How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Emanuel Clock

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


75 posted 03-16-2007 11:35 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Which was 70 years ago.
Not counting Capone's secret stash as documented by that hyperemotional nimrod: Gerraldo.

And yeah, the FBI went after him with everything they had which would stick, as there was no CIA at the time, and I daresay the political dynamics were substantially different.

Elliot Nash needed a lot more to get Al Capone, unlike the federal and state lawmen who gunned down Bonnie and Clyde in an ambush on a rural dirt road.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


76 posted 03-16-2007 11:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

if we ever come to the point where we start believing that everyone who disagrees with us is unreasonable (or not level-headed) that will be a sure sign that we are being unreasonable.

I agree with that, LR, but in the area of beliefs or opinions. When people refuse to recognize facts, it is they who are unreasonable. The tapes were facts. The money in the freezer was a fact. The evidence against him was factual. To call anyone who cannot accept these points as fact unreasonable is....reasonable.  

What Democrat has said anything about entrapment or tried to defend Jefferson?  Show me.  Pretend I'm from Misssouri.

Well, since I AM from Missouri, I'll try. There was a great cry from Democrats about the search of his office, demanding that evidence thrown out. Entrapment? You yourself began a comment in this thread concerning that.... " the only evidence that might be used to charge him with a crime was generated in a 'Sting' that could easily be called entrapment.  You should be defending him and questioning his investigation." are your words. No, they have not tried to defend him but can you show me where any Democrat is calling for justice? This is a congressman who took bribes and committed felonies. Where is their call for action? Do you feel they would be so silent over it if the congressman were Republican? They have no problem screaming for the removal of Rice, Hastert, Bush, Gonzales.......where has any Democrat called for action against Jefferson? Nowhere is the correct answer.

The firings of the 8 Federal Prosecutors is a different issue entirely -- and worthy of a thread -- perhaps you should start one

Another criminal investigation of a non-criminal act? No, thanks.


I am really surprised that you would think that Ms. Plame would lie under oath in these circumstances especially. Really, Iliana? Hey, if a sitting president like Billy can lie under oath why is it so far-fetched to think a CIA gal couldn't? Besides, they don't actually "lie" - they erroniously misrepresent.  

By the way, Iliana, this is what she actually did say....

Plame repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service by the person and active efforts to keep his or her identity secret. Critics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and that was why nobody was charged with the leak.

"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem," Davis said.

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal status, but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


77 posted 03-17-2007 03:38 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

"Plame, the daughter of an Air Force colonel and an elementary school teacher, was recruited by the CIA at 22, shortly after graduation from Pennsylvania State University. She was in the 1985-86 class of CIA officers trained at "The Farm" near Williamsburg, where the curriculum included learning to drive under fire, blowing up cars and handling an AK-47.

Her career postings are classified, but she was one of the elite clandestine spies -- an officer with nonofficial cover who works overseas in business or other jobs and has no diplomatic protection if detected or arrested."
. . . . Washingtonn Post "Valerie Plame, The Spy Who Got Shoved Out Into the Cold" by Richard Leiby, October 29, 2005

Now to me, "nonofficial cover" and "no diplomatic protection" mean that she was a REAL, HONEST TO GOODNESS SPY.  "Nonofficial" means the government can plausibly deny knowing her in case there's a problem, which to me means she did some pretty heavy-duty covert action.    

This whole case makes me very, very sad.  Basically, it says you can lay your life on the line for this country, but when push comes to shove, we will leave you lying on the battle field.  Of course, I guess that comes with the turf when you're an off-the-record, nonofficial spy.  It says to me that there's retaliation if you don't support false intelligence and are bold enough to say so outloud like her husband did.  

I still say that this must send the shivers up the backs of other covert operatives or even potential operatives.  Additionally, GW promised to launch a full investigation into this matter a long while back and never did.  He promised to fire the person responsible for the leak (I did not say leaking a covert spy name, I said "the leak").  Security folks at the White House deny that any action was ever taken by the White House to investigate the leak, according to testimony provided to Congress yesterday.

Only 2 of the 17 Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the investigating committee) showed up to hear the testimony on Friday, the 16th (oh....it was a Friday...long weekend...I've heard about that 3-day work week).   Instead, the Republicans would like to continue making this a partisan issue; their response is to play it down, ignore it, manipulate definitions of words, and let the "in-house" media monsters and their talking heads do the work for them.  Yes, Balladeer, redefining words was a trick that Billy used....it's politics.  Whether you like it or not, Ms. Plame was a soldier who got left out, or in this case allegedly put out, in the cold -- an occurrence that seems to be on the rise with this administration.

Mike, for the record, here is what Ms. Plame really said:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k3GuVTfWLw&mode=related&search= - Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxhBWOYTuNQ&mode=related&search= - Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0K-pSNw_O4 - Part III

[This message has been edited by iliana (03-17-2007 05:47 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


78 posted 03-17-2007 07:41 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Yep.

It ain't over.

Plame; is by name "Radioactive."

If she was just a bimbo who looked good in Ray-Bans, why is she banned from writing a book?

Why is her future with the C.I.A destroyed?

Why is she being shunned by those she was once employed with?

Why are her contacts and family members in jeopardy?

Why can't she qualify for full benefits in her retirement?

Not our problem? Alright, sure. It still sucks out loud. And you know what the sad thing is? She was serving her country, regardless of all the p*ssin' contests between the Dems/Reps, she was performing whatever duty was asked of her.

Crap needs to prove a new law to me.

It should roll all the way up to Capitol Hill.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


79 posted 03-17-2007 11:15 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is an article that gives some insight into the origins of the Wilson/Plame situation.  Some of this I had forgotten, some I had never heard before.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54590
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


80 posted 03-17-2007 02:18 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Very interesting, but be prepared for it to be dismissed out of hand.  Afterall, there is advertising on that site which contain Christianity, Israel and American Conservatives.  By the American Left logic, it is lies, lies and more lies...oh, and Bush is to blame.  And Cheney.  And Coulter....did I leave out Bush?  Better add Bush again for good measure.

Funny though, as in Reb's initial post where he quotes a BLOG I happened to notice a LOT of ads and posts slamming American Conservatives, Christians, Israel and President Bush.  However, somehow all that is moot and the source inscrutible.  So expect the same response as your Coulter article got.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


81 posted 03-17-2007 06:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Balladeer, redefining words was a trick that Billy used....it's politics.  

I see. When Billy does it, it's politics. News flash for ya, Iliana. It's not politics....it's a felony and I repeat - if the President of the United States can engage in it during an investigation, why is it so incredible to believe a CIA agent can't? Yet you will take her version and words without question.


- Only 2 of the 17 Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the investigating committee) showed up to hear the testimony on Friday, the 16th

- their response is to play it down, ignore it, manipulate definitions of words, and let the "in-house" media monsters and their talking heads do the work for them.

- an occurrence that seems to be on the rise with this administration.

-  the Republicans would like to continue making this a partisan issue;


looks to me like the Republicans aren't the only ones making it a partisan issue. You're doing a pretty good job of it yourself  


Nice try, Denise, but if it doesn't come from the Washington Post or some such clone, it just ain't worthy of consideration  
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


82 posted 03-17-2007 08:24 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Balladeer, I do not disagree it is a felony to lie before Congress -- no arguement there.  However, we were not talking about that, or at least that is not how I interpreted what I had responded to as meaning that.  I responded to the idea of redefining words or giving words multiple meanings.  If you don't think that is politics, then I guess I don't have any more argument to convince you...lol.  

Once again, I am an independent voice here viewing the situation objectively.  I am still a registered republican, knowledgeable about my party politics but I do not let my party affiliation blind me...and when I say I believe the Republicans intend to keep this a partisan battle, I truely believe I am correct.  I believe the Democrats (a majority of them and even some stray Republicans) would like to see the Congress come together and get the balance of power straightened out and that this is an avenue to start that process.  It might ultimately end up with Cheney's resignation when all the sorting out is done and that is what Reb's thread is ultimately about.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


83 posted 03-17-2007 08:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, what I was referring to was your surprise that I would consider the possibility that she would give an untrue statement. As I pointed out, there have been precedents set there, including Slick Willie's. Simply because someone says something doesn't make it true

Sorry for the confusion...
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


84 posted 03-17-2007 08:33 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Additionally, Mike, there was testimony by the head of CIA that she was indeed a covert agent.  If you need the specific reference, I will look it up.  I do not believe she lied.  I won't argue that it isn't possible for anyone to lie, but in this case, the CIA supports her claim.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


85 posted 03-17-2007 08:47 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

"The current director of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, told Waxman so."  http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172007/news/columnists      /panel_fails_to_blow_real_culprits_cover_columnists_john_podhoretz.htm
(Though I disagree with the tone of this article, in general, it does confirm her status.)

The only real question, Mike, is whether or not the White House leakers knew she was covert.  Now that is the Republican's talking point and defense.  How could they not know?  News anchor Chris Matthews testified that he was told that Valerie Plame was fair game by Karl Rove.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


86 posted 03-17-2007 08:52 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

But what neither she nor the head of the CIA will say is that she was covert as defined by the Identities Protection Act.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


87 posted 03-17-2007 08:57 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Denise...lol...have you ever considered that the CIA does not want to violate their own policies by exposing secret agents?  They have not denied what she claims, have they?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


88 posted 03-17-2007 09:13 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

She is already 'outed' Iliana. There would be no harm done now if they were to offer proof that she qualified as covert under the Identities Protection Act definition. And she and the CIA would if they could. But they can't because she wasn't.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


89 posted 03-17-2007 09:41 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

It would still be a violation of their confidentiality agreements and their policies to identify her any further.  You are on the losing side of this battle and it is no use to argue it.  The White House retaliated; yes! she was outted.  That is the issue here.  Did they or did they not know; did they intentially retaliate because they were upset with Joe Wilson or not?  That is the issue.  There has been a pattern of this type of behavior from this administration and perhaps in other administrations, too.  But we are dealing with THIS ONE at this time.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


90 posted 03-17-2007 11:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Wow -- this guy is good;

quote:

A few weeks back I received an e-mail from a scientist affiliated with a major university's nuclear program. In the e-mail, he casually referred to the "1.77 tons of enriched uranium" the U.S. found in Iraq.

More than a little skeptical, I e-mailed the scientist back, "Tell me how we know about the 1.77 tons." He referred me to a fascinating article from BBC News online dated July 7, 2004.

Titled "U.S. reveals Iraq nuclear operation," the article details how 20 experts from the U.S. Energy Department's secret laboratories packaged and removed 1.77 tons of enriched uranium and then flew the material out of Iraq aboard a military plane.

The article quotes a smiling Spencer Abraham, secretary of energy, saying, "This operation was a major achievement." And just as suddenly as the story appeared, it disappeared. Not a word was heard of it from the major networks. The only American media to follow up on it was WorldNetDaily.




Hmmm... guess we should tell him about google huh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1148445.htm

even the venerated fair and balanced Fox forgot to make a big deal out of it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html

how do you guys find anything WND publishes credible?

The only insight here Denise is that your source remains completely myopic, self-promoting, and has little regard for the intellect of it's readers -- or it might check some facts every once in a great while.

quote:

Very interesting, but be prepared for it to be dismissed out of hand.  Afterall, there is advertising on that site which contain Christianity, Israel and American Conservatives.  By the American Left logic, it is lies, lies and more lies



Left or Right Cat, a  lie as easily exposed as a lie has nothing to do with ideology.

quote:

Funny though, as in Reb's initial post where he quotes a BLOG I happened to notice a LOT of ads and posts slamming American Conservatives, Christians, Israel and President Bush.  However, somehow all that is moot and the source inscrutible.



Context Cat?  In what context do I quote Emanuuel?  Do I use him as a source?  Am I using 'facts' based on his blog entry?  Or did I merely post his opinion and ask yours?  Did I find his opinion credible?  Or did I find it 'far-fetched'?

Still -- I've looked for those anti-Christian ads you're referring to and -- all I couldn't find any -- perhaps they're blocked on my computer?


quote:

I agree with that, LR, but in the area of beliefs or opinions. When people refuse to recognize facts, it is they who are unreasonable. The tapes were facts. The money in the freezer was a fact. The evidence against him was factual. To call anyone who cannot accept these points as fact unreasonable is....reasonable.



I like to believe what I see with my own eyes Mike -- but, it is a matter of perspective -- most of the time we just see what we expect.

Like the man who rounded the corner at the supermarket only to see one of the customers laying on the floor struggling as a large black man was beating him.  He went to call the police -- but would find out that the PARAMEDICS were on the way to assist the man who'd had a heart attack and was receiving CPR from another customer.

It won't take MUCH to convince me that Jefferson is guilty -- but isn't it a shame the jury pool is so tainted?  

quote:

You yourself began a comment in this thread concerning that....



Context Mike?  What context?  

quote:

where has any Democrat called for action against Jefferson? Nowhere is the correct answer.



Not really - the CBC defended him -- that is true -- but the majority of the Dems in Congress pushed him off the Ways and Means Committee instantly.  I doubt that I would want him on the Homeland Security committee either -- but, Katrina did hit his home district -- where all those people voted him back into the Congress.  If you keep him on the bench it seems that a whole lot of people aren't in the game.

quote:

Another criminal investigation of a non-criminal act? No, thanks.



I don't think there's a criminal investigation Mike.  And it's true that administrations can replace US Attorneys for any reason or no reason.  But, if politicos were pressuring those U.S. Attorneys to prosecute where there was no merit or to lay off prosecution where there was merit - then that is a criminal matter Mike -- don't you think so?

quote:

Plame repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service by the person and active efforts to keep his or her identity secret. Critics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and that was why nobody was charged with the leak.

"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem," Davis said.

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal status, but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.  



I've already posted the entire text of the Identities Protection Act here -- and it clearly says 'served' not lived, and the CIA was actively keeping her identity secret as was indicated in the indictment and the simple fact that the CIA created and maintained Brewster Jennings and Associates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_%26_Associates  in order for her to work (covertly) on WMD issues -- a vital asset to our nation in a war on terror.

Gathering enough evidence to prosecute such a violation does require that one be able to prove what the perpetrators believed -- something that is not easy to do.

But, Denise has already stipulated that Plame was 'classified'.  That's a Title 18 violation and a violation of non-disclosures right there -- You don't even need the IPA.

Here's the question for you though Mike, and Denise and Cat and Pete -- do you think it was a MORAL thing for Libby, Rove, Armitage, and Fliescher to reveal Valerie Wilson's identity?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


91 posted 03-17-2007 11:44 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

**Removed by self**
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


92 posted 03-17-2007 11:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

My daughter used to throw her spoon on the floor.  I'd pick it up, wipe it off, throw it in the sink and get her a new spoon.  She'd repeat the process.

So here's an idea Cat -- research those questions (you can find some of the answers right here on this thread) and get back to us with the documentation.

My replay button isn't working anymore.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


93 posted 03-18-2007 10:05 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

sighs...

Is it possible for a person, downwind from Oak Ridge, to suffer from the affects of radioactive wastes? No one will say.

I'm worried, seriously. Why have those people been seen taking soil samples all around the area in full Hazmat suits?

Why are the streams I used to swim and fish  in as a child now off limits to even wading?

What have WE done?

radioactivity seems to be a common occurrence, in everything. In everyone. The levels are what matters, yes?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


94 posted 03-18-2007 10:05 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The CIA can reveal that she was covert, but they can't reveal that she was covert as defined under the Identities Act? That makes no sense at all Iliana. And it has not been proven that she was outed by the White House nor for the purpose of retaliation, Iliana. That is an assumption made by Plame, Wilson, and the CIA that was not able to be proven. And yet it is still treated as gospel fact by the left. What is a fact is that she was outed by Armitage (who is no fan of the White House Administration) and her name confirmed by someone in the CIA to Novak.

I will email the author of the article, L.R., to inform him of his error that no other media source folliowed up on the enriched uranium removal story other than WND. I don't see that that error negates the story though.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


95 posted 03-18-2007 10:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I like to believe what I see with my own eyes Mike -- but, it is a matter of perspective -- most of the time we just see what we expect.

I see. So we expected to see videotapes of  bribe-taking and cash in the freezer and VIOLA! There they were! Amazing how that works, no? If you want to speak of things out of context, your example given sets the bar. I like to see with my own eyes, too, LR, but I was busy the night OJ went berzerk or when Dahlmer went on his feeding frenzy. Sometimes we have to rely on facts in evidence and common sense, which is becoming increasingly less common. Speaking of OJ, what was that about tainted juries again? Yes, the jury pool would be probably be tainted......with evidence The tapes with Jefferson in the lead role could indeed make a juror suspicious, as could pictures of the frozen ninety grand.....but, then, no one actually saw him put it in there, did they? Who's to say someone else didn't break into his office and stash the cash or maybe, like the tooth fairy, there's a Frigidaire Fairy, who leaves money when one loses a tv dinner?

Not really - the CBC defended him -- that is true -- but the majority of the Dems in Congress pushed him off the Ways and Means Committee instantly.  I doubt that I would want him on the Homeland Security committee either -- but, Katrina did hit his home district -- where all those people voted him back into the Congress.  If you keep him on the bench it seems that a whole lot of people aren't in the game.

Apparently you didn't understand the question so let me repeat it...where has any Democrat called for action against Jefferson?  You speak of taking him off a committee and keeping him on the bench? Where is the call to have him tried for felonies?? Where is the call to action and venom-spewing that would have occured had Jefferson been a Republican? You make it sound like kicking a child molester out of the PTA or banning him from the Friday night poker game would show that you were serious about this man paying for his crimes. Maybe they should just take away his freezer????

But, if politicos were pressuring those U.S. Attorneys to prosecute where there was no merit or to lay off prosecution where there was merit - then that is a criminal matter Mike -- don't you think so?

Is it? I really don't know, LR. If  your boss says, "Know that I can fire you for any reason at any time I want" and then fires you for a reason other than the one he gives you, is that against what he said to you, since ANY reason is within his power?  I agree with you that it would be a bad day for law enforcement and the country should that happen.......but did it? The Democrats make the claim that lawyers were fired for going after Republicans. I read in the paper that, in at least two cases, fired attorneys had been targeting and prosecuting Democrats. What then? I know.....let's have an INVESTIGATION! That's the only thing this is all about......another investigation on the front pages concerning this blasted administration. That has been the Democrat game plan for a few years now alnog with help from the press. Investigate Cheney, investigate Gitmo, investigate Haliburtin, investigate surveillance tactics, investigate Hastert, investigate Bush's military service record,,,,,,,,,,,it doesn't matter if the investigation reveals nothing. They get days or weeks of headlines out of it and the average citizen on the street thinking "Sure seem to be a lot of investigations going on." That's what they care about - nothing to do with Truth, Justice and the American Way. They have an "investigation of the day" game plan with eyes squinted open on the lookout for anything that could provoke the next one.

Hillary, in one of her brilliant speeches, said the other day "Our standing and reputation in the world matters!" Oh, really?  They flood world news with accusations and investigations against the administration, give the impression that the country is run by corruption and lawlessness and then speak of our "reputation". I'll tell you what our reputation is. I read a blog the other day about the towelhead who confessed to mastermining 9-11 and the overwhelming responses from Europeans ran along the lines of...."Who can believe the Americans? Everybody knows that they torture and beat the prisoners at Guantanamo. Anybody would say anything to get them to stop." That's our reputation in the world. Did anything come out of the Democrat investigation of gitmo? Nope...so what? They accomplished their mission. If it hurt the country, so what? What is bad for a Bush-led America is good for them. They could care less about how the country is viewed by the eyes of the world. Checks and balances are good. Dissent with policies is also good. One does it, though, in the proper way. You sit down with the other side and say "We disagree with you and want to discuss our difference." The Democrat way, however, is to call the newspapers and get their dissent across the front pages first. They ran investigation after investigation to get Senate control. Now that they have it, they are still running invrestigation after investigation to set the tone for the next elections. We are seeing the only reason they wanted to win......they are, and have been, out to get Bush with more investigations after investigations. Their hatred of the little rooster who dismisses them is too overwhelming to stop. If they were to put one tenth of the effort they put into going after Bush into actually doing something beneficial for the country, things would get accomplished. Calling for unending investigations serves the purpose of camouflaging the fact that they are NOT doing anything beneficial for the country.

By all means, have another investigation........what else have they got to do?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


96 posted 03-18-2007 10:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Let's see if I've got this right, Mike. Your contention is that good Americans, duly elected to represent the majority of good Americans in their geographical area, hate one man so much they are willing to destroy the country they serve? So, basically, what you're saying is that in spite of all his promises in both elections, Bush's greatest claim to fame is that he has polarized this nation as no other President before him?

Wow. I don't much like Bush, but that's probably a stronger condemnation of the man than I would ever have offered.

Sigh. Sadly, adversarial systems, such as we have in the courts and in our government, stop working when people hate each other more than they love the goals they pursue. In a time more dangerous than most, I honestly hope the partisans in Washington are less full of vitriol than those in these forums. Else this country is surely doomed.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


97 posted 03-18-2007 10:56 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I see. So we expected to see videotapes of  bribe-taking and cash in the freezer and VIOLA! There they were! Amazing how that works, no? If you want to speak of things out of context, your example given sets the bar.



You mean, in your expectations, I've beaten Ron?  Thanks Mike!     

Our expectations relate to how we interpret what we see Mike.  That's where our perspective comes in.  Which is why you try so hard to paint me as a Democrat.  It unsettles you that someone who tries as hard as I do to be unbiased finds fault in things Republicans do.  You would feel better if I was a Democrat -- that way you could just convince yourself that it's all just politics.

quote:

Did anything come out of the Democrat investigation of gitmo?



There has been a 'Democrat' investigation of gitmo?  I must have missed that -- could you show it to me please?

I'm not following your logic at all Mike.  The way we can reduce the crime rate in America is to stop pursuing criminals?  

quote:

I will email the author of the article, L.R., to inform him of his error that no other media source folliowed up on the enriched uranium removal story other than WND. I don't see that that error negates the story though.



It isn't a story Denise.  It's a completely unresearched and undocumented op-ed disguised as a story.  

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


98 posted 03-18-2007 01:41 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

You poeple listen to Ann?  Well I take her to good humor, but she is the micheal more of the republican party. Oh well.  Did you know that both bushes and clinton are part of skull and bones.  In fact alot of our leaders are.  ITs WIERD>  

Anyways my point is bad people back both parties.  To call "republicans" or "demacrates" evil is wrong.  Everyone of you are adult enough to know better, really.  

As a conservative, this all confuses me.  The wife in the cia was not undercover.  she worked in the office.  right now she has a book out she is trying to sell.  apparently she told everyone she was in the cia and it was no great secrete.  

It bothers me when people want to see someone appeached.  personally I don't wish that. It bothers me when poeple say america will fall in the next five years, and it bothers me when I hear poeple wish(not predict)that we will lose in iraq.  

I hope Iraq is a lesson that US is too immature to play the war games. And I hope everyone sees the difference between Iraq and viatnam.    

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


99 posted 03-18-2007 01:43 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I was talking of the enriched uranium find, L.R., that story. But was there any other statement in his article that you found to be inaccurate, particulary regarding Wilson, other than his erroneous claim that WND was the only news source that followed up on the story (hmmm...maybe that wasn't an error at all, maybe he meant subsequent coverage of it after the initial article)?

And would it unsettle you to learn that those who disagree with your veiwpoints were not Republicans?  I think a more appropriate distinction is Liberal and Conservative rather than Democrat and Republican. I think most of us see ourselves as attempting to be unbiased. But I think that is a subjective estimation rather than an objective one. I think we are all biased to some degree, despite our efforts not to be.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors