Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he’s trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who’s flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that’s really what we’re seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there’s a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren’t in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we’re going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn’t want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
• 
And Bush II didn’t get this kind of press when he replaced a bunch at the beginning of his first term, either.
Could it be because it wasn’t anything particularly different than Clinton had already done? Or is that just crazy talk?
And besides, who do the US Attorneys work for, anyway? The states? The Justice Department? The Executive? Congress?
As I seem to recall, Iglesias (? I think?) was fired after having received phone calls from Congress that he “didn’t answer correctly”.
Who, exactly, do these guys really work for?
Because I could have sworn they didn’t have to answer to individual Congresspeople after they were already in place. I could, of course, be quite wrong on that score.
Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 upon taking the office.
Wrong. Reagan did it. Bush I did it. Carter did it.
Again, he did not receive the kind of media coverage that the current president is regarding US Attorney appointments.
That’s because Bush isn’t replacing replacing people from the previous administration. He is firing people for not being “loyal Bushies”.
The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized.
Wow. Ok…. hang on, give me a moment to try to absorb that statement.
No, still does not compute.
Are we receiving posts from the Mirror Universe…?
No President before Bill Clinton fired ALL of the US Attorneys. No media outcry when he did that. Now we have 8 who are being fired. Big deal. No crime there… even if it was politically motivated. It is not unheard of for a president to replace the US Attorney’s with like-minded people. Again, no crime in that.
“The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized.”
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
No President before Bill Clinton fired ALL of the US Attorneys. No media outcry when he did that. Now we have 8 who are being fired. Big deal. No crime there… even if it was politically motivated. It is not unheard of for a president to replace the US Attorney’s with like-minded people. Again, no crime in that.
Wrong, if it interferes with ongoing investigations or for partisan purposes.
And it actually is a big deal. No president has fired eight prosecutors mid-term before (usually, maybe one or two).
Though I would say that the Administration would be in less trouble if they were upfront about it and actually said it was for not following the program, instead of saying it was for competency (generally, for the latter, you really ought to have some documentation for poor performance, as opposed to having commendations for service).
Well, but, they already “were” like-minded … it seems these were replaced because they weren’t quite “like minded enough”. Apparently. Which is still fair game on its own. Most states have “at will” employment.
I personally find it questionable if they’re being fired for not bringing prosecutions that other Republicans — say, in Congress — want them to pursue… especially if the Attorney in question doesn’t think they have a case. Since when is it Congress’s job to tell prosecutors who and who not to prosecute, exactly?
Darin, repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. The fact is, Reagan fired all of the attorneys.
“The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration, notwithstanding the fact that most of the persons whose nominations were to be submitted had not been selected and many interim persons would be required.”
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208045.htm
And I’ve already covered that there was a media outcry over Clinton’s firing of all 93, so you can stop lying at any time now. Or least read some of the other posts on this blog before you reply again.
I have a question for the Bush defenders: Why is it that every time this administration gets caught doing something that looks sleazy, the first meme to get circulated is “Clinton did it”? I thought you were supposed to be the morally superior ones. Why use someone you profess to hate as your barometer for ethical behavior?
And just for fun, here’s what Wikipedia (take it for what it’s worth) has to say on firings of previous administrations:
“At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a “political office” to turn in a signed letter of resignation. For example, when President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[70] A political office is generally considered one that the occupant “serves at the pleasure of the President.” If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted.[71] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President’s party.[72] Presidents Reagan and Clinton immediately dismissed all 93 US attorneys when they came to office. Other Presidents have installed their team by transitioning in replacements gradually as the tenure expired for the preceding administrations US Attorneys.[73]”
So, even when Bush 41 took office, he replaced 91 out of 93 US Attorneys even though his administration didn’t involve a change in party.
So, can we put the lie that Clinton’s beginning term firings were something new to rest now?
I serve in a partisan position in state government. We are ‘at-will’ employees and can be relieved of our duties at any time. All non-civil service employees of government are in the same boat. Our fortunes rise and fall based on the political climate of the time. In my state, the legislature flipped from Republican to Democrat controlled. Half the people in my support division were layed off and I took a 20% pay cut. That’s just the way the system is and we are fully aware of it.
When you are terminated, the legal counsel is present and no reason is giving for your removal. If they give a reason, then you might have some grounds for a lawsuit. The key point of at-will employment is that no reason needs to be given. That’s why this attorney situation is so murky. The President has the right to remove these US attorneys. He doesn’t have to give a reason. However, if the Democrats can find any documents to prove they were eliminated for political reasons, then there might be something worth chewing on. Probably no legal recourse for the attorneys but just a political game to be played out in the newspapers.
All political employees are aware of how the game is run. That’s why in 99% of these cases, no reason is given for your termination. In my opinion this is the weakest ‘scandal’ that I’ve witnessed in D.C. in the last 20 years.
All things considered, what should probably be a bigger concern is not that the 8 were fired, but who replaced them.
And this wouldn’t even have to be about politics itself, but about Bush’s history of cronyism and complete lack of qualifications for the jobs said cronies are getting.
Btw, the House voted 218-212 to set a September 2008 deadline for Iraq. Good for 218 members of the House to stand up and show that you do indeed have some power in this government.
I am in a civil service position in state government and I’m well aware that the political appointees can be fired for any reason. But the issue is not whether the fired attorneys have a grievance, it’s whether they were fired for reasons that may include who they were and were not prosecuting.
If Bush or Gonzales had just said from the beginning, “the administration has decided it would be better served by these replacements,” there’d be no issue or at least not as a big of one or if they had staggered the dismissals instead of making all at once right after the election. Instead, they gave obviously bogus reasons and then compounded it by lying about the role people like Rove or Gonzales played in the firing.
I don’t know if lying is just reflexive for this administration or what, but when you lie, it raises all kinds of questions. What they did may not be illegal, but it looks sleazy.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 23, 2007 01:36 PM
Btw, the House voted 218-212 to set a September 2008 deadline for Iraq. Good for 218 members of the House to stand up and show that you do indeed have some power in this government.
Yes, but… how much good does it do? My understanding is that the resolution is “non-binding.” Even if it was “binding,” Senate Republicans wouldn’t let a similar resolution come up for a vote.
And then there’s the ultimate question… even if a binding resolution setting a withdrawal date passed both houses of Congress, can the Congress revoke the authorization to wage a war once that authorization has been given? A showdown between the president and Congress on that issue would likely trigger one of the biggest Constitutional crises in our nation’s history.
I seem to be in a small minority here: I think it was stupid to invade Iraq but now that we’re there I think it would be equally stupid to pull out precipitously. A failed state in Iraq would have ripple effects in a region of the world where there are already threats to our national security.
Rather than setting arbitrary withdrawal dates, I’d like to see Congress put pressure on the President to change his strategy to include a full-on diplomatic “blitz” to grapple with the political problems that are at the root of much of the violence in Iraq. This war requires both a political and a military approach.
Unfortunately, I think the President is hëll-bent on “staying the course” and the Congress is hëll-bent on “get out now.” I believe both options are equally bad. Unless Washington is gripped by a sudden outbreak of wisdom, I fear that no matter who is in power the wrong decisions will continue to be made with respect to the Iraq Debacle.
“Give me a break. If this was a Democrat president and a Republican congress, you would be arguing that the president has every right to decide the agenda of people under his administration.”
Uh…no. I wouldn’t. See, that’s what I love: No matter how many times I slam the Democrats for shortcomings, people try to assault negative comments about the Bush administration by saying that I’d be cutting Democrats tremendous slack if the situation were reversed.
The fact of the matter is that I wouldn’t be any more tolerant of obfuscation and trying to avoid testifying under oath for a Democrat than I would for a Republican, and my track record backs me up on that. But why stick to facts when you’ve got your opinion instead? Why accept what I say when you know my mind so much better?
PAD
Posted by: Den at March 23, 2007 12:38 PM
And I’ve already covered that there was a media outcry over Clinton’s firing of all 93, so you can stop lying at any time now.
I just know I’m gonna regret this…
Den, I’m sorry, but that statement sounds not unlike something Robert Preston would say. Darin may be wrong, but you do not and cannot know his state of mind from his blog posts. Therefore it makes the most sense to give him the benefit of the doubt, and presume he is sincere but doesn’t have his facts straight.
And in fairness, I haven’t read anything from Darin that personally insulting to anyone.
I always laugh these days when I hear people complain about the rancor in Washington, D.C. Because in my experience everyday people are just as rancorous when they discuss politics, myself included. I guess our politicans come by it honestly, then.
Actually, the House bill is a binding spending measure, but given that the GOP successfully blocked the Senate from even debating on a nonbinding resolution, the result is the same. This is merely a symbolic gesture.
Congress may be able to rescind the war authorization, but they can say that after such-and-such a date, they just aren’t going to pay for it. I think fall of 2008 is fine for a deadline, if it is coupled with continued pressure on Bush to get a diplomatic blitz going. If Bush can’t get his act together and fix it by then, well, it’s going to up to his successor to deal with it anyway.
In other words, his successor is going to have to deal with anyway, no matter what Congress tries to do.
“Who, exactly, do these guys really work for?”
Isn’t it supposed to be the taxpayer?
OK, OK, you can all stop laughing now. :p
“I thought you were supposed to be the morally superior ones.”
“moral superiority” and “politics” = two things which don’t go together.
Den, I’m sorry, but that statement sounds not unlike something Robert Preston would say. Darin may be wrong, but you do not and cannot know his state of mind from his blog posts.
Fair enough, but when Darin says something and I post a source that demonstrates he was wrong and he repeats it, that says one of two things 1) He isn’t reading other people’s posts before he posts or 2) He read it, but rather than refute the source, he repeated something that he now knew was untrue and that is called “lying”.
Maybe I should have given him the doubt and assumed that #1 is correct and he is not just parroting this week’s hannitized talking points, but somehow, given what he has posted here in general, I suspect that the answer is closer to #2.
“moral superiority” and “politics” = two things which don’t go together.
And yet it doesn’t seem to stop many politicians from claiming that mantle, does it?
Bill Myers –
My understanding is that the resolution is “non-binding.”
The AP reports it was a binding war spending bill.
can the Congress revoke the authorization to wage a war once that authorization has been given?
I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, Congress has handed over absolute power over the military to the president, and, well, that’s a bad thing.
A failed state in Iraq would have ripple effects in a region of the world where there are already threats to our national security.
Iraq is already a failed state, and without deadlines, the Iraqis are just going to sit there and accomplish nothing for themselves, because they will just continue to think we’re going to prop their government up. It cannot last forever, contrary to what the Iraqis and Bush think.
That, and the ripple effects have already been felt: there are more terrorists now than before we went to Iraq. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are once again on the rise, and others, such as Iran, seem to be trying to push every button they can.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by what is current an open-ended, never-ending situation in Iraq.
Meanwhile, when everything goes wrong, Bush sues for more time, and more time, and more time. And we knew once this war started that it would drag on and Bush’s successor would be stuck dealing with it.
It isn’t necessarily founded on a resolve to lie. I’ve found truth gets sacrificed where it obstructs an individual’s ability to form a cogent model of reality. Fidelity to conventional wisdom will pull such people into the denial of others where the conventional wisdom observed is compatible.
The points I have made have so far not been refuted by the sources you have provided.
When Clinton took office he immediately and simultaineously fired 93 US Attorneys, which was unprecedented.
Also, there was nothing even remotely close to the media outcry then that Bush 2 is receiving now for firing his 8 attorneys. There just wasn’t.
Darin
Except it’s not unprecented, which you would have noted if you had actually bothered to read the sources I cited.
So, whether you’re lying or just being willfully ignorant, I don’t care anymore. You’re shrouded.
I can’t believe how cowed the country was by this Alfred E Newman wannabe, and that he got a second term. Well, I believe that had to do with a rigged election – again – but that so many people AREN’T screaming in the streets is astounding. The tide is turning though. Like Nixon before him, his own party is turning on him, and even the god-father of conservatism, William F Buckley has said that if we had a parliamentary system, Dubya would be gone – and he should be! I only hope we can impeach he and Cheney, so they can be tried, convicted, and imprison them, rather than have the bášŧárdš skate off, scott free!
Of course, if that happened, Nancy Pelosi would become the President, and totally shake up the next election!
The issue isn’t that the attorneys were fired – they serve at the pleasure of the President – but how and why they were fired. If you fire someone when taking office, because they are of an opposing ideology, and unable to support your policies that’s OK. As I understand it, the attorney’s in question were fired, because they wouldn’t engage in unethical, if not illegal activities, which is quite another.
Posted by Bill Myers
Yes, but… how much good does it do? My understanding is that the resolution is “non-binding.” Even if it was “binding,” Senate Republicans wouldn’t let a similar resolution come up for a vote.
No, this one would be binding, as it’s part of the emergency spending bill to pay to continue the war.
Of course, the Shrub held a nationally-televised event today to declare that it was “political theatre” (Does he even know the meaning of “irony”?) and that even if it made it through the Senate, he was going to veto it, especially since it had “pork” hung on it (like money for veterans’ benefits).
Why doesn’t he just sign it with a signing statement that says it doesn’t apply to him?
(Or does he know just how far he could actually ride *that* horse if he tried it with a bill that actually had passed a Democratic-dominated Congress?)
I agree that if one or more of those attorneys were fired because they were investigating something that would hurt the RNC, then that needs to be looked at.
That said, Bush can fire any one of them for any reason. He’d have got less flack if he’d just fired and replaced them all instead of a select few. It’s worked before.
Libertarian = Republican without the courage of his convictions.
“Clinton did it!”
———-
When will you Republicans get over it?
Guys, Guys, Guys….
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I’ve said. It’s what I’ve done every. Single. Time. Here… when there is a political thread.
Sheesh.
Darin
corionis6 said:
“In my opinion this is the weakest ‘scandal’ that I’ve witnessed in D.C. in the last 20 years.”
———-
I agree that it started out as a weak scandal, but it sure has become stronger because of the lying under oath. Libby has been convicted of perjury. The entire country came to a standstill when Republicans pursued Clinton for perjury.
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
Most of us have, yes. That’s why there are fewer and fewer people engaging in discussion with you each time, thou twit celebre.
I look forward to the time you have something serious to say and wonder why no one will talk to you.
TWL
And to think those silly Native Americans worshipped the coyote as their trickster god when they could have been worshipping you.
Posted by: Darin at March 23, 2007 06:41 PM
“Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I’ve said. It’s what I’ve done every. Single. Time. Here… when there is a political thread.
Sheesh.”
Are you sure this post was really made by Darin? It doesn’t sound like something someone will say of himself but rather like something his worse opponent would say about him.
I hope I’m wrong, since he idea that someone would take another’s name in order to slur him seems to me even more distasteful and dishonest than Darin’s own insistence to ignore the basic point Bush critics on this thread were making.
Well, mark your calendars, kids. The digging into the firings has turned up news that has officially driven me off the reservation:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070322-113047-5921r.htm
Six times. You can’t prosecute an illegal immigrant until you’ve caught the same one SIX TIMES.
“Say, officer, how about you pass on that ticket you’re writing up, and, oh, if you catch me five more times, then you can give it to me? How’s that?”
I mean, we KNEW the Administration wasn’t doing anything serious about the border problem, but now we have paperwork to prove it.
Posted by R.J. Carter
Actually, that’s your ordinary wetback/fencejumper type illegal that’s gotta be caught six times. (What do they do – dye a different toe on one foot green each time they catch him until the run out of piddies?)
Well, let’s consider a couple of paragraphs from that article:
Thgis woulod appear to be the prosecutor who basically ignored ordinary illegals to concentrate on the coyotes and other big fish in the illegal-immigrant racket.
This upset Republicans, because instead of having whole flocks of ordinary illegals prosecuted every week to brag about, nothing seemed to be happening. (For that matter, given who the top facilitators and coyotes sometimkes deal with to supply cheap labor, it wouldn’t surprise me if the local Republicans were getting complaints from their biggest stockholders … uhhh … i mean “contributors”.)
And what’s gonna happen after the hearing? They send him back to Mexico, and he comes back in a week or so.
What happens under the “six strikes” system? They send him back to Mexico, and he comes back in a week or so.
But we spent a lot less money and ties up a lot fewer judicial resources in the process.
Money and resources that can be used to catch and prosecute and DO Something About people who we actually can Do Something About.
Interesting. Now, since that was released during the investigation of the firing of Carol Lam, US Attorney in San Diego, CA (and responsible for the prosecution and conviction of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham [R – CA] on bribery and corruption charges), did she use the same guidelines as the attorneys in Texas, or is this yet another attempt to distract the public from the story in question?
I am sorry to interrupt the political discussions but I have a question for PAD. I have just finished reading (for the third time) your Babylon 5 trilogy and was wondering with the new dvds in the works and hopefully re-newed interest, if there would be any chance of new novels. I realize that it is really early, but I was wondering if that would even be a chance??
James
>>”moral superiority” and “politics” = two things which don’t go together.
>And yet it doesn’t seem to stop many politicians from claiming that mantle, does it?
No, it doesn’t. The last four Canadian federal administrations have all claimed – during the elections – that they’d be different [read: more ethical and trustworthy] from the last batch. The ONLY way in which they turned out to be different, was the increasing speed with which they proved otherwise.
>You can’t prosecute an illegal immigrant until you’ve caught the same one SIX TIMES.
Someone send that to Billary’s supporters, reminding them of how that hypocrite complained about Canada’s “porous border security”. As though she (and the U.S.) had anything to teach anyone on that particular subject. Feh.
You know, it is rather entertaining watching the Dem’s chasing their own tails. Looking for that mythical sword that will slay the dread President George. Making things up while ignoring the past.
After the complete idiocy of the Plame leak(and anyone who even tries to claim it was a White House plot is willfully ignoring what is now clearly known), we start back up yet once again.
I know, the Republicans tried this with Clinton. Look how far that got us.
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule). The blatant hypocrisy of the House and Senate Democrats is frustrating–and amusing. But at the end of the day, this too will pass.
If the Democratic leadership had any wisdom at all, they would treat Bush as irrelevant and focus on accomplishing something beneficial for the country. Oh, wait, that would mean raising our taxes, spending our money on pork (yes, like the Republicans were doing–can’t argue with you there), and passing stupid laws about the big bad wolf of global warming. So maybe yet another pointless investigation over something that doesn’t really matter IS a good thing.
Iowa Jim
According to “Countdown” this evening, Rush Limbaugh immediately suggested that Edwards would wait to see if the announcement today would result in a bump in the polls. If not, then he would be exiting the race. Earned Rush top honors for “Worst Person…” today.
Shocking, I know. Rush and Hannity are two of the most despicable human beings on the face of the earth today. I think they’re both physically incapable of viewing anything except how it might benefit the republicans politically.
BTW, he’s the video from Countdown:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/15597/1/Countdown-WW-Edwards-Limbaugh.wmv
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
BWHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!
Gasp.
Wheeze.
Thank you, Jim. I haven’t had that good of a laugh in a long time. You should consider going into comedy.
They just issue a punchcard. When someone tries to collect their free coffee, they arrest them.
If you’re going by resolve, then there are no betrayals — ever — as no one is resolved to betray a fidelity.
“Libertarian = Republican without the courage of his convictions.”
Sorry, but many Libertarians were opposed to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan from day one, when even most Democrats were calling for them.
And do you really see many Republicans fighting for gay rights and the abolition of victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution?
Not every person who calls themselves a Libertarian is an ashamed Republican. But I agree that someone that feels the need to append “I’m not a Republican” to his posts is somewhat suspicious.
But it is the Libertarian’s curse to be seen as a Democrat by the Republicans, and as a Republican by the Democrats…
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
Funniest line of the entire thread, that one. Jim, you’ve still got it.
(I mean, really … is there anyone left in the administration who anyone outside Bush’s core supporters thinks has ANY integrity?)
And BTW, Jim, what exactly, “is now clearly known” about the Plame leak, in your view?
TWL
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 24, 2007 07:22 PM
After the complete idiocy of the Plame leak(and anyone who even tries to claim it was a White House plot is willfully ignoring what is now clearly known), we start back up yet once again.
What, exactly, is “clearly known?” Scooter Libby, one of the President’s top aides, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the case. There was nothing in that case that directly pointed at the President or Vice President, but nothing that exonerated them either.
Or are you referring to Robert Novak’s lame defense that Ms. Plame’s status as a covert operative was in question? Because that argument has been discredited by legitimate sources as partisan nonsense: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230014
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 24, 2007 07:22 PM
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
Really?
George W. Bush promised not to raise taxes, but his latest budget proposal would increase the tax burden on the middle class by making all contributions to medical insurance plans taxable. Currently, many of us can elect to have such contributions made with “pre-tax” income. His proposal would raise our taxes, no ifs, ands, or buts. But Bush calls it a “revenue” enhancement.
Also, the Bush administration is refusing to answer questions about the questionable firings of U.S. Attorneys. If there’s nothing to hide, then why are they hiding behind constantly shifting explanations? Why are they stonewalling?
Bush vowed to keep Donald Rumsfeld just days before giving him the axe. Moreover, while Bush was telling us he wouldn’t consider letting go of Rumsfeld, it turns out he was planning to do just that.
Bush hired an underqualified crony to run FEMA. “Heckuva Job Brownie” couldn’t handle the job by any objective measure. Yes, yes, there were screw-ups at the local and state levels, but the guys at the top don’t get to point fingers at the guys at the bottom. Not when the top — the federal government — did such a horrid job. “Heckuva Job Brownie” was a significant reason for the federal government’s failure to properly react.
Bush has never given us a full accounting of the time he supposedly spent serving in the National Guard. There are gaps in the records which would indicate a strong possibility that he, y’know, didn’t fulfill his commitment. He’s never given us a straight answer nor offered any proof that he didn’t just skip out.
Most important, Bush took us to war using evidence he either knew, or should have known, to be thinner than he claimed it to be. In fact, prior to the Iraq war, Bush’s own State Department listed 45 countries where Al Qaeda was known to be active. Iraq was not on the list.
Bush has integrity? Not by any definition of the word I know.
If it makes you feel any better, I think Clinton was lacking in integrity as well. I’m angrier at Bush, however, because his lack of integrity embroiled us in an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of U.S. lives… and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
Sigh… by the way, before anyone bothers to point out that Media Matters is a liberal organization devoted to debunking “conservative misinformation,” I’m well aware of that. I chose that article, however, because it was well-sourced.
Bottom line: Novak’s defense of his atrocious outing of Plame’s CIA status is garbage. Facts are facts.
I never believe anyone who says they won’t raise taxes. I don’t necessarily think anyone who says this is a liar, you understand, I just think that political people will say things and even if they’re sincere when they said it, later on circumstances will come up, smack the person upside the head with reality, and someone’s gotta pay for that.
Iowa Jim, just what, precisely, did you mean by the “big bad wolf of global warming?” I was going to list all the sources of evidence for the phenomenon, all the effects, so on, so forth, but I don’t wanna clog the internet anymore than I already do. But what’s wrong with passing a few laws to point people in the right direction to, say, save pretty much every species on this planet and ensure that I can send my son 20 minutes down I-95 to see historic Philadelphia in something other than a submersible?)
Although, in some neighborhoods in Philly that I’ve been in, that might actually be the safest way, come to think of it.
Iowa Jim, just what, precisely, did you mean by the “big bad wolf of global warming?”
It’s the new strategy in the War on Global Warming: demonize it and those that say it’s happening.
Earlier today, I read a post on another site where a conservative referred to global warming as “psycho-liberal propoganda”.
You can’t make this kind of stuff up.
And I’d love to say I could laugh at Jim’s line about Bush having integrity. But, truly, all I can do is cry about the fact that somebody could actually believe that kind of bûllšhìŧ.
Iowa Jim, I feel really bad for you, man. You sound really lost, concidering that you still back this guy. Without a doubt he has been a great deservice to this Country and it’s Constitution, his policies and leadership have wronged this country in such a way that he’s going to leave so much baggage that it’s going to take years… YEARS… to fix! And that will be left on some schmucks lap, who would want to be President after this at this rate? Under his watch, 5,000 American Civillians died, plus 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Dont even get me started on good, honest Iraqis being killed by the thousands!
Thats a dámņ big body count.
now, do we really want to talk about Money? Or, the mind knumbingly literal LOSS OF BILLIONS in Iraq? Literal PALLETS OF U.S. CURRENCY GONE! And America doesn’t even blink. And people support the shmuck who had this happen under his watch.
Or let’s talk about why leaders shouldn’t be messing with the people who shed blood, spy, and steal in this countries name? When leaders, for simple political rational, betray an agent of this country while they are under cover.
This will not end well at this rate. America needs to step up and take a hard look at the facts. Not your “feelings” or Prayers, look at the facts!
Speaking of sounding lost, another gem from Cheney today, talking about the House:
“They’re not supporting the troops. They’re undermining them,” Cheney told a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition
It’s really time for Ðìçk to get in touch with reality.