Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

U.S. Vs. Libby

Scooter Libby Valerie Plame CIA Leak US Vs. Libby 2007

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#61 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:26 AM

View PostCait, on Mar 6 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

View PostLost Cause, on Mar 6 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

View PostCait, on Mar 6 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

View PostLost Cause, on Feb 14 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

View PostCait, on Feb 14 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

Not all lies are equal, and to make the claim that they are is nonsense. Lying about a blow job and lying to go to war are two different things. I'll still take the moral high road on that one. No one died because Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush cannot say the same thing.

And you can all split the hair that Clinton was under oath and Bush never was, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the POTUS shouldn't be lying to us under any circumstances, especialy when young men and women's lives are at stake.
But you've just nullified your own argument Cait. Clinton was the Pres. and he lied, not only to a grand jury, but to the face of the American people. While you may not believe that all lies are equal, lying under oath, no matter the circumstances, is still perjury. It doesn't matter if it regards an intern "servicing" her boss or if it's me testifying that I saw John Doe kill Jane Ditz when he didn't. Perjury is perjury. "A liar by any other name is still a skunk," to maul Shakespeare.

Oops I just saw this. I agree. A lie is a lie. I never said Clinton didn't lie under oath. What I said is that what Clinton did didn't get anyone killed. I'm sorry, a lie to protect your own ass, while reprehensible morally, isn't the same kind of outrage as a lie that takes citizens to war to die and be maimed. And more to the point, if Clinton was impeached for his lie, why should Bush be allowed to serve in office when his lie has killed people?
If concrete evidence (that'll stand up to scrutiny in court or an impeachment) can be presented that Bush fabricated the proof for going to war in Iraq, then it's plenty enough for impeachment.

However, to say that because Clinton's lie didn't get anyone killed completely demeans the office of President, the top-most person charged with law enforcement in the U.S. What died when Clinton perjured himself was the law, something just as vastly important as one human life, IMHO. He violated the very system he was inaugurated to protect and in doing so demeaned the office and the law.

Outrage is one thing--and at times it can be a good thing. But, sometimes we have to check our emotions at the door and examine things equally. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.

I disagree. All lies are not created equal. They are not equal because they don't all have the same consequences. I'm concerned with the consequences of a lie. That isn't saying that a lie isn't a lie, because all lies are in fact lies. On that we do not disagree.

I'm making a distinction on the severity of the consequences of one lie compared to another.. and I'm not saying that the lesser wasn't just as offensive in its own right.

I think you are mistaking my position with the run of the mill "Democratic" position on the Clinton impeachment. I have no problem with the fact that he was impeached. He, after all, lied under oath. That's an impeachable offense, and Congress did its duty. I support the Constitution and in that case I think it worked.

However, as far as the consequences of a lie, one that gets people killed as opposed to one that is covering one's political ass can't be compared IMHO. It's the consequences that I'm looking at, not the one lie is not as bad as another.

This is a subtle distinction, but one I think has to be made. Clinton should have been held responsible for his perjury. I have no problem with that, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.

That said, others that lie under oath should be held to the same standard, and if the consequences of their lies were *even worse* that Clinton's lie, then it is just as prosecutable.

In law, the concept of 'severity' of a crime, is used all the time in determining legal consequences. If a lie [perjury] that didn't get anyone killed is offensive to the office of the President, then I should imagine one that got people killed would be too.

And that is my point.
Internet ate my freakin' post.  So, I'll try again:

Nice clarification; no argument.

However, I will re-iterate:  I want sold proof of the conspiracy to get us embroiled in Iraq based on fabricated evidence.  The problem with some of the evidence (especially intelligence data) is the issue of interpretation.  I recall a Langley analyst years ago referring to his job as part science-part art.  

But, what's really needed is some paper trail, or a string of co-conspirators ready to roll over, in order to get the process started.  Instead, neither of those exist and all I hear (granted, I live in a bubble most of the time) are Democratic bomb-throwers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme left-wing raising all this san.  Just because some folks minds may be swayed by a small amount of evidence doesn't mean all folks minds will--mine included.  I am more interested in making sure that if there is something criminal/impeachable, there needs to be evidence of the sort that will hold up scrutiny in court.  When I see that, I'll believe it.  Until then, the sort that talked impeachment will always seem revengeful to me.

ETA:  My references above were not aimed at anyone on this board; I am speaking generally of those Democrats in high positions who have talked impeachment.

Edited by Lost Cause, 07 March 2007 - 09:27 AM.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#62 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:52 AM

I understand your reservations, LC, even as I'm convinced that the Bush administration--specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice--knowingly hyped and cherry-picked intelligence on Iraqi WMD to build a case for war.

Why? Here's one example:

http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html

Another is the existence of the OSP, the special intelligence shop set up in the Pentagon by Cheney and Rummy. It was tasked solely with finding evidence to support the argument that Iraq posed a serious WMD threat. Cheney and Rumsfeld, whatever their reasons, made sure that anything that called into question Saddam's possession of WMD was discounted.

The Senate Intelligence Committee should fairly soon release its long-stonewalled report on the way the administration deliberately hyped Saddam's WMD threat. Committee Chair Rockefeller said it's not going to make pleasant reading for the White House. I'm real curious to see if it's as damning as Rockefeller has indicated. But I honestly can't imagine that the report will show that the White House was misinformed and merely passed along to the public the erroneous information that the intelligence community gave them regarding the seriousness of Saddam's WMD threat. We know too much now about how the intelligence community and other agencies often said "waitaminute--we don't know this for certain" and yet in their speeches, Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld expressed no doubt whatsoever about the "evidence" they presented to the public. The mushroom cloud was a real threat.

As to why the administration pushed for this war, we can only guess. Could be a genuine concern about national security combined with a lack of faith in our intelligence. Could be admiration of an academic theory, proposed by neoconservative thinkers, that we could overthrow Saddam, install a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq and remake the region.

Whatever the reason, it's clear now that they did not take into consideration evidence that contradicted their vision of the problem and their preferred solution. They certainly conveyed to the American people in their public statements a certainty about the evidence that they had to know was false. The aluminum tubes aren't suitable for use in a centrifuge? Let's pretend we didn't hear that and tell the American people that they were. Saddam didn't seek to purchase yellow cake from Niger? Well, someone said he did and someone said he didn't, but let's make it sound like something we're 100% sure of. Clearly, they over-stated the evidence, even in the National Intelligence Estimate summary they presented to Congress before the war authorization vote in 2002. (Congress STILL should have read the entire report and asked more questions, but many didn't because Bush's approval rating was sky-high then and they were up for re-election in the midterms.)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#63 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:11 AM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 7 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

I understand your reservations, LC, even as I'm convinced that the Bush administration--specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice--knowingly hyped and cherry-picked intelligence on Iraqi WMD to build a case for war.

Why? Here's one example:

http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html

Another is the existence of the OSP, the special intelligence shop set up in the Pentagon by Cheney and Rummy. It was tasked solely with finding evidence to support the argument that Iraq posed a serious WMD threat. Cheney and Rumsfeld, whatever their reasons, made sure that anything that called into question Saddam's possession of WMD was discounted.

The Senate Intelligence Committee should fairly soon release its long-stonewalled report on the way the administration deliberately hyped Saddam's WMD threat. Committee Chair Rockefeller said it's not going to make pleasant reading for the White House. I'm real curious to see if it's as damning as Rockefeller has indicated. But I honestly can't imagine that the report will show that the White House was misinformed and merely passed along to the public the erroneous information that the intelligence community gave them regarding the seriousness of Saddam's WMD threat. We know too much now about how the intelligence community and other agencies often said "waitaminute--we don't know this for certain" and yet in their speeches, Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld expressed no doubt whatsoever about the "evidence" they presented to the public. The mushroom cloud was a real threat.

As to why the administration pushed for this war, we can only guess. Could be a genuine concern about national security combined with a lack of faith in our intelligence. Could be admiration of an academic theory, proposed by neoconservative thinkers, that we could overthrow Saddam, install a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq and remake the region.

Whatever the reason, it's clear now that they did not take into consideration evidence that contradicted their vision of the problem and their preferred solution. They certainly conveyed to the American people in their public statements a certainty about the evidence that they had to know was false. The aluminum tubes aren't suitable for use in a centrifuge? Let's pretend we didn't hear that and tell the American people that they were. Saddam didn't seek to purchase yellow cake from Niger? Well, someone said he did and someone said he didn't, but let's make it sound like something we're 100% sure of. Clearly, they over-stated the evidence, even in the National Intelligence Estimate summary they presented to Congress before the war authorization vote in 2002. (Congress STILL should have read the entire report and asked more questions, but many didn't because Bush's approval rating was sky-high then and they were up for re-election in the midterms.)
I'll give you one equal:

In college, when I worked for campus security, we had a series of break-ins that resulted in money and equipment being stolen.  No one could find or catch the guy(s) doing it.  Through a series of stupid mistakes and genuine behavior on my part, I became the focus of the investigation for about 2-3 weeks.  My dorm room was searched (with no result) I gave at least 2 statements regarding my whereabouts at certain times, and (I am reasonably certain) my bank account records were combed (with no result).  The local PD zeroed in on me and made my life pretty much a hell, resulting in one night when a burglary did take place on my watch, I reported it, and later was taken down to the station to give a statement only to discover that I was the prime suspect, fingerprinted (for comparison against forensics left at the scene) and grilled for over an hour until I finally remembered my 5th Amendment rights.

In the end, it turned out a co-worker, along with a buddy and a (very possibly) another local PD officer, were the ones doing the deeds.  Local PD eventually let go of me, but not before I got a very solid lesson in how our criminal investigative system works.  

The moral of the story is this:  People can become zeroed in on what they think is true, to the exclusion of all else, only to be utterly mistaken.  That's human nature; seen it in action.  They think they've got the scent, their on to the bad guy, only to be wrong the whole way.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but what I've described is a valid response to the situation you've just posited.  

Anyway, I've got a lecture to give to my 9th graders.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#64 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:53 AM

My local paper still hasn't reported the verdict.  

Huh.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#65 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 12:10 PM

^I guess they're a little behind the times.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#66 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 12:19 PM

^Or delusional.  :unsure:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#67 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:16 PM

View PostLost Cause, on Mar 7 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

The moral of the story is this:  People can become zeroed in on what they think is true, to the exclusion of all else, only to be utterly mistaken.  That's human nature; seen it in action.  They think they've got the scent, their on to the bad guy, only to be wrong the whole way.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but what I've described is a valid response to the situation you've just posited.

I can't disagree with your example of human nature, but I'm not sure it applies to the President and the Administration.  You see, they *aren't* being investigated or zero 'ed in on at all.  They pretty much continue to do what they do without fear of consequences.  While in your example, you could have been ruined by the insinuations, BushCo isn't.

Additionally, I don't think that a democratically elected President is immune to a loss of confidence, regarding his truthfulness, by the electorate.  That's just the way politics is.  I don't trust this Administration.  *I* don't trust them.  I feel lied to.  I feel manipulated and because he is elected to represent *me* I'm entitled to use 'feeling" in my opinion of his ability to lead.. that too, is the nature of democratic politics or negative campaign ads wouldn't be so effective in our society.

That said, sure, to impeach the man I'd insist on evidence too.  You just have to ask yourself, how available any evidence is when it comes to the Office of the President.  You know what I mean?

As to impeachment, what I've learned during this past 14 years, is it isn't about High Crimes and Misdemeanors, it is about Votes in Congress.  Bush won't be investigated or impeached, because there aren't the votes to do it.  Despite whatever evidence might be presented, the GOP will never impeach one of their own.  You'd need some kind of contempt situation, like with Nixon, and I'm not sure this court would ever issue such an order.

So it rubs both ways.. sometimes innocent people are branded in the process of an investigation, but sometimes.. sometimes, powerful people are exempt because of their power and position.

Not that I think impeachment should be easy mind you, I don't.  However, I do think that the public is entitled to know what the hell is going on, and we've been owed that explanation for a long time.  Ever since no WMD were found.  And I'm sorry, I don't buy the rationale that, "he moved them, They *were* there."  We owe more than that to the men and women who have died for Bush's war.

And while the situation you cite was awful for you, you weren't responsible for the answers to the questions being posed by authorities.  It wasn't your job to provide answers.  It is Mr. Bush's job to be honest and forthright with the American public, and when he isn't we're entitled to get angry with our elected leader.  It's his job to keep up informed and it's his job to be accountable to *us*.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#68 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 03:13 PM

^What Cait said.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#69 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 03:24 PM

View PostCait, on Mar 7 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

View PostLost Cause, on Mar 7 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

The moral of the story is this: People can become zeroed in on what they think is true, to the exclusion of all else, only to be utterly mistaken. That's human nature; seen it in action. They think they've got the scent, their on to the bad guy, only to be wrong the whole way. I'm not saying that's what happened, but what I've described is a valid response to the situation you've just posited.

I can't disagree with your example of human nature, but I'm not sure it applies to the President and the Administration. You see, they *aren't* being investigated or zero 'ed in on at all. They pretty much continue to do what they do without fear of consequences. While in your example, you could have been ruined by the insinuations, BushCo isn't.

Additionally, I don't think that a democratically elected President is immune to a loss of confidence, regarding his truthfulness, by the electorate. That's just the way politics is. I don't trust this Administration. *I* don't trust them. I feel lied to. I feel manipulated and because he is elected to represent *me* I'm entitled to use 'feeling" in my opinion of his ability to lead.. that too, is the nature of democratic politics or negative campaign ads wouldn't be so effective in our society.

That said, sure, to impeach the man I'd insist on evidence too. You just have to ask yourself, how available any evidence is when it comes to the Office of the President. You know what I mean?

As to impeachment, what I've learned during this past 14 years, is it isn't about High Crimes and Misdemeanors, it is about Votes in Congress. Bush won't be investigated or impeached, because there aren't the votes to do it. Despite whatever evidence might be presented, the GOP will never impeach one of their own. You'd need some kind of contempt situation, like with Nixon, and I'm not sure this court would ever issue such an order.

So it rubs both ways.. sometimes innocent people are branded in the process of an investigation, but sometimes.. sometimes, powerful people are exempt because of their power and position.

Not that I think impeachment should be easy mind you, I don't. However, I do think that the public is entitled to know what the hell is going on, and we've been owed that explanation for a long time. Ever since no WMD were found. And I'm sorry, I don't buy the rationale that, "he moved them, They *were* there." We owe more than that to the men and women who have died for Bush's war.

And while the situation you cite was awful for you, you weren't responsible for the answers to the questions being posed by authorities. It wasn't your job to provide answers. It is Mr. Bush's job to be honest and forthright with the American public, and when he isn't we're entitled to get angry with our elected leader. It's his job to keep up informed and it's his job to be accountable to *us*.
I was comparing the Bush Administration to the cops in my particular incident.  I think you've got the roles reversed, IMHO.

ETA:  While some feel betrayed for the Iraq situation, I personally, as a fiscal conservative, feel betrayed on the notion that Bush was fiscally conservative.  His administration has spent money like a drunken sailor on leave.  But, that isn't enough to impeach the guy; vote for someone better, maybe, but not impeach.  

As for the issue of impeachment, votes are more than it.  There needs to be some gross violation or contempt of the law.  That's what got Nixon in trouble (the Congress was Democratically controlled, then, IIRC) and Clinton's troubles extended from perjuring himself in a deposition in a case.  The House was able to impeach Clinton, and there was enough evidence that he had committed a serious felony, but the Senate's spine decalcified and the House Managers were left to swing in the wind.  (But, that's a whole other bag o' beans.)  

Evidence of all kinds has come out in the past, thanks to people who provide leaks in very useful times.  It's not impossible for this administration to suffer a Watergate type of problem if a leak were to spring.  Woodward and Bernstein got the beginnings of Watergate dropped in their laps and after a long series of inquiries and diggings they watched it snowball into the downfall of a President.  So, I have to disagree with ya Cait about whether or not evidence won't come out.  There's also the following examples:

--Credit-Moblier (1876) that nearly ruined Grant and forced his VP Schyuler Colfax to resign.
--Teapot Dome (1921) that saw the first federal official ever to be sent to prison for taking bribes; probably caused the fatal heart attack of Warren G. Harding, the sitting Pres.
--Watergate (1972) that forced Nixon to resign due to the fact he was probably about to be the first successfully removed Pres. in US History
--Iran-Contra (1986) that marred the final years of Reagan's terms.

Beyond that, there have a dozen other leaks from the Federal levels that were successful, most notably among them the Pentagon Papers (1971) that eventually forced the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam.  

Leaks and their results are not impossible; just because it's Bush, don't think that something couldn't happen.  All it would take is one person with a crisis of conscience bearing info for someone in the press (if that should be the case).

Edited by Lost Cause, 07 March 2007 - 03:35 PM.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#70 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 04:54 PM

:D  In a way, LC is Saddam in the analogy. He was presumed guilty and campus security and the local police viewed everything with that bias. Similarly, the Bush Administration--and many others--had locked in on the notion that the only way to deal with Iraq was to overthrow Saddam. Here's where the analogy breaks apart, I think. Like good law enforcement, good government should base its conclusions not on hunches but on evidence--and not on selective, cherry-picked evidence but the whole shebang. Concerning foreign affairs, this is why it's so vital that we have good intelligence. We can't be guessing. We can't be launching wars without solid cause. It's one thing to unjustly suspect an innocent person of a crime. It's another to look over contradictory evidence and send a country to war.

We do have intelligence gaps that we desperately need to fill in, and I certainly hope we've made progress in doing so since 9/11.

What disturbs me is that members of the Bush administration spoke of Saddam's seeking to purchase yellow cake from Niger and importing aluminum tubes suitable only for use in uranium enrichment as though the intelligence community thought these were sure things. They weren't. In fact, before the war, when Bush talked about the aluminum tubes in a televised speech before the American Enterprise Institute (a neoconservative think tank, by the way), my mouth dropped. I had just read online a piece about the DOE's assertions that those tubes were NOT suitable for use in a centrifuge and were more likely designed for use in short-range rockets. I actually said, "That's a lie." It was. Now, maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I'd think that the President of the United States should know more than a teacher in Pittsburgh. So I really, really don't think he merely made an honest mistake. Nor did Rice when she continued to harp on the tubes Saddam had ordered to enrich uranium. I think it was Rice who said that the tubes were absolutely not suitable for any other use. Surely to god she knew better.

Colin Powell's now-infamous speech before the U.N. is another example of someone in the administration making public statements that conveyed what he knew to be far greater certainty about Saddam's WMD than the intelligence actually supported. In fact, he refused to say much of what Cheney, Libby, Feith, and the OSP wanted him to say. But he still exaggerated the claims, and he knew it. He's referred to that speech as one of the low points of his career.

These people knowingly misled the American public into thinking that the intelligence and other governmental agencies were in complete agreement about Saddam's WMD stockpiles when they were not. If they didn't do this knowingly (and Powell has pretty much admitted as much), then they are beyond incompetent--scarily so. They probably thought they were doing the right thing, and I'm sure they chose to think that everything would go just fine--that we could easily install a Western-friendly democracy in Iraq and draw down most of our forces within a year. But believing that rosy scenario was a choice: many military and Mideast experts tried to warn them that they were about to take a stick to a hornet's nest. A combination of hubris and ideology made them deaf to those warnings, and here we are and here we'll be for god knows how much longer.

Will there ever be a smoking gun? A leak? There already have been. There's enough evidence in the public domain right now for most people to reach the conclusion that the administration sold this war with cherry-picked, distorted intelligence. A difference between today and the scandals of the past, however, is that media has become balkanized. As a result, the credibility of a leaker like Kwiatkowski or Wilson is assailed, often with innuendo repeated through certain news outlets and blogs. If Nixon had FoxNews and the Drudge Report, I doubt that the bottom would have fallen out of his presidency during Watergate. John Dean would have been crucified, as would Bernstein and Woodward.

Whether we are on the right, on the left, or smack dab in the center, news is spun in so many directions these days that we can find some way of discounting anything we'd rather not believe. One thing that IS happening now, however, is the Iraq War has become such a painful mess that there's no escaping the reality that someone screwed up--badly. It's that undeniable reality that has caused people to become more skeptical about the Bush administration and more receptive to information about how they screwed this up. And that screwup began before our troops set foot inside Iraq. It began when we believed their assurances that Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD and was actively pursuing nukes--assurances that the intelligence often did not support. And I just can't believe they didn't know this.

Edited by Spectacles, 07 March 2007 - 04:56 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#71 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 05:02 PM

LC said:

I personally, as a fiscal conservative, feel betrayed on the notion that Bush was fiscally conservative. His administration has spent money like a drunken sailor on leave.

I so agree.  If you can't trust a cconservative to be tight with the purse strings, what can you trust in this world?   :p

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#72 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:08 PM

LC, I'd be more inclined to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt if they and their Republican allies in Congress had cooperated more with the investigation into WMD intelligence rather than trying to block and stonewall the report. Plus, Bush came across rather poorly in my eyes when he shifted to saying that Iraq had WMD programs and because of the war we could be sure that the programs would never produce WMDs that could threaten the world. This is a far cry from the Bush Administration's warnings leading up to the war that we couldn't wait for conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMDs; we had to invade Iraq right now or the smoking gun of Iraq's WMD activities could be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

Edited by Solar Wind, 07 March 2007 - 07:11 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#73 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:18 PM

View PostCait, on Mar 7 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

LC said:

I personally, as a fiscal conservative, feel betrayed on the notion that Bush was fiscally conservative. His administration has spent money like a drunken sailor on leave.

I so agree.  If you can't trust a cconservative to be tight with the purse strings, what can you trust in this world?   :p


Bush isn't a conservative, at least not in the Newt Gingrich Contract with America sense of the word.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#74 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:21 PM

The Republican Contract with America. Wow. If only they had done it.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#75 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:29 PM

^I agree.  The Contract With America was not only a masterful stroke to wrest power from the Democrats, but, it was something that should have been put into play, but in reality wasn't.  Shame.  :(

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#76 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:53 PM

^ Being in power for so long caused the Republicans to lose their way. They became the party of Big Government and government spending; the poster child for corruption and the good ol' boys club. (I'm sure there are some decent Republicans in Congress; there may even be some whom I would regard as conservatives; they just don't seem to be the ones leading the Republican Party and the ones who are making the news.)

Edited by Solar Wind, 07 March 2007 - 07:56 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#77 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:31 PM

^Well, any group in power for so long gets to where their heads don't quite fit between the doorposts like they used to.  It's kinda what happened the Democrats in 1994.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#78 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 06:23 AM

New Labour's kinda gone that way too I think.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#79 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 03:46 PM

Here's something about the possibility of a pardon for Libby.  Seems he's not eligible under Justice Dept guidelines.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  REALLY interesting.

Newsweek via MSNBC

Quote

The Problem With Pardoning Libby

President Bush may well pardon Scooter Libby. But he’d have to flout Justice Department guidelines in order to do it.

*snip*

But there’s one significant roadblock on the path to Libby’s salvation: Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines.

Quote

*snip*

Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/pardon, would seem to make a Libby pardon a nonstarter in George W. Bush’s White House. They “require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application,”  according to the Justice Web site.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#80 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 03:59 PM

Of course, Bush will pardon him -- That's the deal.  If Libby didn't expect a pardon, why wouldn't he have rolled on his bosses?  (Or even on his coworkers, e.g., Rove.)  

Loyalty is one thing -- 25 years in prison and a million dollar fine is quite something else.  It strans credulity to think even the most loyal politician in the world is *that* loyal.  

I think Bush will pardon him even if he promises not to.  (And it will be interesting to see how he responds to the question -- and of course he will *have* to respond to the question sooner or later, no matter how hard he tries to squirm out of it.)  

It will literally be his lact act as President, though, so Scooter will probably do *some* time.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, CIA Leak, US Vs. Libby, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users