Why is one perfectly reasonable and the other hysterical daydreams?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Local vs National
What it means is that some devout parents in Kansas want to control what their kids are taught in school with regards to God's role in the creation of the earth. That's a local issue that, in a democracy, is properly handled at the local level. It does not mean that those same parents can or will affect life on a national scale. And it appears that others in their community have come around to defending their desire not to be taught
religion in a science class.
Democracy, even our representative version, is a tough proposition. On the good side, it allows people who believe professional wrestling is real a voice. On the bad side, it allows people who believe professional wrestling is real a voice. There's no all-powerful Oz who makes the rules. Fallible, gullible people do. But hopefully the system works it out in the end.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
No disagreement there,
but I'm trying to understand why getting the ten commandments out of a courtroom constitutes the lamentable secularization of America, while the enforcement of teaching creationism is just what we get from Democracy. And why I'm criticized for comparing the two examples, as if one is perfectly reasonable and the other is leftist hysteria.
I don't get it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Does this help?
Why does getting the ten commandments out of a courtroom constitute a secularization of America? (I wouldn't really call it secularization myself but that is what it is commonly termed so I'll go with convention.)Well, in most of the cases I recall, those commandments had been on the wall for decades, harming no one and doing nothing. Then someone got an idea that they were in violation of church and state and decided to file a lawsuit, which spun into nationwide searches for other "illegal" symbols. Now that one person may be technically correct, but why should the community be pleased that that one person's will gets imposed upon them and the traditional way of decorating their courthouse? Over something as banal as a picture on a wall or a statue?
The enforcement of teaching creationism is what we get from democracy because there was a group of parents who wanted to control what was taught to their children. They used their majority to influence the outcome. People are very serious when it comes to their children.
One scenario used the courts to impose the will of one upon inanimate objects accepted as cultural artifacts by the many. The other scenario used the quasi-legislative process of a school board to impose the will of the majority concerning the education of their young upon the entire district.
That's the difference. And I'm not meaning to criticize. I'm just trying to illuminate the bigger picture.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Because for one thing,
the courtroom is not a place where the will of the majority trumps the law. Yes, we have juries, but even they - within the courtroom - cannot decide what's right and wrong above the law. We recognize something higher there than mere community - we recognize equality. So then we purposefully decorate it with exclusionary symbols? I understand why you gave the examples above, but let's be honest for a second: the Commandments are moral strictures, not arbitrary interior design. And note my comment above
: the most famous case involved a set of commandments installed two years before by a politician who wanted to recognize the existence of God. So much for a courtroom being a place where everyone is equal.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Interiors
Let me make sure I understand where you're coming from: Are you saying that you honestly believe that, just by virtue of their physical presence at a courthouse, a listing of the ten commandments makes the judicial system more unequal?
In the specific report you linked above, there is indeed room to believe that the men who advocated the monument perhaps might interpret the law a bit more "ten commandment-y" than they should. But do you think that tendency is removed by removing the monument?
I guess I could distill this by asking if you are more disturbed by the commandments being engraved on a stone in a courthouse or engraved on a judge's heart?
(Ah those Alabamans. However does quaoar cope? That specific case does seem to be a bit over the top.)
Edited: Pico, I will not be around for a while and thus will be unable to continue this conversation. But I hope I have been able to illustrate somewhat why your political opposites might interpret events like the 10-C lawsuits as symbolic attacks upon religion. And how the left's response to public religious symbolism seems to be based upon an unfounded fear of theocracy. No statue or wall adornment, regardless of its subject, is a threat to this nation. It's the people that matter. Making them remove outward signs of what's in their hearts accomplishes nothing.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Actually, I never understood why the left
was so threatened by the stickers that highlighted that Evolution is only a Theory and that the students should approach that material thoughtfully. (Paraphrased)
Evolution IS just a theory, correct? Scientifically speaking?
An all students should consider things thoughtfully, should they not?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4When's the last time
you've read a school science textbook? The whole introductory chapters are specifically about the differences between hypotheses and theories, what the scientific process means, etc. That sticker applies not only to Evolution, but to every single branch of science. By singling out Evolution, you're saying it's somehow different than other sciences. It's not.
You want to put a sticker in there, put a sticker in there saying everything in this book - biology, astronomy, chemistry - is just theory. Everything.
But wait - you don't have to. It's in the friggin' book already!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hmm.
OK, so since you feel that the introductory chapters adequately describe the scientific method and the differences between "theories" and "laws" to insure that the students thoughtfully understand these distinctions, then why are you so vehemently against the inclusion of alternative theories such as Intelligent Design which make no mention of any particular religious entity?
The "theory" that the universe was in fact created is a perfectly valid "theory" from a scientific perspective (using the scientific definition of a "theory") is it not? And so a discussion of the evidence both for and against that theory would still be relevant from a scientific perspective as long as it is presented in an objective fashion, correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not at all:
a "theory" in science means something specific. Creation is not a theory.
Though the wiki's not exactly the most reliable source, they have a good summary here
:
At best, creation is a hypothesis, but a weak one because it is untestable. Probably more classifiable as a conjecture, to be honest. It in no way approaches the level of theory.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Interesting.
I won't even bother to look up an alternative definition. Yours will work just fine.
So let's examine the so called Theory of Evolution and see how it stacks up against this definition:
1) Mathematical description? Nope.
2) Logical explanation? Arguable, but OK.
3) Verified hypothesis? Hardly.
4) Proven model? Absolutely not.
5) Capable of predicting future occurrences? Nope.
6) Capable of predicting future observations? Nope.
7) Capable of being tested through experiment? Nope.
8) Capable of being falsified through empirical observation? Nope, but the notion of Irreducible Complexity takes a pretty good whack at it.
Gee, by your definition Evolution doesn't seem to meet the criteria for being a "theory" either. What's up with that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Survey says:
wrong!
Evolution is both a verified hypothesis and a proven model (you may be thinking of origins, not evolution, but we can actually witness evolution in lower species), has proven predictive power, and has been tested over and over again.
What in the world are you basing your claims on?
Here's an index
to creationist mis-claims about evolution. The stuff you're looking for is grouped under the CA200 branch.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
OK, put up or shut up time.
First of all, I don't have to provide any proof for my claims. You as the champion of this "theory" need to provide proof of it's validity or it is just so much hocum like anything else.
Verified hypothesis:
OK, please explain to me exactly how this was verified. The fossil record provides no such definitive proof, so what else have you got?
Proven model:
Again, exactly how has this been proven? What new species have we created or observed lately?
Proven predictive power:
Hmm, OK. So what exactly is man going to evolve into? What new species will be derived from us? What new species will be derived from anything larger than a single celled organism or bacteria?
Has been tested over and over again:
To what are you referring here? Have we been developing new species without me hearing about it?
Actually, for that matter, exactly how are you defining species so that we can make a meaningful determination of when a "new" one has been developed?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let's continue over in the open science thread.
Found here
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry for the multiple replies, but
this is so absurd: we just had our first elected Muslim to Congress publicly grilled for not swearing on the Bible!
I mean c'mon now. Another atheist plot to subvert our cultural heritage, or just common f'ing sense? This is crazy.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The level of denial
is incredulous.
Hugh Hewlitt's new book, in support of Mitt Romeny........ what's a partisan to do when they want to support a corporate friendly candidate who is Mormon. Deny. Deny. Deny. "No we never used faith to promote GWB's agenda.", he chimed innocently.
Hughie literally said there was no exclusionary effort by evangelicals, and was shocked, shocked I tell you that anyone would even mention! and that Mormon's are pure as the night is long.
Now any mention of such bias, by the "left" is being set forth as liberal tyranny.
I'm only half stupid
Just because it makes the news
doesn't mean people give a damn. It means the news people think it's interesting or that they want to stir the pot and create a controversy where none exists.
Did you see the piece about AP testing a ban on Paris Hilton stories? They did not report any, and gosh, not one of their thousands of newsfeed customers asked for one. Nobody cared.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
I liken that to a lot of what gets reported. Who cares about the Congressman swearing on a Koran? One other Congressman who thought he'd get his 10 minutes of fame without having to go on Colbert?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Fabricated stories,
like the American Family Association organizing petitions
to get Congress to force swearing on the Bible.
But again, probably just more hysteria from the Left.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The American Family Association
is no real threat to this nation. Smack 'em down if their efforts ever reach the legislative level, but in the meantime, ignore them like you would the KKK.
Most of this seems so awful because of the current President's worldview and his belief in his own righteousness*. But it will pass.
(*who would have ever though we'd get our very own Blues Brother in the Whitehouse?)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Bah, fair enough.
Why do you have to be all "reasonable" and stuff?
Still, due diligence. The AFA is on notice.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Overton window stuff
if you do not keep tabs on them they do become normalized in society.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I don't recall any of my posts
taking this position. I was perfectly fine with it and I believe that the vast majority of Americans of all faiths had no problem with it.
The fact that some people felt strongly enough about the topic to create a media circus hardly equates to a Christian Theocracy, any more than the atheists creating a media frenzy over Nativity Scenes constitutes an Atheist Anti-Theocracy.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I could agree with that,
although I don't think it's the atheists creating the media frenzy over the nativity scenes. ;)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes!
While every one has not subscribed to it or even been aware of it, the Bush people made a concerted effort to use the church to help him get elected. The mega-churches, as testified to be David Kuo, were sold that a President Bush would be a Pastor in Cheif, and as long as God was on the side of the White House, the US would be saved from the immoral left...... party of death, etc.
I'm only half stupid
Hmm.
A politician accepted help from his constituants. Go figure.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I had no idea that post would generate that level of
feedback. I guess what I had meant to convey was 2 things:
1) there are secular Muslims and they really are very much like the rest of us here in the secular united States. They too fear the orthodoxy of imposed religion, or religion imposed in a manner one doesn't agree with. It was supposed to be a happy post on that level.
2) Aside from the naysayers, how many times did they bring up the idea that the United States is a Christian Nation at the last CPAC conference just 2 weeks ago? I suspect that every other speaker said as much. How many times does Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dobson, the Southern Baptists, Evangelical Christians, et al, have to say the United States is a Christian nation and it is their intent to make it so by ruling it as much? What, you hear them say that and don't believe them? These are people of true faith. What you or I believe isn't important to them. The only thing that's important or meaningful to them is what they believe.
So, I'm sorry some of you disagree, but honestly, our own orthodoxy here in the US is doing everything they can to make the US a theocracy...a Christian Theocracy. No more porn on the adult pay per views. No more allowing unbelievers the same rights as the believers, no more freedom of religion. No more freedom of choice as to what birth control meathod one would like to use. No more choice about fundamental individual moral positions. One size fits all is a terrible way to run any country. That's all I'm sayin'. That and good for the secular muslims.
What does the term
"Christian Nation" actually mean?
To me it means that the majority of people who live there are Chrisitians. Nothing more.
So even though Iraq (at least currently) is living under a Democratically elected governement I think that it is still fair to say that Iraq is a "Muslim Nation".
"Chrisitian Nation" does not mean, at least to me or to the majority of Americans IMHO, a Christian Theocracy.
Are the Falwells and Dobsons trying to exert their influence on the face of the elected government? Sure. Do they have any less of a right to do so than any other group of people?
The gays are likewise trying to exert their influence on the face of the elected government too, are they not? Does that imply that they want a "Gay Theocracy"?
Individual groups trying to elect people that will represent their views is just democracy at work, at least IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I can't give you a definition of Christian Nation, only
my opinion of what those who do call for it think. And that's just my opinion, not theirs.
As to the Dobsons & the Falwells...yes, they are trying to enforce their beliefs on others. Examples being Intelligent Design taught in schools rather than churches. Evolution not being taught in schools. Someone other than me making my own birth control decisions. Prayer to their specific god in public forums.
Now, I don't mind teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, but not in science class. Teach it in a Sociology or Comparative Religions class. I don't mind someone sticking to their own versions of birth control. But I don't want anyone else to make my decisions on the matter. I don't mind public forums being opened with a prayer, so long as all religions who request it are able to do so during the timeframe, and it isn't dominated by one single group. I say that because I know evangelicals or good Southern Baptists would NEVER allow a Satanic or Wiccan opening prayer in a public setting. Do you disagree?
Well, Ender
Looks like your question got lost:
If you surge with enough troops, you can make Iraq as safe as Sweden. If we could send another 300,000 troops into Iraq we could have the whole place in lockdown.
And BTW, that was the poiint that Gen. Eric Shinseki made at the start of the war that earned him an early retirement.
The question is not whether we can control the violence. With enough troops we can. The questions are how many is enough, how long can we maintain that level and what happens when we are forced to draw down?
At some point we will draw down and begin to leave. When we do, Iraq will either break apart or there will be a huge bloodletting.
We are pinning our hopes on the Iraqi Army being able to keep the peace. They cannot. The Iraqi Army is essentially a Shiite militia. Its one armored unit has ancient Soviet T-72 tanks that were given to them by East European countries looking to get rid of them. The Iraqi Air Force is a joke. They just got 16 refitted Huey helicopters from Jordan that we had given to Jordan back in the 60s and 70s.
Even if the Iraqi Army wasn't eaten up with sectarianism, it is not capable of doing what we are doing. What might very well happen is that the Army wages open war on the Sunni insurgency with help from the Kurdish peshmerga. The Saudis and the Gulf states would then funnel cash and weapons to the Sunnis and the slaughter would commence.
qui tacet consentire
Once again, Glenn Greenwald gives us faith:
no not manna from heaven faith
. Faith that these United States will return to a nation of the rule of Law....once Rove and Alberto are thrown in prison. Those boys are goin' DOWN!!!!
a lil hint to Karl & Alberto....don't drop the soap...
Jean Smidt Slips on Vomit
We will just call it karma!
I'm only half stupid
Link to the story?
Or better yet, video?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
oops!
I slipped......... hahaha.
Vomit Slippery When Wet
Poor Jean. She made THE biggest scene in the hallway. Imagine that.
I'm only half stupid
haha
nice one on Plame by Streiff
over at Redstate.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
With all the discussion of whether or not Valerie was
a covert agent or not, I feel the discussion has missed the forest for the trees.
Let us agree on these factoids:
1) The whole purpose for the outing was because Vice President Cheney was upset that a man of dignity who had served this nation honorably wrote a New York Times Op-Ed stating that the whole Niger to Iraq uranium story was false. As the Op-Ed stated, the administration knew it was false and still touted it not only in Bush's State of the Union speech but also in Colin Powells address to the UN in trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. The VP was furious that someone a) correctly called him and the administration liars in public and b) might have been able to stop the invasion of Iraq had the message recieved more scrutiny and play by the MSM.
2) The whole rational for the invasion of Iraq was based on a) they were developing nuclear weapons, b) they were developing chemical weapons, c) they were intimately involved in the carrying out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. All three of these explainations has now shown to be completely and utterly fabrications and false. The bush43 administration knowingly lied, not only to the American people, but to the entire world in order to set in motion the domino theory NPAC plan that had been touted since the mid 90's.
3) The results have been an unmitigated disaster in every single aspect:
a) we've lost 3200 GI's to date based on deception and arrogant greed for power and domination by bushco.
b) we've lost any sympathy and respect we had with the rest of the ENTIRE planet as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
c) Iraq has lost tens if not hundreds of thousands of it's citizens, has had it's infrastructure, both physical and social completely destroyed and is now in the depths of a civil war.
d) key favored companies and individuals have profited beyond anyones wildest imaginations or past referances due to no bid contracts and virtually no tracking of accounting for BILLIONS of our tax dollars.
e) our government is $1.5 Trillion dollars in the hole because of the rampant mismanagement of our treasury and the horrible priorities and greed of the Executive administratios under the bush43 administration. You and I paying for our debts isn't the abhorrent aspect of this. It is that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for it, showing no responsibility for ourselves and no caring for our future generations.
And now they wish to do it all over again with Iran.
Who are you on the right defending and why? These are greedy bastards that have played you for saps pulling the patiriotic card. Don't be fooled again. It is really ugly to be wrong about the same thing over and over.
So, in parting, you who still whole heartedly defend dubya, Darth & their evil accomplices....look at what you are defending. You are not the problem. You were only played for fools. All we on the progressive side ask for is honesty and accountability. We have yet to see it in any of the public or private actions from the bush43 administration.
Youch! Digby makes my point eloquently
.
This of course will fall on deaf ears
of the totalitarian apologists.
They only pretend to care about National Security as seen with the denial of Plame's covert status.
Think about it. It's called "red baiting".
Totalitarians, in sheeps clothing, are busy inserting clauses to rid the states of even Republican attorneys, that don't tow the line of BushThink. See the liberal clowns they cry.
Translation' see the socialist freedom haters.
And now they are making a concerted effort to red bait universities.....!
OH yes, it's true. If you love NCLB you will love the new "study" that Maraget Spelling is doing on how to create Federal Testing Standards for Universities.
Just say the word liberal and you don't need facts to make your argument!
I know you kindess will appreciate this little video clip.
His blunt assessment of Dear Leader.
Donald Trump
I'm only half stupid
When was that Trump interview?
Musta been recently. And I don't think of The Donald as some raving liberal. We'll hear him tagged that way now over at Rush, Townhall, Malkin & etc now.
Dpn't follow the misdirection play This administration is playing. Look at the argument of whether or not a CIA manager was covert or not and don't think, ask or discuss that bushco knowingly lied to us & the world in order to cover invading a foreign country that didn't threaten our interests.
Invading Iraq was a criminal offense. We the US have gone to war with an innocent nation and they want to talk about Valeri Plame, not explain all of their lies. I want every single one of them explained or I want to see reignations and I want to hear & see them now.
I hear ya brother
the bs has gone too far.
Totatiltarians in sheeps clothing.
I'm only half stupid
Right Wing Reaction
From links offer on Fox News
Also many posts assaulting capitalism. Claiming this is just a show trail so Valerie can MAKE MONEY selling books!
Anyone selling books is dangerous I guess.
I'm only half stupid