Okay, I'm confused. I mean, first I thought "Deep Throat" was Linda Lovelace. Then I found out, no, it's a guy, and he's Hal Holbrook. And now it turns out, of all things, that he's a former FBI bigwig named Mark Felt who is not a woman and doesn't look a thing like Hal Holbrook (although whenever Hal Holbrook turned up on "West Wing," I kept wondering if he was later spilling secrets about Bartlet to the Washington Post.)
I find it interesting that he's felt conflicted all this time, wondering if he was an American hero or an American traitor. Me, I'd say hero. But I can't help but wonder how the current White House would view him...and, for that matter, if they would prosecute him if they could.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 31, 2005 11:57 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm Republican, and I consider the guy a hero. Nixon was a paranoid humunculous of a man who abused the power of his office. Not only that, but because of this Bob Woodward became relevant- and really, I think we're all losers for that.
He's definitely a hero. He saw that something was wrong and he did what he could about it. As a member of the FBI it was his duty to do what was in the best interest of America and it's people and he did just that.
I don't think I can add anything to what Fnliii said. Felt did the right thing, and I suspect that you'd find a consensus for that across party lines.
Supposedly, he didn't leak the information out of a sense of justice, but more because he was a J. Edgar Hoover protege who was burnt by Nixon's attempts to assert more control over the FBI after Hoover's death, and Nixon had passed him over for the Director position in favor of L. Patrick Gray.
Regardless of his motivations though, what he did was essential to upholding of the rule of law and the foundations of the constitutional democracy, so I'm glad he did it, and whistleblowers need to be encouraged, especially in this day and age. I find it unfortunate who Richard Clarke's testimony was basically swept under the rug. Maybe we've just gotten jaded about government corruption.
It wouldn't surprise me if the current administration tried to prosecute him. Nothing they do surprises me anymore. :rolls eyes:
I would consider him a hero. Sometimes you have to go against the laws, the rules and just tell the truth (or point others in the right direction to discover the truth), so justice and honor and respectability can be restored.
I'm of mixed mind on the who "hero" thing - and apparently so was he. Rather than let the investigative process underway take its course, he violated the law and his oath. Mind you, so did Nixon, but it's hard for me to hold someone up as a hero - especially when the main reason he's coming forward now is to pay some bills.
I suppose we could pull up the Christopher Reeve post. :)
No doubt in my mind, the mans a hero.
We need more heroes like that today.
I still want someone to pay for outing Plame and putting agents lives at risk. Or more specifically, the two senior someones that Novak called "senior administration sources".
I prefer to call them "Karl" and "Dick", but that's just me.
Del said:
1 thought it was Principal Woodman.
And I thought it was Jerry Hardin.
"No doubt in my mind, the mans a hero."
"We need more heroes like that today."
"I still want someone to pay for outing Plame and putting agents lives at risk. Or more specifically, the two senior someones that Novak called "senior administration sources". "
No evidence that any agents lives were put at risk. In fact, the New York Times now wonders if a crime was even committed. Not that this would silence the calls for jail time. Leaks are only good if they hurt the, you know, "right" people.
Of course Deep Throat was a hero--a right wing Hooverite uses illegal leaks of FBI investigations (and we are talking Hoover's FBI--they probably had a stack of photos on Nixon a mile high) to take down the executive branch. Brings a tear to my eye.
Man, can you IMAGINE how ugly it must be at the Washington Post this morning? Scooped by Vanity Fair? On their own story?
"No evidence that any agents lives were put at risk."
That's a hard thing to quantify. 'Risk' is so nebulous.
And this isn't about hurting the "right" people. It's about doing the right thing.
Outing a CIA agent in order to discredit her husbands refutation of the Bush Administrations lies... that's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.
"In November 1980, Felt and Edward S. Miller, then head of the FBI's intelligence division, were convicted of authorizing break-ins without warrants into the homes of members of the Weathermen in the 1970s, a radical antiwar group. During the trial, Felt testified that he was following standard procedures for government investigations, according to Vanity Fair."
THe curent administration would put in on trial for treason and execute him on public television.
I vote the guy's a hero
Bladestar: For that reason specifically?
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, the guy goes down as a hero in my book. He brought the truth to light in a time when it was in short supply. Good for him.
I remember in high school, we did a unit on Watergate in my history class. One of the mini-essays we were assigned asked the question of, between Dean* and Liddy, who was the hero and who was the rat. I made that decision in about five seconds. Admittedly, it was bolstered by Liddy's constant protestations on the radio and occasional appearances on Maher's show about the Clinton administration's abuse of private freedoms.
Incidentally, does anyone know why Woodward and Bernstein nicknamed their secret source after, of all things, a hardcore porn flick?
*Not Howard, but a top-level Nixon aide.
Yes, Felt was #2 at the FBI.
I consider him a hero, a whistleblower, but all things considered, it sounds like he himself also broke the law by his methods. Which, in the case of Nixon, was very justifiable imo.
I find some of the debate now very amusing - whether Felt really was Deep Throat or this is just a ploy, whether Felt was given too much credit as Deep Throat, was Woodward doing some misleading with some of the statements in his book "All the President's Men" about who Deep Throat was, etc.
I'm not sure if "American Hero" is the right way to put it, but the guy should be applauded and thanked (which I'm sure the book deal will do).
I was very surprised by the radio commentary I listened to this morning, describing him as a money-grubbing snitch, which is just sad. I was annoyed at the motives they were attributing to him. If he'd wanted money he could have come out a long time ago; if he wanted a normal life, he couldn't, plain as that.
A good deed that should be repeated by anyone who knows about illegal activies in any administration (okay, maybe not Linda Tripp. While I think Clinton is an immoral scum sucking worm, that whole affair was just stupid).
"Outing a CIA agent in order to discredit her husbands refutation of the Bush Administrations lies... that's just wrong, no matter how you slice it."
I agree, though it would be nice if someone would actually prove that that is what happened..as opposed to just hoping that it did.
But it brings up an interesting point. Several have commented that Felt is a hero for , as one said, "He brought the truth to light in a time when it was in short supply."
Now if "truth" is enough to make it right then how can we jail someone for stating the truth--Valery Plame was a CIA agent. And if one makes the (quite reasonable) statement that CIA agents must be protected, should this also apply to other people who would be in dangered if their identity were revealed? Is it illegal to state that an undercover cop is a cop? And at what point does this law get superseded by other laws--if a reporter discovers that a CIA agent is breaking the law is he or she legally forced to keep the possibly very pertinent information of his career secret?
describing him as a money-grubbing snitch,
I think this one has come about because Felt's daughter has stated something to the effect that Felt could now make some money off of this, and the daughter is in debt due to trying to pay for education for her children.
Now, at 91, I'm not sure how much more anybody can expect to get out of the guy. Not saying he's senile or anything (it sounds like he's far from it), but I don't think he's up for getting grilled day after day by whomever is going to write said books (provided he doesn't have it all written down already).
Hero or traitor? Hero. Sure, Mark Felt's reasons for contacting Woodward in the first place may have been prompted in part by his annoyance at being passed over as Hoover's replacement; but, as the Vanity Fair article indicates, it may also have been prompted by a love of the FBI. Felt was a staunch FBI man, and the cover up of the FBI's investigation was making the bureau look bad (at least in Felt's eyes).
Now, just to be clear, it's not that love of the FBI that makes him a hero; that's incidental. What makes him a hero, and not a traitor, is that he helped expose illegal activities at the highest level of government.
On another note, Vanity Fair didn't scoop the Washington Post. Such a statement implies the Post had also been planning to reveal "Deep Throat's" true identity. And that wasn't the case. Neither Woodward, Bernstein nor Bradlee had intended to reveal "Deep Throat's" identity until after he had died. And, in fact, they had initially issued "no comment" statements when Felt came forward, before deciding to confirm.
But back to the traitor or hero question. While watching _Doctor Who_ on the CBC last night, I saw an ad for the news program, _The National_, plugging a story about Felt's revelation as "Deep Throat." So, at 10, I tuned in, to see what sort of coverage the story got in the Canadian media. One of the people interviewed was G. Gordon Liddy, who said that Felt should have taken his information to a grand jury, rather than a reporter.
Is Rod Serling around here somewhere? It seems just a bit disingenuous for G. Gordon Liddy to suggest that Felt should have followed the rule of law.
Rick
Nixon did commit crimes as a President. Here's a site that will give you hours of reading pleasure about another political powerhouse: http://www.ytedk.com/
I think this is the latest latch-on story by the media in an effort not to cover the war in Iraq. It should be an interesting sidebar story at best instead of the complete and total coverage that it is getting.
I think it's ironic that two real investigative journalists and their story are being used to prop up the shabby shambling non-entity that the fifth estate has become.
Tomorrow the news will be cancelled by a return to Michael Jackson and the public will be kept in the dark as to what their Senators and Congressmen are doing for awhile longer.
Now if "truth" is enough to make it right then how can we jail someone for stating the truth--Valery Plame was a CIA agent.
You're deliberately distorting there Bill. I never said "truth" was enough to make it right. Nor did anyone else that I can recall.
And if one makes the (quite reasonable) statement that CIA agents must be protected,
should this also apply to other people who would be in dangered if their identity were revealed?
I don't make this statement. It simply happens to be the law of the land.
Is it illegal to state that an undercover cop is a cop?
Again, look to the law.
if a reporter discovers that a CIA agent is breaking the law is he or she legally forced to keep the possibly very pertinent information of his career secret?
I am not a lawyer, but no, I don't think so.
All of which is moot anyway, and a distraction from what I said. Namely that Plame was outted to discredit her husbands refutation of the Bush Administrations lies. No more and no less.
though it would be nice if someone would actually prove that that is what happened
Well, if you're going to start by questioning the most basic and obvious fundamentals, then why not start with "Can someone prove to me that she even exists?"
Man! Did you see Hal Holbrook's comments on Deep Throat? That old man was a thing o' rage! "It doesn't matter who Deep Throat was, he was a moral man, and no one today has any morality!" Please note I'm paraphrasing, but he certainly made his feelings known about whether DT's actions were right or wrong. Three cheers for PAD, DT, and HH.
Hero is too strong a word -- but so is traitor. I think Felt was just another actor motivated by acute self-interest in a larger, seedy drama. Nixon was a crook, no question, but it sure sounds like Felt acted out of spite over being passed over for a job more than anything else. If anything, Watergate is a great symbol for the greedy venality of the political culture.
I remember the Mad Magazine (or was it Cracked?) parody of 'All the President's Men' showed Deep Throat to be Gerald Ford...
It was most interesting to me that Woodward confirmed it, too.
BTW, PAD, did you get my e-mail "Smallville Writer Seeks Help"?
"But I can't help but wonder how the current White House would view him...and, for that matter, if they would prosecute him if they could."
Prosecute him?
At his age? What would be the point?
Does a single thought EVER go through your brain without getting "BUSH SUCKS" attached to it?
Yep. One did about 5 weeks ago. But then Bush gave me yet another reason to say he sucks.
I bet you wake up every day and say, "Good morning, Bush Sucks!"
Well, actually... I haven't yet this morning, but now that you mention it:
Man, Bush sucks.
Excuse me, Felt a hero. You have got to be kidding. He did the right thing for all the wrong reasons. The guy was a creep. He did not care about the law. Look at what he did to the Weather Underground. He was a Hooverite. He should not be honored.
Now listen, I do not think he was some sort of traitor, but he was no Daniel Ellsburg who did something for the right reason and suffered for it.
"You're deliberately distorting there Bill. I never said "truth" was enough to make it right. Nor did anyone else that I can recall."
I wasn't in any way shape or form trying to distort your words--I took your post as jump offpoint to raise some issues. If I wanted to call you on it, John, I would have directed the question right at you.
"And if one makes the (quite reasonable) statement that CIA agents must be protected,
should this also apply to other people who would be in dangered if their identity were revealed?"
I don't make this statement. It simply happens to be the law of the land.
Again, I was making a hypothetical, not claiming that you were making the statement. My question, which I still don't have the answer to, is why we seem to have an exemption to free speech only for CIA agents? It may be the law of the land but I am asking if it is a good law?
(To clear up any confusion someone (and by someone, I am again not necessarily meaning you, John) may have, I believe that if Plame's name was in fact deliberately leaked to discredit her husband than the perpetrator should get in trouble. Big trouble)
"if a reporter discovers that a CIA agent is breaking the law is he or she legally forced to keep the possibly very pertinent information of his career secret?"
I am not a lawyer, but no, I don't think so.
So are you suggesting that a possible mitigating circumstance for the leaker would be if they believed that Richard Clarke was being less than honest on the reasons why he was chosen by the CIA for his mission? Once you allow the law to be broken for "pertinent" reasons you now open a big can of worms.
"All of which is moot anyway, and a distraction from what I said. Namely that Plame was outted to discredit her husbands refutation of the Bush Administrations lies. No more and no less."
One of the nice things about this sort of forum is that we are free to go off in whatever direction the conversation(s) take us. My thoughts were not meant to "distract" people in any way and at any rate, I have no such power.
Well, if you're going to start by questioning the most basic and obvious fundamentals, then why not start with "Can someone prove to me that she even exists?"
Ah. Basic and obvious. I see. Well, I wish they'd stop dicking around with all that grand jury silliness, since the Truth Is Plain For All To See. You know, I'm as guilty as anyone on sometimes forgetting the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing but at least I usually wait until someone is actually on trial or at least indicted! (BTW, this paragraph actually IS about you!)
So, who shall we send to jail?
I just find it interesting that one of the truisms of journalism is that disgruntled employees make the absolute best sources. And when you come down to it--between being obstructed by the White House on the Watergate investigation and feeling he'd been unfairly passed over for the top slot--Felt fit that description to a "t."
PAD
I thought Felt was a witness to a crime and the only way he could expose the criminals was through the Washington Post because of the crooked administration that was in power. The thing is as well; in a true democracy is there really such a thing as "traitor"? I thought the idea of a traitor belongs to authoritarian regimes but in a democracy with the freedom of conscience, thought and political belief, doesn't "traitor" become meaningless?
Kevin,
I don't think you can argue that one can't be a traitor in a country that allows for freedom of thought--in fact, it is only in such a place that one could choose to be a traitor in the first place.
In this country that would mean that while one can be a loyal Amarican and have any damn crazy belief one wishes, if you try to enforce that belief outside of legal means you may well be a traitor. Tim McVeigh was.
Felt was not a traitor for the simple reason that his allegeance was to the country, not to the president. One could argue that Nixon, in subverting the constitution he was obligated to uphold, was the true traitor (as was Liddy and the others who supported him. I've never understood how some people consider Liddy admirable for his loyalty to Nixon. Goebbels was loyal too, it's a not a particularly admirable trait if it isn't paired with enough ethics to ensure it is only given to the man or cause that deserve it.).
Bill - interesting comments :)
Coming at it another way though, McVeigh was a criminal and a terrorist. "Traitor" can be a dangerous thing because it doesn't always distinguish between thought and action. In a truly free country though can the State really dictate where your loyalty should lie? Doesn't the State exist at the license of the people and not the other way around?
So, how far apart are disgruntled employees and mis-treated terrorist detainees? If the first make the best journalistic sources, wouldn't it make a sort of sense that the second would as well?
I'm referring of course to Bush's dismissal of independant reports of mistreatment of US POWs...I mean detainees...because the source of the complaints are prisoners that hate the US. Well, who else is going to report about abuse if not the prisoners?
>Question: Who will you hate and blame the >world's troubles on once Bush is out of office?
Now see... I say this to Republicans who still natter on about Clinton being the cause of all the USA's problems. At least we're complaining about someone who is in power and supposedly is shaping policy and deciions that are currently impacting the country.
If only Bush just sucked...
This Just In!!!!!
'Deep Throat' Family May Cash in on Fame
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/richard_nixon
Shocking, just shocking!!
At least we're complaining about someone who is in power and supposedly is shaping policy and deciions that are currently impacting the country.
Yeah, and we did it for eight years in the mid-to-late 1990s. Fair is fair.
Mike says:
"I think this is the latest latch-on story by the media in an effort not to cover the war in Iraq. It should be an interesting sidebar story at best instead of the complete and total coverage that it is getting."
Now come ON, Mike! This is just ridiculous--it's one thing to believe that there is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy among the 4th Estate to hide the news (and it's one piss poor conspiracy since I can get the news in Iraq from about 100 sources without even trying) but when you use, as evidence, the breaking of one of the biggest political mysteries of the last 50 years...I mean, really.
Other than the capturing Bigfoot, photos of Bill Clinton hooking up with JLo, or Jim Morrison and Andy Kaufman holding a joint press conference to announce "It was just a joke", I can't imagine any story that was MORE guaranteed to generate press interest.
Incidentally...news from Iraq managed to make it on the front page of Yahoo, AOL news, AP World, Boston Globe, CBS news, Chicago Sun Times, CNN, Fox News, (one could go on) ALL of them have stories about Iraq today. I guess the "effort not to cover the war in Iraq" is proving harder than they thought.
I think Felt's indictment over violating the Weather Underground's civil rights was the main reason for him to stay silent. He needed Reagan's pardon. Reagan's death probably relieved much of the pressure to stay in hiding.
With congressmen calling for Bush to explain the British intelligence memo, and Ralph Nader calling for Bush's impeachment in the Boston Globe over it, the identity of Deep Throat surfacing happens to draw a powerful parallel.
Heard an interesting comment today. "Deep Throat" and the whole Watergate affair brought us Carter. Had a Republican been in office during the Iranian Hostage Situation, then there would have been no Regan. Of course, following that train, no Regan, meant no Bush the Father nor any Bush the Son. (And probably no Clinton.) So, Deep Throat brought about the chain of events that gave us our current political scene.
No less a light than G. Gordon Liddy has declared Felt to be on the wrong side of law enforcement ethics for his actions, making the slightly compelling argument that as a law enforcement officer, Felt had a lot of other options within proper channels before leaking information to a single newspaper and counting upon its actions to facilitate justice.
Of course, that completely discounts empathy for someone who acted with the incredibly weighty knowledge that he was jeopardizing the administration of a very vengeful president, which could of course make "proper channels" a dicey proposition. Imagine carrying around that sort of information and trying to figure out how best to handle it.
Also worth mentioning is that it is a criticism that comes from someone who orchestrated and carried out the very break-in that was at the heart of the problem, not exactly an unimpeachable source of ethical judgment in this particular circumstance.
Some folks at work were in the hallway discussing this whole thing today. As I walked by, one of the attractive young ladies commented: "We need a Deep Throat today." I agreed and left...quickly.
More for Carter and Reagan, but I disagree about the others.
In the 1980 primaries, it was Reagan and Bush, and Bush was backed by the republican staff of Nixon and Ford. So I think it's reasonable to assume Bush would have taken the republican primary in 1980 or after serving as vice president regardless of Watergate or Iran.
As for Clinton, he was an ideal centrist candidate for the democrats to present whose only major vulnerability was his infidelities -- Bush couldn't capitalize on this in 1992 because Carville let the Bush-camp know they would retaliate with George's own infidelity. The republican party was also a divided tent in the 1990s after Reagan, so overall the impact of watergate on Clinton's presidency is also not so certain.
Rove is third-generation to republican dirty-tricks campaigning, so I also think it's reasonable to assume Bush II would have taken the republican primary after his father.
I don't think you white folks realize how fixed the marketplace really is. They systematically flushed the votes from entire black counties in Florida in 2000 -- yet for Gray Davis, a recall election for the entire state of California was warranted.
With congressmen calling for Bush to explain the British intelligence memo, and Ralph Nader calling for Bush's impeachment in the Boston Globe over it, the identity of Deep Throat surfacing happens to draw a powerful parallel.
The difference between Heir Bush and Crooked Nixon is that Bush keeps a very small circle of very loyal friends in his Administration. Compared to the Nixon years and other presidents past,, the people who have the top info are all kissing Bush's ass directly.
So, with such a few number of people the chances for a real reliable source coming forth as the "whistleblower" against Bush are far less likely, unfortunately.
...the chances for a real reliable source coming forth as the "whistleblower" against Bush are far less likely, unfortunately.
Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill aren't any less crebible than Felt was, and they've gone public how Bush disregarded intelligence on what was actually going on in Iraq. Felt was vulnerable to being portrayed as disgruntled as Clarke and O'Neill have been.
Bush cited patently false interpretations of the intelligence he was given, and over 1600 soldiers have been killed as a result. Other than Nixon being too egotistical to destroy the tapes that proved his guilt, I think Bush is as vulnerable now as Nixon was then.
I really, really think Bush was counting on a victory in Iraq absolving him of whatever the hell is going to emerge from this to bite him on the ass.
"...the people who have the top info are all kissing Bush's ass directly."
And Clinton had the same thing, but he did turn around really quick for the underlings.
Heya Bill!
I think there’s a difference between ‘covering’ the war and doing a story on the war. By which I mean there’s a difference between investigative journalism and repeating official press releases without examing whether or not they are true. When you listen to the journalists that are there and trying to get to facts (Christiane Amanpour as one example) they talk about being systematically shut out and herded away from sources and information. The feeling that I get is that the majority of ‘reporters’ that are in Iraq rarely leave their hotels and regurgitate what they’re given.
Are there sources for information? Certainly. But these sources aren’t the stuff being mainlined on cable television and the 24 hour news channels. You have to go in search of them. And then the reliability of those alternative sources are constantly being called into question by the self-same cable giants who have a vested interested in discrediting them.
The relative importance of Deep Throat to today is pretty insignificant beside the votes that are going on in the House and Senate, the significance of the Downing Street Memo and lack of response from the government (and lack of reporters putting the metaphorical irons to their feet), latest job numbers and economic turns.
Deep Throat is more filler than meat. Interesting but not really all that important to the State of the Union.
If they caught Bigfoot.. you can bet they'd be parading the poor sasquach around for another week and Bushco would be grateful that one more shiney was being waved in front of the public to distract. With a media all too willing to give it a dangle.
I'm once more reminded of John Stewart's impassioned plea on Crossfire to "come over to our side" and "stop hurting us".
Hero? Hmmm, don't heroes have to suffer? How did he suffer? Lost sleep over the fact he might lose his pension? Anyway, now that we know who Deep Throat is, here's some other political mystery questions courtesy of newsmax:
• Who threatened Kathleen Willey? On the eve of her January 1998 testimony in the Paula Jones case, Willey was approached by mysterious man who noted that her car tires had been slashed and her cat was missing, before rattling off the names of her children.
The mystery man then threatened: "I hope you're getting the message." Investigators never learned the identity of the man who tried to intimidate Ms. Willey.
• Who hired private detectives Jack Palladino and Anthony Pellicano? The two gumshoes worked to silence women who claimed they had affairs with Bill Clinton during the Clintons' 1992 presidential camapign. A notation in the campaign's Federal Election Commission filing shows that Palladino was paid from campaign coffers.
• How did White House security director Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer, manage to obtain 1,200 confidential FBI files on the Clintons' political enemies? Requisitons for the files had Clinton counsel Bernard Nussbaum's name on them. But Nussbaum told probers he was innocent.
The White House said the outrageous FBI file abuse was merely "a bureaucratic snafu," an excuse investigators - as well as the media - soon accepted.
• Who ordered the IRS to audit Clinton's critics and accusers? In what reporters claimed was a mere a coincidence, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Juanita Broaddrick were all investigated by the Clinton IRS, as well as Billy Dale and Johnnie Chung. Conservative organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Freedom Alliance, the National Rifle Association and the Heritage Fouundation were targeted as well.
The media never pursued obvious questions about the suspicious audits, even though the IRS was headed at the time by Hillary Clinton friend and ally, Margaret Milner Richardson.
• How did Vince Foster's suicide note mysteriously appear in a briefcase that had already been thoroughly searched before a room full of witnesses? On July 22, 1993, White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum conducted the search of Foster's briefcase at the White House as FBI agents and Park Police officers looked on.
"It's empty," he proclaimed, holding the briefcase open to dispel any doubt.
But four days later, Nussbaum claimed that he'd overlooked 22 scraps of papers that tumbled out of the bag when his aide was packing up Foster's personal affects. The scraps, when pieced together, formed a note blaming Clinton media critics for depressing Foster.
• Who was Sandy Berger calling? The former national security advisor finally admitted in March that he removed top secret terrorism documents from the National Archives while preparing for President Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Guards at the Archives said that Berger repeatedly asked to be left alone in the document room so he could make some private calls. The identity of Berger's telephone partner has never been revealed.
• Who at the Justice Department advised President Clinton not to accept a 1996 offer from Sudan to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S.? In 2002, Clinton said he'd been told "we had no legal basis to hold him" because bin Laden "had committed no crime against America."
Instead, Clinton said he tried to persuade Saudi Arabia to take bin Laden. When they refused, the al Qaeda mastermind set up operations in Afghanistan, where he plotted the 9/11 attacks.
Why should a hero have to suffer? I don't think a single act of heroism makes a hero, but a lifestyle of heroism does (don't know if Felt does or doesn't fit that). Nonetheless, I think what he did was perfect. That's the power of the press recognized for what it is.
The one question I keep hearing over and over again is "why the name Deep Throat?" The answer seems pretty straight forward to me: The information he was leaking was initially hard to swallow. No joke. Think about it.
...here's some other political mystery questions courtesy of newsmax...
Does newsmax also mention how the republican congress spent $70 million to investigate Clinton, or that Ken Starr wanted to leave the investigation for an appointment to run Pepperdine university, but that he had been pressured to continue?
Clinton beat GHWB, and is relatively scandal-free compared to watergate, Iran-contra, and gwb when he has to answer for arbitrarily invading an oil-rich, muslim nation and uniting the world in its resolve to put the US in its place.
The one question I keep hearing over and over again is "why the name Deep Throat?"
It tells you something about the times that they were able to publically give a source a nickname from a hardcore porno movie and nobody blinked. You can be sure that if a whistleblower comes forward today nobody is going to name him "Buttman's European Adventure", "Saving Ryan's Privates" or "Free Willy"
On the matter of what might have been... Reagan campaigned in the 1976 primaries. There's no reason to imagine he wouldn't have also done so in some alternate timeline where Nixon served two full terms. Whether he would have been elected would have depended on a variety of factors.
Likewise, Bush Sr. campaigned _against_ Reagan in the 1980 primaries (and it was Bush who used the term "voodoo economics" to describe Reagan's economic plans). He would probably still have run at some point, also. Would he have won whatever election that would have been? Who knows?
Returning our attention to the present, if it turns out the president had been in collusion with members of the British government to make a bogus case for war in Iraq, then there should be impeachment proceedings. But before we get to that point (if it goes that far), I have to agree with what Rep. John Conyers told me- that the administration should answer the questions posed in the letter he and other Democrats sent to Bush. The letter asks if Bush disputes the accuracy of information reported in the May 1 London Sunday Times suggesting there had been collusion between the U.S. and British governments.
Rick
Rick, if Democrats are hoping that the British Memo is gonna be the smoking gun that finishes off Bush, all I can say is keep waiting. Ain't gonna happen. For one thing, the memo clearly states that Saddam has WMD and expresses the fear that the American invasion will cause him to unleash them. So this is hardly going to be very useful in convincing people that Bush Knew Iraq had no WMD, which is the only way you are going to even get close to impeachment.
So this is hardly going to be very useful in convincing people that Bush Knew Iraq had no WMD, which is the only way you are going to even get close to impeachment.
Actually, I find it quite worthy: it further shows that Bush failed to make an effort to check the accuracy of the intelligence before invading.
An invasion which, by all accounts, started more than 6 months before Bush even received permission from Congress.
Bush should be tried for war crimes.
For one thing, the memo clearly states that Saddam has WMD and expresses the fear that the American invasion will cause him to unleash them
Pardon a member of the reality community for daring to intrude, but where exactly does it say that?
Here's a quote for you...
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
I still don't get it. There were WMD. If our intelligence didn't show that, they weren't checking their files. WE sold the WMD to them. It's pretty much a no brainer that we know they have them since we gave them to them and they hadn't all been used. I understand why the administration wouldn't be trumpeting this fact, but unless they moved them (which is clear they did - to Syria) there were WMD with our sales tags on them.
I still don't get it. There were WMD. If our intelligence didn't show that, they weren't checking their files. WE sold the WMD to them. It's pretty much a no brainer that we know they have them since we gave them to them and they hadn't all been used.
When Scott Ritter quit in protest over Clinton's laxity in searching for WMDs in Iraq in 1998, it was in protest looking for -- at most -- the remaining 5%-10% of what hadn't been accounted for since the first gulf war. It was in protest of handling a stockpile of supposed chemical and biological weapons that could only harm you if they landed in a crate on your head.
All the intelligence agencies of the US, Britain, and Israel had in March 2003 is the reasonable assumption that Iraq had aging holdovers from the 1980s -- nothing to ever justify overriding the UN inspections Bush asked for and had gotten reimplemented.
When people complain the news isn't covering this kind of shit -- they were covering this kind of shit at up to the Uraq invasion. The media cannot fight the disinterest of the marketplace.
WE sold the WMD to them
And yet, it appears Saddam did as he told and got rid of them.
Bush continued his vendetta anyways.
(which is clear they did - to Syria)
Is this from the same intelligence efforts that said Saddam had WMD in the first place and could use them against us at a moment's notice?
If so, you might want to find other evidence.
On the matter of what might have been... Reagan campaigned in the 1976 primaries. There's no reason to imagine he wouldn't have also done so in some alternate timeline where Nixon served two full terms.
I think Reagan was able to capitalize on Carter and the Iran hostage situation in a matter that gave him an advantage in the primaries he wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise.
When Reagan was in office and calling the Soviet Union an evil empire and calling for the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was speaking honestly -- whatever his faults and moral shortcomings, Reagan gave his best to the American people. He was determined to be the republican FDR, and all of his post-Nixon republican staff thought he was crazy.
If it wasn't for the hostage crisis, I think the support of the party would have automatically gone to Bush. Agreeing to make Bush his VP was only done to unite the party behind him.
Even now, when people talk about Giuliani becoming a presidential candidate, or updating the constitution to allow Governor Arnold to run, I have to laugh because republican membership is too socially conservative to consider them. They're ignoring South Carolina in 2000.
At the time, John McCain was making campaign stops saying "I hate gooks" -- and I was still looking forward to voting for him over Al Gore. Then the Rove-attack machine spread rumors that McCain had fathered a black child after he won New Hampshire and his campaign never recovered.
It's like the CS Lewis quote about why resort to murder when cards will do. It's the pretense of a free society sheltering the dominance of a fixed game.
...specifically, the republican attack machine that nurtured Rove and he inherited.
Felt -- hero. Linda Lovelace, incidentally, also a hero.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else care what G. Gordon Liddy has to say about ethics or morality? It's like a civics lesson from Lex Luthor.
YAWN.
I really don't understand the level of excitement some have about this story. I have my theories, but I will keep them to myself.
He was not a "hero" as I would define it, because he did not do what I would consider an act that truly put his life at risk. Maybe there was an extremely small chance, IF his identity was leaked. But he was not public about this.
At the same time, I do not consider him a traitor. My understanding is that he broke FBI rules, but probably not any actual laws. Other than passing on confidential information, I am not aware of him actually breaking the law as Nixon did. I do think there is an appropriate time and place for a whistleblower, which does require breaking some "rules" because those in power don't want you to tell on them.
There is no doubt that partisan views do color this issue. If you don't like Nixon or Republicans, Felt is almost a saint. If you are a Republican (as I am), you can accept his action as necessary without feeling he was a saint to do it. And yes, some will despise him.
Contrary to the opinion of some on this site, the current administration is not made up of idiots. There will not be even a hint of prosecution of Felt. Perhaps a lone congressman might mention it, but the White House won't touch this with a 10,000 foot pole. Besides, the statute of limitations would have run out on most of the possible prosecution options.
Iowa Jim
A couple of facts, from a reality- and UK-based individual :)
1) it's NOT a "memo", they are freaking MINUTES OF A MEETING. The difference is simple: they can be hold quite easily in court as uncontrovertible proof that the involved parties actually expressed the stated opinions. With "memos", the original source can always be easily disputed and they are rarely used in court. With minutes, this is not possible. What is there is 100% true. so please stop calling them a memo.
2) The minutes actually state that the intelligence could NOT find proof that Iraq had ready-to-deploy WMD, or any serious arsenal really. They got rid of all that stuff in previous 10 years following international pressure, and the embargo blocked further attempts.
US people have to realize what the rest of the world already knows: THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ IN 2003. Full stop. The U.S. could have 1000 other reasons to invade, but WMD were not one of them.
And btw, whistleblowers are a pillar of democracy. Democracy is about transparency. Whistleblowers make things transparent when they are not.
And it's funny to see how Nixon has been labeled the Villain. Back in the days, he had lots of supporters; *staunch* supporters. More or less like GWB. I predict that, the day he steps out of power, people will spit on him like they now do with Nixon.
And it's funny to see how Nixon has been labeled the Villain. Back in the days, he had lots of supporters; *staunch* supporters. More or less like GWB. I predict that, the day he steps out of power, people will spit on him like they now do with Nixon.
People spat on him then as well. And many who supported Nixon then still do, except for the crimes he committed.
Comparing Nixon to GW Bush is apples to oranges. Nixon was clearly convicted of a crime. Bush has not been. You can disagree with his politics and actions -- and even say they are criminal -- but he has not been shown to have commited a crime as Nixon was.
Iowa Jim
It's like the CS Lewis quote about why resort to murder when cards will do.
Kind of curious where this quote is from. I am fairly knowledgeable on all things Lewis and I have never seen where he said this.
I say:
For one thing, the memo clearly states that Saddam has WMD and expresses the fear that the American invasion will cause him to unleash them
Johm replies:
"Pardon a member of the reality community for daring to intrude, but where exactly does it say that?"
"Here's a quote for you..."
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
Ok, you actually read the quote, right? You see the part where it says "his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran" right? So right there we see that the memo (sorry, minutes) states that he has WMD. There is also another passage The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD...
As to the second, if you had read the entire thing, this part might have jumped out at you: The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
So, my reality based friend, it would seem that the writers really did believe that there were WMDs and that they might be used against any invading force. Which is what I said. Glad I could help.
US people have to realize what the rest of the world already knows:
Many of us realize it, and have realized it for a long time.
It's the Bush Administration and those that think we still need to catch Saddam bin Laden that are deluded.
It's like the CS Lewis quote about why resort to murder when cards will do.Kind of curious where this quote is from. I am fairly knowledgeable on all things Lewis and I have never seen where he said this.
The Screwtape Letters.
Nixon was clearly convicted of a crime. Bush has not been.
My understanding is that you are wrong on both counts. Nixon left before any impeachment proceedings to establish a presidential indictment had begun, and Ford pardoned Nixon immediately after taking office.
And Bush has a drunk driving convinction. The arrest was reported before election day 2000, and if I remember correctly it was established that he served community service for it.
My understanding is that you are wrong on both counts. Nixon left before any impeachment proceedings to establish a presidential indictment had begun, and Ford pardoned Nixon immediately after taking office.
Yes, I realize I was not as precise as I should have been. He was never convicted because he did the equivalent of saying "guilty" and resigned. There was no question he would have been found guilty if it had gone forward. But your point is true, technically he was never actually convicted.
The fact that Ford pardoned Nixon, though, demonstrates my main point is still true. He would not have pardoned Nixon if there was not the understanding he had actually committed a crime.
And Bush has a drunk driving convinction. The arrest was reported before election day 2000, and if I remember correctly it was established that he served community service for it.
The topic is committing crimes while in office, and especially abusing the power one has in office, not conviction of a crime years before holding office. Your point is irrelevant.
Iowa Jim
Comparing Nixon to GW Bush is apples to oranges. Nixon was clearly convicted of a crime. Bush has not been. You can disagree with his politics and actions -- and even say they are criminal -- but he has not been shown to have commited a crime as Nixon was....
Yes, I realize I was not as precise as I should have been. He was never convicted because he did the equivalent of saying "guilty" and resigned. There was no question he would have been found guilty if it had gone forward. But your point is true, technically he was never actually convicted.The fact that Ford pardoned Nixon, though, demonstrates my main point is still true. He would not have pardoned Nixon if there was not the understanding he had actually committed a crime.
My reply was appropriate for what you posted. You could have been clear and said, "Nixon was guilty" -- but you couldn't. Don't tell me my points are irrelevant because you were sloppy.
Contrary to the opinion of some on this site, the current administration is not made up of idiots.
Except perhaps in that in their hope to establish in the Middle East a pax romana -- a Roman Empire style peace -- by invading an oil-rich Muslim dictatorship, they disregarded the first rule of the Art of War, which in modern times can be summarized as: you must bleed your adversary's resolve.
Clarke's warnings about al-Qaida were ignored by Rice, the FBI thwarts their own agents from legally investigating possible Middle-Eastern terrorists attentding flight schools in Florida and Minnesota.
Then 2 years after al-Qaida agents kill 3000 people -- none of said terrorists being Iraqi -- the US invades said oil-rich Muslim country. Where was the consideration for winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs? At Guantanamo? At Abu Ghraib? After the Abu Ghraib pictures surfaced, the Red Cross was told by the US military 70%-90% of detainees were innocent -- they were innocent bystanders of otherwise fruitless arrests.
On what foundation is there for anyone to believe George Bush or anyone he hired is worthy of any credit for any intellegence whatsoever?
A casual look at what's going on in Iraq would reveal that among Iraqis there is considerably more hatred toward Zarquawi and his band of terrorists (or "minutemen" if you are Michael Moore) than against Americans. Even after Abu Ghraib I'm sure that Bush is more popular than Chirac (Hell, at 24% approval ratings for Jacque I'm not sure that Bush isn't more popular than Chirac in France)
An interesting poll just got released by Al Arabiya news network. It was asking Arabs “What is stalling development in the Arab world?,” 81% chose "Governments are unwilling to implement change and reform", 8% said "The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict," 7% said "Civil society is failing to convince governments", and 4% chose "Terrorism".
When asked "What is the fastest way to achieve development in the Arab world?", 67% choose "Ensuring the rule of law through justice and law enforcement", 23% chose "Enhancing freedom of speech", and 10% chose "Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict".
Interesting, if true, it would seem the Arab Street is not quite the hotbed of anti-semitic american hating loons that we hear about.
For me this guy, however pure or impure his motives might've been, is a hero. He took down a president who took an oath to uphold our laws then commited a felony while doing so. Any President who does that, whether it's Nixon or Clinton, is nobody to look up to.
But here's some food for thought. This guy might have very well brought around the renassiance of the Republican party. Ronald Reagan had had several unsuccessful bids for the presidency when Watergate happened. Then when Nixon resigned, Ford basically got tarred with Nixon's brush and lost to Carter. Then the American public wised up and realized that one term of Carter was one term too many, and voted in Reagan in 1980. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Come on, tell me W. Bush would be the president today if his father was never president. And tell me H.W. Bush would've ever been president if he had never been Reagan's vice-president.
Mike,
"On what foundation is there for anyone to believe George Bush or anyone he hired is worthy of any credit for any intellegence whatsoever."
Well, for one thing, I'm confident Condi and the others in the administration know how to spell intelligence, and attending.Unlike yourself, apparently.
"the FBI thwarts their own agents from legally investigating possible Middle-Eastern terrorists attending flight schools in Florida and Minnesota."
If so, it's because they would be accused of - gasp - racial profiling, and the media would blow it all out of proportion, like they've been dying to do - witness Abu Ghraib. Then people such as yourself and the others here with PC/Everything Bush Does Is Wrong lenses on would be telling the story of a "poor Arab immigrant whose only dream was to fly a plane. He was mistakenly investigated. His mom, with tears in her eyes, said the arrest has made her feel like an outsider and she doesn't know if she or he will ever recover from it because he's so devastated and angry. She is hoping by spending more time practicing Islam, the Religion of Peace, he will recover the government's unjust action. "
"They disregarded the first rule of the Art of War, which in modern times can be summarized as:
you must bleed your adversary's resolve."
True, which is why the attempt by the media to weaken this nation's resolve by spending a damn month on Abu Ghraib, by making it seem like we put those people through the Bataan Death March, by falsely reporting the "Koran abuse" story - which only killed more people in one day than 95% of the day of the war itself, but oops!, at least Newsweek didn't make detainees form a human pyramid!
By doing all this, the media has sought to weaken the resolve of 1.)our troops 2.)our people and 3.)our President. They have not succeeded in the first, have regrettably succeeded to an extent with the second, but not at all with the third - which is a huge reason they have not completely succeeded with the first two. Because of George W. Bush's unwavering resolve and leadership.
"Where was the consideration for winning the hearts and minds of Arabs? At Guantanomo? At Abu Ghraib?"
No, in the soldiers who interact every day with the Iraqi people, keeping streets safe and building schools and numerous other things you either don't or won't hear about because of the obsession with making this war - and by association, those soldiers carrying it out and doing these things - look like it is a failure, and so are they.
Oliver North has a segment that runs virtually every day called "War Stories", where he spotlights individual stories and what they are doing. It's actually positive! So why, in the midst of all these other stories - led by an incident that is still a year old, which is a really weird definition of "news", but I digress - can't CBS, NBC, or ABC do something similar?
Shouldn't positive stories run in equal proportion to the negative ones? Yes. So why don't the networks even try for "balance"? Because they have an agenda, that's why.
A casual look at what's going on in Iraq would reveal that among Iraqis there is considerably more hatred toward Zarquawi and his band of terrorists...
That's kinda like saying a casual look at Vietnam in 1975 would reveal the South Vietnamese hated the North Vietnamese more than the US Troops kicking them off of helicopters as they were leaving.
Casualties in Iraq were up in January and May. The coalition needs leadership who can blunt insurgent resolve -- not feed it.
...tell me H.W. Bush would've ever been president if he had never been Reagan's vice-president.
He was in the 1980 primaries and when Reagan took the lead, he had enough party clout to pressure Reagan into making him his running mate. What was Reagan to Bush if not his biggest obstacle to the White House?
Well, for one thing, I'm confident Condi and the others in the administration know how to spell intelligence, and attending.Unlike yourself, apparently.
So are you saying my typo makes me a dissembler, or a dissassembler?
If so, it's because they would be accused of - gasp - racial profiling, and the media would blow it all out of proportion, like they've been dying to do - witness Abu Ghraib. Then people such as yourself and the others here with PC/Everything Bush Does Is Wrong lenses on would be telling the story of a "poor Arab immigrant whose only dream was to fly a plane. He was mistakenly investigated. His mom, with tears in her eyes, said the arrest has made her feel like an outsider and she doesn't know if she or he will ever recover from it because he's so devastated and angry. She is hoping by spending more time practicing Islam, the Religion of Peace, he will recover the government's unjust action. "
gwb's professional history has been to sponge off of Saudi investment for all the businesses he wasn't able to make profit on. His father's work history after Clinton beat him -- in spite of winning the first gulf war -- was to take money from the bin Laden family through the Carlyle group, even after 9-11.
Saying concern over racial profiling thwarted the FBI in the flight school investigations is so patently absurd, it just looks like a way for you to question if there's even such a thing a racism. I don't like you.
Like political correctness stopped Florida secretary of state and Florida Bush 2000 campaign manager, Katherine Harris, from flushing the entire votes collected from black counties in Florida 2000?
True, which is why the attempt by the media to weaken this nation's resolve by spending a damn month on Abu Ghraib
Yeah, everyone already has enough good reason to not like you.
That's kinda like saying a casual look at Vietnam in 1975 would reveal the South Vietnamese hated the North Vietnamese more than the US Troops kicking them off of helicopters as they were leaving.
Hardly comparable situations--the North Vietnamese had an actual army capable of mounting a real offense, as opposed to Al Quaeda's ability to bomb mosques during funerals.
Casualties in Iraq were up in January and May. The coalition needs leadership who can blunt insurgent resolve -- not feed it.
Did something happens during February, march and April? At any rate, I'm not sure that one can measure the power of an insurgency simply by the number of death's they cause. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in one day but it didn't bring his vision of America any closer to fruition. The fact that the terrorists have turned from taking on the American forces to simply killing civilians tells you exactly how much support they know they have.
It will be very difficult to end the violence there, given the sheer amount of firepower available but there is little reason to fear, as some once did, that the terrorists can possibly take control of the country--their support is minimal and shrinks with every atrocity.
gwb's professional history has been to sponge off of Saudi investment for all the businesses he wasn't able to make profit on.
I'm sorry, that's another typo. Bush made plenty violating SEC regulations.
At any rate, I'm not sure that one can measure the power of an insurgency simply by the number of death's they cause. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in one day but...
So I'm not the only one who remembers the good old days where those who performed major acts of terrorism on US soil were, like, caught and found guilty? Well that's nice.
Ok, y'all are too slow to make your replies between my posts, so I'm going to assume I've made my points and beg off here. Thanks.
Mike, not everyone here lives on the Net. Some of us have jobs, and lives, and families to care for...
As for the "good old days" you reference, the terrorists who performed the acts of 9/11 died. Since we could not go after the actual actors (no ectoplasmic cops of which I'm aware, anyway), we went after their originators - al-Qaeda, and its supporters in the "government" of Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, the quasi-government that had sponsored the terrorists was smashed, the organization itself shattered and driven into hiding.
This mess in Iraq is only peripherally connected - had it not been for the events of 9/11, Bush and his advisors could never have frightened Americans into supporting his invasion of a relatively-innocent bystander...
I believe a gentleman named Joseph Campbell can give you that answer. Have fun.
Hmmm, weird...they do not...nor do they mention the billions of dollars that could have been saved if the head of the snake, Osama Bin Laden, had been cut off in the mid-to-late 90s. Gee. Imagine that.
As for the "good old days" you reference, the terrorists who performed the acts of 9/ 11 died. Since we could not go after the actual actors (no ectoplasmic cops of which I'm aware, anyway), we went after their originators - al-Qaeda, and its supporters in the "government" of Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, the quasi-government that had sponsored the terrorists was smashed, the organization itself shattered and driven into hiding.
I don't consider bin Laden not sacrificing himself enough of a reason to retreat from comparing of him to McVeigh. I'm not that much of a connoisseur of mass murderers.
CJR writes of An invasion which, by all accounts, started more than 6 months before Bush even received permission from Congress. Bush should be tried for war crimes.
We had troops in Iraq in 2002? And that's in ALL accounts? Wow, where have I been?
With regard to your last statement, I keep hearing and reading these comments about Bush being tried for war crimes. Which war crimes? Setting aside the fact that I would never agree to that suggestion, simply because I am opposed to surrendering US nationals to international courts for any occasion whatsoever, is there a war crime you can truly charge? I'm not being sarcastic; I'd genuinely like to know what the allegation is.
With regard to whether Americans realize there were no WMDs, I agree that most of us do, but disagree with your followup statement that, It's the Bush Administration and those that think we still need to catch Saddam bin Laden that are deluded.
1) I'd like to see Osama bin Laden caught and put on trial for his life. I'm not deluded. I am fully aware that after an intensive search, no evidence of an Iraqi WMD program has been found, which strongly suggests that there were none to begin with. WMDs were the primary justification for the invasion, and two years later we have no reason to believe that fear was justified. I know that, I knew it in November of 2004, and I voted for Bush anyway. I note that I voted for him in a campaign during which Bush was criticized for an interview in which he implied that capturing bin Laden was no longer an important priority-- have you gone over to Bush's way of thinking, Craig? Or was "Saddam bin Laden" meant to be some form of joke?
2) I think the Bush administration knows that and long ago gave up arguing that WMDs were present in Iraq. It was a fairly massive blunder, but it doesn't seem to have cost anyone their jobs, so they've moved on.
...nor do they mention the billions of dollars that could have been saved if the head of the snake, Osama Bin Laden, had been cut off in the mid-to-late 90s.
Yeah, your precious also doesn't mention Cheney taking money from Hussein through Halliburton -- during the time Hussein was publicly promising $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. So what's your point?
"True, which is why the attempt by the media to weaken this nation's resolve by spending a damn month on Abu Ghraib, by making it seem like we put those people through the Bataan Death March, by falsely reporting the "Koran abuse" story - which only killed more people in one day than 95% of the day of the war itself, but oops!, at least Newsweek didn't make detainees form a human pyramid!"
You know..... It still amazes me what the GWB Admin can get people to swallow and spew back up. Here are a few facts that they seemed to have missed.
1) Marches that have turned to riots and costing lives were going on well before that story ever broke.
2) The riots that were "caused" by Newsweek were planned before the story came out.
3) The prime reasons for the riots, as stated by the people who organized them and were in them, were the U.S. army doing house by house searches that including busting into random homes and *men* entering into and searching women's quarters (a huge no-no to the locals), the news reports over there of U.S. plans for bases to be built in both Iraq and Afganastan and Al Jazeera's stories of prison abuses. The Newsweek story came late into the planning and reasoning and actually only had a small role to play.
4) Newsweek backed down from their story as written because their source started to waffle on how firm his/her story was. But the fact of the matter is, despite the statements of Faux... er Fox News, Rush, the GWBA and other idiots, that the story wasn't really just about a single source story. The flushing part was put in question but the story was sent to the Pentegon and cleared by their people before it went to print. The Pentegon said that they found no problem with the story, the statements in it or the facts it presented. Plus, the story itself is well in line with reports from ex-prisoners, The Red Cross, Amnesty International and U.S. Army reports and trials from the last year and a half to two years.
5) Al Jazeera has been reporting this kind of thing and worse with some wildly nasty pictures to go with the stories for well over a year now. Somehow, I think that that area's #1 news source may have a bit more sway with the locals then an American magazine that got mentioned on Al Jazeera along with the normal nights "we hate America" stuff. Yes, there are photos of rioters holding up Newsweek but they were by far in the minority of protesters from before the big blow up by Rummy.
6) Didn't you find it just a tad strange that a two week old story got no mention at all until the Downing Street Memo started to get some play here in the U.S.? You know about that one? The one that had minutes from the PM's intel chat with a rep who came over here, met with the GWBA and was assured, in early 2002, that we were going to war with Iraq no matter what and that the intel would be made to fit the need for invasion by the time we were ready to start. You know.... Cherry picking and edits on intel to make up a reason for war and all. As soon as that story finally started getting coverage over here we get Rummy coming out and playing "look over here, not behind the curtain." And everybody looked away like good little sheeple.
See, I don't know what's worse. That a mag that had a lot to defend its reporting (or at least itself) with just folded like a kicked puppy or that so many Americans are just willing to drink the coolaid that the GWBA hands out without question. Good little sheeple one and all.
"Hmmm, weird...they do not...nor do they mention the billions of dollars that could have been saved if the head of the snake, Osama Bin Laden, had been cut off in the mid-to-late 90s. Gee. Imagine that."
Or how about if he and others in his little band of terror worshippers hadn't been trained by us in the late 80's. Or how much we would have saved if we hadn't propped up Saddam as our boy in the Middle East mess back in the 80's and given him so many toys that could make WMDs. Or if we had listened to warnings and not built bases in Saudi Arabia on holy sites. That was a prime source of anger to Bin Laden and his followers and, after 9-11, something that the GWBA quietly closed. Or how about, insteed of the never ending summer vacation of the fisrt year and a half of Bush's first term, he and others had paid a wee bit more attention to that intel paper with, as Condi put it in the hearings, a vague name that "went something like "Bin Laden Plans Major Attack in U.S." Or what if we hadn't sold arms to Iran and propped them up i the 80's so that they could be as strong as they are now to be on "the Axis of Evil" and on Bush'd future hit parade. or.... and so on.
You wanna play what ifs? Goes both ways real hard.
It's like the CS Lewis quote about why resort to murder when cards will do.
The Screwtape Letters.
Okay, then it is more accurate to say the quote from CS Lewis' book, the Screwtape Letters. The book entirely contains what Lewis perceives a devil would be thinking, not what Lewis is thinking. To attribute it as a quote from Lewis is misleading, when it is a quote of what Lewis thinks of as a devilish thought.
"Johm replies:
"Pardon a member of the reality community for daring to intrude, but where exactly does it say that?"
"Here's a quote for you..."
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
Ok, you actually read the quote, right? You see the part where it says "his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran" right? So right there we see that the memo (sorry, minutes) states that he has WMD. There is also another passage The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD..."
WMD capability is not the same as having them. The fun of word games in the halls of power. Bush and crew did the same thing here. WMDs and the search for them morphed into a success, by their spin on it, at finding WMD production capability and potential WMD capability factors. We didn't find WMDs by god but we stopped him from making them in an instant. Or maybe, sorta, kinda not making them that, well, soon. I have the capability to build enough pipe bombs to wipe out a square city block. Most the stuff is just household stuff or junk in the tol shed. But I don't have the pipebombs and won't build them. And the same stuff that gives me the WMD capability of pipe bombs also lets me make legal, non boom boom things. A lot of what was listed as "WMD capability" on Iraq's part when we wanted to go in there in turned out to be just what Saddam, Brit Intel, a number of our spooks and others said that they were..... Nothing but legal items that served other needs. And most of that stuff that Powell had to humiliate himself with at the U.N. brief turned out to be bogus as hell.
Oh, and wasn't it Newsweek that printed the story with experts right after that that explained what all that stuff really was? And didn't the GWBA blast them back then? And who turned out to be right that time?
Ken, it's literally a quote from CS Lewis. There's no room for interpretation. He wrote the Screwtape Letters. I honestly don't know what problem you have with attributing Lewis to a quote that seems to be true no matter who says it.
Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick.
--C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Chapter XII
The problem is that the way it was presented, out of context, one would assume that Lewis feels it to be a truism. He did not. He felt that it was something the devil would say.
We had troops in Iraq in 2002? And that's in ALL accounts? Wow, where have I been?
We were bombing Iraq extensively in 2002, according to some of the recent reports that have come out. Bombing that was specifically designed, not to protect the no-fly zones, but to damage Saddam's military capabilities for the impending invasion by US forces.
Bush doesn't know the meaning of the word 'diplomacy' any more than he knows how to spell it.
WMDs were the primary justification for the invasion, and two years later we have no reason to believe that fear was justified.
Thus, one of the primary reasons for Bush to be tried for war crimes: giving false evidence after false evidence to excuse a war we should never have fought, a war that has lead to the deaths of more than 1600 Americans and countless Iraqi civilians.
I'd also cut out the tongue of the bastard in the Bush Administration who said the Iraqis were nothing more than "collateral". I believe this was Rumsfeld.
I am fully aware that after an intensive search, no evidence of an Iraqi WMD program has been found, which strongly suggests that there were none to begin with.
Thank you. Now if you can get the rest of the deluded ones to recognize this, we may actually get this country moving in the right direction.
Or was "Saddam bin Laden" meant to be some form of joke?
It's a comment on the stupidity of the American public at large. People have conveniently ignored the fact that Bush said bin Laden was "no longer a concern".
Damn, I bet every mass murderer wishes they had Bush on their side - orchestrate the murder of 3000, and then find out you're no longer worth attention when you're supposed to be World Enemy #1.
Or, people think we have caught both Hussein and bin Laden.
Or, worse still, they still think Hussein was behind 9/11, as Bush insinuated repeated in the months between 9/11 and our ignoring the world at large by going back to Iraq.
We sent something like 130k troops to Iraq.
How many did we send to Afghanistan? Less than 15k iirc. Man, that's such an effort to find bin Laden, isn't it?
The problem is that the way it was presented, out of context, one would assume that Lewis feels it to be a truism.
I used the quote in context of how the pretense of a free society sheltering the dominance of a fixed game. I'm personally gonna go out on a limb here and assume Lewis would not have approved of inciting prejudice to win S Carolina in 2000 by spreading rumors through telephone polls McCain fathered a black child. Try not to throw yourself out of a window or anything.
Ken,
In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis describes demonic strategy. He believes this is true. He does believe it a truism (it IS a truism).
Big fan of C.S. Lewis. :)
The truism is that it is what the devil would do.
Not that Lewis would approve of this strategy, which is how it was presented.
Then the Rove-attack machine spread rumors that McCain had fathered a black child after he won New Hampshire and his campaign never recovered.It's like the CS Lewis quote about why resort to murder when cards will do. It's the pretense of a free society sheltering the dominance of a fixed game.
The truism is that it is what the devil would do.Not that Lewis would approve of this strategy, which is how it was presented.
Ken, what are you talking about? Does CS Lewis approve of the crack you're smoking?
Ken,
I don't why you are choosing to be so ignorantly dense but:
CS Lewis Wrote It.
Therefore, it is attribuatable to him.
Anyone bothering to add where he wrote it is just pouting gravy on it to add more info for people who want to find out more about it.
Why are you such an ass, and do you know that for a fact the CS Lewis wouldn't approve?
You should stop making political comments and just say BUSH SUCKS over and over, because that really the ONLY political comment you ever make anyway. You are so stuck in the 70s! You think all Republicans are Nixon, and view yourself as a courageous anti-establishment maverick. Sorry to inform you, but you are totally "establishment" yourself, and you write for COMICS, not The Washington Post. Pop the head!
You should stop making political comments and just say BUSH SUCKS over and over
If you insist...
BUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKS
BUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKS
BUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKSBUSH SUCKS
Man, this is fun!
You think all Republicans are Nixon
Not all. But Bush? Worse than Nixon.
I wonder what would happen if we x-rayed your head. Probably wouldn't find very much.
" But Bush? Worse than Nixon."
I'm not so sure about that, Craig. Nixon was clever, often witty, intelligent enough to overcome his lack of charisma, and unwilling to let anyone else tell him what to do or when to do it.
Dubya? Not so much.
...and you write for COMICS, not The Washington Post.
Few works of drama balance epic and intimate elements as well as Maus, which weaves identifiable agendas to a subject matter so severe it defies conventional dramatization. There are dozens of successful war movies with John Wayne, Lee Marvin, Steve McQueen, etc, yet there's only one Schindler's List.
Your criticism of comics doesn't represent the market demand, nor the capability of the medium, but the limitations imposed by the industry. This is the point that must be driven home for the medium to move beyond its infantile repressions.
You wrote "BUSH SUCKS" over and over again. Wow, that is SO funny! If one is in the fifth grade, that is. On a more serious note -- please list for us the Republicans you think are "not Nixon." I'm sure the list is very long, or at least long enough to include every RINO there is! Oh, and don't forget to work BUSH SUCKS into it somehow. That's your "trademark"!
"Bush sucks" is, at this point, a bit like saying that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's nobody's trademark. It's just a fact of life we have to live with these days. Or "daze" for all the Bush coolaid drinkers I guess.
Here's what's REALLY like the sun rising: People like you saying BUSH SUCKS no matter what the man does. It's easier! Requires no actual thinking, or knowledge of history or politics. Makes you part of the "IN" crowd! Groovy! (But stupid.)
Usually, I refrain from feeding the trolls, but...
X-RAY SUCKS X-RAY SUCKS X-RAY SUCKS X-RAY SUCKS X-RAY SUCKS
Hey, Craig, you're right! This is fun!
Thanks for showing how much more intelligent you are than Bush, who, unlike you, sucks. Bush sucks! Say it over and over. Why? Well, because it beats thinking, of course!
No, saying Bush sucks actually does require "actual thinking, or knowledge of history or politics."
Let's see...
Look at Bush's admin. Most of his higher ups, including the VP himself, were/are part of a neo-con think tank known as The Project for the New American Century. They have a web site. Check 'em out. There own writings, dating back as far as 1996 on the subject of Iraq, show proof of more then a little preplanning of what's been going on now.
Iraq is mentioned as a target of regime change even if Saddam was no longer in power by the time they had the people in place to do it. Iraq needed to be taken over and handed to a gov't that would be U.S. friendly. They even stated in one of their prop pieces there were no good reasons, at the time of that writing, to go in to Iraq but that any opportunity should be taken advantage of to find a reason or excuse to create a public rational to go in. 9/11 was a gift for them. It gave them the chance to play with fear rather then facts and create support for a fools undertaking. They were so public about wanting to take out Iraq that they sent a letter to Clinton demanding we do so back in 97. And with each passing day we get new, solid information that shows more and more that Bush and crew wanted in to Iraq and planned to go in before the first public debate and played fast and loose with the facts.
Remember the Department of Misinformation mishap? That was the secret Department that Bush and crew were planning to use to lie to the U.S. peoples and our allies as well as "the bad guys." It just blew over back then but the timing of that garbage falls nicely into the new timeline created by the Downing Street minutes and other revelations of late. Oh, but I forgot that the GWBA said that they weren't going to do that. They were just planning it for, well, kicks and giggles.
How about the "with us or against us" speach making by Bush? Out of their playbook as well. Their vision, again, as they themselves wrote, is for "Pax Americana." They stated, in writing, that America should be the only superpower, no others should be allowed to try and have say in affairs of the world (our allies included)and any action we take should be rubber stamped by other countries and forced down the throat of anyone who won't go along with it. The U.N. was something we should control or leave. We should call all the shots and everyone else needs to shut up, get out of the way and do what we say.
How about wearing God on his sleeve? Lot's of faith talk by him and the G.O.P. But the faith talk of late has been the "us against them" kind. Want to talk about history of/and politics? Read Hitler's speaches and writings. Despite the popular spin by the neocons that Hitler (amongst others) threw God and Christian references out of public discourse, quite the opposite is true. Hitler used the same kind of us against them preaching, using God, the Bible and Christianity, that Bush and the G.O.P. has been throwing about a lot lately to create wedges and divides in the country. The garbage from the last month plus about Dems hating/voting against "people of faith" or being against "the Christian values that made this country" is straight out of the Hitler & ilk playbook. And before you do the knee jerk thing and burble on about mindless Bush haters comparing him to Hitler.... Go read the damned stuff.
How about the sending of the attacks dogs like good old Rummy to blow smoke about the Koran flap just as the Downing Memo was breaking. And now there are lots of reports coming out that support the story that they attacked. But they did their job. They played the "Lib Media" card, the "Twisted Bush Haters" card and the "Libs/Press costing U.S. lives" card all in one little photo op. Nice wedge making. and now it looks, as of 11:24 EST, that there are lots of things going on that they knew about that support the thrust of the Newsweek story that they attacked and accused of costing lives. But, hey, why start telling the truth now? Oh, and as far as the truth and Bush supporters memory goes, I love how they said that the Newsweek story cost lives and created riots and then, within one week, as the new information about abuses came to light, they denied that that is what they actually said/meant.
And, lastly, one more thing about Bush telling lies. About a year and a half or so ago Bush made a rare appearance on the Sunday morning network chat shows. He was presented with a question about the increased spending by the Fed Gov. It was pointed out that even conservatives, not just Lib Bush haters, had been critical about the increase in spending and how it had ballooned (even once you subtracted increased military spending caused by the war.) Bush stuck that folksy grin he always uses on his face, used that tone of voice he likes to use when doing his "it's just common sense" thing and looked straight into the camera and said, " that's just not true." Thing is, it was true. He lied to the American people about something that anybody could look up on their own in a manner of moments. He, as he and the admin under him often do, counted on his loyal base to be too stupid or too lazy to look it up and see that he was in fact telling a lie. God, it was funny as hell the next day to hear Rush and his many clones in radio as well as Fox News stammer their way through the day, as many of them were the critics of the spending, trying to not use the word "lie" or any variation of it to defend what had been said on Sunday.
See, funny as I found it I also found it scary as hell. Bush told a lie with the exact same demeanor that he says everything else with. He also thought that the American people were so stupid that he could lie about something that was public record and could have been looked up with no effort at all. So, the question I came upon that day, how are we supposed to trust anything the man says about the big things that we can't look up we he lies about even the little things we can?
Bush lies. Bush sucks.
Maybe if we keep this up, X-Ray will go 'nukular' on us.
As for Republicans, I once respected Colin Powell, but then he went to work for that Bush guy, who, as we all know, sucks ass.
I still give thumbs up to McCain as well.
With the relentless Lennie-like personal agenda juxtaposed with the demand for thinking on the part of everyone else, I'm wondering if our friend Jeffrey Trawlennie has returned.
But "X-Ray" is right, "Bush sucks" isn't telling -- which is why he introduced it in the first place.
I personally think it's enough to say the Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US memo = a monthlong vacation after his first 7 months in office. It speaks of how little he thinks of any American, especially soldiers.
Well, at least we got beyond mindlessly saying BUSH SUCKS over and over. One question: Rather than just saying BUSH SUCKS over and over, is it not better to give actual REASONS for your views? I urge you all to try it. Only one person has, so far.
(Sorry, saying you liked Powell only before he went to the "dark side" is bogus, and shows NO knowledge of politics, history, or anything other than occasional TV watching -- if that.)
You said, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US memo = a monthlong vacation after his first 7 months in office."
It's long been a secret Democratic wish-dream that America would be attacked again, so it can gleefully be blamed on Bush.
The truth: Despite the horrors of the Bush "memo vacation," we have NOT been attacked again! Fault Bush for whatever you want, but that is a cold, hard FACT.
"But "X-Ray" is right, "Bush sucks" isn't telling -- which is why he introduced it in the first place."
Nooo, he introduced it because he's a troll, and a pathetically obvious one at that.
You spend your time as you see fit, of course, but personally, I don't see why you would waste even a minute with someone that transparent.
PAD
Oh, come on.
X-Ray, X-Ray, X-Ray.
You demand facts and thinking on the part of everyone else and the best you can do is regurgitate the lowest form of babbling idiocy of the weakest (or most insane) voices of the right.
1)"The truth: Despite the horrors of the Bush "memo vacation," we have NOT been attacked again!"
Sorry, no. The nonhappening of an event is not a fact or support for one. You buy a car alarm and your car is not broken in to. Was it the car alarm or chance? You get mugged and buy a gun. You don't get mugged again. Was it the gun or fate? Your house gets robbed and you buy a pitbull. You don't get robbed again. Dog or chance? You, like so many other people, do all the above and still get burgled, mugged and robbed. You, like so many people, do none of the above and never have one bad thing happen to you. So what does it mean? It means fate is as nasty or as nice as it wants to be. We never had an attack on U.S. soil like 9/11 under Clinton. Does that mean, under your logic, that being attacked on 9/11, one year and eight months after Bush took office, that Clinton was a better protector of the U.S. then Bush? It's a fact of history that no such attacks took place in the 90's after all. No. it just means that 9/11 hadn't happened yet.
Tell me, if an attack on the level of 9/11 happened tomorrow:
A) Would you change your tune and blame the poor performance of Bush?
or
B) Would you blame the determination of the attackers. After all, as everyone has said, they only need to get through once while we have to stop them everytime. The odds are in their favor.
I would blame the attackers.
2) "It's long been a secret Democratic wish-dream that America would be attacked again...."
Yeah, right. I'm a cop. I want to see people die sooooo bad. Don't all of us thugs in badges want that? I want to see my brothers die. I want to see friends and coworkers die. I want to see the families left hurt and alone all so I can add one more line to why Bush sucks. My wife is from the Tri-State area originally. She knew people, had close friends, who died in the Towers. She still won't/can't look at a picture or footage from that day. You just know that's what she wants to see with all her heart. Maybe they can wipe out a few more of her friends next time. Hell, she looks so good in black and can always use it as an excuse to dress up. It'll just make her so happy, won't it?
For you to make such a statement only shows that you are one of the most vile, foolish and lowest forms of American out there. You are a fine student and coolaid drinker of the new right. Only, why stop at claiming that anyone who won't agree with Bush and worship him on fallen knee hates America and wants to see Americans die so we can be happy? Why not tell us, and my little Christian self, how much we hate people of faith, the good Christian values of the Right and the foundations of this country? Go ahead and crack open your copy of Treason and explain to us how we all hate all religions except those embraced by the vile terrorist and we want so bad to see this country fall. Then go grow up and gain a more then a single digit IQ.
"I don't see why you would waste even a minute with someone that transparent."
X-ray. Transparent.
Hey, PAD, you made a funny! :-)
Rather than just saying BUSH SUCKS over and over, is it not better to give actual REASONS for your views? I urge you all to try it. Only one person has, so far.
Maybe you should go back and read past threads (I know, that requires effort on your part).
(Sorry, saying you liked Powell only before he went to the "dark side" is bogus, and shows NO knowledge of politics, history, or anything other than occasional TV watching -- if that.)
Which just goes to show, I can provide all the reasons I want why Bush sucks, but unless you're willing to listen/read (which you're not), it doesn't matter.
It's long been a secret Democratic wish-dream that America would be attacked again, so it can gleefully be blamed on Bush.
It's a badly held Republican secret that Bush wanted to attack Iraq, regardless.
There's nothing quite like having the blood of more than 1600 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians on your hands, is there?
Don’t know if anyone saw an interesting Associated Press article this weekend. It mentioned two friends attending law school in San Francisco. One named Nixon; the other, Jones. Nixon, who’d never previously discussed his family tree with his friend (for whatever reason), is the grandnephew of president Nixon; Jones, is the grandson of Mark Felt. According to the article, they were both a bit bemused by the revelation.
Perhaps someone else will have a better time finding a link on the Associate Press website, but it was in the papers this weekend, so you might olso be able a print copy of the piece lying around in your local paper(s).
Rick
You spend your time as you see fit, of course, but personally, I don't see why you would waste even a minute with someone that transparent.
I Used To Be a Neocon explained by one of the converted (link via kottke).
We waste our time because 60,000 voters in Ohio didn't hear any counter to how talking ill of the president is unAmerican, and some of us live closer to the consequences of these mistaken voters than others.
"We waste our time because 60,000 voters in Ohio didn't hear any counter to how talking ill of the president is unAmerican, and some of us live closer to the consequences of these mistaken voters than others."
Fair enough.
PAD
I have no opinion regardingt the Whitewater crimes or the investigation of it or the outing of it.
I do believe that there's a large probability that Felt just did it to stick something up Nixon's arse.
(I like Nixon, but that is irrelevent). I don't see how Felt could be an American traitor, but I think there can be a reasonable debate on whether he's an American hero or a dick.
I vote that he was a dick.
Seriously, when revealing information is done to screw the President or do the right thing, and you choose to screw the President... he's a dick.
and my liking Nixon had nothing to do with my suspicion that Felt was just being a dick.
You people crack me up! It's amazing the amount of time you take to try and turn the fact that we have NOT been attacked again into a negative. Forgive me, but I think not having another 9/11 is a positive. Crazy me.
It's equally amazing how much you despise Bush! Honestly, have your lives turned to such utter hell under him? Do you honestly expect your fortunes to dramatically improve once he is out of office?
The reality is that we make our own reality. With our thoughts, we make the world. If you choose to make hating Bush the focus of your political life, so be it.
But what a waste.
"You people crack me up! It's amazing the amount of time you take to try and turn the fact that we have NOT been attacked again into a negative. Forgive me, but I think not having another 9/11 is a positive. Crazy me."
No. Nobody is claiming it's a negative. Yes, it is positive. The thing being disputed is the statement that no major attack since 9/11 is because of Bush and what he's done.
"It's equally amazing how much you despise Bush! Honestly, have your lives turned to such utter hell under him? Do you honestly expect your fortunes to dramatically improve once he is out of office?"
It's not our lives that have gone downhill. It's our country. What Bush has done and what he has made America represent saddens many. And the thing is, it didn't have to be that way. After 9/11 we went after the people who did it. After that, because of some half baked idea some think tank hatched, we went after a country that had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 while fixing facts, using fear against Americans to get support and showing that the leaders in power now care nothing for truth, justice or the American way (to steal a phrase.) Bush and his crew will go down in history as a stain on the office he holds and to the image of this country.
Ridiculous! You're oh-so-worried about "someone," living "somewhere," but you lack specifics, as liberals always do.
Please tell me one SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse under Bush, as a result of something BUSH did.
The truth: Despite the horrors of the Bush "memo vacation," we have NOT been attacked again! Fault Bush for whatever you want, but that is a cold, hard FACT.
This is patently wrong. 9-11 took place within the week Bush returned from his monthlong memo vacation.
X-Ray, Jeffrey, whatever, if you weren't so casual with soldiers lives, you wouldn't reserve the right to misrepresent the truth like this.
You said, "9-11 took place within the week Bush returned from his monthlong memo vacation."
So what? I said we have not been attacked SINCE THEN, that's all. Stop trying to make it into something else.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11.
Whatever the reason may be, the fact remains true!
Ridiculous! You're oh-so-worried about "someone," living "somewhere," but you lack specifics, as liberals always do.
And thus, more proof toward my comment that actually putting forth a viable opinion means nothing to this troll.
And thus, you can't tell me one SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse under Bush, as a result of something BUSH did, so you resort to insult. Typical liberal.
Actually, we did tell you how it made our lives worse. It's because we care about our country. We care about what the people who are in the highest offices do to/with our country as a whole and to the heart of its values. We care about what people do to the image and soul of our country. I guess that concept is beyond you. From your comments above demanding that it must be in some we directly impacting our day to day lives or $$$ rather then the country as a whole I can understand why. You are the perfect example of the modern neo-con. You're too greedy and "me" focused to see something like that. So long as you think you're getting what you want you could care less about anything or anyone else. Including the country it seems. I got mine and screw everyone else.
Sorry, but some of us kept growing after the second grade and learned that being a good American sometimes means putting the greater good above your own greed or wants. Too bad you didn't seem to do so as well.
And thus, you can't tell me one SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse under Bush, as a result of something BUSH did, so you resort to insult. Typical liberal.
Bush hired people who thwarted Richard Clarke and numerous FBI agents from aggressively investigating al-Qaida. This is how the 9-11 attacks were permitted to happen.
After 9-11 he refused to hold any of these people responsible. Sweet Baby Jeesus, his father continues to take money from the bin Laden family through the Carlyle group.
Yes, the suffering of the 9-11 suvivors and the current military are Bush's fault.
I asked for a SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse under Bush, as a result of something BUSH did.
Are you a suffering 9/11 survivor?
I didn't think so.
Try again.
(I notice that NOT ONE poster here has managed to come up with an answer to this question! Not even the liar Peter David!)
Are you a suffering 9/11 survivor?
In as much as I'm not a sociopath indifferent to the murder of thousands, yes. If you didn't have a taste for human blood, you wouldn't place your stakes on so sterile a question.
Try again.
Try: I was unable to find a job and remained unemployed for 6 months after 9/11 specifically because of 9/11, because the economy tanked.
Because the ignorance and stupidity of that fucker known as George "I'm going to Hell" Walker Bush did jack shit to keep 9/11 from happening.
But hey, I guess going six months without a pay check isn't good enough for you. I mean, hell, I didn't have a building drop on my head or anything on 9/11 and all, ya know?
"Because the ignorance and stupidity of that fucker known as George "I'm going to Hell" Walker Bush did jack shit to keep 9/11 from happening."
Wow, so you KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, then? Why didn't you tell anyone? And anyway, didn't Bush CAUSE the 9/11 attacks? Even if he didn't, they were justified because ... BUSH SUCKS!
He is definately responsible for all your personal problems! Just tough it out for 4 years. When he leaves office, your life will instantly transform into perfection.
Wow, so you KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, then?
Maybe Bush wouldn't have worked from a position of ignorance if he'd read that memo a month earlier that bin Laden planned to attack the US.
But, bin Laden just isn't that important, is he? I mean, it was he and not Hussein that planned the murder of 3000 people within US borders, but we must have our priorities.
The good news is, X-Ray, I'm sure there's a seat in hell reserved for you, right next to the Bushes.
What's the problem? I said Bush knew! Why are you not argeeing with me? BUSH SUCKS!
Funny how this thread died the minute I asked for specifics, isn't it?
Yes! I said, "Funny how this thread died the minute I asked for specifics, isn't it?"
Is your hearing aid not working?
Is your hearing aid not working?
Guess not. Let me just plug them into my eye sockets...
OK. I'll wait. But hurry.
I don't have all day.
On second thought .. yes I do!
Sadly, I believe that.
THe question is, why do you think that's a positive theng?
"OK. I'll wait. But hurry.
I don't have all day.
On second thought .. yes I do!"
Maybe we'll all get lucky here. Maybe his mom will finally kick him out of the basement, stop letting him leech off of her and force him to get a job. Then he won't have the time to be such a pest anymore. Hell, he might even get some friends and become less of a twit then he is now.
Oh, if only we were that lucky.
Here's an idea: why don't you hold your breath while you're waiting?
"Maybe his mom will finally kick him out of the basement."
Sorry, but I own my own home.
Try again!
"Here's an idea: why don't you hold your breath while you're waiting?"
-----
Only if you promise to update your 5th grade jokebook.
"Maybe his mom will finally kick him out of the basement."Sorry, but I own my own home.
The basement is for the hostages.
Yeah, Mike.
But you missed something very important here. He failed to address having no job and no friends. Now, under the line of logic he uses to claim people are lying, we know as a fact that he has no job and no friends. He didn't address it after all.
Maybe that explains his constant postings here. Lots of time (no job) and a need for any sort of attention (no friends.) Even negative attention must feel better to him then the usual none at all of his lonely life.
Now, since it's been pointed out how true those statements were, I'm sure he'll protest them and try to cover the fact. I'm sure his pride will be hurt and he won't want to be seen in as much need as he really is. It's understandable. Few people would want to be seen in such a way.
Maybe we shouldn't keep being so cruel to such an obvious emotional charity case as X appears to be. Plus, he can't stick around forever. When the power is turned off and the bank takes the house back he'll have no net. Maybe the library will let him in but even they won't let him spend but so much time there.
Poor, tiny minded, friendless little twit.It almost makes you feel sory for him when poking holes in his weak minded rants and opinions.
Almost.
But you missed something very important here. He failed to address having no job and no friends. Now, under the line of logic he uses to claim people are lying, we know as a fact that he has no job and no friends. He didn't address it after all.
I don't agree being miserable is anything to harvest gratification from, no matter who it is.
I think it's enough to say he reserved for himself the privileges of a predator, protecting his inconsistencies behind a hidden agenda from which there is no defense.
I don't agree being miserable is anything to harvest gratification from...
At first glance it kind of seemed it, but it isn't fair to Jerry to say he was harvesting gratification form anyone's misery.
That should say, "I don't agree anyone's misery is anything to hold against them..."
No sense of gratification. Not really holding it against him either. Just working at figuring out the tiny minded little twit.
Perhaps he's misinterpreting Darwin, and confusing dominance for a virtue. Thus his appetite to dominate without seeing his own neediness.
As predicted, I give out a single bit of personal information, and I am immedaiately attacked with it. God, you liberals are so predictable!
This is the hallmark of today's liberal: They have no ideas or agenda of their own. They want only to oppose the other side, WHATEVER they do, and their only weapon is personal attacks.
Classic. And funny.
"As predicted, I give out a single bit of personal information, and I am immedaiately attacked with it. God, you liberals are so predictable!"
Actually, I attacked your weak sense of logic and not you.
I posted a rather sarky bit that, at this point, I knew you would respond to in some way while failing to address it (God, you neo-cons are so predictable.) In the post I made these three statements:
1) You lived in your mom's basement.
2) You had no job.
3) You had no friends.
I also said you were a twit.
You responded with this:
"Sorry, but I own my own home. Try again!"
Now, the logic you have used with PAD is that he must be a liar and know that he is one since he did not care to address your specific accusations. Using the feeble logic that you yourself have displayed here we can say that you have no job or friends. It must be a fact because, as you pointed out about PAD, you responded to only the first (house) statement and not the second (job) or third (friends) statements. You also failed to point out that you were not a twit. It's the logic that you have used in a number of posts and acted as though it is the reasoning and thinking of some great intellect by you. But, when the same logic is aimed at you it becomes "personal attacks."
So you have two choices here:
1) PAD is a liar & you are a lonely, jobless little twit because failure to respond to a statement is proof of its truth. Although, if you are a twit we should discount your statements about PAD since twits rarely say anything of any meaning, content or value.
2) Not responding to something you feel no need to respond to or defend yourself from means only that and nothing more. The lack of a response does not automatically or reasonably display any truth in the accusers statements.
And while I'm at it.......
Let us move on to that other weak bit of garbeage you call logic. You have stated this crap over and over:
"I asked for a SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse under Bush, as a result of something BUSH did."
Many have given answers that would make sense to anybody who wasn't so self centered and serving that only matters that directly impact one's own wallet seem to count. But you just brush those off because you either can't understand things like that or just don't want to deal with an argument that is above the low level you seem to like to keep it. But, let me ask you this:
1) Have you ever been murdered?
2) Have you ever been raped?
3) Have you ever been the victim of ID theft?
4) Have you ever been hit by a drunk driver?
5) Have you ever been the victim of a pedophile priest?
By your logic you would have had to have had those thing happen directly to you to be upset at or hate a murderer, rapist, con man, drunk driver or pedophile. After all, it didn't happen to you in a SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse. Hell, by the logic you have thrown at us about Bush, you must even like all those people.
Let me ask you this. What did Saddam, pre-war, ever do to you in a SPECIFIC way that YOUR OWN LIFE has been made worse? You talk about him as though he were so bad. He must have done something to you.
Or, is the logic of your arguments a one way street only? You can use whatever weak, twisted and second rate logic you wish towards others and call it genius but don't want the same "personal attacks" pointed back at you?
Neo-Con logic. Neither classic nor funny.
This is the hallmark of today's so-called conservatives: They have no ideas or agenda of their own. They want only to oppose the other side, WHATEVER they do, and their only weapon is personal attacks
There. I corrected that.
I initially supported the Iraq action. I stopped after I saw how poor the long term strategy was, how much wishful thinking there was in the contingency planning and how poorly prepared the Administration was for anything except military action.
Strategy was acceptable; the execution was execrable.
"This is the hallmark of today's so-called conservatives: They have no ideas or agenda of their own. They want only to oppose the other side, WHATEVER they do, and their only weapon is personal attacks."
I don't know. Conservatives are fine. Republicans can be a bit dense from time to time but aren't all bad people by any means. Neo-Cons just plain suck though.