navwin » Discussion » The Alley » The Plot Thickens (or Just Following Orders)
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic The Plot Thickens (or Just Following Orders) Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

0 posted 2006-04-06 07:49 PM


Just a few hours ago it was released that Bush authorized Lewis Libby to disclose the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame and further; that the order came from none other than Vice President Dick Cheney.

This is ostensibly going to be Libby's defense:

quote:

Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the court filing.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm



Gonzales speaks;
quote:

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House would have no comment on the investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak



Democrats quickly pounced;

quote:

"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "The American people must know the truth."

"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak



How does all of this play to the hard-core Bush supporters?


© Copyright 2006 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
1 posted 2006-04-07 01:22 AM


Hahaha....Yanno, I was waiting for something like this, and was highly amused that you never made mention at all for the past week about Representative McKinney's allegations of police misconduct, hate crimes, and sexual assault against the Capital Hill police officer who she allegedly assaulted with a cellphone after he grabbed her shoulder to stop her from bypassing the metal detectors.  He had called for her to stop three times.  She called that 'inappropriate touching'.  Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that term means sexual assault.  She called the entire thing racially motivated since she's black and he's white.  That's a hate crime.  And the fact that a police officer is alleged to have done these things is police misconduct.

Never mind this is not the first, second or even third time she's had runins with Capital Hill police.  Never mind that she was not wearing proper and mandated identification.  Never mind that assaulting a police officer is a crime.  Never mind that her blanket apology (she has yet to apologize to the officer) only came after she learned of the Grand Jury meeting a few blocks away to decide whether or not to press charges, after a week of playing her favorite race card.

No, instead lets focus on what Libby's defense might be and how the Right should be ashamed.  Might be, not is.  That's like saying Jill Carrol might be a Jihadist sympathizer for praising her captors instead of just a young woman telling a Jihad-friendly news agency what they wanted to hear so she'd be released into US custody.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
2 posted 2006-04-07 02:52 AM


"Even when I throw him down, he denies that he fell and attains his purpose, persuading even those who saw him fall."

~an opponent of Pericles

the evidence mounts, but what does it matter when so many are unwilling to accept truth over partisanship?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
3 posted 2006-04-07 05:44 AM


Ah,

The "LOOK over there!" maneuver.

Well,  works for Moe, Larry, and Curly.

Do you really think that's going to get Fitzgerald though Cat?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2006-04-07 09:07 AM


The "look over there' manuever has been very prevalent in this forum, especially when attacking Bush and ignoring any actions of any member of the democratic party.

"The Democrats quickly pounced."  So what's new???

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
5 posted 2006-04-07 09:51 AM


Just like most everyone else, Libby will say whatever he can to get a lighter sentence, or off the hook by giving his persecutors a bigger fish.  And there aren't that many direct supervisors above him.  All this due to a reporter asking 'innocent' questions in a yes/no fashion under the guise of 'off the record', which used to mean something.  Why is Libby being prosecuted and not the reporter?

Why not do an investigation into Barbara Boxer back in 1994 when she was entering her first term?  She trumpeted placing National Guard troops on the border to help stem illegal immigration, won her seat on that platform, and even got federal appropriations to do it under Clinton's administration and a Democratic controlled House and Senate.  10 months later, nothing had been done.  Even today, noone knows what happened to those federal dollars.  Well, noone but Boxer and her cronies, and maybe a few labor unions.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
6 posted 2006-04-07 09:53 AM


This is business as usual... just like the Democrats screaming about the Republican Immigration bill after they voted for it. Blame the Republicans, but don't look at what we did... maybe if we yell loudly enough, they will ignore our own faults.

Methinks, they doth protest too much
(Ok, OK...so it was paraphrased)


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
7 posted 2006-04-07 03:22 PM


nyuk, nuyk, nuyk..
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
8 posted 2006-04-07 03:35 PM


I'm not going to post any opinions here because everytime I do, the very thing that Raph pointed out occurs.  However, I'll be following this thread up until at least the next big DIVERSION occurs.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
9 posted 2006-04-07 07:50 PM


Iliana, Raph is fluent in Stooge so we expect it

As far as the next big diversion, do you mean like THIS thread? I'm sure something else will pop up very soon.

The speed with which topics find their way from the headline to the Alley is incredible. Investigations being under way mean nothing. Noone wants to waste valuable time actually waiting to see what an investigation may reveal. It seems to be better to just stir the pot as quickly as possible without letting whatever facts may come out getting in the way. We certainly saw it with the gitmo thread. Any Democrats talking about Gitmo now? We saw it with the spying thread. Any Democrats screaming that the procedures be stopped or even evidence that Bush overstepped his authority? We saw it on the ports thread. Anyone asking Dean what he's doing about the ports that continue to be owned by foreign companies? None of the above. It's just easier to throw things up here before any facts are established or investigations conducted and let people get into a lather over it.....and. as 'cat pointed out, amazingly, it only seems to be about Bush. Thank God the saintly Democrats have nothing to fear from our Alley Avengers.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
10 posted 2006-04-07 09:14 PM


Can't help but wonder if Boxer and McKinney are quite happy to be compared to Bush.

But, as usual, I'm confused. Is the argument Bush didn't do it or that it was okay to do it?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2006-04-07 09:44 PM


Brad, it would seem to me that the argument is whether or not Bush was wrong in doing it. As LR's example illustrates;

"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "The American people must know the truth."

"The president and the vice president must be held accountable," Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said from the Senate floor. "Accountable for misleading the American people, accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes. It is as serious as it gets in this democracy."


There's a great example of double-speak. "Accountable for misleading the American people"....what in blazes does that mean? Can anyone name a politician that has NOT misled the American people? How did Bush mislead the American people? "accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes." What does that say? Was it violating a law or not? Is disclosing material for non-political purposes ok then?

"This is as serious as it gets..."? This what? As serious as what gets? This is a statement LR highlights to prove some point?

I see it as another instance of Democrats doing their best to throw mud against a wall in hopes something will stick. They don't make definite charges, claiming actual illegality...they just want to use innuendos to let the American people know that Bush is a real nogoodnik....it's been a standard tactic of theirs.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
12 posted 2006-04-07 10:29 PM


quote:

As far as the next big diversion, do you mean like THIS thread? I'm sure something else will pop up very soon.



The thread is a diversion from itself?

Actually -- Machiavelli would be dizzy over this issue because this STORY is a diversion from itself.  What it has become is a story about the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and the contents of a National Intelligence Estimate before or after it may have been legally or illegally, officially or unofficially declassified by the POTUS.  None of which anyone is charged with -- because the charges filed against Libby -- Perjury, Obstruction, lying to the FBI (almost the identical charges Moussaoui faces the death penalty over) -- which is yet another diversion from what this case is really about -- the distending of pre-war intelligence to prosecute a war of choice and make it seem like a war of necessity - in the name of National Security.  

National Security the same administration is willing to jeopardize to save itself from embarrassment.  

National Security -- important enough to risk the lives of Americas sons and daughters and spend billions of taxpayer dollars to ensure -- but, not so important to protect if Cheney, Bush, et al's collective butts are on the line.

Nixon wasn't even that cynical.  (That we know of).

But what you didn't see today was the White House denying Libby's testimony.  (look for a Presidential Pardon in that man's future... especially since the special prosecutors findings as filed in the documents which are public indicate that before this is over Powell, Fliescher, Rice, Cheney, and Bush will be taking the stand and raising their right hand.)

You didn't see any Republican leaders on the Hill defending the POTUS or the Administration on this.  

We didn't hear any of the radio right defending this -- what did RUSH talk about today?  Well, let's make a telephone call to a high-school girl and talk about the virtues of Capitalism and how screwed up the liberal university intelligentsia is.  And lets talk about the economy and the latest (hamburger flipping) jobs created in the last quarter.

What we did see three years ago was the POTUS very carefully parsing his words so that one day when the truth actually came out he could wash his hands and say he never said he was going to fire anyone at all -- because he said if they leaked classified information -- all the while acting as though he knew nothing about any of this -- and now his representatives march out in front of the cameras and say -- it wasn't classified because he declassified it all a few days before it happened.

quote:

It seems to be better to just stir the pot as quickly as possible without letting whatever facts may come out getting in the way



This thread is about the facts that were released as finding of fact by the prosecuting attorney and the contents of Libby's testimony before the grand jury.  It seems that -- gee -- three years have gone by before this thread was posted -- but, hey -- I don't want to jump the gun -- let's wait and see how history views this president how about?

quote:

We certainly saw it with the gitmo thread. Any Democrats talking about Gitmo now? We saw it with the spying thread. Any Democrats screaming that the procedures be stopped or even evidence that Bush overstepped his authority?



Prisoner and detainee treatment issues are still very much active stories Mike.  Details are still coming out.  Court cases are still being decided.  
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

(don't view the gallery if you have a weak stomach)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=abu+ghraib+torture++2006&btnG=Search+News
http://news.google.com/news?q=guantanamo+bay+2006&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/26bagram.html?ex=1298610000&en=89ad1b68787786c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


quote:

We saw it with the spying thread. Any Democrats screaming that the procedures be stopped or even evidence that Bush overstepped his authority?



Story's not over Mike... Republicans and Dems on the Judiciary Committee were livid...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=senate+judiciary+committee+domestic+wiretapping

quote:

It's just easier to throw things up here before any facts are established or investigations conducted and let people get into a lather over it.....and. as 'cat pointed out, amazingly, it only seems to be about Bush. Thank God the saintly Democrats have nothing to fear from our Alley Avengers.



Hey Bugs Bunny -- who discovered America? /pip/Forum6/HTML/001363.html
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001214.html
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001243.html

on the other hand -- please back up your accusation -- my entire Alley career here:
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001373.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001343.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001330.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001287.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001286.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001275.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001255.html

This is the most germane thread /pip/Forum6/HTML/001255.html
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001212.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001207.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/001197.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000999.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000998.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000980.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000833.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000819.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000736.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000696.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000685.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000672.html /pip/Forum6/HTML/000736.html

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2006-04-08 12:00 PM


very interesting reading, LR.  Let's look at it...

We certainly saw it with the gitmo thread. Any Democrats talking about Gitmo now?   (my comment)
your  link rebuttal http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

Aside from the fact that you got this from such an unbiased publications whose stories include:

THE DECEPTION BUSH CAN'T SPIN - Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain -- and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous.
EXTERMINATED BY GREED - Hubris and ruthless amorality raised Tom DeLay to the heights -- and hurled him into darkness and disgrace.
A BAND-AID ON A GUSHER - Bush's new fuel-economy standards for SUVs won't reduce America's oil consumption enough to matter
ABOVE THE LAW - Bush claims the right to spy on everything -- including attorney-client conversations. When will Americans have the decency to be shocked?

Aside from this, the link you provided had nothing to do with Gitmo, but Abu Ghrab.

Your link in response to the spying thread goes to a google search page.

As far as my accusation is concerned, it was not intended directly at nor solely for you. I see no one who posts multiple threads attacking Bush go after any Democratic party member at all. How long would it have taken Mckinney to make the Alley if she were a Republican? How long would it have taken New Orleans becoming once again a chocolate city to reach the Alley if those  words had been spoken by a republican? How loudly would Democrats have screamed if a republican mayor left hundreds of buses sitting there instead of used for evacuation? Believe me, there have been multiple opportunities to lambaste Democrats over the years of the Bush presidency but somehow they have been ignored here by those wasting few opportunities to go after Bush.

Your entries in the Alley?

How do you spell Machiavelli? (about Karl Rove)
Democrats and republican ignoring facts
Bush approving waterboard tactics at Gitmo
Another Year in the Alley
Consensuses dealing with global warming
Katrina
Congressional Service Records - "those with the most military experience have been ignored by this administration. From Powell to Shinseke on down."
Prescriptions for Opression
Economic Cannon Fodder
Stop the war, Mr. President
Bureaucrats and barbarians
Traditional Hijacking - "Ms. Rice is extremely intelligent and capable and there is no doubt a daunting task to provide national security -- but the fact remains she did not do her job"
Greer is an  Evangelical Christian man - "Upon the (cough cough) election of George W. Bush to the White House"
Mad as Zell- "So, today Dick, you sank to a near-all-time-low in American politics"
Pain and Suffering - "George has put himself right in the pockets of the insurance companies on this one."
Terry Schaivo
Going Negative - about how the Republicans are just as bad or worse than the Democrats.
Is it 1984 again?

You have  certainly come up with a wide range of subjects and have inspired many in-depth and interesting conversations and you always do so in a very intelligent and well-thought-out manner. My "accusation", however, dealt with people going after Bush and maintaining a hands-of policy in regards to Democrats. With the exception of the second one listed above (which can be called a tie), it seems to apply to your posts as well. Not an accusation - simply an observation. Your individual comments in others threads are much stronger - against Bush and hands-off on others. Just think of all the fun you could have had with Kerry had he been a Republican!

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
14 posted 2006-04-08 12:05 PM


How many Democrats were President?

Those are specific google searches -- that will always yeild the latest breaking news Mike.

So that if you don't like Salon -- you can simply go down the pages -- I address GITMO as the ongoing debacle of prisoner and detainee abuse that encompasses not only GITMO, but Abu Ghraib and prisoners held in Afghanistan Mike.  Because -- human beings are human beings wherever they are.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
15 posted 2006-04-08 12:06 PM


quote:
Iliana, Raph is fluent in Stooge so we expect it


Absolutely, I've been reading your partisan garbage for years, finally picked up on it.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2006-04-08 12:38 PM


True, reb....human are humans, wherever they are, but that was not my point as you may know. My point was the hubbub and with-hunting Kennedy and the gang made specifically on GITMO, calling for Bush's head, congressional investigations, inspections, impeachment, the torture, inhumane treatment, deplorable conditions....the whole bit that filled the papers for days and then suddenly disappeared after the democratic fact-finding tour went down there...and then it all magically disappeared.

I must assume from your remark, then, that the President is the only viable target, even though you do manage to get Cheney, Rice and other non-presidential republican figures in there. So be it.

Snappy comeback, Raph. I wouldn't have expected any less of you - or more.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
17 posted 2006-04-08 01:19 AM


Me on Dean
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001171.html#22

on Democrats demagoging  Tom Delay
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001213.html#16

defending Bush
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001289-2.html#36

on Blanco and Nagin
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001289.html#6

on Blanco and Nagin again (suggesting they be charged with negligent homicide)
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001292.html#18

an entire thread dedicated to attacking Democratic Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich's policy on Pharmacies
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001212.html

on Hillary's healthcare plan
/pip/Forum6/HTML/000978.html#1

me defending Bush
/pip/Forum6/HTML/000823.html#24

me, pointing out leftist hypocrisy in not protesting Clinton's actions in Kosovo
/pip/Forum6/HTML/000823-4.html#80

I don't have time for any more Mike -- but, maybe you can dig up all the threads where you defended Clinton and criticized Bush!  


But it's ok.. I know what your point was -- to talk about something besides the disintegration of the W presidency.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2006-04-08 07:37 AM


LOL! No, you won't find threads of mine praising Clinton. My feelings for the man as president have never been a mystery.....but then again I've never pretended otherwise. As far as I can remember I've never initated a thread about him, though...not that it matters.

The disintegration of Bush? We will have to see, I suppose. Being unpopular, for a politician, is easy. Standingup for what one believes in, in the face of that unpopularity, is rarer. A Gore or Kerry wouldn't do it. It's a trait I happen to admire.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
19 posted 2006-04-08 08:55 AM


Mike... you're still waiting to see of the Nixon administrion disintegrates.

Come to think of it -- this is still part of the Nixon administration.

The smell of death is in the air my friend.  

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
20 posted 2006-04-08 10:15 AM


And now, we understand why the Democrats act the way they do. Someone gets the thread off topic and everyone seems to forget about the original statement... much as the Democrats do  everytime there is something about President Bush that the public finds out they were wrong about, or something the public finds out they did wrong. Change the subject and the discussion follows and no one remembers the original argument.
Thank you all for illustrating the point.

"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
21 posted 2006-04-08 11:02 AM


So Ringo.. you going to weigh in on the thread or just act like a Democrat then..
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
22 posted 2006-04-08 02:20 PM


can't help it deery, you're a diuretic, you draw out the worst. might i remind you, as always, the first salvo fired was yours.


the fact remains that the topic of the thread has been ignored and diverted. as usual, rather than address the issue at hand it becomes a partisan smackdown.

is libby trying to save his butt? no question, that doesn't change the importance or validity of his testimony. which, agree or disagree with, is what we should be looking at. is he a snake? absolutely, he should have had the decency to disclose this long before his trial, or the ethics to have walked away when the information was passed down.

as for the president, i wonder if you'd be as understanding and patient for just one democrat scandal, let alone the myriad that face the current administration. an administration that makes nixon and crew look like boyscouts

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
23 posted 2006-04-08 03:11 PM


quote:
Can anyone name a politician that has NOT misled the American people?

does that makes it okay? or should we have accountability?

quote:
How did Bush mislead the American people?

the administration's 'nigerian link' was used as evidence to support their case against iraq, in this case by claiming it as evidence of nuclear ambitions and heightening fear of iraq as an immenent threat.

quote:
"accountable for the disclosure of classified material for political purposes." What does that say? Was it violating a law or not?

when this evidence was discredited and questions were raised by joseph wilson, his wife's name was leaked, possibly because plame had suggested wilson investigate the niger report. leaking the name of an operative is against the law, which libby should burn for, but libby follows orders

quote:
"This is as serious as it gets..."? This what?


misleading people isn't serious? especially misleading them into war, or manipulating information for gain or retribution against administration detractors, this isn't serious to you?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
24 posted 2006-04-08 04:40 PM


It truly is a shame that our rigid two-party system has moved to the extremes of the spectrum, where it seems partisan politics are the domineering force that keep any progress from being made and both sides choose efforts from the extremes to polarize one another rather than governing from the centers and coming to terms of dialogue.

I believe all of us here, including myself, have succumbed to this sort of tug-and-war or "capture the flag" here, and I certainly cannot say I'm proud of it whatsoever. I feel we have taken for granted the meaning of the proverb, "Three humble shoemakers brainstorming will make a great statesman." Though my views are quite different from Balladeer's and Ringo's and Alicat's and Huan Yi's, they all have valuable things to say and I am quite optimistic that while indeed partisan collisions are no stranger here, through our many discussions there is also a maturity and growing understanding between one another, and perhaps we can begin to find more and more common ground soon and brainstorm what it'll take to restore our seemingly fragile democratic system to a rejuvenated state of unity and balance again.

I have certainly been heavily critical of President Bush over the past thirty-eight months, and have constantly strongly noted my disapproval of his policies, which I still absolutely defend my belief that his stubborness, dishonesty and incompetence has moved this country in the wrong direction. I also don't appreciate how he lets his partisan views get in the way of his presidential tasks and deliberately encourages a polarizing effect on our nation, with the "Either you're with us or against us!" rhetoric on the war in Iraq, telling Americans who don't agree with the mission or believe in non-violent solutions that they're advocating an agenda that makes America weaker and brings comfort to our enemies, who as recently as today, on the sensitive, complex issue that is immigration, an issue which has generated internal disputes in both parties including from James Sensenbrenner, layed all the blame solely on Harry Reid for an inability for compromise on immigration legislation. It's in these many instances like this I feel I'm obligated to speak out like I have to keep voices of dissent from being stamped out and unheard. Finally, I don't believe he takes seriously the issues that matter most to many Americans, and I feel efforts in preventing independent investigations in issues from Katrina to illegal wiretapping are representative of that. I feel my speaking out on these terms are justified, as I believe these processes are indeed hurting our checks and balances system and such.

But I also am not proud of the Democrats in that they spend far more time doing and are engaging and interweaving themselves in the same sort of political ping-pong tactics, rather than positively speaking of a vision to take the "American dream" to a whole new era of promsie and integrity. I absolutely agree with Alicat that Cynthia McKinney's actions this past week (and throughout much of her career really) are inexcusable and make her unfit to be a representative. I'm ashamed that we have for a Democratic Party chairman someone who'd rather antagonize the Republicans as "evil" among other things, rather than declare his vision for making the American family stronger than ever. I believe they're tainted with the same ethics problems as the GOP are. A number of Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd just sit back and don't speak of what they can do for this country. I believe the Democrats are just as much of the problem with our eroding, democratic system, and why I identify myself as an independent.

I believe both parties are oblivious to exactly how massive the problem with our democratic system is, and neither seem willing to trust or collaborate with the other in working to seek a remedy. Until that day of recognition comes, no matter who's in office, who has the House, who has the Senate, these problems will be deja vu all over again. I absolutely believe this administration must be held accoutable for its errors so we live up to our democratic ideals and don't encourage future presidents of either party to duplicate these wrongdoings and our children that if they can get away with it they can too, but whoever believes the problems stop there are sorely mistaken, and this is a dilemma that is all-encompassing in our system right now which neither party is virginated from. In the end, collaboration, dialogue and governing from the center is our only bet in resolve.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2006-04-08 05:53 PM


If the President can't declassify classified documents, then who can?

And how does one oust a covert operative who is not a covert operative?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
26 posted 2006-04-08 07:06 PM



From the National Security Archives -- please note the dateline;
quote:

Washington D.C., 9 July 2004 - The CIA has decided to keep almost entirely secret the controversial October 2002 CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the subject of today's Senate Intelligence Committee report, according to the CIA's June 1, 2004 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm



If the POTUS decides to declassify information he or she certainly has the executive authority to do so.  Is this the kind of President you want?  One that's going to hide behind technicalities and word splitting?  The key to the President's statements -- when he was feigning ignorance in this manner -- was the use of the word 'unauthorized'.  What is is?  

quote:

Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts.

Former CIA official Larry C. Johnson, who left the CIA in 1989, indicated Plame had been a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [3] David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believed that the Brewster Jennings & Associates cover had not been done convincingly and that other covers would have been established for her by the CIA. [4]

Plame is known to have served in a classified position as a CIA officer. At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald noted:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Some claim to be uncertain as to whether Plame was a covert agent. According to USA Today, Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins. [5] Conservative columnist Max Boot argues that it is very unlikely that a CIA employee commuting to the headquarters building each day would be a covert agent. Columnist Robert Novak wrote that an Agency source said Plame "has been an analyst, not in covert operations." [6] It has been speculated that Plame may have worked in the CIA administration in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt. Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Shooter Libby."[7] It was confirmed that she was a covert operative early in the investigation by acting intelligence officials, setting the matter to rest.[8]

During the press conference, Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly; he responded:

Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.[9]

Nevertheless, court papers released in early 2006 showed that Fitzgerald did in fact conclude that Plame was a "covert" agent under the IIPA, though he did not seek charges on that count because he lacked proof that Libby was aware of her status. [10]

Valerie Plame Wilson was identified in the New York Times as a N.O.C. by Elisabeth Bumiller, who wrote (5 October 2003):

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame




quote:

"This might be seen as a smear on me and my reputation," Wilson said, "but what it really is is an attempt to keep anybody else from coming forward" to reveal similar intelligence lapses.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4190.htm



(this software is going to make it very difficult to discuss this issue if I get bounced every time there is a reference to Libby's commonly used nickname)

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
27 posted 2006-04-08 09:00 PM


Let me try to put this into some context for reasonable people who may be inclined to think this is just politics as usual.

The Bush administration may have been entirely sincere in its belief that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the USA.  It may have been acting in what it thought was the best interest of the country when it intentionally slanted intelligence to stack the deck against Saddam.  

What happened, though, when Joe Wilson also decided that it was also in the publics' best interest to understand that the deck had in fact been stacked once it became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor was there an active program to produce nuclear weapons -- was not the normal process of disseminating information to the American people.

The administration could have attempted to refute Wilson's claims outright.  The could have actually published the 'declassified' information they needed to say that Wilson was wrong.  They could have called Wilson a liar and called his credibility into question on its own merit.  They could have found a juicy tidbit to publish about him and embarrass him -- which would be politics as usual.  But, that's not what they did.  

In blowing the cover of his wife they sent a message loud and clear to everyone in the intelligence community and in any government agency that if you cross us we will get you, we'll get your wife, we'll get your kids -- we don't care -- and we don't care what national assets we destroy nor people we endanger to do it.  That's a very strong, draconian tactic to use -- and its one an administration that doesn't have something serious to keep quiet doesn't need to use.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2006-04-08 10:15 PM


we will get you, we'll get your wife, we'll get your kids -- we don't care -- and we don't care what national assets we destroy nor people we endanger to do it.

No reason for you to address that to reasonable people because I don't think reasonable people would buy your Hitleristic description of Bush as a man who would destroy people, families and this country on his whims. That may be your view and that may be what you deduce from whatever information you gather but that doesn't make it uncontestible as in the way you describe it. Painting Bush as not the sharpest pencil in the box is an easy sell. Painting him as a diabolic demon destroyer is not. Good luck.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
29 posted 2006-04-09 01:09 AM


What reasonable people see;

Leaving aside the implications to Valerie Wilson and any operatives or contacts that were endangered by Libby's and one other yet unnamed White House official's disclosure to Novak, Miller, et al -- let's take a look at who else has been put in harms way -- my kids, your kids, everybody's kids.

Why?  

Because Valerie Wilson was a WMD expert working on WMD intel.  

Isn't that what we went to war over in Iraq -- because nuclear proliferation is the major threat to the country?  By blowing her cover years and years of research, not to mention the capital investment, have been compromised.  

What have the President's actions been in the wake of this event?

He said, initially -- he wanted to get to the bottom of this...

he could have saved a lot of time -- by just telling us what the bottom was because just a few hours ago his lawyer, who remains unidentified, said -- Bush only authorized Cheney to get the information out there --

quote:

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak



Now.. we know that who he was talking to a few years ago was Jim Sharp

a criminal trial lawyer -- why does the President need to consult with a criminal lawyer?

quote:

"In terms of whether or not I need advice from counsel, this is a criminal matter, it's a serious matter," the president said. "I have met with an attorney to determine whether or not I need his advice, and if I deem I need his advice, I'll probably hire him."

Bush -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-02-bush-cialeak_x.htm



A serious criminal matter.

Why did he not simply tell us then?

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
30 posted 2006-04-09 02:53 PM


The real amazing thing, aside from Novak being given a pass, is that Libby isn't being charged with breaking federal law with regards to Intelligence Officers.  He's being charged with Obstruction and Perjury.  I'm not a lawyer, but those would appear, at least on the surface, to be distinctly different crimes.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2006-04-09 04:34 PM


Fitzgerald is swimming in shark infested waters.  The indications from his filings are that Libby and the yet-to-be-named co-leaker did, in fact, violate the law regarding blowing a CIA ops cover -- but there would be an extremely high hurdle to clear to be able to establish the evidence for the grand jury to be able to indict...

On the other hand -- he has the evidence to prosecute purjury and obstruction -- so he is, and it is the purjury and obstruction that prevent him from having the evidence to prosecute the parent crimes that are the source of the investigation.

Prosecuting Novak would be an even murkier exercise one would think.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
32 posted 2006-04-09 04:36 PM


LR- On this particular issue, I cannot- in fairness- add too much to the conversation. I have not kept too much in the loop on world events the past couple of weeks due to various reasons, and do not know enough about this issue to have formed an opinion.

I do have a question though... why was this story "leaked"? What did the individual responsible have to prove, or what was his motivation?

"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
33 posted 2006-04-10 03:21 AM


By DIVERSION, what I meant was what we are now hearing on the news and should become the source of a new thread....plans to bomb IRAN.  

LR....I dare ya!  

Still grinning at you and Raph...lol...appreciating Noah's statement....and scratching my head over Deer....NOTE TO DEER....you are definitely fiercely loyal. (Notice how polite I was in my selection of adverbs? )

And...lol...still keeping my mouth shut.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2006-04-10 03:14 PM


LOLOL! Thank you again, Iliana, for once again making a statement to tell us you are not going to make a statement...is that like....feminine logic?


iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
35 posted 2006-04-10 03:35 PM


Deer -- of course!  I still have not made any statements about this subject matter/thread!  And, I won't, just like I said.  I just wanted to clear up what I meant about the word, DIVERSION, since someone pounced on that word.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2006-04-10 06:54 PM


Yep, I understand exactly what you mean. For example, your smiling "egging-on" to LR to start a thread about bombing Iran. That's a great example of what I was referring to way back at the beginning of this thread, grabbing a newspaper headline and running to the Alley to get something started. You see a story, view a chance for a little Bush-bash, and off to the races we go. As far as the New Yorker story is concerned, this is Bush's reply..

WASHINGTON -
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against
Iran.


Bush did not rule out the use of force, but he said he would continue to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon or the know-how and technology to make one.

"I know here in Washington prevention means force," Bush said at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy."

Several weekend news reports said the administration was studying options for military strikes. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said. "It was just wild speculation.


That's what happens when people throw headlines around without checking facts. No, LR did not do that in this thread but we have people who certainly do. This is your third time, for example. If one takes the time to investigate a little before condemning, one is saved the embarrassment of having to come back and say, "No, I wasn't being derrogatory toward Bush at all.....I was just being curious."

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
37 posted 2006-04-10 07:28 PM


"That's what happens when people throw headlines around without checking facts. No, LR did not do that in this thread but we have people who certainly do. This is your third time, for example. If one takes the time to investigate a little before condemning, one is saved the embarrassment of having to come back and say, "No, I wasn't being derrogatory toward Bush at all.....I was just being curious." "

Balladeer....first off -- the smilely face was for you, along with a fair compliment about your loyalty.  As for your comments that I have made statements not backed up by fact three times, I strongly disagree and believe you have not done your homework or you would not have said that.  I will agree I have not researched the reality of this most recent diversionary tactic of bombing the nuclear plants in Iran -- but I would bet my bottom dollar, this topic is not over yet.  It is conjecture on my part, I admit that, but it is conjecture based upon historical observation.  As to Bush bashing....I have not even mentioned the word, Bush, in this thread prior to this sentence.  My loyalties are to the Constitution of the United States of America -- I have the right not to trust a politician.

I did not intend for there to be a "diversion" to this thread by my comment.  Geeeezzzz, a person cannot post anything without getting jumped on here.  And then that becomes the diversion -- and I apologize to everyone who was seriously talking about the subject of this thread.  

I've posted a suggestion in the "Suggestions" Forum that there be a Debate forum, because that is where threads which are going to be argumentative belong, I think.  I would still like to have an Alley where people can just speak their mind, flame and complain, and not be personally attacked.  

[This message has been edited by iliana (04-12-2006 01:16 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2006-04-10 08:42 PM


Your thread "How Soon We Forget" began with a link to The Bush Family Saga....Frauds R Us...attacking the Bush family for actions in the 80's. When called on it, your reply was "By nature, I just love a good mystery and like digging for the truth."  Forgive me if I find that unlikely.

Then your next thread was about Barbara Bush donating funds to be used in purchases from her son.  When called on it, your reply was "I'm really curious about these programs",  even though you made statements like "Do you personally think that this was a kind, charitable gesture?  The fact that this was a former first lady and the mother of our current commander-in-chief....it is noteworthy.  The fact that the money was earmarked for her son's company -- is that really a donation or a tax-deductible gift to her son to further the Ignite software? " and  " I could see where the folks in New Orleans and surrounding areas might be a little ticked off reading this in the newspapers."  A non-biased curiosity?  Unlikely still.

Now it's "what I meant was what we are now hearing on the news and should become the source of a new thread....plans to bomb IRAN. LR....I dare ya! "  Possibly negative Bush thoughts were not in your mind when you typed that ...but it's unlikely.

So, no, I don't believe I'm mistaken in my assessment of your actions but i do not say them as personal insults, simply observations of your actions. I would never insult you personally. I don't even know you and, believe it or not, i have the feeling that, if I did, I would like you! You have fire and you handle yourself well and you are just as determined in your thoughts as I am in mine, even though they may be different thoughts. I believe that both of us, as you stated, pledge our allegiance to the country, first and foremost. We are both Americans


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
39 posted 2006-04-10 10:51 PM


Ringo..

I think that's the 64 thousand dollar question...  why?  The filings of Fitzgerald indicate there was a full-on effort in the White House to completely destroy Wilson in retaliation for his op-ed in which he blew the whistle on the fact that Bush and the entire team knew full-well before the state of the union adress that the intel he was about to present wasn't considered to be credible by the intelligence community.  You should be able to get enough background from the postings and links in this thread though.

Jo -- I really wouldn't know what to make the basis of such a thread -- it's just a rumor and there really isn't from my understanding -- any hard intel that suggests Iran is actually trying to build nuclear weapons at this point -- of course I don't know why that would stop them... this illustrates though -- why a president and administration with such a credibility problem is a real problem.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
40 posted 2006-04-11 01:48 AM


Yes, Reb...I understand.  Read my email.  Thanks anyway.

Deer...I'll send you a wink for that comment.  Yes, I can get steamed up...lol.  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
41 posted 2006-04-11 06:41 PM



quote:
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against
Iran.


If the administration isn't planning for a military strike against Iran, which is after all a possible option, it isn’t doing its job properly; in fact if it hasn’t got plans in place I’d suggest it could be seen as incompetent.

Of course that’s just “wild speculation” on my part.

As far as Bush bashing goes I’m with Balladeer to a certain extent, he doesn’t personally handle every aspect of Government, though you could argue that he does have to shoulder some of the responsibility when things go wrong.

Even if Bush has made mistakes, and I’m not saying he has, it’s not completely his fault, he’s doing his best and surely he can’t be solely responsible. After all he didn’t vote himself into office and he can’t hold that office without the support of the American people.


Don’t the American people have to bear some of the responsibility?


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
42 posted 2006-04-15 03:36 PM


I do absolutely agree with Grinch that, as those who vote and are thus also representatives of our democracy, we ourselves are also at folly in that we allow ourselves to be planted and rooted deeply in this rigid two-party system, and seem passively to allow this partisan ping-pong match to reel on rather than call for a positive, collaborative change so more independent, candidates that don't come from the wealthiest of families can be represented, that we can live to the fullest promise of our democracy.

For quite a while, Balladeer and others here have made a genuine point here in that many who are disenchanted with Bush's policies seem more adamant of "bashing Bush" then diplomatically looking at what is wrong with the picture here and suggesting what we do need to positively build and strengthen our nation and such. Again, I believe I, myself, have been rather critical and blunt of Bush's personality, and have indeed called him a liar, an exploiter, and a war criminal in previous threads, things which I still stand by. However, I am not proud that ego conflicts seem to overshadow the interests for positive social change in recent years, not proud that partisanships seem more potent than dialogue in these times, and while I feel that, to secure the heart of our democracy we must hold accountable any president or representative that violates or attempts to walk around its heart, whoever thinks that these problems will end with the impeachment of Bush or so are ridiculously and sorely mistaken, and will only recreate themselves until the vision for positive social change is put ahead of partisanship at all costs.

I believe we're all guilty of falling into this partisan behavior in one way or another. Balladeer and others are right about that, and make a credible point.

Their point only loses ground and they only discredit themselves when they themselves let their partisanships consume and interfere with their logics, bashing everything about the Democratic Party which I myself are very critical of but are no less human than the GOP or any other party. During the Clinton Era, I have reason to believe had this forum been founded in 1992 that they'd be acting toward Clinton what the "Bush-bashers" are now toward Bush.....and still go after Clinton on everything.

And Lord knows no organization is or will ever be perfect, such as the United Nations, and Lord knows they've made some mistakes like all other organizations. But whenever the mere name of the United Nations is mentioned here, all I see is bashing, without acknowledging the number of very good things this world body has done over many years, including feeding 104 million people a year in 80 countries, UNICEF's efforts to crack down on AIDS and immunization of children worldwide, eradicating almost completely smallpox and polio from the world, holding over a dozen peacekeeping operations that, without their activity, could allow armed rebels and marauders to take control again, helping form elections in East Timor, Iraq and other countries, bringing issues that are otherwise seemingly non-existent in the media to the public forefront including landmines, child soldiers and cholera, etc.

Those who are obviously no fans of Clinton here (I don't consider myself a fan either, though not as adamantly opposed to him) mean well and make a genuine argument of how partisan distaste seems to rank more importantly to collaboration in their minds. It's their own partisan behavior that spoils an otherwise meaningful point.

Also, though I generally agree with Local Rebel more than Balladeer or Alicat, I also didn't agree with the tone he voiced in Comment #27 in the thread, as I thought it went over the line and, indeed, Bush is no tyrant who desires to go after the wives and kids of everyone who disagrees with him on the war. I absolutely don't believe he has or will ever be that heartless; he's just a naive, incompetent individual who stubbornly insists on his way or the highway and dislikes hearing dissenters.

I feel deep inside all of us, we are acting partisan-esque whether we want to acknowledge it or not...but what I'm also optimistic about is that deep down I believe all of us really desire for greater independence in our system, and the only thing that's really holding us back is fear itself.

Red Blue Game: Meaning

It's as though we're stuck in what is known as the "Red Blue Game" in University Studies class, where we all really want to move forward and seek change, but we're afraid someone else will try exploiting that trust, a call for unity, and we find ourselves stuck in defensiveness, and, essentially, we're just stuck at square one.

What it will take to escape this oubilette, I don't know, but I believe all of us are well-intentioned here, we truly don't desire living in partisan fashion, and I only hope that is recognized regardless if it's a Republican or Democrat controlling what, until we all decide together we must trust one another and reward ourselves for greater independence, these problems we've dealt under Clinton and under Bush willcontinue to replicate.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
43 posted 2006-04-15 06:20 PM


Tho' I agree with much of what Noah has said here, I disagree that critizing the CEO of the Nation is partisan politics in all cases.  Personally, I do not care what party he represents or what party any President represents.  Performance in the role is the most important thing.  For any CEO position, history and track record are important as to the very nature of the leader.  What some in The Alley term as bashing is simply stating the facts and background and analyzing performance of the leader in his job.  

"Partisan Politics" is a very easy out for those, in or outside, The Alley afraid to really confront the performance issues.  The minute we stop caring, monitoring, and critizing...that's when we've handed over our freedom.  

LOL....yes, Deer, just couldn't keep my mouth shut.

[This message has been edited by iliana (04-15-2006 09:33 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
44 posted 2006-04-15 07:29 PM


No, I absolutely agree with you, Jo, performance does matter most, and that's why in my above response I also insisted it is important that as a democracy that we hold Bush's administration accountable for particular acts that run against some core principles of our democracy, such as the illegal wiretaps and the leaking of intelligence for political purpose, not in attacking Bush's character but because it's the duty and responsibility of our representatives to do their job, see to it our elected leader rings true to the oath made on Inauguration Day to preserve and protect our constitutional freedoms, and see to it the leader's held to the vow, and any time he isn't we must make note of it, otherwise we'd be sending the wrong message to our future generations and allowing the chiseling of all we hold dear. Unfortunately, I believe partisan politics is not only about confronting others, but deifying them as well, and while I think in the back of some minds who still admire Bush for whatever reasons they recognize what he did wasn't necessarily right or ethical, they still believe the call for accountability is all political gain motivations and would stand like a Buckingham Palace guard to Bush in result with unflinching reluctance.

I was just saying in the above also that indeed some who are critical of Clinton or Bush seem to blame Clinton or Bush on everything as well, and many of these problems never originated from Clinton or Bush to begin with and come out of the faults of our acceleratingly unsatisfying two-party system, where it's all about the collision of two challenging ideologies and there's little call for governing from the center. And I'm just trying to say, these problems will only continue to manifest themselves under different last names from either party until there's bi-lateral trust and acknowledgement that we aren't going to live to our democracy's full potential if we continue to go on like this and make efforts to see more independent voices get represented and such.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
45 posted 2006-04-15 08:10 PM


We're the shareholders in the corporation called the United States of America and we're responsible for what our country does no matter who is in charge -- which is exactly why we have to be dilligent about what the board of directors and the CEO are up to.

If Bush needs a bashing -- I'm more than prepared to deliver.  Without shame.  My research is done.  The facts are in.

The thing you have to ask Noah -- is what was the gain of outing Plame.  Who did it help?  Who did it hurt?  How hurt could a lot of people have gotten?  How dead are some people around the world that we may never be aware of ?  Speculative question?  Not really -- she was an NOC -- she had contacts -- all of them were at risk once she was exposed.

Wreckless with the pre-war intel, wreckless with the Wilson smear, wreckless with the shareholders lives and interest.

Of course -- it is in this light that the Right guard are suddenly coming out to decry partisanship...

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
46 posted 2006-04-15 09:26 PM


Exactly, LR!

I say, "Thank goodness for the Right Guard!"  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » The Plot Thickens (or Just Following Orders)

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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