Thinking people cannot help but be frustrated at the apparent and obscene “double standard” in judgment.
The most recent and ridiculous is the media generated hysteria over the firing of eight federal prosecutors. When the Clinton administration fired 93 federal prosecutors for declared political reasons, it was jubilation.
When General Gonzalez is “linked” to the firing of these substandard lawyers; which by the way is his job; his resignation is demanded in the median and on the floor of Congress. When Janet Reno grandstands her power and orders the murder of a bunch of kids in Waco and openly refuses to pursue needed investigations, the Clintonists in the Media and the Congress, circle the wagons to defend her and her boss.
When a Republican Senator checks with a prosecutor on the progress of a prosecution it is a “dangerous” violation of the separation of power. When Chuck Schummer, a Democrat, demands prosecution and demands action, it is considered his job.
When General Pace expresses his opinion of homosexual activity as immoral, the media and the Democrat jabbermouths insist that he has insulted American values and must resign. When Democrat Candidate John Edwards expresses his repugnance at being called a homosexual in a joke he is presented as the injured party.
When big budget Hollywood movies (Syriana) portray America, it's President, and the CIA as evil, they are touted with Oscar Nominations and praised as examples of open minded realism. When a low budget movie (300) tells the truth about the need to stand against tyranny, Hollywood and it's critic legions go bananas and rush to condemn the movie, those who made it, President Bush, and America. The present mass murdering Dictator of Iran takes offense at the portrayal of the ancient mass murdering Dictator of Iran being revealed in all his obscene arrogance and perversion, and the critics in Hollywood make him out as an offended hero, who needs our sympathy and support. This while the monster is killing any free thinking minds in his own country and making WMD designs on the freedom of the rest of the world.
The following clips are from Ruthless Review, posted by Matt Cale. They are typical of the rage of the left at facing the fact that the American movie going public actually can think for itself. This is a continuing disappointment to them.
Clip one: “While I have no direct evidence linking either director Zack Snyder or graphic novelist Frank Miller with the Bush administration, their booming, fascistic, searing flesh feast, 300, achieves what many had thought impossible: making a case for Bush’s war in Iraq so clear, distinct, and fanatical that I half expected an Army recruiting station to be erected at the theater’s exits. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a battleground orgasm; a homoerotic parade of tight abs, facial hair, oiled chests, leather, steel, gritting teeth, and phallic weaponry so overpowering that it’s just about the best movie ever made with jingoistic intent."
Clip two: "That Leonidas is a stand-in for Bush is clear from the first scenes, as this man refuses to accept an emissary from Persia, which is obviously itself Bush’s very defiance of the United Nations. Leonidas is a “go it alone” sort, and he hits back at the messenger, which he knows will bring about a great battle. Still, Spartan law requires that the king must secure the approval of a group of mystics (called Ephors) before waging war, which frustrates his manly sense of honor. Yes, folks, the mystics are the U.S. Congress, and once Leonidas screams, “Why must the very law I am sworn to protect prevent me from doing my duty?” the table has been set: Bush will go around Congress (using lies and tricks, brilliantly redefined as “tough choices”), never secure a declaration of war, and send his men to battle, the law be damned. Needless to say, the mystics/Congressmen are ugly, repellant, and literally isolated (they live on a hill, for chrissakes, as in Capitol Hill -- come on guys, don’t make this so easy), which further demonstrates that the king/president is the true guardian of the people. Congress is simpering and weak; Bush is muscle-bound and bold, dashing about with flight suit and codpiece, all in service of the greater good."
Clip three: "And if Bush’s gamble mirrors Leonidas’ own example, future generations will hail Bush as a hardened genius not quite suited for his own flaccid times. Such men as Bush will at last be appreciated in the world to come, which could only be the motivation of one who conceives of himself as a savior. Did not Bush claim to seek God’s guidance? Has he not been quite forthright about his conversations with the Almighty? Bush’s historically low popularity rating is a heavy burden, to be sure, but one worth bearing if Iraq is to be the 21st century equivalent of Jeffersonian America. I’ll be damned if Leonidas didn’t also look skyward as his death approached, knowing full well that though his earthly body would be riddled with arrows (leaving a glorious crucifixion pose; you know, to erase any lingering doubt about the film’s message), his soul would live on in the spirit of his people. “Tell others what happened here,” Leonidas instructs the one-eyed messenger (and narrator), and so he does, producing an eternal legend that blurs history into myth, recast as ultimate truth. The ambitions of our current commander in chief are no less grandiose." (end quote)
Add to all this the most ridiculous howler of them all; when a host of scientists with no conclusive proof launch a speculative - human caused global warming claim - they are hailed as heroes set on saving the world, with motives above question let alone reproach. When a number of qualified scientists raise objections to the aims, methods, and conclusions of this Chicken Little school of science, their arguments are called ridiculous and shouted down, they even face death threats.
For those who seek the truth, the process is baffling; some wonder why the double standard? The answer is simple. To those who preach these claims there is NO STANDARD, there is no truth, there is only the goal.
One could be at a loss as how to react but the way is to realize that the debate is not between two rational camps seeking to apply a reasonable standard in the search for truth. Thinking people face a people who will say anything in the confidence that no one will ever dare challenge them while they challenge the existence of truth itself.
It is difficult for minds that seek to find the right to deal with those who do not acknowledge the existence of right. It does no good to decry the “double standards” of those who have no standards at all. The only answer is to expose them to the light.
Kickstarter Campaign
10 years ago
75 comments:
"I work for the American people and I serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and he'll decide whether or not I continue to serve as the Attorney General." - Attorney General Gonzales
Grasshopper: We kept hearing it, "pleasure of the President" but what does it really mean?
"What it means, in effect, is that under the constitutional structure that we have today these are all positions that can be appointed by the executive branch, that the President fills these positions and they serve as long as he likes what they're doing. He could fire them tomorrow, under this theory, for anything – for cause, for no cause, for the color of their hair."
Grasshopper: I guess the question that is really bothering me is if the President has the right to remove this whole layer of prosecutors, how independent is the judicial branch in the end?
"The check against all this was never that the President couldn't fire them. The check was that he couldn't put in place new ones in their positions without oversights. The President or the Attorney General could appoint a new one. They could only serve for 120 days, at which point they needed to be confirmed by the Senate. That's your Congressional check.
If the Senate failed to confirm her, that U.S. attorney could not continue to serve, then the district judges in that district would appoint the new U.S. attorney. So then you'd have the judicial branch checking.
That changed because of the part of the scandal that's probably least understood, which is a change in the Patriot Act. The provisions that were sort of snuck into the Patriot Act and that the Congress voted for said, okay, now there's no longer any check. Those people don't just serve 120 days. They serve indefinitely."
Grasshopper: Okay. So then what about the spin that's been floated that the current firings, as The Wall Street Journal said, are business as usual, that the Clintons did it even worse?
"That particular counter-example is absolutely inapposite. Nobody expects when a new President from an opposing party comes in that all the U.S. attorneys would continue to serve, because, as I said, these are political appointments. They go to people whose views comport with yours.
So to say, wait a minute, you know, George Bush only fired 8, Clinton fired 93 is to lose the point. There's a difference between putting 93 new people in at the beginning of your term and getting rid of eight of them in the middle of their term because you don't like that they're not going after Democrats. That is what appears to have happened in this case. And that is very rare in history. Neither Clinton, nor Bush Sr., nor Ronald Reagan, nor Carter, nor Ford fired the attorneys they put into office when they came to the Presidency. These were and still are Republican prosecutors that Bush first appointed then fired because, as the released communications illustrate clearly, they were not 'loyal' to the President - loyalty to the constitution does not seem to have been a consideration. In the case on of the California prosecutor, she notified DOJ and Whitehouse Counsel that she was widening her probe of political bribery of convicted felon, Republican Duke Cunningham to two other Republican officials. The next day Attorney General Gonzales' Chief of Staff wrote that they had "major problem" with this prosecutor. Karl Rove stated in a communication, 'She is gone.' Within a month she was fired. Any comparison between this and business as usual is an inept comparison."
Anonymous:
Thank you for your insightful post. It is so refreshing to get some argument and fact into the discussion. I am “brimming” with excitement that you will continue to post.
However, your nit picking on when attorneys are removed for political reasons is just that. There is a difference between removing all federal prosecutors up front with out consideration or chance to demonstrate their course under the new administration and taking out only eight who are deemed unsatisfactory. The distinction you pretend provides no difference. Clinton removed the 93 because he didn’t like the prospects of working with them – it was his right and no one complained, except perhaps the fired lawyers and their staffs. The anger ginned up now, and foisted through the media is so much smoke and mirrors. As you have indicated – the President has the Constitutional right to fire the attorneys – just as the Senate has the right to confirm Presidential appointments. When the Senate rejects a presidential nomination – will the media be screaming partnership and scandal and demanding the resignation of old Pat at the Judicial Committee? No chance – no standard.
So, anonymous, you agree, even point out that the law supports what has happened. Whether or not you personally like it is one thing, but YOU have pointed out that the law supports what has happened.
This goes to the heart of the topic, what happened is legal, discuss the change in law all you wish, like, don't like, whatever. But, since the law WAS changed, the actions were legal, so then why is it that people are up in arms about the actions. Well, Grasshopper?
Are you arguing against the law, or the action?
Railing against the legal action is just playing politics.
Thank you Anonymous for pointing out an abuse of power so obvious that even the Grasshopper who calls himself a teacher can understand it.
You did omit the outright lying and attempt at cover-up that followed the abuse of power. (It had to have been a cover-up or else Gonzales is simply clueless about what his staff is doing around him. There have been many reports to that effect from ex-DOJ personel. Either way, he should resign from a position he is not worthy of.)
Allow me to add to your post with some additional insight. Right-wing blogonuts (like our resident "winger" here) are desperately trying to exonerate AG Gonzalez's "mistakes" with that farcical analogy - since Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys, why can't Bush fire 8? Guys, there's a world of difference between a new president at the start of a new term replacing all U.S. Attorneys to reflect a national election and a Justice Department in effect obstructing justice and lying about it to Congress. So W can appoint John Ashcroft in January, 2001 but Nixon shouldn't fire Archibald Cox in the Watergate Massacre in October, 1973. Simply, it's the difference between routine appointments and the politicization of justice. Yet conservative dittoheads insist on equating the two in their talking points - and regurgitating them where ever there is a dearth of critical thinking, i.e. winger blogs like this one:
*"It's bizarre though because the Clinton administration not only fired 93 republican-appointed U.S. attorneys on one day -- they called it the March Massacre back in 1993 -- and some of that was suspected in order to cover up for political cronies who were under investigation." -- Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, 3/17 *"...the relentless pursuit of the U.S. attorney story by the left-wing press has become disingenuous because of their refusal to even mention what happened during the Clinton administration...And once again, well, this is where the left-wing press has failed you." -- Fox News Host Sean Hannity, 3/18 *"...in 1993 when Clinton let go of every attorney out there, for some, including ABC and CNN, it was never a story. But when Bush does it with eight, with one tenth as many, you've got scandal in the air." -- Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, 3/14 *FLASHBACK: Clinton White House Fired All Prosecutors..." -- Headline, Drudge Report, 3/13 *"[H]ere's a fact you probably don't know because it hasn't been reported very -- did you know that Bill Clinton, when he came into office in 1993, fired every U.S. attorney except one?" --Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace, 3/14 *"I don't remember ... Senator Schumer jumping up and screaming and yelling and making all these wild claims when President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys right at the beginning of his administration in 1993." -- Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes, 3/13
These arguments remind me of the desperate pirouettes of Bushworlders on Iraq -- as each argument failed (9/11! WMD! Democracy! They'll follow us home!), they would largely string words together in an effort to fill up air time and exploit on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand journalism (while some argue the earth is round, the flat-earthers say...). Of course any new president should and will appoint people who reflect the values that won the White House. With a little more research, "winger" hotheads would have realized that their lionized Reagan was busy doing the same thing in 1981. Whether the office is the Secretary of Agriculture or a U.S. Attorney for Buffalo, a new administration should be allowed replace leftovers with policy allies. But after that early grace period, the Department of Agriculture is dramatically different from the Department of Justice. Why? Because "justice" is supposed to be "blind" to friend, foe, rich, poor, weak, powerful - and certainly political interference. So if an Ag Secretary is pushing a price supports policy a president doesn't like, he can be fired. But if a U.S. Attorney is investigating a campaign contributor of the president's, he/she can't be fired for that reason. Gonzales has claimed that these 8 firings were only an "overblown personnel matter" but has also made the vague admission that "mistakes were made. It's now apparent that the Administration lied to Congress about the reasons for the dismissals - again unlike the Clinton example - and Gonzales' cover was blown further as a pattern developed in the planned firings: dismissed prosecutors were pursuing cases implicating Republicans or weren't pushing hard enough on cases that helped Republicans. For two examples: *New Mexico U.S Attorney David Iglesias was dismissed after Sen. Pete Domenici called to ask if there would be indictments of Democrats for voter fraud before the 2004 election. Displeased with the answer, Republican Domenici complained to the President. Karl Rove reportedly told another NM Republican "he's gone" in reference to Iglesias. *Carol Lam, prosecutor for Southern California, was responsible for the conviction of Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham and just days before being fired she indicted a defense contractor and a high-ranking Bush CIA appointee. In May, 2006, the day after she informed Justice that she'd be issuing subpoenas in a Republican bribery scandel, Gonzalez' chief of staff suggested in an email to a White House official that Lam be fired. Yet DOJ reports described her as "an effective manager and respected leader in the district." I appreciate that Hannity, Barnes, Bozell et. al.. are not careful lawyers but are shriekers who earn millions by hypnotizing dittoheads. But there comes a point when even they should understand that an apple is not an orange, that a brick is not a fruit, that the routine politics of choosing a federal prosecutor of your own party is qualitatively different than firing Cox during Watergate. Saun and Fred, there's no "Rule of Agriculture' or "Rule of Education', but there is a 'Rule of Law.' And, as Nixon discovered and Bush is discovering, not even a president is above that.
Deliberate misleading of Congress, clueless management, abuse of power, cover-up of a cover-up, vague "mistakes" take your pick on the issue. There are many reasons Gonzales should go. The most important is complete neglect of equality in the law.
Anon, in your long comment you failed to actually address the points those "wingers" bring up. They have stated that President Clinton's firing of all 93 lawyers had not happened for at least the last 2 administrations. They also bring some evidence to show that President Clinton had less than above the board reasons for all of those firings.
Dan, why was the hiring rule changed? Is there a reason that the Patriot Act needed this particular measure?
"So to say, wait a minute, you know, George Bush only fired 8, Clinton fired 93 is to lose the point. There's a difference between putting 93 new people in at the beginning of your term and getting rid of eight of them in the middle of their term because you don't like that they're not going after Democrats."
So...whoever wrote this article IS saying that these 8 political appointees refused to go after democrats...correct?
And how is that NOT a justification for firing someone again? What if they were conservative minded that refused to go after republicans-should they be allowed to stay in place as well?
I am admittedly NOT an expert here...but it seems to me that they are politival appointees...they stay at the whim and will of the administration and have been allowed to stay for 6 years provided that they do their JOB. When they chose partisanship over job, they were fired.
Come now Anon...the desperate dances are those being conducted by the left in their zest and zeal to get Karl Rove. Thats it. Thats all. When it was ADMITTED that it was Richard Armitage that leaked Plame's identity, why did the left continue to attack Rove? Why havent they DEMANDED Armitage be prosecuted? Why did they continue the cries for a frogwalk for Rove when there has been ZERO indication he was involved? And now this...same thing. Thats all this is. Politicics.
Isnt it interesting...Since the dems have taken control of congress they have tremendous zeal to attack people, but seem lacking in the whole problem/solution thing. What an incredible shock!
maybe you can explain why a federal prosecutor refused to examine how 3 bags of ballots were mysteriously found in a warehouse...ballots that supported the democrat candidate. Why didnt the federal prosecutor examine who signed up convicted felons to vote? or homeless people registered in parks and storage units? All with amazingly similar handwriting...
And the thing is...MAYBE they would find there are NO voter irregularities. But we'll never know. Because the federal prosecutor refused to investigate it.
So is voter fraud only a concern when the left can attack a republican? Or could it be that there is more than just justice involved. And would you not say it was grounds for termination if it was a republican? Of course you would and you know it.
the "grasshopper" comment was also stolen. Though it appears anonymous is going to slightly more lengths to hide his plagiarism
http://northcoastonline.typepad.com/north_coast_online/
I am very happy to hear the President Bush intends to fight these ridiculous attacks over the prosecutors in the Senate. I am confident that the best way to deal with the “NO STANDARD” attack dogs is to smack them right on their nose with the truth. I am hopeful that the truth “will out” and the devious intentions of Schumer and his ilk will be reveled to the American people. When it is, we will be able to judge the Media, and the people's ability to reason.
Anonomy,
Is this why you don’t use a moniker? Is it so that plagiarism can go unprosecuted?
You post: “there's a world of difference between a new president at the start of a new term replacing all U.S. Attorneys to reflect a national election.”
I completely agree. Clinton’s replacement of the attorneys was blatantly political, but he had party leadership behind him willing to support his use of “political capital”. President Bush’s party, on the other hand, cowers in fear at the sight of conflict.
Additionally, explain to me how Clinton’s firing of 93 attorneys reflected the plurality that put him into office. Explain to me how Clinton’s firing of 93 attorneys reflected the national election of a Republican controlled house. Explain to me how Clinton’s firing of 93 attorneys reflects the election of a Republican controlled senate.
Were President Bush’s firings political? Of course they were. At least have the stones to acknowledge that Clinton’s firings were also absolutely political.
If it makes you feel any better, Anonymy, I am furious at the Republican Party for this “scandal.”I will continue to align with the Republican Party because of ideology; nevertheless I completely acknowledge I am aligned with a party of fools and buffoons.
Please indulge me just for a moment while I go off. You might even enjoy it!
Where is Gonzales’ spine? He is guilty as charged! He obeyed the law! Why doesn’t he just say so? Here, I’ll write his press statement for him: “I legally fired eight U.S. attorneys. So what. Any questions?”
The problems for the Republican Party are only going to get worse.! The Democrats have them figured out. Come up with a “scandal”, convene hearings, demand resignations, and watch the dominoes tumble. It would be laughable if the socialist/give our sovereignty away to the word mantra of the Democrats wasn’t banging at the door in the wake.
The Democrats have learned that there is more than one way to grab power in our system. By my reckoning, there are four, not necessarily in this order: 1) Media. We all know who controls the mainstream media. 2) Academia. We all know who controls academia. 3) Judiciary. Conservatives have made inroads hear, but still lack control. 4) Elections. Up until the last election, when fools and buffoons in the Republican Party voted to punish themselves, there was some hope. That ray seems to be dimming . . .
The recent Republican Party has demonstrated that it doesn’t know how to be the party in power, and it certainly doesn’t know how to be the party out of power. What is left?
Until Republicans get some spine and return to the principles that brought them success (i.e. Regan conservatism, Gingrich’s “Contract”) they will continue to wildly flail about and watch their organization crumble around them. I sure hope the next Regan is somewhere out there.
Is it you, Lysis?
We can easily get stuck on just one thing, but there is SOOO much more here.
Sure...the dems have a double standard when it comes to political firings. Sure they have a double standard when presidents speak of Iraq and WMDs. And on and on...its tiresome.
The one that just has me literally LAUGHING out loud is this lunatic hypocrisy that is global warming. John Edwards, John Kerry, Al Gore...they all burn HUGE amounts of fuel in their mansions (double standard...ummm "two worlds" Mr Edwards?) but then they say it is all ok because they buy carbon credits.
People...this isn't even a difficult one.
Out here in the middle of no where I own 600 acres of fields and trees. I don't pollute ANYTHING. So...heck...I'm 80 carbon credits to the good...and I'm not going to use them...so let me put them for sale, where John Edwards and Al Gore and John Kerry can dump pollutants into the air like it means nothing to them, then they can invest in my clean air...and it all balances out.
EXCEPT 'I' WASN'T POLLUTING in the first place! Nothing has "balanced out." No pollution or CO2 levels have decreased. But rich people buy off their conscience and these FRICKIN FOOLS on the left smoke it like these clowns are handing out free crack.
And...hang on...guess who is heavily invested in the Carbon Exchange market...
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.
Ooops...gotta run. I'm late to another awareness concert in Tibet...the limo is waiting to to fly me in my private jet. Someone make sure I have bought a few liters of clean air so I am 'carbon neutral'. Damn...what a guy I am...they ought to give me an award.
Rumpole;
You have indeed hit this nail close to its head, but you have misunderestimated one Republican, George W. Bush. Here are some quotes right off my Comcast Home page:
Quote One “WASHINGTON - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.”
Quote two “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," he said. "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."
He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."
Quote three “My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for presidents to get good decisions," he said. "If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served." (end quotes)
The Democrats have made the same stupid mistake that Osama did. Bin Laden was counting on an Al Gore Presidency continuing the cowardice of the Clinton years. He was confident if he killed some thousands of Americans, he would be able to take over the Middle East and set up his Caliphate in Bagdad. Then he found out that George Bush was not like the spineless appeasers that Clinton and company had been. Now his decomposing carcass is smeared across a cave wall in Tora Bora.
The Democrats have been pushing Hatch and Specter and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate around for months, the Dem’s have come to think, with confidence, the things you have said about the Republicans above. Now they too are in for the fight of their lives. The truth will send them scurrying like roaches for their caves.
The Democrats have also underestimated the intelligence of the American people. They have filled the internet and the mainstream media with the silly double talk that Flaccid has been lifting and pasting. (Thank you A Quiet Listener for your vigilance!) Mindless gibberish that they assume will not be read past the “tag” lines or challenged by common sense. Boy are they going to be wrong on this one.
The American people are getting tired of the Democrats in power wasting time and shaming the nation with one power grabbing witch hunt after another. You watch, in a few weeks, when this thing has blown up in their faces, they’ll be screaming it was all a trap set by Carl Rove.
Mindmechanic;
Well said on Gore. This Global Warming canard is collapsing as quickly as an ice field in the spring break up. It’s time thinking people stood up to all this silliness and gave the country a good dose of the truth.
Lysis,
Perhaps I can condense your posting into two different points, as follows:
1) The underestimation of President Bush. Here I think we can agree. Based on what you have posted, I think the Dems are in for the fight of their lives. We are fortunate to have two more years of President Bush.
2) The underestimation of the intelligence of the American people. Here, we must disagree. The evidence of the “intelligence” of the American people, even so called “conservatives” is wanting. From belief in global warming, to punishing themselves by attempting to “punish” wayward Republicans, many on the right have done nothing but give aid and comfort to Democrats every step of the way in a Democrat quest for power. As for those on the left, the positions taken are ample evidence that they have already lost their minds.
It appears to me that the liberal control of the four sources of power in our system I mentioned above is ample evidence that the American people are asleep at the wheel. Please, give me some evidence to the contrary.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you cameron. You ask me why the need for the change, I will give you my opinion. Again, I have said we can debate the law, just not the legality of the action (at least not if we want to be intellectually honest).
So, why change it so the executive branch, and not the judiciary chooses interim U.S. attorneys. In short, because it is an executive position, not a judicial one.
Lets look at the idea of separation of powers. Does the President get to choose the speaker of the house? No. Does the Judiciary get to choose the Secretary of State? No. Does the Senate Majority leader get to choose the Chief Justice? No.
Of course, there are always checks and balances. Appointments by the President usually need confirmation by legislative bodies, this is true. However, what we are talking about here is a situation in which the legislature, for any number of reasons, is NOT fulfilling its responsibility. Maybe they are too busy, maybe they are lazy, and maybe they have decided to try to stall the presidents appointments (this could be either party, any who decide to stall aren't doing their job).
So, if the president buts up a name, and the congress sits on their butts and no one gets confirmed, the question is, who should be able to appoint this person until such a time as the congress gets around to confirming.
Remember this is an executive position, not a judicial one. Yes, they obviously work in the judicial system, but that does not mean they are part of that branch of government. So, it comes down to the above question. If you believe that the executive should be allowed to appoint interim individuals into executive offices until such time as the congress gets off of their butt and confirms, then you are on one side. If on the other hand, you believe that the court should appoint the person, then you are on the other.
Some incorrect statements:
" I guess the question that is really bothering me is if the President has the right to remove this whole layer of prosecutors, how independent is the judicial branch in the end?"
I know this is actually a question, but when the premise of the question is flawed, its important. The U.S. attorneys are not part of the judicial branch, so the question itself is flawed.
"If the Senate failed to confirm her, that U.S. attorney could not continue to serve, then the district judges in that district would appoint the new U.S. attorney. So then you'd have the judicial branch checking."
This is not a 'check' this is a complete usurpation. If the judicial was then allowed to confirm or deny, that would be a check, because the NAME would still be coming from the executive. When the judicial is able to appoint, that is taking the power and position of the executive and giving it to the judiciary.
"The provisions that were sort of snuck into the Patriot Act and that the Congress voted for said, okay, now there's no longer any check. Those people don't just serve 120 days. They serve indefinitely"
No provisions were snuck in. No congressman can say with a straight face "I didn't know that was in there", unless they are willing to say they don't actually read legislation, just vote how their boss tells them to. And if thats the case, they have nothing to complain about.
There is still a check, its called the congress doing its job, the attorney serves until the congress gets around to actually acting on ITS appointed powers. So, they have no one to blame but themselves if the check goes unused, its still there.
Again, argue against the change, if you want, but the actions under the law are legal. And now maybe we can discuss the actual law, seeing as we got some of the extraneous dishonesty out of the way.
In a bipartisan backlash against President Bush the Senate voted 94-2 to stop the administration's ability to bypass Congress in appointing federal prosecutors. "This is the first step in restoring the people's confidence, Republicans and Democrats, in our law enforcement system." Said a statement released by Senators after the vote.
If the ranking Senate Republican on the Judiciary Comittee is to be believed, no one in the Senate, not even himself, realized that the law had even been changed governing the nomination of U.S. Attorneys -- a change that gave the administration the power to appoint federal prosecutors indefinitely without Senate confirmation.
In later remarks during hearings held in February, Republicans Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham explained to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that they didn't know about the provision until she approached them on the floor and asked about it recently. Specter followed up by questioning his chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, who explained in hearings that the provision had been inserted into the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act at the request of the Department of Justice.
Alberto Gonzales in testimony under oath to Congress, Jan. 18th, 2005:
"And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.
I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate."
"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”
Emails released by the DOJ this week now show that in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned last week), the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether. "There is some risk that we’ll lose this unexamined authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having slipped it in?"
The Senate voted 94-2 to abolish the Republican passed provision that bypassed Congress in appointing federal prosecutor's yesterday, March 21. Many called the provision "ripe for an abuse of power." The bipartisan vote is proof that every can be sensible some of the time.
Thanks Dan.
So what then is the actual controversy? Why are Democrats licking their chops over this? If the actual firings were legal, was there something else to this situation that created the scandal?
Well, I can only speculate Cameron, but I think it has several parts.
1) There is a huge staring contest between the administration and the Democrats. Has been for years. The democrats have been on numerous witch hunts ever since Bush won the first time, and it hasn't really stopped. This has be exacerbated by, what I believe, to be really stupid PR moves on the part of the administration. They have been reluctant to talk to people. Resistant to questions, or queries. And when they do things that are questionable (no I didn't say wrong I said questionable * I will explain below), they flat out refuse to have the conversation about the issue.
2) It seems underhanded, if you don't know the law. Look at what anonymous posted. 'Apparently' no one knew the provision was in there. I don't believe that for one second, no matter how many Senators feign horror and surprise.
It can be spun to look like the Administration would have completely unchecked power, which is flat out not the case. All the congress would have to do is......drumroll please.......their job. If the congress either confirmed or denied the nominations, this would never, I repeat NEVER come into play.
But, it is good media. It is good fodder for people who will scream corruption at anything that happens re: Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc.
But, and this is indicated by the fact that they just voted to CHANGE THE LAW BACK, the actions were legal. If they weren't legal, there would be no reason to change the law back.
* example of above comment i.e. Bush administrations refusal to cooperate.
When the whole wire tapping story came out, a lot of people had a lot of questions. Heck even Lysis originally said he wasn't sure he was okay with it. A lot of those questions could have been answered at that point with a frank discussion about the subject (no not about the actual actions that were on going, but the thought process behind this "new" war).
I think one of the biggest failings since 9-11 is the lack of that discussion. The phrase is bandied about, but no down to brass tacks discussion about what it means to be a new war, what rules we want/have to play by, etc.
The democrats are too busy blaming Bush for, well, everything. And the administration (rightly or wrongly), has no desire to have a frank discussion with such people.
It is a pretty crappy situation, but that is my opinion on it.
One can watch the “melt down” of the latest Democrat assault on America by reading Flaccid’s “cut and paste” from the talking points in the liberal blogs. Yesterday the outrage was the “political” firing of the Prosecutors. That farce deflated by the truth, Flaccid and his ILK are now bitterly complaining about another completely legal action by the Justice Department. What is painful is seeing the Republicans in Congress cave to this assault. Once more I am so thankful for King Leonidas; I mean President Bush.
Rumpole,
I still hold out hope for the intelligence of the American people. In a way it is freedom’s only hope. The outcome of this latest dust up will expose the truth. If the Democrats are reveled and reviled for their lies and misrepresentations, there is hope, if not – start growing you two fists long beard!
Anonymous said...
is it not true that Leonidas had destroyed parts of persia before this battle and that is partly reason for the attack on sparta by the persians?
be kind, i am only wondering, not trying to spout false acusations; i am only trying to gain a basic knowledge of the actual battle it'self and the history before it.
(and now for my watered down review of the movie, as if any of you actually needed it)
the last battle of the movie seemed quite lame for lack of a bettter word. not the very last scene but the scene where leonidas finally made xerxes bleed.
i'm fairly sure that those 300 spartans would not have given up so easily in combat as they did in that scene. it felt like they had given up and from what i understand of actual history that battle last quite a while and leonidas actually died and there was a fight over the body. (resulting, of course, the persians had his head put on a pike) it just didnt seem right, all of the soldiers just threw their shield down and let the beating come in.
in my opinion, the movie was amazing enough to go see at least 300 times, (if you see it at the imax theatre at least 150 of the times) but there were some things i thought the movie could do without, such as the awkward sex scene. ok, i understand that it was the last time that leonidas and his wife would have the chance to show their feelings for each other in that way, but! on the other hand, it could have been done without making everyone in the room cringe.
hmm. i cant think of any higher contingents than that, but there was one thing that bothered me the whole time and it was the hunchback of sparta... i realize that there was a deformity involved in the story, but they giant eye was a little much. (haha, i just realized what i said, and have come to remember that there were many other creatures in the film that were just as strange if not more so. =S)
so basically. if you havent seen this movie, you probably should, and you should go in the spirit of action, not reality.
this movie has everything, action, comedy and romance, (aka, "everything" in the eye's of me) there were scenes in this movie where there was not a single person sitting in their chair; and scenes that made every woman in the room pant; and on a more threatening note, scenes that made every guy in the room have a strange need to go to the gym or beat somebody up.
if you have seen 300, but in a regular theatre, than you pretty much wasted your money, because imax is sooo much better, considering that you get soo much more picture in imax than in a regular theatre)
done and done...
>JD<
(wannabe spartan soldier)
9:09 PM
Anonymous said...
nd someone please inform me of how i may recieve an idendity in this blog, in stead of being known as the ever tedeous, anonymous...
Dan...
"When the whole wire tapping story came out, a lot of people had a lot of questions. Heck even Lysis originally said he wasn't sure he was okay with it. A lot of those questions could have been answered at that point with a frank discussion about the subject"
I dont know if I agree with this.
1-It sort of defeats the purpose of covert activities if you announce your intention.
2-Democrats WERE included in the conversations from day one. They didnt express outrage until the program was outed by the NY Times.
So when I say I disagree...I dont think it would have been avoided...thats not the dems style. They will attack and spin everything. And the mere 'truth' has no bearing on their decisions and attacks.
Now I DO agree with you COMPLETELY that once this gets exposed the president and his administration have been COMPLETELY incompetent in answering charges. They have stayed "above the fray" but it has cost everyone. When you are engaged in civil discourse, thats fine, but when you are engaged in a brass knuckled no holds barred streetfight, you BETTER play by the same rules or you will LOSE.
This is ALL muff and bluster.
All the talk of lies, of treason, of conspiracy-the reason they will have trials but NOT move to action is simple...they can play the PR war with an all too willing media running cover for them. BUT...
If they actually try to bring action they will have to face subpoenas themselves. Democrats will have to answer why they are accusing this president of lying when they were parroting the same comments under a democrat president. They will have to answer how they can be mislead and kept inm the dark when all the key democrats have been involved since day one. They will have to face under oath the same scrutiny they will be putting the president under.
So they will continue to wage public war and score points because (I am sad to say it) the American public in general is just too damn stupid or too complacent to wake up and take notice.
And in some peoples cases they are just as caught up in the hatred and fervor are as are the rest of the left.
MM
Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is what I meant. I never meant that the program should have been public from day one, I was referring to after the fact of the publicizing of it.
I don't care so much about the Administration being upfront with Chuck Schumer, the people who, I believe, feel left out of the loop are the regular joe citizens. It can 'feel' like there is dirty dealings, when you get told next to nothing.
Dan,
I got that...and I agree for the most part. After this program came out we found that democrats were involved from day one, but that hasnt stopped them from attacking Bush and accusing him of lies and secrecy. So I dont think Bush and co would have reduced the attacks, but answering in kind would be nice.
How tough would it be.
Question-How could you have acted with such impunity? Answer-Well, Ms Pelosi, Mr Waxman, Mr Reid, Ms Clinton, and they other 30 or so democrats seemed to agree with it when it was discussed with them. Look...here are the meeting notes and attendance sheets.
yes...errr...well...ahem....but you still lied about taking us to war!
Answer...Did I? I cited intel from ALL of the worlds intel offices. I cited intel gathered under the Clinton administration. I QUOTED Clinton AND Gore. I met with party leaders from BOTH sides. EVERY DEMOCRAT that I met with had MORE expreience and exposure to the intel that I had and THEY ALL made the same conclusions.
hmmm...ok...but...What about Haliburton!!! Answer...OK...what about Haliburton? Halibirton was awarded an IDIQ contract as the sole provider for massive restorations following the war against Serbia. Haliburton was awarded the contract under Clinton. The contract is no bid, indefinite deliverable, indefinite quanity. Whats the point?
Well...The point is we are just in Iraq for oil! Answer...dont be an idiot...if we just wanted oil we would have done like all the other world leaders and looked the other way and negotiated deals with Saddam.
Well...You caused Katrina!!!
Answer...go back to sleep...rest...relax...you need help.
Remember the dems are the same ones that said Jack Abramoff is giving money to republicans! Then when the list came out, lo and behold every democrat in congress got PAID...but then, in the face of undeniable evidence, Howard Dean looked RIGHT INTO the eye of the camera and said point blank...not one dime ever went to a single democrat.
These are the same guys that decry scandal and yet...isnt there a congressman from Lousiana...Jeff Richardson...no Richard Jefferson...and didnt he got caught on tape extorting an African embassador for cash and jobs for his family members? Didnt he get caught with 90k in cold hard cash...cold hard cash that was found in his freezer...that was recirded as being the money from a bribery sting? And didnt he just get re-elected? Isnt he still in congress???
No standards at all...
Before I write anymore on this post I would first like to state that I am not a member of the communist party nor am I a sypathizer for the communist party.
This is the most deceptively broad post by Lysis. The thing that makes it hard to see the broad topic is that there are several tiny examples in the post that stir the strongest of passions. However I think the the subject of standards is an important one. At the thrust of Lysis' point is that the Democratic Party cares nothing for standards (or consitancy to use a better word). From this premise we can conclude that the Dems are not concerned with truth but rather power in an atempt to project their agenda whatever it may be. I also think that there is this sublte implication that the Republican Party is concerned with truth and as such has does serve us better in finding truth and implementing plans based on the truth. I disagree.
Well in what ways do I disagree? I think that when we see things we forget that both parties are rather large. In that sense they have to be inclusive of a lot of ideologies. Because of this pluralistic nature, both parties seem to have no standards when we look at the whole picture. The cause of this is that both parties are subject to diffrent people in power pending on the issues. Both party heads, or prime movers of the parties are concerned with the party influence and maintaining power. That is why they are heads of the party. Because of this the party heads tend to move the parties in ways that are inconsistant. So the Dems and GOP a like look like a bunch of power hunger hypocrites. I would like to shine some light on this with a couple of case examples.
First example Karl Rove. Rove's divide and conqure method for political advancement ruined the Republican party. 15 years ago the conservative movement was one that had a core ideology that attracted a lot of people. These people happened to have intense views on other issues that the ideology did not directly touch. In order to mobilzie these people Rove decided to intesify the diffrent aspects of the GOP members (this is a intra issue here) pandering to those diffrences instead of reinforcing the core philosophy of the conservative movement. This worked of couse providing some great gains. However if you feed the branches at the cost of the roots the tree is going to get sick. Quickly the party of responsible spending has put out more pork than at any other time in US history. Additionally ideological extremes have alienated people that might have been attracted to the core philosophy of conservativism but see the branches as what the party is about. Then again their perception is true because that is what the party is about now. To fully understand the effect of Rove I think you have to have a deeper understanding of the conflicts in the Republican party itself, which I will talk about in the next comment.
Case example two, Clinton is the worst best president ever. Many times people will point to something Bush does and say it is bad. Then other people will say that Clinton did it so why are you complaining. Then sortly after they state that Clinton is the Devil and worthless. The fact is Clinton did a lot of crapy things and he also did a lot of good things. Here again we arn't concerned with truth. We are concerned on how this person can advance an agenda. Lines like well Clinton did it so back off Bush and this is all Clinton's fault seem to be a bit confusing when they come from the same person. Something that people tend to forget is that Clinton in many ways was more conservative than Bush. If you look solely at his fiscal recored you can make a strong argument that Clinton cut more social programs than Bush. Granted Clinton had a GOP congress to help him out, but then again so does Bush.
Case point three, nobody can actualy tell you the ideological diffrences between a liberal and a conservative anymore. There are tons of people that can tell you what each party stands on certain issues but it is very rare that people now can give you a correct and coherent statement as to what the parties ideologies are. I blame the Rove effect, plolitcal short sightedness, greed, sound bites, and lazyness. So let me give an attempt at to what I think the diffences are. First both parties want the same things. Both the Dems and GOP want people to live productive and happy lives. Both parties want to end poverty. However this is where the ideologies differ, they have a diffrence of approach. The liberal would prefer to re distribute wealth as society as a whole grew, while the conservative would like to create wealth sparking faster growth in areas. Both view have merit and pending on the instance one might be more effective than the other. What has happened is because both parties have no standard and abandoned their core both parties have become wealth exploiters. What you say Dems have a core? Yes but blaming Bush will only last another 2 years 4 tops. What you say Republicans still have a core? Well lets see what you think of my next comment.
Aren't you supposed to be sleeping?
Anonymous:
I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Feel free to challenge my claims. I too am eager to learn. Herodotus in the main source of information concerning the Persian Wars, and I will mostly reference him.
I do not believe Leonidas had ever gone farther than Thermopylae. Years before during the reign of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, the city of Miletus, a Greek City in Asia Minor had revolted against the tyrant. Cambyses was a mass murder and aggressive conquer on a scale with Saddam himself. His army’s conquered Egypt where he humiliated the Pharaoh and his people, engendering a hatred for Persia that lasted in Egypt until its liberation by Alexander the Great. Cambyses once served a councilor who had questioned him, his own son for dinner. When Cambyses was overthrown by the Magi Miletus revolted, rather successfully from the Persian Empire. When Darius became king of Persia he set about reestablishing Persian control of Asia as a precursor to further conquests. He attacked Miletus. As Miletus was an ancient Athenian colony they appealed to their mother country for help. The Athenians sent troops, and though they could not save Miletus they did so much damage to the Persian army before going home that Darius had a special servant assigned to stand behind him at dinner and at the moment he seemed to be enjoying himself lean forward and whisper, “My King – Remember the Athenians.”
Darius got up and army from 30 to 40 thousand strong and headed for Greece by ship. The ten thousand Athenians met his troops on the beach at Marathon and kicked his royal can. He ran back to Persia to die in shame. His son Xerxes vowed to avenge his father’s humiliation and raised the great army to destroy Athens and conquer the rest of Europe. His pledge – There will be no place on which the sun shines that will not be part of my empire.
Xerxes was a tyrant of the first degree, murdering at will, wiping out cities and nations and killing his own people at literally the drop of a hat. When a storm destroyed the bridges he had built to get him into Europe he had the sea flogged, branded, and threw in chains to bind it. Telling the sea it had better have learned to obey its master – him. This is the mega maniac that sought to destroy the freedom of the Greeks.
The Republicans are just as just without standaards (ideological consistancies) as the Democrats. I would like to point to one key example Regan. What you say Regan is the man! He was the greatest president ever! While Regan was a great president to mention him in the same breath as Newt and other of the conservative movement is sort of an ideological inconsitancy. First Regan is a supply side economist. Most conservatives were not supply side economist. Don't believe me? Well then ponder why Bob Dole switched to being a supply side economist when he ran for president. Then think why of all people President Regan butted heads with the most, one of them was Bob Dole. Regan's fiscal polices are quit the extreme from the policies of Newt and his conservative group. Does that mean the Republican are mean nasty imps trying to drag your souls down to the depths of hell just like those Demoncrats? Actually no it just means that since the party is so big there is a lot of room for conflict within the party. Does this hinder the pursuit of truth, yes. Is it an intentional consequence, no.
Another point is the redistribution of wealth. In general a conservative would be in an up roar over such things. Now I want you to ponder how much money goes in to farm subsidies and the steel industy. Why so much money and why hasn't anyone stopped it? Because doing anything "against" the american farmer is political suicide. So does that mean that the Republicans are only out to seek power? Maybe but more likely as the nature of politics, there are conflicts and things that don't make sense by any standard because in a democracy we have to try to make things work with 250,000,000 minds.
There are plenty more internal conflicts in the GOP but I think we can all see that. I would post about the battles of the Dems, but I don't really follow them closely.
My friends, again I wish to obstain from petty arguements that I have no business intruding upon, so with that being said, I now wish to comment on the original post.
A truly remarkable world we live in where we can doubt our leaders and doubt each other. There once was a time in American history that we would fight against our leaders to live, now it would seem that we live to fight against our leaders. It once was said that what makes a man is not necissarily him fighting always for the absolute truths, but once he makes a choice, sticking to that and seeing it out to whatever end. We as "men" have failed to do this. Every moment after we said the pledge of allegiance we also pledged to fight for the cause of liberty. I would emplore you to remember that when we say "... one nation, under God, indevisable, with liberty and justice for all." we are not just speaking of ourselves, we speak for the whole world. We are not the only nation under God, and liberty and justice for all seems to me to be a promise to do our best to spread our cause. Yet when our great President, a true man in my eyes, attempts to do this we jump all over him ad leave him stading alone. Well I think it's time to arise from the dust and be men, time to join the men who have fought for liberty and justice for all. It is time for us to choose between what is right and what is easy. Walk away from the shadows, pick up the sword that has, for too long, sat and gathered the dust of the world, and take a stand! May we become men, real men, and live in a way that can be seen as admirable. The finger is easily pointed, but remember, there are three more fingers of your own pointing back at you. Stand up and be judged with the justice that forever remains the same, the justice that we wish for all.
For what it's worth-
Apollo
Anonymous who wants an identity;
When you get ready to post just check under “Leave a comment” just check other and when the lines pop up type in any name you like. If you use the same name every time we will bet to know you without knowing who you are. Please give it a try.
Realfruitbeverage;
On point one; Your claim about a single core Republican party shows your lack of knowledge of the history of the Republican Party. Fifteen years ago the Republican Party had Ronald Reagan. That does not mean they agreed on anything else. As for the Republicans putting out pork, fortunately we can only speculate on the “hog heaven” we would be living in today if the Democrats would have been in power this past 15 years.
On point two; Neither the Republicans nor I had any problem with Clinton firing the Prosecutors for political reasons. I have a problem with people who had no problem with that and yet, for political reasons, have a problem with Bush doing the same thing. It is not the firings that frustrates me – it is that the Clintonistis have NO STANDARDS.
On point three; First your Rove effect is a “talking point” attack, you give no evidence of the sound bites or the laziness – it is easy to blame problems on anyone you choose to fit to your own sound bite, but that Rove helped to secure two terms for George Bush and thus prevented the immediate victory of terrorism in the world, is a fact that is empirically evident.
We have long discussed the core differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. In the end it all come down to the ABORTION issue, the truly divisive - civil war level - issue in American politics. But we can add to that the FACT that in order to grab power the Democrats are willing to play into the hands of the Terrorists, to give them aid and comfort – and the confidence that if they can hold out and bring enough mayhem in the meantime, they will prevail. Yes, blaming Bush is at the core of the Democrat strategy – it is the only way they can gain the power then need to preserve the annihilation of the unborn.
If you can’t see the difference between the parties – I suggest you get some sleep and try again when your mind is working.
In the end – you are right – we need to get 300 million minds working together or at least a majority of them; compromise will be necessary. Let us compromise on economics, on the environment, on any number of issues, but we must make those compromises in the light of truth, there must be a standard. If the Republicans or Democrats fail to meet it – we should seek someone who will. Party power should not be our motivation – but as party power is the way of things in America, we must seek to empower the party that at least recognizes that the truth exists.
Apollo and Ares;
Well said - by the gods!!
RFB...
Your posts stand as a witness to the point.
When was the last time (or shall I just be honesta nd say the FIRST time) you ever saw democrats-liberals-like minded non republicans speak so easily and openly about the failings within their own party? In what medium do they point to and accept their own party's flaws?
On this blog I have seen on numerous occasions people readily admitting folly and foibles. In this thread i have seen like minded people acknowledge failings of the president while still acknowledging the dishonesty of the left. When was the last time you saw the anonymy offering such damning critique of the left? (or should I have said, when will be the first time?).
I have on many occasions said that I too see there is nary a dimes difference in the two parties. I know many others have pointed to similar misgivings within the republican party as well.
But you wont hear that message from the left.
BTW...when I compare the words of Clinton and words of Bush it isnt an attack against the worst president ever, nor is it to make a defense of Bush by comparison. The very direct and plain facts are that the worlds intel was consistenly spoken by both men, but only one is labelled a liar. And labelled a liar by people that have parroted the same words when it was convenient.
In short, how can Ted Kennedy cite Iraqs WMDs in 1996, again in 1998, again in 2000, defend and honor Clintons war acts against Iraq BECAUSE of those WMDs, and then today say there NEVER WERE WMDs and Bush is a liar?
THAT is the inconsistency.
That man may have failings does not make the truth less true or less deserving of being spoken.
Oh...and BTW...
1-I dont fault Bill Clinton for being Bubba...it isnt like the American people didnt know who and what they were getting
2-I dont think he was the worst...just the most reprehesible that we know of
The next republican campaign add should simply be a 30 minutes slide show of the following...
(advance warning-these pictures may make you angry!!!)
"Peace" Rally in Oregon from people that love and support our troops and show it by burning an American soldier in effigy and then an American flag.
http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211
Peace lovers that support our troops attack a congressmans office.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ce4e295f-c8b4-41e2-9e66-f676f25b536a
More leftist "peace activists" that support our troops.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=580318
Or you could just post pictures from every "Peace Rally" in America with all the pictures of communist symbols, Viva Che signs, anti military slogans, slogans decrying America and touting the virtues of communism...etc.
And for anyone not convinced we need to fight the war on terror...
Again...content warning...terrorists beheading of children...(not shown...the story is graphic enough).
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4648941.html
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=259283226465864
The lack of STANDARDS was on display yesterday.
First, Global Warming hysteria Exploiter in Chief, Al Gore, marched into the Senate, disobeyed the rules of the committee, and disrespected its purpose throughout his rambling and incoherent mock of reason. The mainstream media praised him for bringing awareness to an important issue.
Next, Big Sister, Mrs. Bill Clinton, proved that she really is the mistress of a vast network of automatons as her minions in the blogosphere sought out and fingered the computer geek that cast her in an unfavorable light in a rip off of Apple Computer’s 1984 add. Now Obama is in trouble for someone else telling the truth about Hillary. Telling the truth about a Clinton is never fair!
Then, as Mindmechanic points out above, the Democrat politician inspired anti-war movement has now resorted to burning soldiers in effigy in order to encourage America’s enemies to do the same to our soldiers in fact. Where is the condemnation of these traitorous atrocities by the “New” leadership in congress? Oh – I forgot, there too busy being angry over who type cast Mrs. Clinton and how a bunch of crooked lawyers lost there jobs. Such righteous indignation! (Sarcasm alert for Flaccid)
I have to thank MM for his constant attack on hypocrisy like Al Gore's i.e. his 'carbon neutral' lifestyle. One of the republicans in the committee yesterday asked him how he could tell others they needed to change with the way Gore himself lived, and asked if he would be willing to commit to change as well. Gore replied that he was living a carbon neutral life, so he wasn't part of the problem.
Out of curiosity Lysis, why do you feel you have to demonize the attorney's who were fired? They were fired for.....oh wait, it doesn't matter at all. That is the point, they don't have to have a reason. There is no factual evidence that they were crooked. Are any of them under investigation? Are any of them sitting with charges pending?
You are falling into the same trap the left is wallowing in. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY THEY WERE FIRED. AT........ALL.
Engel asks soldier: A lot of people at home now say, "Love the troops, hate the war." Does that argument work with you guys?
Soldier: No, if you’re going to support us, support us all the way, support the war. If not, go along with your lives and we’ll take care of it here. You can’t support the troops and not what we are doing over here. Because people are dying. You know what I’m saying? You may say, “Oh, we support the troops,” but you’re not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Ares...
I dont need to tell you this I am sure... but the answer is simple. Spread the word.
Every day i hear "we have to get out of Iraq...we have to end the war" as if we are still at war with Saddams Iraq. We are not. We are at peace with the Iraqi government and sustaining them in the EXACT same way we supported the new government in Germany follwing WW2. The alternative was a failed, collapsed government and a return to war. So we are not AT WAR with Iraq.
But we are definitely at war IN Iraq. With these animals. How in the name of the Gods can ANY sane person suggest we abandon that war???
Unless of course their motive is purely political.
Spread the word. Send that article to everyone you know. Because they wont hear it from the media or the left they support.
Spread the word.
I know of a number of people that supported the war in the beginning, but now think we should leave.
I really don't understand that position.
Anon,
I've got an interesting discussion going on at my blog about the "support the troops, not the war" folks.
There was a protest in Boise last weekend and parents of a medic spoke at it and said it was hard to keep morale up with a lack of a mission.
That got me a bit annoyed so I wrote a little something that attracted some attention.
Dan, were the fired lawyers involved in investigating the administration?
Cameron,
When you get fed a daily steady diet of rhetoric about ddead soldiers that hypocrites purport to care about, a diet of "president Bush lied", "We must end this war" "Vietnam all over! Its a quagmire!" and on...
...all the while NEVER seeing the enemy or what the enemy is doing and has been doing long before Bush came along...
...it cant be surprising that people begin to grow weary and lose site of the reason why we are there.
And lets not let the administration off the hook. They have done a DISMAL job of reminding people of the true barbarian attitudes and actions of these terrorists.
I wonder how many people know that suspected terrorists in America were caught applying to be school bus drivers? I wonder how many Americans heard of the two arabs in Florida that were arrested boarding a school bus full of children. I wonder how many people connected the arab man arrested just two weeks ago trying to board a commercial aircraft with wires wrapped around his body and bbatteries inserted in his rectum with a completely different type of probe...a probe designed to see just what the terrorists in America can plan and execute.
and you dont hear about them.
Oh...wait...I am a conspiracy nut. There are logical reasons for all these things...
..and I am still waiting to hear the logical reasons...
Cameron,
My understanding is that the fired lawyers refused to investigate obvious instances of democrat voter fraud.
But Dans point is more to the point...the law specifies it doesnt MATTER why they were fired.
If it did, then we would have a greater scandal because there WERE several of the prosecutors fired by Clinton investigating Clinton.
Dan;
You are right – I will wait until the Congress reads through the 20,000 documents and e-mails sent to them on this issue and then assess their findings. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
An abuse of power is morally repugnant - possibly a crime.
Lying to Congress is a crime.
Abuse of power is defined only by those that disagree with the holder of the power.
Lying to congress under oath is against the law.
Food for thought...
There have been 3,223 U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003. About 1,576 people died as a result of homicide or nonnegligent manslaughter in Detroit Michigan since the beginning of 2003.
Baltimore Maryland-From 1988 through 2002, the city hosted 4,404 homicides.
"What does it say that we kill children, parents, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, strangers, acquaintances, and everyone in between? Or that we use handguns, knives, blunt objects, fire, poison, explosives, or our own hands and feet to do it? Or that we kill over drugs, money, jealousy, vengeance, sex—or just because we get boiling-hot angry? Or that the huge numbers of senseless and apparently remorseless drug slayings reveal that we have raised a number of psychopaths who have been unleashing a torrent of bloodshed on our streets for a generation now? Or that police have failed to keep up with national standards for solving homicides?"
In Chicago, there were 1,946 murders from 2001 to 2003. In 2004, they gleefully announced that there number of murders had dropped to 492.
the point...
Oh...come now...you dont need me to tell you the point.
"Congress reads through the 20,000 documents and e-mails sent to them on this issue"
One of the biggest wastes of time ever in Congress.
And THAT is saying a lot.
@Cameron: no.
for anonymous.
Using powers given you by an act of congress is not an abuse of power.
Now, if Gonzales lied about this, then he is not only spineless, but stupid. As he was so completely protected by the law in firing any U.S. attorney for any reason.
It is along the lines of Libby. If you lie during questions that are looking for corruption where it is not. You are an idiot that deserves the consequences.
Fabrication of facts or deliberately misleading statements made to Congress, or subcomittees, in person or writing, whether under oath or not, is a crime punishable by up to five years imprisonment. (See, The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001).)
Oh heck...if THAT is the case, there isnt but MAYBE a handful of congressmen that SHOULDNT be in jail for 1-5 years!
MAYBE!
I want THAT standard flown and enforced every time a democrat in congress that supported Bill Clintons stand on WMDs has made a statement calling Bush a liar.
How much do you want to bet we can find enough in that instance alone to convict every head of the democrat party, current and recent past?
BTW...nice to see some factual backup!
If deliberately misleading comments is included, can one include not correctly remembering how something went down and thus testifying falsely? If so, Valerie Plame is likely to find herself in a bit of trouble here soon.
Who has lied to Congress? No one.
The prosecutor from California, 7th District, Lamb, the one who investigated Duke Cunningham; but not until six months after Barbra Boxer complained about her for not protecting the borders of California. This information was presented yesterday in the House Hearing by a Florida Congressman. Why wasn’t it the headline in every news paper in the country today? Because the Democrats and their media friends are trying desperately to create a smear campaign against the President. How pitiful, how sad. These are the people we have turned our country over to.
These same folks are in the process of announcing to Al Qaeda the day they will get to take over Iraq. Won’t that be a hoot?
"These same folks are in the process of announcing to Al Qaeda the day they will get to take over Iraq."
Shout that from the rooftops
So let me get this straight.
Alberto Gonzalez fired some lawyers because they weren't investigating voter fraud. He used a relatively new means (via the Patriot Act) to do it. That ticked some people off so they passed a law changing that particular part of the Act.
That's it? That's the controversy?
Yes, that is the false controversy. It is just as phony as Al Gore’s global warming screed. We now have an “academy award winning Al Gore” who testifies to the Nicole Smith fixated media screamers via the U.S. Senate. The truth is lost, the ability of the media to scare and titillate is what is in play. The daily manufacture of media events, of screech and scraping the nails across the chalk board of our national discourse, is the game the Democrats play on their march for power.
It was interesting to listen to Gore while pretending to call for bipartisan support and the tout how Democrats used him to get vote by the global warming issue in the past elections.
To Gore and the Democrats bipartisan means, “do it OUR WAY. If you challenge the lies and misrepresentations you are shouted down, and burned in effigy.
Gore talks of a carbon crisis while his party, using his misrepresentations looks up the resources. He vilifies the use of coal and tells us the only way is to change our life style – which he refuses to do. I wish he’d buy some carbon credits from me, but it seems he is actually buying them from himself.
It was interesting that Both Gore and Sen. John Warner referenced the movie 300 and the battle of Thermopylae. Gore used it to point out that a few people could do great things. He, of course, got all the statistics wrong; “100 Spartans against 10,000 enemies.” Ten thousand is a conservative estimate of the number of Persians killed by the four to seven thousand Greeks that fought for freedom. But the miss application of statistics is the trademark of Al Gore.
Warner used the battle as inspiration for the Republican determination to stand for the truth against the sky darkening assault of those who would misrepresent and manipulate the masses.
I am sure the Gore show will be on CSPAN this weekend. I recommend a few hours with the committee if for no other reason than to see the hollowness of the pretenders.
test
Ares
lets not forget...
Al GOre has always considered himself the eco warrior...
even when it was discovered mines on his property were pumping out toxic pollutants
even when he and Bill refused to even send the Kyoto Accord to congress for passage even when senate democrats authored and passed a bill ensuring Kyoto COULD NOT be passed
even though his home pollutes more than any 30 other homes
even though he flies around the world in private jets that use more fossil fuels and pollutes more than an entire FLEET of SUVs
Do as Al says...not as he does.
Dont stop your pollutants...buy clean air credits!
I wonder...when this has gone the way of the Dodo (or global cooling, or the acid rain scares) will Al be finally recognized as the worlds biggest con man?
6th Graders have more common sense than democrats.
Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame
By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call
LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.
“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.
With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.
Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.
“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.
In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.
“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.
The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.
In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.
With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”
Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.
“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.
Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.
“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,” Poppe said.
Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.
“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,” Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.”
"Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met with—personally with General [Michael] Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."
Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) speaking in House hearings, Friday, March 16th.
"During the entirety of her employment with the CIA Ms. Plame was classified as covert."
General Michael Hayden (R) Bush appointed CIA Chief Officer, former head of NSA.
Anon...so you are AGREEING that the democrats are hypocrites for attacking Scooter Libby and NOT calling for the prosecution of Richard Armitage...the guy that has ADMITTED to being the one that 'outed' (if indeed such a thing happened) Valerie Plame?
And I guess we should also be seeking to prosecute Joe Wilson...after all...HE revealed his wifes "secret identity" several times at parties.
Anonymous;
You pettifoggery is easily dispelled. Waxman is lying, and Hayden is mistaken. The gal who wrote the law tried to explain it to Waxman when he asked her about Plame’s status. When she tried to answer Waxman, he shouted her down; this is of course the typical Democrat response.
Mindmechanic;
Here is an interesting tidbit for you. While no one else is allowed to lie before congress – Congressmen (and women persons) can not be prosecuted for lying in on the floor of the house. It’s in the Constitution!
"As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Peter Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Valerie Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Henry Waxman may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the director of Central Intelligence during his statement to open hearings on the leak. Waxman was correctly quoting General Hayden."
Republican journalist Robert Novak, March 22, 2007. (Robert Novak was the conservative Washington Post journalist who first wrote about Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative.)
"Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
“They all knew that I worked with the CIA,” Plame said. “They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag.”
"When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.
With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.
And, as Mr. Armitage also suggested, Wilson did so because he didn’t want to be dismissed as some "low-level guy." He wanted to buttress his wildly outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President at the height of a then popular war.
And what better way to do so than to produce the person who sent him on his mission, and who witnessed the events unfold — his own wife, who just happened to be an expert on weapons of mass destruction.
To see how this may very well have happened, let’s go through the chronology in greater detail.
January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address.
February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.
(blog note...it should be PAINFULLY obvious that as of this date, Joe Wilson who worked FOR Bill Clinton ABSOLUTELY bleieved that Iraq possessed WMDs-giving lie to the liberal left claim that Bush intentionally lied about WMDs)
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.
MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.
MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.
May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.
Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03
May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.
(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)
May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.
The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."
(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")
June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?
Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.
Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.
July 6, 2003: Still frustrated that his trip to Niger story was still not getting the attention he thought it deserved, Mr. Wilson finally stepped out from behind the curtain and wrote his now notorious op-ed piece for the New York Times, What I Didn’t Find in Africa.
July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press with Tim Russert.
So, in all, Wilson managed to publish a New York Times editorial, be the subject of a front-page Washington Post story, and put in an appearance on a Sunday Morning talk show all on the same day.
Note too that it has been regularly suggested that all of the reporters involved, Kristof, Leiby, Pincus and even Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA before its disclosure in Robert Novak’s column.
July 8, 2003: Richard Armitage told Robert Novak about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.
July 14, 2003: Mr. Novak published his column, Mission To Niger.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
But according to Mr. Armitage and every other indication, Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had already been revealed to reporters by her husband Joe Wilson to give credence to his new and mendacious claims about what he uncovered in his trip to Niger."
Plame also denied being involved in the CIA decision to send her husband...a position flatly refuted by at least half a dozen CIA department leaders that CONFIRMED she suggested Wilson be the operative sent by the CIA.
SOOOOOOOO....
At the end of the day, ANonymous has posted reason and justification for Valerie Plame to be sent to prison on two counts of giving false and misleading statements before congress (AND under oath to boot).
Anonymous has also given reason and justification for her husband, Joe Wilson, to be arrested and tried for treason as well as the heretofore mentioned false and misleading statements.
Vegimatic Here,
The double standard answer is a simple one.
"Perception is reality" or in Agora terms. "Perception is Relative"
Reality is what we see and hear over and over, which is why the liberals are quite smug in their position.
Their cause has taken the majority of the air time. Their perception of the truth has become the truth to many Americans and individuals throughout the world.
Look at the results: The House of representatives has committed what would be called Treason just a handfull of years ago and not it is being called "Patriotism". It is called that just because they say so.
The results or (reality) does not matter. We are convinced that the reality is true (anonymous) So we continue to skew data to meet our reality (In true Al Gore fashion) and because it is a perception it is reality.
In Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" we see this at work.
It took a brave man, Atticus Finch, to over look the "wisdom" of the perception that a black man is always guilty.
Now that perception has gone full circle. The absolutist is always guilty. Guilty of being a wacko or any number of monikers.
Take for instance anonymous attempt at perception and reality. The term "Grasshopper" comes from a 1970's television show called "Kung Fu".
Grasshopper was the Shou Ling apprentice hanging on every word of his "Master".
Anonymous' frustration that no one sees him or her as the "master" has created the need in his or her eyes to change the perception of the "Agora" regulars.
It doesn't work. Atticus uses fact and logic. Yes they are skewed to "prove" absoluteism. But their is not a streach that causes the facts to be distorted.
The left will say that I have just distored the "facts" as they see it.
So who is right.
I read somewhere "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Or in other words. Only time will tell.
Time is telling me that those who were enjoying the protests of the sixties with all of the relative free love and drugs, have grown up and are now forcing that perception upon us all legally.
That is my perception.
Blog note follow up-Lest it be misunderstood...I didnt write the posting I just sent...It is a compilation of several articles...hence the quotation marks.
My comments were limited to the "Blog note" and the end conclusions.
for the record...
Mindmechanic and Vegimatic:
Thank you for the effort you have gone to in order to expose the game that Flaccid and his ilk are involved in. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the American public, truly educated by our vastly expensive public education system, had learned to get at the facts, reason them out, and come to logical conclusions? Their consistent failure to do so is enough to make one see a conspiracy – but the truth is that Americans, safe and secure in power and freedom, are too lazy to gain the knowledge, for which ignorance of no longer has any excuse.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
Oh...two good points here...
True...during her employment with the CIA Ms Plame HAD been covert...right up until her identity was published and she was outed by the Russians. Since then she has been on NO covert operations.
Also...Maybe she would have had less public exposure if she hadnt made political campaign contributions in her own name to the Gore campaign citing her place of employment and ALSO regestering in Washington DCs "Who's Who" under her own name and place of employment. She also would have been more covert if her own husband hadnt introduced her at cocktail parties as (wink wink nudge nudge) a 'spy' or told golfing buddies about her identity OR made phone calls to numerous reporters about her identity.
So....maybe she and he shouldnt have been discussing and disclosing...hmmm.....
Goοԁ dаy! This is my first visit to youг blog!
We are a teаm of volunteers and starting a neω іnitiative in a соmmunity in
the ѕаmе niсhe. Yоur
blog рroѵided us valuablе infoгmatiоn to ωork on.
Үou have done а wonderful ϳob!
Also νisit my blog; New York Life insurance
I'm gone to say to my little brother, that he should also go to see this web site on regular basis to obtain updated from hottest information.
Take a look at my weblog - raspberry ketones
I'm impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I come across a blog that's
equally educatіνe and amusing, and withοut a ԁοubt, you've hit the nail on the head. The issue is something too few folks are speaking intelligently about. Now i'm ѵегy happу Ӏ found
thіѕ ԁuгing mу seагch fог sоmething conсeгning this.
mу webрage :: florist work
Αmаzіng things heгe. I'm very happy to peer your post. Thanks a lot and I'm havіng
a look fогwarԁ to contact you. Will уou kindly ԁrop
me a е-mail?
Mу homepаge; stop thin hair
Post a Comment