I`m saving this pearl of wisdom from you NOSC, so that in the future I can use it as a shining example of the over the top hatred and wishful thinking of the resident Bush bashers after this case is concluded. You predicted this....

“This is just the first indictment. When the others get handed down they will start to squeel. The pressure is being placed on these guys. This is Watergate. It's the same play over again. That's my prediction. Call me NOSCtradmus.”
”None of us have forgotten about Rove. Some of us realize that all the heads are on the chopping block now.”

Watergate? Are you serious? Don`t you think that`s a ridiculous statement? We`re talking about a guy who committed no crime until he "possibly" lied, mislead, was not forthcoming, deceived, forgot the facts...ect. None of us will know for sure until the facts are in, and the charges defended.

The fact remains that no mention of outing V.Plame in the context of a criminal act was ever mentioned in the indictment. At this point in time all we have is an after-the-fact accusation of being less than truthful during the investigation of a non-crime. That`s a far cry from covering up the break-in of the oppositions headquarters. Do you want to stand by your foolish charge NOCStradamas? Do you want to hitch your wagon to that?  

The eagerness you haters display in your quest for anything to pin on the administration is shameful. Your energy would be better used in coming up with some actual ideas to propel your party to victory instead of counting on souring enough voters on republicans.

More people voted for the right than for the left. Why? I`ll tell you why. Because, despite your substantial efforts to paint republicans as lying, evil, Hitler-like racists and war mongers, voters couldn`t escape the fact that the democrats beliefs are worse. What does that say about you?

You`re destined to lose elections until you realize that simple fact.  

he's a wanker.

Fitzgerald is not.  He has an indictment already.  Outing CIA operatives is not so much a risk to the individual, as a risk to the program itself.

These guys will do anything over personal politics.   Do you think Libby just decided to do this on his own?  Do you think Oliver North just decided to come up with an elaborate laundry scheme all by himself?   These are not private blowjobs - these are policy programs.

I'm not as bold as NOSC, I have no idea how far it will go.  I do know that lawyers can't always prove everything that's going on.   If it's what it smells like, yeah, it's a Watergate.

Today's Republicans don't have Hitler's vision.  They're in it for themselves and their cronies - they really don't care about anything long term.   And "cronies" doesn't include you.  You may hope for better opportunities under the GOP, but if you're not better off than you were in 2000, you're kidding yourself.

I don't understand why you think people hate Bush.  He's an OK guy.  It's just his incompetence and unreliability that I hate.  Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

Do you agree that he was in fact convicted of DUI, and told people a week before that broke that he had never been arrested?   Does it matter whether he lied, or whether he's just so drunk so often that he forgot all about it?

Do you wonder why he won't release his record and end the speculation about where he was in the AL ANG?

Do you wonder why the 9/11 commission panned him so hard?  Do you wonder why he took the money from the Army Corps of Engrs budget for NO levees?  Do you wonder what he's doing to undermine San Francisco emergency response as we speak?  Do you wonder why it's taken him more time to find one terrorist than it took FDR to knock out both Hitler and Tojo?

Federal taxes are far and away the most expensive contribution taxpayers make.  Do you think you're getting your money's worth?

Thanks for making my point. When you develop an idea be sure to come back and post it. I have allot of faith that you will.  The problem is that it will no doubt be something that middle America disagrees with. Good job bashing the president though.

I want to reiterate, as horrible as all the examples you listed are, voters still elected him over the values of your party. You guys must be completely out of the mainstream in the mind of swing voters. Seriously, when they`d rather have a lying, drunken, awol, money for levee stealing, no U.B.L. finding, conniving, incompetent, unreliable snooch like him over your guy it`s very telling… wouldn`t you agree? You can`t claim that they didn`t know he was all those things. You and the media drilled it into them day after day. By the way…anyone see Dan Rather around lately? Hmmm, he must be busy working on other projects.

Let me give you a head start on winning the next election. Steer clear of such bright ideas as dropping "offensive" words like Christmas from the lexicon. When your side begins to understand that proposing such things is a turn off to most voters you`ll have a shot at winning. I suspect you won`t take my advice though. I`m sure you`re happy to instead just continue to try and legislate us into submission….. well, until the next Supreme Court Associate Justice is confirmed anyway.
Listen, if we don`t talk again before the end of the year, you have a nice Harvest celebration and a great Winter holiday.

P.S.
The day that I start believing that liberals know the first thing about “getting your money`s worth” tax wise I`ll move to that foreign land Alec Baldwin escaped to when Bush won.

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally, outed a covert agent. We have not charged that."
- Patrick Fitzgerald, Justice Department Special Counsel

Fitzgerald makes quite clear that the lying and obstruction of justice prevented him from finding out the truth about the underlying crime. That's why perjury is a crime. Are you saying that anyone who lies about involvement in a crime should be left alone?

Libby is only the first, not to worry about that.

The GOP has undoubtely been hijacked by the far right, who are lying, evil, Hitler-like racists and war mongers.

"At this point in time all we have is an after-the-fact accusation of being less than truthful during the investigation of a non-crime"

A) That was enough to impeach Clinton, and put away Martha Stewart.  If they didn't tell the truth, then, what do you suppose the truth might have been?

B)  Libby isn't the only person involved here, obviously.

C) The reasons more people vote for the Repubs than the Dems include (i) Bushes who toss people off voter rolls without telling them, (ii) churches who toss people out for being Democrats, and tell the others they'll go to hell if they vote Democrat, and (iii) SCt judges who grant injunctions to toss evidence out.

It all gets back to the fundamental difference between the parties:  Democrats have no ambition whatever - all they want to do is screw a few interns - but the Republicans have real vision - they want to screw the entire human race.

-- Modified on 10/31/2005 10:15:37 AM

that political balance is the issue, and our problem is that we've lost it.

For the short term, the problem is Dubya and his puppeteers.  The long term problem behind that is the religious right who will allow themselves to be manipulated as a voting bloc by anybody who lip synchs their words - obviously, any ideological bloc is going to be more concerned about being "red" than "expert", and the reason is simple - it's about power, it's not about doing a good job.

I suspect the only way to solve that problem is let them screw up - OTOH, subsidizing televangelists via tax exemptions doesn't help, either.

Just one small difference between Clinton and what`s happening now. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and proffering a completely untruthful affidavit to M.L. to introduce into evidence. There`s no doubt at all what was going on there. It wasn`t about a blowjob.  Keep in mind that all this lying Clinton did stemmed from his desire to screw Paula Jones out of her day in court by seeking to present himself as something other than what he was/is, which is exactly what she claimed he was…. a sexual harasser. Some even claim that he was a rapist. The false affidavit was central to his defense in the Jones lawsuit. He tried to position himself as a man of character and he got outed as a liar instead. He`d have gotten away with it too if it wasn`t for that blue dress.


Two of my favorite Clinton lies were :
(Finger wagging) I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski…..
and when he was asked under oath if he was ever alone with M.L.
I guess he considers a phone conversation during a wet sloppy one akin to being in the company of others.

I disagree. Keep thinking that way and you`ll continue to lose. It`s not the wacky left or the religious right that make or break an election. It`s middle America that decides elections.

The problem with the liberal agenda these days is that at least for the time being your idea of the way the country should be run is not what the majority wants and people will vote for a man you relentlessly vilify just to avoid putting you in power and subjecting all of us to your ridiculous A.C.L.U. driven philosophy. It might be the lesser of two evils but make no mistake who the lesser evil is in the mind of the electorate.

Keep bashing…we`ll keep winning.

I fully sympathize with your view, but isn't it time that the reasonable elements of the GOP forged an alliance with their Dem counterparts to form a center party that pushes aside the fringes on either side? the selection of an incompetent GW is just a preview of what the extreme right has in mind for us.....

... Clinton went down for misleading statements to a grand jury about a blow job.  Scooter is going down for misleading statements to a grand jury about the blow job he gave to his newspaper contacts.  The law (one must not out CIA agents) was passed during a republican administration.    All Scooter had to say was "I don't know" or "what law are you talking about?  I never heard of it" and he could have slid and the story would have 2  week's worth of legs.   Scooter is paying for his arrogance.  

This whole thing could be over in a few days.  It won't be, either because there is MUCH more to the story or Scooter isn't smart enough to put on sackcloth and ashes and get it over with.

You never go down for the crime in Washington, just for the cover-up.  

The GOP is in trouble because they took all the rope they could get to accomplish their ends in national politics -- and they are in the midst of hanging themselves with it.  The American People have little patience with long wars where we don't appear to be winning.  Further, they are really GOP in the way your 'base' does not like -- they want government out of their bedrooms and their doctor's offices and their lives.  


The Dems need ideas to win elections -- you are right.  The GOP (however) is cooperating by fucking up so much on the national stage.  

Maybe McCain next cycle...

Harry

If Libby had committed the serious offense you refer to he would have been charged with committing it. He didn`t break the law in question. That`s indisputable. The lefts constant drumbeat to the contrary doesn’t change that fact.

problem, so there's really no sense in going over it again...

as long as you've got the secret Republican handshake.

but you might want to pay attention to some of your own people saying the same thing...

It is not indisputable that he did not break the law in question.  He was not charged with breaking the law in question because the prosecutor could not determine whether or not the law was violated because Libby lied to the investigators and to the grand jury.

Aside from the fact that in our society you`re innocent until the prosecutor IS able to determine that you broke the law the bigger pink elephant in the room is the well known fact that even if he did “out” her, she did not meet the legal criteria of a victim according to the wording of the statute. That IS indisputable.  She had not been covert within the time frame needed to satisfy the breaking of any law. The entire investigation was a red herring from the start.

.. . it was there to protect the foreign nationals that came in contact with covert operatives.  NOC for intellegence operatives is relatively rare and they are not in much danger.  The people that are in danger are the foreign nationals they work with.  This means that if you out somebody 10 years after the fact, the people they met with when they were covert ican get into trouble.  This isn't my argument -- it is the argument the GOP used when it passed the statue.  

Per the GOP and the Regan administration -- the law is a big deal.  How would you like to be a foreign national  known to  extensive contacts with Ms Plume after she was outed?  

BTW,  Mr Bush called for the investigation and approved the appt of the SP.  The GOP did this to themselves.  

The GOP sounds really dumb trying to bluster their way out of this.  We deserve better.

Harry

.  

-- Modified on 11/1/2005 7:27:12 AM

and you obviously can't imagine why, since you can't understand that most lawyers like to stay focused and maintain their credibility.

Let's put it this way:  if Libby lied, then what do you suppose the truth probably was?

I wonder if McCain doesn't regret in retrospect turning down Kerry in 04-the outcome of that election could've been quite different!...IMO

my guess is that people who are reasonable aren't messing with politics on a daily basis - they have jobs, families, things like that.

The people who ARE involved in politics full time are usually there because they have a horrendous hardon about something, ie, some sort of special interest.  These are not people who compromise; they slug it out, and the people in the middle are the battlefield.

So ask yourself, what are the SIGs that carry the most weight, and/or are the most visible?

Do you doubt that eg, Pat Robertson carries a lot of weight in the GOP?  And the gay-lesbian alliance carries a lot in the Democrats?  And these are example groups that are at it 24/7 - and do you see them compromising with each other?

Reo u remember the justification 4 the law when it was put on the books? ...

Lets make this as simple as possible Harry. Was the law broken as written or not? Yes, or no?

The 2 groups you mention may have the influence you mention but can each win a national election by itself? OTH, realigning the 2 parties by drawing together the more moderate element in each, is imo the only way out of the present morass.. a missed opportunity was McCain's turning down Kerry's offer in '04 which could've spared us GW. BTW, the financial resources needed to win an election would still be available to
such a coalition. If James Carville(the economy stupid) and Mary Matalin can co-habit nothing is impossible!  lol

correct, (that the fringes dominate politics because they make it their niche) then the moderate or swing  bloc has to react equally strongly, ie, get more heavily involved in arguing over political relations.  IMHO, this is not something reasonable people ordinarily do; so when they have to, it's perfectly reasonable that they would seriously want to knock heads of those who are picking unreasonable fights.

I think there are a number of reasons a person would be a swing voter, and one is of course that they can't make up their mind.  Another is that they see value in compromise per se, ie., in getting the majority of people behind a policy.  Another would be that they are more oriented to facts than faith - bearing in mind that choosing the decisive facts is a matter of judgment.

McCain-Kerry is a pipe dream, because there is no reason to think that both of them are not committed to their constituencies, and AZ/MA simply does not work.  Personally, I suspect they would have gotten along, but there's the machine to worry about.  

The only time we've had major party realignments have been in the CIvil War, and the emergence of the Bull Moose and Ross Perot's party - 2 of 3 served only to weaken one party for a term or 2.

I think it would take a major major disaster to create that sort of situation again.  The RNC has shown it is absolutely ruthless toward dissenters, and the GOP would have to be near collapse before it figured it out.

of the religious right.  They are a small but incredibly disciplined voting bloc.   I would guess they may be as little as 10% of the voters, but when you consider that most voters don't even show, then the value of discipline is obvious.  
And these churches do everything but march their congregations to the polls.

So the question is, what is their position?  Well, they regard any compromise as a bargain with the devil.  They won't compromise, they will only be defeated.  We're talking about people who tolerate or support bombing abortion clinics, because they think that's right.  They have no respect for law unless it's their way.

You have to understand that asking them to listen to you is asking them to listen to the devil.  So how do you deal with people like that?  You don't.  You respect their faith, and persecute them, ie, take away their 501(c)(3) classification and tax subsidies.  Anybody who doesn't support the Bakker's real estate frauds is persecuting Godly Christians, and God knows they deserve it richly.

it leaves me pessimistic...you're probably right that it'll take a lot more suffering before people begin to focus on the real issues.

...or are you writing us a lecture about hatred in general?  Does it stop you at all that the purported hate mongering disinformation the left had for Bush before the war has now been proved out?  Everything suspected about him is proving to be true.  So, now when we continue to warn about him, you call that more hatred?  

Frankly, your faithfulness ethic here looks more pathological than simple contempt would be.  y

Clinton got a BJ, and the only damage was the sensitivities of Hillary (which probably approaches zero) and every Republican.

But when the White House outed Plame (and don't try to convince anybody that Wilson's name wasn't all over the White House, and whatever happened was by neglect if not intent) the damage is to a program involving national security.

These guys will sabotage the national interest if it suits their interest.  I can't think of anything as treacherous - as compared to merely greedy - coming from the White House in all of American history.  

Whose side are they on, anyway?  Doesn't look like they're on the American side.

If a govt officer reveals the identity of a covert agent in time of war, should he be sentenced to death?  Yes, or no?

Okay, I`ll play. The answer to your question is yes. Now you answer mine.

I doubt that an AZ politician would make it nationally, because there's something just politically eccentric about that place, so that it's not any more reflective of national politics than MA.

A freak situation like a McCain-Kerry ticket representing some sort of cooperation between the "radical moderates" of both parties would be just too unstable.

IMHO, the bureaucracy is one of the primary moderating influences left in politics these days.  I would certainly not advocate enlarging the bureacracy, but perhaps giving more authority and responsibility to certain bureaucracies might help - like the Army Corps of Engrs.

Problem is, how many dikes we build and where has to be balanced against lots of other issues that eventually make it a political decision.

I wonder if there would be some way we could hook bureaucrats into a(n honest) profit motive.

Reo you object to the fact that people hate Bush instead of somebody else.

You say it`s true Zin. That doesn`t make it so. Many Americans don`t buy it. All I`m saying is your party ought to tell us why we should vote for your guy (or girl) and not why we shouldn`t vote for ours. Your negativity hasn`t served your party well. I bet that if the Kerry / Bush election was held today we`d still win. Why? Because dispite the impression you want to give regarding Bush, Kerry`s ideas weren`t attractive to most Americans.

Nobody disagrees that the administration outed Plame, a covert agent.  The question is exactly who, and whether it fits within a particular law.

No, I don't know why treason charges aren't being pursued.  None of us know what Fitzgerald does.  

So we're sorta limited to policy discussions.  Republican defense of this event is as stupid as Democrat defense of Willie's BJ.  

The difference is that there's no reason to think Clinton hurt any US citizen, but it's obvious that the Bush White House loyalties are not to Americans outside their RNC cabal.

Even Buckley agrees it's not a technical issue.   Better bail out on this one.  Cut your losses and concede Dubya is running a coven of backstabbing slimeballs.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

So is the right, btw.  That's my conclusion.  The majority of Americans haven't reached it, but I am willing to remain in the minority until either they see it or I know I am proven wrong.    

There is also a third possibility, that is that the majority never sees it, but I'm proven right.  That the US will go to its self-destruction pursuing the middle or the right, and there will be no happy ending here.  When I'm convinced of that, it's time to leave.

The left has its post-modern, post-cold war problems, mostly because it lacks a coherent plan or any guiding ideology that could get it a plan unlike the right with its the melding of capitalism and religious scripture/Christianity  to guide it.  The left has to constitute theirs from scratch.  I think, however,  that the left is capable of doing this.  

However, in current politics, the left faces a conundrum: if it goes to the center, were accused of being luke warm, and passion will always gain votes over indecisiveness and tepidness.  If we're too far to the left, Americans won't vote for it.  

The left has to win on the positions it has or not at all, positions that it's members can be passionate about.    

(Wasn't your post OT?  I don't think you answered my question).

So is the right, btw.  That's my conclusion.  The majority of Americans haven't reached it, but I am willing to remain in the minority until either they see it or I know I am proven wrong.    

There is also a third possibility, that is that the majority never sees it, but I'm proven right.  That the US will go to its self-destruction pursuing the middle or the right, and there will be no happy ending here.  When I'm convinced of that, it's time to leave.

The left has its post-modern, post-cold war problems, mostly because it lacks a coherent plan or any guiding ideology that could get it a plan unlike the right with its the melding of capitalism and religious scripture/Christianity  to guide it.  The left has to constitute theirs from scratch.  I think, however,  that the left is capable of doing this.  

However, in current politics, the left faces a conundrum: if it goes to the center, were accused of being luke warm, and passion will always gain votes over indecisiveness and tepidness.  If we're too far to the left, Americans won't vote for it.  

The left has to win on the positions it has or not at all, positions that it's members can be passionate about.    

(Wasn't your post OT?  I don't think you answered my question).              

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 10:25:01 PM