Since freedom is so important to the President that he felt the need to mention the word over two dozen times in his speech, we here at peterdavid.net felt that–in the interest of a new spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation–we should try to spread the concept of freedom wherever and whenever possible.
Hence the “Freedom Clock,” which is either at the side of the page or at the bottom, depending upon your browser. The Freedom Clock will be ticking down the days, hours, minutes and seconds until this country is finally free of George W. Bush…barring premature departure such as impeachment or being tried for war crimes, or an extended stay should some bright Republicans try to repeal Section one of the 22nd Amendment (which I doubt they’d do since it would free up Clinton to run again, and they won’t want to risk that.)
So as the bad news continues, check in every so often to remind yourself that, like any bad meal, this too shall pass.
PAD
• 
I’m a little confused (and I must admit it’s almost always my natural state, but anyway), Powell, are you saying that the far left was represented by Clinton, or that the poll in USA Today said that the left was represented by Clinton?
I’m not the most political savvy mind in the world, but if memory serves me correctly, Clinton was much more a centerist than a far leftist (centerist for a democrat, that is). So I’m just curious who is the one saying clinton represents the far left?
Luigi wrote: “Irony doesn
It was the USA Today poll. And you know, that was over ten years ago, so I could be wrong about who represented the far left in it. I didn’t save the issue or anything. Maybe it was Hillary Clinton. Anyway, I tallied up somewhere between BushSr. and Reagan, nowhere even close to the left side of the scale. And now this twit calls me a liberal. Ha.
And this ignores the fact that perjury is the most ignored and non-prosecuted crime that there is, and only refers to lies that are relevant to the topic of the investigation, which a bj most certainly is not to the issue of Whitewater.
[blink]
So let me get this straight. . .
Lying under oath is not necessarily perjury. Perjury is specifically lying under oath about matters specific to the topic of investigation. (So lying under oath about commiting adultery when you are under investigation for a land scheme would no more be perjury than, say, lying about your age when you’re under investigation for embezzlement.)
So, legally, Clinton never committed perjury.
So what the hëll exactly was he impeached for again?
(I assume lying under oath is a crime, but a light misdemeanor at best.)
“(So lying under oath about commiting adultery when you are under investigation for a land scheme would no more be perjury than, say, lying about your age when you’re under investigation for embezzlement.”
Frankly I’d love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed…to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn’t his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?
Wow. I just got linked here from another site to look at a Hulk cover… I’ve never read anything of PAD’s, but I’m dámņ impressed with him as a human being.
Everything passes. Except the debt, perhaps. My first thoughts when I first heard George speak after his first election was the world had to survive him.
Lifetime detention with-out trial. Can any-one spell “Gulag”?
*SEVERELY?* I am wondering what that “word” means Bladestar? Perhaps you should be called Bluntstar instead? Like I said PAD, trade ’em in, perhaps you could get some new pages for the Liberal Robot Handbook…
Frankly I’d love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed…to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn’t his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?
Perhaps because the actual facts wouldn’t serve their own, personal political agendas? Just a thought.
Frankly I’d love to put the whole Clinton thing to bed…to coin a phrase, but anyway, if my memory serves me right, didn’t his perjury occur during his testimony for the Paula Jones case? You know, the sexual harrassment case, not the crooked land deal case. So why are people pretending that he was asked about Monica during Whitewater testimony?
Yeah, you’re right. In sworn affadavits Clinton (and Lewinsky for that matter) denied the affair, Linda Tripp then notified Kenneth Starr, who was the lead guy in the Whitewater case, and he then decided to go after Clinton for perjury because he couldn’t get him on anything pertaining to Whitewater. I think thats the reason people get the situation confused.
Since we are on the subject of perjury has anyone read Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek story about Attorney General hopeful Alberto Gonzalez lying under oath about his role in getting then Gov. Bush out of jury duty in a drunk driving case because that would have forced Bush to disclose his DUI conviction?
Here’s the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/
Since we are on the subject of perjury has anyone read Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek story about Attorney General hopeful Alberto Gonzalez lying under oath about his role in getting then Gov. Bush out of jury duty in a drunk driving case because that would have forced Bush to disclose his DUI conviction?
Here’s the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/
I read the piece…while I’d love to be abloe to say this should require that Gonzalez be rejected (since it would leave me looking like I have a higher standard of expectations for my govornment officials than the average joe), in all honesty I don’t see much there there. Gonzalez says he doesn’t remember asking the judge to excuse Bush from the jury. The judge said he did. The official transcipt backs up Gonzalez but the meeting would have been off the record anyway. So while it is highly dubious that he doesn’t rmember the meeting, you can’t exactly call it perjury (Who knows, when Clinton testified that he couldn’t recall if he’d ever been alone with Monica, maybe he was telling the truth when he said he could not recall. he’s a busy guy, can’t be expected to remember every little detail).
The idea that his stated reason for wanting Bush off the jury (as Governor he might be in a position to pardon the plaintif) was not the actual reason (They didn’t want the DUI to come out) is likely true but both unproveable and irrelevent. A lawyer is supposed to do what’s best for a client.
Now if you want to oppose Gonzalez on the grounds of his complicity with the Iraqi torture situation, be my guest.
I personally find the whole perjury thing to be an outstanding case of nitpicking. I
The torture stuff is more than enough for me to think that Gonzalez’s nom should be shot down but no one seems to really give a rats ášš about his condoning torture.
Derek!, perjury in general, or this case of perjury?
The reason why perjury (lieing under oath) is viewed as such a serious violation is that our justice system is dependant upon people telling the truth. Those who lie under oath before a court in a sense are threatening the credibility of the justice system. Our government is like a three legged stool, and if one of those legs fails, well, you know what happens to the 2-legged stool…
While the perjury in the Gonzalez case may be just another jab at the Bush administration, it by no means lessons the impact of reminding people of the importance of truth before a court.
For those that remember the Chris Webber (of U 0f M and NBA fame) case, he was essentially being pursued on a case of perjury, in that it was alleged that he and/or his father lied to a grand jury investigating illegal payments made to college basketball players at the Univeristy of Michigan. Webber broke no law other than allegedly lieing during his grand jurt testimony. That was enough to rile of the prosecutors into aiming the full force of the Department of Justice at him, or more likely, his father. Although I’m sure there are some who would say the fact that he’s a rich black NBA superstar had something to do with it as well.
But I’m just not seeing any clear perjury on the part of Gonzalez here…what exactly is it he did, perjury-wise?
Derek!, perjury in general, or this case of perjury?
In the Gonzalez case, it just seems to me that the major issues that should preclude him from being Attorney General are being treated like no big deal when they should be the main issue. Whether he lied about getting Bush out of jury duty, while not a good thing, shouldn’t be made a bigger deal than his involvement with the torture memos and his callous shirking of his duties while working for Bush in Texas.
Well, from the MSNBC article, and there’s not many facts there, it appears that the perjury is stemming from the fact that Gonzalez was asked to decribe the event in detail, and he left out some pretty important ones. He makes it sound like Bush was just dismissed as part of the normal process of voir dire (creating the jury, when I want to show off my legal training). The recollections of the judge and prosecuter that day include vastly different recollection of events, including a closed door meeting and discussion in the judge’s chambers.
Perjury isn’t just lieing under oath, it’s also leaving out facts relevant to the matter at hand, which in this case was fairly specific, to recount in detail the only appearance Gonzalez made as AG for then-governer Bush. While he technically didn’t lie, he omitted relevant facts.
The sticky part is that perjury is an active crime, meaning you can’t violate it if you truly don’t remember facts or events.
In this case, Gonzalez doesn’t come out looking well. Either he does remember those details, and he omitted them, in which case he just purjured himself in front of congress. OR, he has such a bad memory that he can’t remember the one, single event where he personally represented Bush in court, and made a novel argument that a potential DUI conviction could lead to a gubanatorial pardon application, creating a potential conflict of interest between Jurer Bush and Governer Bush.
So, our new AG-to-be either lacks basic memory capacity, or is among the worst lawyers ever. Oh, or a flat our scheming liar.
As to the torture issue, I’m no longer surprised when that fails to be the bigger issue. After all, there’s about 60 million people that likely are in favor of the US trodding all over the rights of those we think might be connected to terrorists, up to and including practices that are considered torture by the rest of the world.
Still, I am amazed at the arrogance this administration exhibits, in that it’s one thing rolled out after another demonstrating just how much they don’t care whether anyone else agree with them. They have an agenda, and they have the votes to get most if it through congress unscathed. Single-party government run amuk.
“And contrary to what others here may be arguing regarding my comparison between Freedom Fries vs. the Freedom clock, the fact of the matter is, if you apolitically boil the two campaigns down to their basic essence, both are rather silly, politically motivated reactions to some perceived affront from “the other side.”
Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best…long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong.
The other is a logical extension of an oft’ repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader.
In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn’t, bare essence or no.
PAD
Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best…long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong.
Two points.
1) France only helped the American colonies to get back at the British. France and it’s Indian Allies were attacking the colonists during the Seven Years War (1756-1763). In fact, they are probably indirectly responsible for exacerbating the schism between the Crown and the Colonies which facilitated the American Revolution. And while the name thing is “childish” , such criticisms between France and America are hardly new. Here’s a quote from AmericanRevolution.org regarding what the French officers thought of American meals:
Dinners to the officers were frequently given, and the difference in customs furnished the opportunity for some criticism. The French commissary, naturally critical in such matters, writes of a dinner given by Washington, that it was served in the American fashion and abundantly provided, but vegetables, beef, lamb, chickens, salad dressed with only vinegar, peas, pudding, and pie were all put on the table at the same time (Catholic World, xi, 797.) “They gave,” he says, “on the same plate, meat, vegetables, and salad.” The dinner was served in Washington’s tent, and this, in part, may excuse serving many viands together; but after more than a century of development, the Americans are still inferior to the French in the judicious division of courses.
2) We know now that both France and Germany had secret dealings with Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions. Their reasons for not wanting to attack Iraq weren’t dubious, they were self-serving.
PAD didn’t say France’s motivation for not attacking was dubious, but rather that the US’ justification for attacking was dubious.
Oh, or a flat our scheming liar.
Which means he’ll fit right in with this Administration.
Their reasons for not wanting to attack Iraq weren’t dubious, they were self-serving.
And what makes that any different from the US attacking Iraq?
What the hëll is it that makes the French and Russians the bad guys here compared to the US?
Sure, it looks like they had a fair number of contracts with Iraq that they didn’t want thrown aside (thrown aside in favor of Halliburton, mind you).
But then, Cheney and Halliburton have been having their illegal dealings with Iraq and Iran for awhile too.
Yet, they’re not the bad guys. Go fig.
Cheney and Halliburtan aren’t the bad guys? I thought Cheney was an evil Terminator cyborg, and Halliburtan was a front for Skynet?!!
Cheney and Halliburtan aren’t the bad guys?
Oh, yeah, they are to those of us that aren’t deluded by the propoganda of Bush & Co.
Kingbob and Craig,
Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.
France’s reasons for not attacking were self-serving.
eclark:
>Kingbob and Craig,
>Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.
France’s reasons for not attacking were self-serving.
Had they been the only 2 nations initially against invasion, this statement would be much more believable. As it is, to state with certainty that they didn’t attack due to self-serving interests alone is akin to stating that Bush went in soley in the interests of human rights. It just doesn’t make any sense when looking at all of the known facts and keeping in mind the many we can have no clue of.
Fred
“France’s reasons for not attacking were self-serving.”
And the US’s reasons FOR attacking were self-serving. The only difference is that France’s reasons didn’t result in 1300+ names landing on Bush’s List, with more to come.
PAD
Rats, Fred beat me to it.
I totally agree that France had self-serving interests in maintaining Saddam’s regime. Which is not to say that their decision to oppose an attack was ill-founded. Our decision to invade, put in the best of terms, was self-serving. Does that alone make us the bad guy, because we wanted to protect our own interests?
To be honest, the aggression our government expressed to France (“Freedom Fries?” What are we, 9 year old boys?) was misplaced. I mean, honestly, it basically says “France, we hate you now because you didn’t want to go to war in Iraq on our holy crusade for freedom. We hate you for not wanting to kill Iraqis with us.”
“I mean, honestly, it basically says “France, we hate you now because you didn’t want to go to war in Iraq on our holy crusade for freedom. We hate you for not wanting to kill Iraqis with us.”
One could make a persuasive argument that France’s role was not limited to staying out of the fray; they actively tried to keep others out as well. I recall Chirac warning some of the Eastern European countries something to the effect that supporting the USA position could jeopardize their entry into the EU.
Of course, one could also argue that this was perfectly valid. But it was certainly more than just saying no.
PAD wrote: “Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best…long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong. The other is a logical extension of an oft’ repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader. In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn’t, bare essence or no.”
In your opinion…
PAD wrote: “Nooo. One involves the non-sequitur changing of long-established names in childish retaliation against an ally (who helped this country in its birth throes, by the way) who considered the reasons for attacking Iraq to be dubious at best…long before the reasons were revealed to be flat-out wrong. The other is a logical extension of an oft’ repeated theme in the inauguration speech of the man who is supposed to be our leader. In other words: one makes sense, the other doesn’t, bare essence or no.”
“In your opinion…”
No, in the Czar’s opinion. Yes, of course obviously, in my opinion. I’m not nuts enough–unlike some–to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear. In my opinion, comparing the Freedom Clock to Freedom Fries is idiotic. That has to be spelled out now, that I’m expressing opinions in my own blog?
PAD
“In your opinion…”
I think that pretty much goes without saying, which is why nobody really needs to say it.
Actually, research has shown that Peter is not giving his own opinion. It turns out that the opinion that he is giving belongs to a mysterious 87 year old individual living in Enid, Oklahoma. How Peter gets these opinions from Enid, Oklahoma is a mystery.
Yes, of course obviously, in my opinion. I’m not nuts enough–unlike some–to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear. In my opinion, comparing the Freedom Clock to Freedom Fries is idiotic. That has to be spelled out now, that I’m expressing opinions in my own blog?
You look at the last election and ya have ta ask that?
“I’m not nuts enough–unlike some–to believe God is whispering divine truths in my ear.”
Hey, wouldn’t it suck if, after a long long life, you die and it turns out that, yeah, God WAS in fact whispering divine truths in your ear and you, like a total dûmbášš, took them as your own opinions. Boy would you look like a shmuck.
“Hey, wouldn’t it suck if, after a long long life, you die and it turns out that, yeah, God WAS in fact whispering divine truths in your ear and you, like a total dûmbášš, took them as your own opinions. Boy would you look like a shmuck.”
Why? I at least repeated them and believed them, spreading God’s word with all the fervor I could muster. Me, I’d be standing by the Pearly Gates, waiting for everyone on this board who ever disagreed with me so I could tell them. They’ll be the ones who look like schmucks. At least, those who make it that far will…
PAD
PAD
If it ever turns out that God has been whispering divine truths in my ear, I’m going to wonder why so many truths contradicted each other. Also, why God has such a raging libido/Id.
What I can say is that God wants PAD to write the next Sir Apropos of Nothing novel and drop everything else until it is done. You can trust me on this.
Lastly, God says that it was a shame that JMS and the show “Jeremiah” parted ways, because God really liked the Mr. Smith character. Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hëll for eating everyone else’s sushi. Word to the wise.
Me, I’d be standing by the Pearly Gates, waiting for everyone on this board who ever disagreed with me so I could tell them. They’ll be the ones who look like schmucks. At least, those who make it that far will…
I chuckled out loud at the picture of you standing by some pearly gates with a smug expression on your face, waiting for your props….
“Why? I at least repeated them and believed them, spreading God’s word with all the fervor I could muster.”
Well, I was just going for the joke but I’m thinking of all the times you might come up with something you think might be a good idea but then you think “Nah, besides, it would probably interfere with that solid block of sleeping time I had planned for this weekend.” and then it turns out that it was all part of The Grand Plan which, thanks to you, now has to be put off for an undetermined length of time.”
I’m not saying anyone SHOULD act on this admittedly slim possibility, especially those who, like me, may often have thoughts that involve large crowds of well known people and a rocket launcher.
“Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hëll for eating everyone else’s sushi.”
You know, it’s not like I reached over and took it out of anyone’s mouth, ok? It was just sitting there and could well have gone bad. In that sense, I was protesting other people from possible food poisoning. Frankly, it was the decent human thing to do and I’m pretty sure that Albert Schweitzer and Ghandi would have done the same.
You can say anything you want about me but I won’t have you besmirch the good names of Ghandi and Shweitzer! Good DAY to you sir! Good day, I say!
Why is it that people want to denigrate those who hold political views opposite of them, without considering and questioning the individual politicians that fall into THEIR own Spectrum? You know, the one thier defending.
I say this because after someone gives their opinion about someone in the Democratic/Republican party and can back it up with evidence, (or at the very least give their opinion in a compelling and informed manner) someone bites back at Person one’s beliefs and denigrate them as if Person 1’s beliefs are totally flawed and Person 2’s is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Now Peter has made statements about Bush that reflects his point of view. I am of the opposite end of the spectrum, though not by much, so this would be the part where I insult Peter’s beliefs and anything about him, no?
Actually, while there are some things I disagree with Peter on, there are actually some thimngs he says that I agree with. I’d like to think that the U.s> didn’t go into Iraq for the Oil, but I may be deluding myself.
I could say things about William Jefferson Clinton and say all kinds of negative things about the Democrats, but that’s my right. However, I will also say things critical about my own Party if I don’t like what their doing.
I don’t think that Rice should have become Sec. of State because I liked Colin Powell’s honesty and bucking of the trend. With Rice, I get the feeling that there will be more unsaid than said to the American public, and the international climate will get more tense as a result.
I also think that maybe it’s time to leave Iraq, because it’s taking too long and many young men and women are dying. I DO NOT have a problem with Young Men and Women serving thier country. However, I think that it might be time to get the hint and leave.
I’d just like if the Michael Moores of the world would tackle subjects within their own political beliefs once in a while, because total blind partisanship is such a drag.
“Irony” is being defined by one of the biggest stories in the LA metroplex currently.
Yesterday, a young man in Glendale, CA, decided to commit suicide by parking his Jeep on the train tracks near a major commuter station, and waiting for a train to hit him. Before the impact could occur, however, he reconsidered. He says he was unable to move the car, which is why he left it sitting on the track. Inevitably, a train struck the car, and stopped. Another train, a Metrolink commuter, tried to stop as well, and derailed. In the process, it struck yet a third train, which also derailed. Eleven people were killed, and over a hundred injured.
The young man is now in police custody, being charged with eleven counts of murder with special circumstances. This makes him eligible for the death penalty. Even more amusing, in the jail he is being kept on suicide watch – heaven forfend he should kill himself before the state gets their shot!
Now THAT, my friends, is irony.
Big deal, I made a grammatical error. Sue me.
I would, but I have nfc what you’re talking about.
>
“Also, Bill Mulligan is going to hëll for eating everyone else’s sushi.”
You know, it’s not like I reached over and took it out of anyone’s mouth, ok? It was just sitting there and could well have gone bad. In that sense, I was protesting other people from possible food poisoning. Frankly, it was the decent human thing to do and I’m pretty sure that Albert Schweitzer and Ghandi would have done the same.
>
The sad thing is, something like that was supposed to have done in the Buddha. (I’m not kidding, it was in the stories in my intro to Zen Class.)
It’s not irony, it’s not fate, it’s not even Manischewitz, it’s just…odd.
Hmph. By that argument, you are the one that is enlighted, and I’m wayyyy behind in getting my degree. Also, I shouldn’t be posting after a long day of dealing with college admins. I go now.
Well, if it was greasy McDonald’s french fries, I wouldn’t mind, but since it was SUSHI…..
Well, let’s add a more fair and balanced approach to the whole situation:
This morning I awoke to the melodious chantings of the good President in his news conference.
That’s a positive comment, would you not agree?
He sounded like a total moron.
That’s a negative, yet a painfully true one, would you not agree?
See? Fair and balanced.
Too bad we can’t figure a way for that Freedom Clock to be advanced and have some sort of cosmic power to affect the universe so that we all advance to the point where the election is plainly in sight.
Why? Because honestly, after hearing that press conference, the thought of another four years of this fellow in charge makes me weep for mankind.
Oops….fair and balanced, right? OK, that was a negative.
I’d still love to go fishing or golfing with GW. Seems like a good ole boy to me. See? That’s a positive….er….I think…….
See, I have to agree that there is no comparing PAD putting up a ‘freedom’ clock to the silly re-naming of ‘freedom’ fries. But, I will say that it is far from original, Rush Limbaugh used to countdown the days til we were free again during the Clinton reign. So pretty much PAD is like Rush.
So pretty much PAD is like Rush.
Nah. PAD doesn’t have an audience of millions with which to promote is “propoganda”.
The clock is counting down “freedom” from the political career of a specific party puppet. What do the fries free anyone from? Cardiovascular health?
“In your opinion…”
I think that pretty much goes without saying, which is why nobody really needs to say it.
I remember when I was innocent enough to believe that.
I’ve found the recent tendency to denigrate the French to be nothing short of obscene.
Yes, the Americans were basically responsible for liberating the French from the Nazis – or perhaps more accurately from saving them from being liberated by the Soviets.
But that hardly justifies scorning them for failing to support every American policy that might adversely affect them. That’s not just the way the world works; it’s not in France’s national interest, or any other country for that matter, to become an American puppet state.
In a way, the genuinely heroic American role in the liberation of France could easily be seen as simply the repayment of a very old debt.
The American War of Independence could not have been won without the support of foreign volunteers like Lafayette, without French supplies in the first two years of the war, without the threat to Britain’s flank that France posed after France declared war on Britain in 1778, and without the crucial involvement of French manpower, money, and military expertise at the Battle of Yorktown, the War of Independence’s decisive encounter.
Rochambeau devised the strategy that led to that battle, which was fought according to his tactics. Further, he arranged for the French fleet to be there, so that in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. What’s more he had subsidised the entire American presence there by lending money to Washington.
It’s not good enough to say that the French government only sent Rochambeau there to get at the British, or that from the French point of view it was merely payback for the loss of Canada. Governments, as a rule, act primarily from self-interest.
The Statue of Liberty is a reminder of how, thanks to the courage and idealism of men like Lafayette, ‘Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a country.’
Perhaps ‘Liberty Fries’ would have been an acceptable compromise?
Maybe, in a rush of anti-French sentiment, the statue will be duplicated and replaced, sending the original back, or it’ll be renamed to “Statue of Freedom” or something. Come to think of it, that sounds like a name Bush would give it (attempting to use “freedom” in EVERY possible situation to gain support, wether the situation calls for it or not).
Herr Bush LOVES Frreedom for all! *
* except gays, books, muslims, foreign governments, non-catholics, democrats, protestors, and the poor