I just find it kind of staggering that Clinton is out of office for six years now and Bush supporters are STILL trying to use him as a WMD: Weapon of Media Deflection. Anytime Bush does anything, they try to deflect criticism by claiming, “Oh yeah, well…Clinton did something similar/dissimilar-but-let’s-pretend-it-was-similar, and so how come Bush gets criticized? Huh? How come? Huh?”
As if Clinton was never criticized. As if he wasn’t frickin’ impeached.
How about this notion, Bushies: How about that Bush and his strutting, preening, self-righteous, holier than thou associates should be endeavoring to be SUPERIOR to Clinton? How in the world is, “Yeah, well…the previous guy was no better!” any sort of a defense anyplace other than in the mind of Bush’s most devoted and myopic supporters? If Bush’s entire approach to running for the President was “Vote for Bush–We’re No Better Than Clinton,” there’s no way he wins (I’m sorry, There’s no way he’s appointed.)
What’s it going to take for the Bushies to tumble to this? If Bush has an affair in the Oval Office and then lies about it, what’s the approach then? “Well, we can’t impeach him, because with Clinton it was justified but in Bush’s case it would just be partisan politics?”
Actually…yeah. That’s likely exactly what they’d say.
PAD
• 
I’ll go with that!
TWL
We are imperfect people in an imperfect world, but I don’t see how that translate into “all politicians are exactly the same.”
Or not to get engaged at all.
Okay, I didn’t want to leave the impression that I was not “engaged at all” or that I don’t feel that there are some differences between politicians…of course there are differences, my point was (and still is) that at the end of the day, Every last one of them will promise you the moon, the stars and $4.82 in change just to get your support, then spend the rest of their time in office trying to keep power. Look at Ted Kennedy for Christ’s sake…And why is it all so important to tote the torch for every special cause under the sun? If you are beholden to each and every special interest, then what happens when one’s agenda is in sharp contrast to another’s? Madness ensues! Promises get broken! Nothing but increasing the budget gets done! (And before I get the argument that the war is a significant portion of the budget, yeah, I know, but I was in the Navy in the early 90’s when Clinton and his buddies in Congress slashed it’s budget to hëll, and it seems to me that the current situation may just be an overcorrection) Anyway, I do think that talking about these things is a great idea, but why is there so much animosity when the opinions expressed don’t jive with the majority. I picked this topic simply because my views were contrary to the majority (makes this 33 y/o straight white guy fro GA a minority, right?)and I get comment like “How about cowardly sissy mama’s boy? :-)”? How about I don’t go looking for a place to spout my opinions where I know I’ll get pats on the back and a bunch of literary bløw jøbš for like minded people.
… Then again, I might be wrong. I still think that the amount of ego and self righteousness it takes to even want to be a politician is astounding, be they a Republican or a Democrat.
Posted by: Ryan at March 30, 2007 12:03 PM
“I get comment like “How about cowardly sissy mama’s boy? :-)”?”
On this blog?
“… Then again, I might be wrong. I still think that the amount of ego and self righteousness it takes to even want to be a politician is astounding, be they a Republican or a Democrat.”
Politicians are like plumbers or garage workers or contractors. They do a job we don’t have the time to acquire the skill for or the time and the inclination to do. If we lived in ancient city-state democracy we would be expected to participate in actual decision making. Instead we pay people to do it for us. But we shouldn’t get to emotionally attached to them, they are just the limited tools at our disposal. You have to pick the best tool for he job at hand from the the limited selection available.
Ryan,
The “how about cowardly sissy mama’s boy?” question had nothing to do with you — it was part of a longer exchange between me and Den. Go back upthread and follow that dialogue and you’ll see what I mean. It was absolutely not directed at you, contrary opinions or otherwise.
As for contrary opinions, there are a great many times when people here have disagreed with great passion, but also a great deal of respect. Speaking for myself, I don’t automatically dismiss someone’s opinion just because they happen to lean conservative, and I would hope nobody dismissed mine simply because I usually lean liberal.
TWL
Ryan,
Tim’s correct, there is no litmus test here for posting. It may be arguably left of center most of the time but if you present your point of view reasonably and resist the urge to rise to the bait everytime someone says something that you disagree with you’ll find the time spent here well worth it. Good folks. The occasional exception but that just makes the good ones look all the better.
Just to confirm, my post had nothing to do with Ryan or anything he has said here. As Tim said, it was part of a larger exchange just between himself and I.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 30, 2007 01:38 PM
The occasional exception but that just makes the good ones look all the better.
I just knew I served some kind of useful function around here!
First off, you mean I’m NOT getting my $4.82? But I need that for my Happy Meal!(I mean, c’mon, they have Turtles stuff!)
Second off, not to go all cosmic on you, Bill, but yeah. Your job is to make all of us look better. Judging by MY reflection, you been slacking, bud.
PAD,
Two thoughts:
1.) If Bush were to have a sexual relationship with an intern (which does have implications different than just having an affair) AND then lie under oath about it, I would be just as in favor of his impeachment as I was of Clinton.
2.) The issue for us “Bushies” is not that since Clinton did it, Bush can too, like it is a free pass. It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the media. I know, this is subjective, but as I observe how things are reported, there is a clear bias against Bush and Republicans with much of the media.
Case in point: Valerie Plame. Most of the hype at the time has proven to not be the case. Her testimony before Congress was weak, to say the last (I would say she was lieing). The fact that the original leak didn’t happen with the White House — it happened among a fellow media reporter — really doesn’t matter. Scooter Libby had to be made the fall guy, not by Bush or Cheney, but by the media.
Bottom line, you are using the wrong analogy. In my opinion, the Democrats are making the same mistake many conservatives (such as Falwell) made by accusing Bush of all sort of absurd abuses or deliberate acts of misconduct. The reality is neither Clinton nor Bush (in my opinion) were evil men (not a “Lex Luthor) using the position in a planned way for his own gain. I disagree with Clinton’s position and actions on most issues and so opposed him. I agree with Bush on most so support him. Both made mistakes, but that is the nature of leadership.
As I said in another post, the focus on Bush is pointless. He has not done anything worthy of impeachment (in my opinion, obviously). He can’t run for election again (as President). It is unlikely Cheney will run (both because of his health and because he has said he won’t, and he tends to actually do what he says he will do — kind of weird for a politician, but that has been his history). For Hillary, Obama, or whatever Democrat gets nominated, they are far more likely to win (heaven forbid 🙂 ) if they run on what they will do, not on a “I’m not George Bush” platform (a la Kerry).
Iowa Jim
Clarification:
Bottom line, you are using the wrong analogy. In my opinion, the Democrats are making the same mistake many conservatives (such as Falwell) made by accusing Bush of all sort of absurd abuses or deliberate acts of misconduct.
Talk about mixing metaphors — I was comparing Falwell attacking Clinton (saying things like he had a number of people in Arkansas killed off) to how Dems today accuse Bush of everything from lies about why we went to war to the utterly absurd, he was part of a conspiracy that planned 9/11 so that he could go to war.
Iowa Jim
It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the media.
As compared to what should really be pointed out: hypocrisy of politicians?
I’m not sure why you think the media is being hypocritical: they sure didn’t give Clinton a free pass with the Lewinsky stuff.
As for Libby, his own administration set him up to take the fall for the rest of them, but the reporter who first mentioned Plame still got that info from a leak in the White House.
As for Libby, his own administration set him up to take the fall for the rest of them, but the reporter who first mentioned Plame still got that info from a leak in the White House.
Didn’t he get it from Armitage? That would be the State Department.
Didn’t he get it from Armitage? That would be the State Department.
Meh.
All that really matters is if it came from a Bush appointee. 😉
“As I said in another post, the focus on Bush is pointless.”
Dems aren’t focused on Bush really. They’re focused on one “super villain” – Rove.
It terrifies Democrats to run against a candidate with Rove on the campaign team. Not sure why, since I expect most Republican candidates will do what they can to distance themselves from the Bush White House, including Rove, much like Gore distanced himself from Clinton.
Anyone who thought the media gave Clinton a free pass on the Lewinski scandal must have been in a coma during the 90s. They turned on him like vultures, because ultimately, whatever any given reporters personal political views, their primary job is to get ratings and the more sensational a story, whether it involves a democrat or a republican, the better.
As for the media being overwhelmingly negative towards Bush, Bush has one thing that Clinton never did, and that’s an entire 24/7 cable channel that is devoted to spinning news about him favorably. And they’re not the least bit subtle about it.
As for Plame’s testimony, the crux of it is still whether or not she was considered a covert agent at the time she was “outed”. Many people who know far more about the law in this area than I say she was, others disagree. Absent a diffinitive ruling from SCOTUS about how the law applied to her at that time, we’ll probably never have it resolved. But I’d say that overwhelming number of people would still look at her testimony and see what they want to see in it. Whether her statements were “weak” or “strong” depends more on what people thought beforehand and after seeing her testify, I doubt any minds were changed one way or another.
I saw her testimony and thought:
MILF!!!!!
Kidding. 🙂
As for Libby, he got caught lying to the grand jury and to investigators. Because of the gray area of the covert information law, it’d probably be impossible to convict Armitage or anyone else (most people seem to think he was a leak, but not the only one) on the leak itself. But then, Clinton’s BJ wasn’t a crime either, but he was impeached for lying under oath about it.
I still find it amazing how many of the same people who were calling for Clinton’s head ten years ago are now calling for Libby to be pardoned now. Proof positive that to them, perjury is only a serious crime when a democrat commits it.
Now onto Bush, I don’t believe for a second that he was behind some conspiracy to commit 9/11. If he had been, you’d better believe he would not have been caught with that deer-in-the-headlights expression during the reading of My Pet Goat. And he certainly would not have allowed Giuliani to upstage him for the first few days. No, he’d have been in front of the cameras with prepared words of reassurance and strengthy on day way, not racing across the country trying to find a place to hide.
On the other hand, I do think that this administration did misrepresent the reasoning and justifications for going to war in Iraq and they’ve been caught being dishonest on numerous other things that I find anything that they say suspect.
But no, thinking they planned 9/11 credits them with far more competence than this administration has displayed on any other front. I do, however, think that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al., get down on their knees every night and thank God for 9/11, since it gave them the perfect tool of fear to exploit the masses with.
Case in point: Valerie Plame. Most of the hype at the time has proven to not be the case. Her testimony before Congress was weak, to say the last (I would say she was lieing). The fact that the original leak didn’t happen with the White House — it happened among a fellow media reporter — really doesn’t matter.
Meh. I’m disappointed in you, Jim. None of your statements hangs together or is well thought out (for example, if the “original” leak was a news reporter…where did that reporter get it? Because that means there’s a security hole that apparently STILL has not been addressed).
ultimately, whatever any given reporters personal political views, their primary job is to get ratings and the more sensational a story, whether it involves a democrat or a republican, the better.
You’d think, but it does seem like the media has been awfully quiet about Diane Feinstein’s resignation from an improtant Senate committee over possible ethics violations (kudos to the news weekly–a liberal paper–who dug the story up). Similarly, it amazes me that Representative Jefferson, the guy with the 90K in his freezer, managed to get on the homeland security committee without any media outrage. Other congressmen, from both parties, have gotten run out of town for way less. Why did this get barely a mention?
There seems to be a strange arbitrariness to what becomes a cause celebre and what doesn’t. It isn’t hard to start assigning motives to it.
As for Clinton and the media, jeeze, the guy is the PRESIDENT, gets accused of a sex scandal and just when it looks like a he said/she said thing (“Put up or shut up” TIME magazine thundered under a picture of Ken Starr) we get a dress with his DNA on it! You couldn’t make this stuff up! In what universe could they have not made a big deal out of it???
As for Plame’s testimony, the crux of it is still whether or not she was considered a covert agent at the time she was “outed”. Many people who know far more about the law in this area than I say she was, others disagree. Absent a diffinitive ruling from SCOTUS about how the law applied to her at that time, we’ll probably never have it resolved.
I’m not sure that’s correct. 1- I think you have to have intentionally known that the agent was covert to be liable under the law. If it takes a supreme court decision to determine this I don’t think a succesful prosecution is in the works. 2- it seems to me that it can’t be that hard to figure out the status of an agent. Then again, I’ve seen commentators claim that Plame herself was not 100% clear on her status. If that’s true–and I didn’t hear all her testimony–then the whole things seems pretty unlikely to get Karl rove or anyone else frogmarched out to jail. Unless, like Libby, they were foolish enough to lie about. Lying to a grand jury should get you in trouble no matter how minor or even nonexistant the initial crime.
I do, however, think that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al., get down on their knees every night and thank God for 9/11, since it gave them the perfect tool of fear to exploit the masses with.
I think you have to be very very careful when you say things like that–when you do you open yourself up to having to take what you dish out. If someone was to flip that around and say that Nancy Pelosi gets on her knees every night and prays for greater casualties in Iraq because it increases chances of a Democratic victory in 2008 it’s a bit hard to complain when you’ve been making the same kind of statement. And yes, I know there are conservatives who do claim that every war protestor secretly desires an American defeat in Iraq and I think that’s worthy of condemnation.
In general, I think it’s best to avoid reading people’s minds, especially when the reading paints such a negative picture, to say the least.
Posted by: Den
I still find it amazing how many of the same people who were calling for Clinton’s head ten years ago are now calling for Libby to be pardoned now. Proof positive that to them, perjury is only a serious crime when a democrat commits it.
Especially since Clinton did not, in fact, commit perjury. yes he lied under oath, but, since the judge ruled that the matter in question was not material to Starr’s investigation, it’s not perjury.
The judge zapped him for contempt, not perjury.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
I’m not sure that’s correct. 1- I think you have to have intentionally known that the agent was covert to be liable under the law. If it takes a supreme court decision to determine this I don’t think a succesful prosecution is in the works.
Basic rules for people who work with secure information: If it could be classified, don’t sicuss it with anyne who doesn’t have the legitimate Need To Know status on that info.
As i seem to remember reading, Plame got her paychecks and worked through and travelled under the auspices of, a CIA front rather than the CIA itself; under such a circumstance the concept that she was covert would certainly have suggested itself to me, did i know that she was actually employed by the CIA.
And, as we are often reminded about other crimes committed in honest (or otherwise) ignorance of the law, even if the one who outed her genuinely didn’t know, ignorance is no excuse.
2- it seems to me that it can’t be that hard to figure out the status of an agent. Then again, I’ve seen commentators claim that Plame herself was not 100% clear on her status. If that’s true–and I didn’t hear all her testimony–then the whole things seems pretty unlikely to get Karl rove or anyone else frogmarched out to jail. Unless, like Libby, they were foolish enough to lie about. Lying to a grand jury should get you in trouble no matter how minor or even nonexistant the initial crime.
Plame apparently believed that she was covert. The only real possibility for argument apparently comes because the relevant law applies to agenst who are “abroad” over a five-year period.
Plame and those who support her say that it means to have travelled abroad on covert business for the Company, which she definitely had doen, mor ethan once in the five years; those who say she wasn’t legally covert apparently claim that it means you have to be stationed abroad in that capacity for five years (or some major part of it).
Personally, i’m inclined to read it the way that Plame’s supporters do – otherwise, no agent who operated under a US-based cover could be considered “covert”.
Does that observation of hypocrisy extend to the jury that found Libby guilty, and were reported to be in agreement Libby took the blame for carrying out the vice president’s personal vendetta against Wilson?
Has anyone thought to ask the CIA about this? I mean, there has to be somewhere a list of who is covert and who isn’t…right?
Has anyone thought to ask the CIA about this? I mean, there has to be somewhere a list of who is covert and who isn’t…right?
Um, who brought up the complaint in the first place?
(And more importantly, who DIDN’T stop investigations).
Anyway, at best, this was extreme carelessness with classified or potentially classified data, Whether or not Plame was covered under the IIAA is secondary to this careless use of classified data. Somebody SHOULD have been sacked or thrown in jail.
Has anyone else caught this excerpt floating around from Libby’s 1996 book?
Fortunately, the book doesn’t mention a condom, which would have disqualified Libby from serving in the current administration.
“It proclaimed loudly ‘Jesus was a vegetarian'”
Meant to ask before, been kinda busy, was this documented anywhere? No, not whether or not Manny saw this, I’ve seen similar ones, but whether Someone who’s Omniscient couldn’t be Omnivorous? Or is it kinda like the Witchsmeller saying that eating carrots is a sin, and it’s listed in the appendix to the 10 Commandments?
Meant to ask before, been kinda busy, was this documented anywhere? No, not whether or not Manny saw this, I’ve seen similar ones, but whether Someone who’s Omniscient couldn’t be Omnivorous?
http://www.slate.com/id/91229/ has the best summary I found in a quick Google search (of the PETA campaign in question, not the entire issue). The other arguments seem to be based on wishful thinking (“I think eating meat is cruel and Jesus wasn’t supposed to be cruel”) or selective quotation (referring to the passage in 1 Corinthians where Paul says that if eating causes one to sin, then they should not eat meat–but not the passage in Acts where God shows Peter a wide array of animals and tells him to eat them. I also noted an eagerness to explain away the use of the term “meat” when someone speaks favorably of it, saying that they really mean “food” and not specifically meat, but when someone speaks against it, it’s unquestionably meat). Not to mention having to explain away the refences to Jesus eating or serving fish, and the lamb at Passover.
Mind you, the whole thing kind of reminds me of Don Quixote concluding that knights didn’t eat or sleep because the books didn’t refer to them eating or sleeping…
I don’t know if he ate them but didn’t Jesus give a bunch of his followers FISH?
Yeah, there are “vegetarians” who still eat fish but they are kidding themselves.
Similarly, it amazes me that Representative Jefferson, the guy with the 90K in his freezer, managed to get on the homeland security committee without any media outrage.
No media outrage? I’ve seen plenty of it myself.
There seems to be a strange arbitrariness to what becomes a cause celebre and what doesn’t.
Not really. If the scandal is in any way sexual, it automatically gets vaulted to the top. Other sensational things like murder, big money payoffs, also rise pretty quickly. If one of the principles is particularly telegenic, then even if the story itself lacks any of the above.
It isn’t hard to start assigning motives to it.
Especially when your goal is to find them whether they’re reall or not.
I’m not sure that’s correct. 1- I think you have to have intentionally known that the agent was covert to be liable under the law.
Ever hear of the phrase “ignorance of the law excuses no man”? It doesn’t matter if the person intentionally knew the information was classified, only that it fit the definition of covert.
If it takes a supreme court decision to determine this I don’t think a succesful prosecution is in the works.
Neither do I.
2- it seems to me that it can’t be that hard to figure out the status of an agent.
If it was, then there wouldn’t be such a great controversy. One of the sticking points seems to be whether she served out of country in the last five years. Plame has testified that she has and the CIA seemed to think she was, since they called for the investigation in the first place. But some people call that weak, because, well, I guess Hannity and Rush told them it was.
If someone was to flip that around and say that Nancy Pelosi gets on her knees every night and prays for greater casualties in Iraq because it increases chances of a Democratic victory in 2008 it’s a bit hard to complain when you’ve been making the same kind of statement.
That is exactly what Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc, do every single day when they go on the air and say that the democrats are legislating defeat.
In general, I think it’s best to avoid reading people’s minds, especially when the reading paints such a negative picture, to say the least.
Thank you! That is exactly the point I was trying to make with that little hyperbole. Not to just pick on Jim, but he was doing exactly that by reading the minds of people in the media and claiming to know what their motivations are just on the basis that they cover Bush’s many failures. I mean, I’m sure they’d be willing to cover him not screwing things up.
As soon as that happens.
Durn it, I meant to say “omniPOTENT” up there, instead of “omniSCIENT.”
Ever hear of the phrase “ignorance of the law excuses no man”? It doesn’t matter if the person intentionally knew the information was classified, only that it fit the definition of covert.
I don’t think that’s correct–the prosecuter stated: If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered “information respecting the national defense.” In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.
It isn’t a matter of being ignorant of the law–it is a matter of having to know that the agent is covert.
It’s similar to libel–you have to prove “actual malice”–in other words, the offending statement must not only be untrue but you have to prove that the person who said it KNEW it was untrue.
At any rate, since it was Richard Armitage who is now known to have been the first to speak to a reporter–Bob Novak– about Plame, where are the calls for his arrest? Assuming that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It seems as though if it isn’t Rove nobody is interested.
One would hope that the CIA has learned something from this–make sure the status of agents is clear. A law that can’t be enforced is not worth the paper it is printed on.
No media outrage? I’ve seen plenty of it myself.
I guess I must’ve missed it. If there is any place where Pelosi has been grilled on this decision I’d like to see it. It seems like a no-brainer to me. I mean, has there ever been an explanation offered as to why the cash was there (And apparently this was marked cash from an investigation into corruption). Of course, Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty but surely there are other members of congress not under investigation who can be trusted with the job.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2007 09:58 AM
PAD’s absolutely correct. Any president should strive to be a better example than Clinton. It isn’t like that’s stting the bar too high.
But it isn’t like that’s setting the bar too low, either. I continue to believe your perceptions of President Clinton are wildly distorted by your emotions, Bill.
The idea that Clinton is some kind of “gold standard” for presidential crappiness is absurd in the extreme if you look at Clinton in any kind of historical context. Hëll, Richard Nixon’s presidency, which wasn’t even that far removed from Clinton’s, was marred by far worse scandals. Nixon lied about Watergate, after all, which involved an attempt to subvert the democratic process. Objectively speaking, Watergate had far greater ramifications for the nation than Clinton’s deceitful testimony during a deposition in a lawsuit that was politically motivated and dismissed as meritless.
Posted by: Ryan at March 30, 2007 12:03 PM
Every last one of them will promise you the moon, the stars and $4.82 in change just to get your support, then spend the rest of their time in office trying to keep power.
In one breath, you pay lip service to the idea that there are differences between politicians. In the next breath, you tar them all with the same broad brush. You cannot have it both ways.
Politics in a democracy is of a necessity a messy business. And because human beings are involved, corruption inevitably creeps in. But some politicians are more corrupt than others. Bob Dole and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are but two examples of U.S. Senators who usually put principle ahead of partisan rancor.
Condemning all politicians in an attempt to wash your hands of the responsibility inherent in being a citizen in a democracy is just plain lazy thinking.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
If Bush were to have a sexual relationship with an intern (which does have implications different than just having an affair) AND then lie under oath about it, I would be just as in favor of his impeachment as I was of Clinton.
And I would assert that you’d be just as wrong. I fear that putative conservatives such as yourself have been hoodwinked by the modern liberal feminist agenda, which has as one of its foundations the belief that the private should be public, and that that which makes a woman “uncomfortable” should be criminal. Clinton’s affair became fodder for court testimony as a direct result of today’s twisted societal norms.
To clarify, I refer to you as a “putative conservative” because there was a time when keeping private business private was at one time a conservative value.
To further clarify, I am a liberal and in general a supporter of feminism. I believe women have a right to vote, to enjoy full protection under the law, to earn equal pay for equal work, to be judged on their abilities and not their gender, and to work in an environment where they are not subjected to unwanted sexual advances. I also believe, however, that the modern feminist agenda has gone to an irrational extreme, resulting in a society wherein we’re all peeking into each other’s boudoirs. That’s a pernicious trend, to put it mildly.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
I know, this is subjective, but as I observe how things are reported, there is a clear bias against Bush and Republicans with much of the media.
I used to work as a reporter for a public radio station, which was supposed to have a liberal bias. My experience, however, was that the bias in the media is toward sensationalism of any stripe.
I was watching NBC news a couple of weeks ago and noted a story accompanied by a graphic stating, “War on the Middle Class.” Was that liberally biased? Hëll, yeah. But everyone seems to forget how the media marched in lock-step with Bush I to “support the troops” during Gulf War I. Most of the reporting had an unmistakable right-wing bias.
And frankly, everyone is forgetting that the media was all over Clinton like vultures from Day One of his presidency. Bush II got a free pass for the first few years, and it wasn’t until the little fires started by his gross incompetence became raging infernos that the media piled on.
The belief that the mainstream media has a left-wing bias requires one to employ selective perception. The mainstream media is biased towards centrism, and towards sensationalism.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
Her testimony before Congress was weak, to say the last (I would say she was lieing).
What did she lie about? And what precisely leads you to believe she was lying?
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
The fact that the original leak didn’t happen with the White House — it happened among a fellow media reporter…
That’s false. The information was leaked to the reporter by a government official. The reporter, Robert Novak, spread the information, but he wasn’t the source. By the way, Novak is an unabashed conservative.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
As I said in another post, the focus on Bush is pointless.
Pointless how? He is president for another two years, and a lot can happen in that time. If one believes that Bush’s policies, or the manner in which he conducts himself in office, are detrimental to the nation then as a citizen in a democracy one is obligated to at the very least speak out.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 30, 2007 04:26 PM
It is unlikely Cheney will run (both because of his health and because he has said he won’t, and he tends to actually do what he says he will do — kind of weird for a politician, but that has been his history).
That’s false. Cheney is a known flip-flopper. For example, after Gulf War I he warned that an invasion of Iraq would result in exactly the sort of mess we’re in now. The idea that September 11, 2001, “changed everything” is garbage. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, that nation wasn’t even on the list of countries where Al Qaeda was active according to Bush’s own State Department.
By the way, it’s the “liberal media” that played up Kerry’s “flip flopping” to the hilt while downplaying Cheney’s and Bush’s well-documented proclivity for flip-flopping with just as much frequency, if not more.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 30, 2007 07:33 PM
Lying to a grand jury should get you in trouble no matter how minor or even nonexistant the initial crime.
Only if you believe that one of the principles upon which our nation is founded — the principle of limiting governmental power to ensure the protection of individual liberties — should be tossed out the window.
The problem with your philosophy is that it provides a motive for malicious prosecutions. After all, even if you can’t prove your case you can punish the defendant for lying in front of the Grand Jury, right? If the case itself is baseless, then I believe the government has no right to punish the defendant for an offense that wouldn’t have happened but for that baseless prosecution.
I don’t know the details of Clinton’s presidency, or the controversial issues about his presidency. But, looking from the outside, the US seems to me to be doing very well when Clinton left office. The US doesn’t seem to be ding very well now.
Posted by: Bill Myers at March 31, 2007 02:49 AM:
“And I would assert that you’d be just as wrong. I fear that putative conservatives such as yourself have been hoodwinked by the modern liberal feminist agenda, which has as one of its foundations the belief that the private should be public, and that that which makes a woman “uncomfortable” should be criminal. Clinton’s affair became fodder for court testimony as a direct result of today’s twisted societal norms.”
Bill, I think I share your uneasiness about some of the puritanical attitides of some feminists. (This is an interesting issue in and of itself). But were these feminist attitudes involved in any way in Clinton’s sex scandal?
Posted by: Bill Myers at March 31, 2007 02:25 AM:
“Condemning all politicians in an attempt to wash your hands of the responsibility inherent in being a citizen in a democracy is just plain lazy thinking.”
Well said. Citizenship in a deomcracy is sometimes the responsibility of choosing between bad alternatives. Sometimes it is easier being a subject than a citizen and leaving the mess to the rulers.
Posted by: Bill Myers at March 31, 2007 02:49 AM:
“The belief that the mainstream media has a left-wing bias requires one to employ selective perception. The mainstream media is biased towards centrism, and towards sensationalism.”
as strannge as it sounds, the media is biased toward centrism and toward the political extremes. I think the reason the extreme left and the extreme right don’t like mainstream media is because it does not look at things with their point of view, terminology and ideological dogma. As a result, people at the extreme create their own ‘alternative’ media which tells them the news in a way that fits their preconceived ideology, which makes them feel even more strongly that the mainstream media is biased. (Is Fox mainstream media?).
Posted by: Micha at March 31, 2007 07:08 AM
Bill, I think I share your uneasiness about some of the puritanical attitides of some feminists. (This is an interesting issue in and of itself). But were these feminist attitudes involved in any way in Clinton’s sex scandal?
Yes, both directly and indirectly. Directly, because the depositions in the Paula Jones lawsuit that brought the Lewinsky affair to light were born of a legal action over an unwanted sexual advance that Jones herself admitted led to no tangible harm. Jones acknowledged that Clinton’s alleged sexual advance towards her never resulted in unwanted touching; the advances did not continue after she refused them; nor did her refusal result in any negative repercussions for her career. From any objective standpoint, Jones by her own admission suffered no harm. But modern feminist thought has strayed to an extreme: anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law.
The suit and the subsequent investigation into Clinton’s affair was, I believe, also indirectly driven by modern feminist extremism. Feminist thought holds — quite rightly — the idea that a husband may NOT do as he pleases to his wife within his home. Unfortunately, that very correct idea has been taken by some to an irrational extreme: the belief that that which is private must also be public. Past presidents engaged in affairs that never resulted in legal action. Why? There was a recognition that society needn’t stick its nose into every nook and cranny of individuals’ personal lives. A man is not entitled to abuse his wife and society has an interest in intervening when such abuse occurs. But society does NOT have a legitimate interest in regulating marital fidelity.
By the way, I am not a proponent of an “anything goes” culture where men may do as the please to women. My own sister was sexually harassed at work when some šhìŧhëád grabbed her buttock (for all I know that may meet the definition of sexual assault). If I’d been there I’d’ve been led out in handcuffs as a result of what I’d’ve done to that šhìŧhëád. Women have a right to work in an environment where they are free of unwanted touching, where the word “no” ends a man’s verbal pursuit of her, and where her career prospects are not impaired because she declines to have sex with her boss. But a woman is NOT entitled to a workplace free of anything that would hurt her feelings, just as a man is not entitled to such a “sanitized” environment.
Posted by: Micha at March 31, 2007 07:08 AM
(Is Fox mainstream media?).
Nope.
Posted by: Bill Myers at March 31, 2007 08:07 AM
“But modern feminist thought has strayed to an extreme: anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law.”
“Feminist thought holds — quite rightly — the idea that a husband may NOT do as he pleases to his wife within his home. Unfortunately, that very correct idea has been taken by some to an irrational extreme: the belief that that which is private must also be public.”
I think we pretty much agree on these issues. But I don’t know if it is accurate to describe even the extreme feminist point of view as a belief that that which is private must also be public. There’s a tricky nuance here: they are hostile toward public images of women (whether pornography or the extreme conservative image of women as subjugated to men) because they believe that it is a way which patriarchal society uses to make women in general weaker in society. At the same time, feminism by definition wants to affect the way women behave and think about themselves. So they believe they should interefere — but usually not legally — in the private decisions of women as to how to live their lives, because they believe that these decisions are not really private, but the result of manipulation by patriarchal society, and that it is necessary to ’empower’ women.
Ironically, this has led them at times to hold very puritanical views an to form an alliance with extreme conservatives, but not in the case of condemning people for having extra-marital affairs. In that sense they are not interested in making the private puvlic, I think.
It should be noted that I’m playing the devil’s advocate here. I do not agree completely with the more extreme feminist point of view, and I do think they have gone to far at times, or at least that they need to adjust their arguments. But I think if we are to argue with them in a fair way we should understad thei point of view.
“(Is Fox mainstream media?).
Nope.”
Interesting thing about that. Our cable provider offers a group of 24 hours news channels: CNN, BBC, SKY, a new french channel, MSNBC and Fox — 67-71. (I’m not sure we have al Jazira, if we do it is not in the same numerical group). But recently the cable company took Fox and shifted it to channel no. 20, where itis more likely to be seen by people flipping around. I suspect that this is politically motivated.
I need to correct one little eentsy weentsy overstatement in one of my prior posts… I should not have referred to “the problem with [Bill Mulligan’s] philosophy.” One view about one aspect of the legal system does not a “philosophy” make. Nor is it fair to state that Bill’s belief is tantamount to rejecting one of the pillars upon which our nation was founded.
Bill, I disagree with your view, which I feel is too absolute. But it ain’t fair to mischaracterize your entire worldview over that.
I think anyone with any equal opportunity training knows if Paula Jones had known her rights at the time she was subject to a hostile work-atmosphere, she would have kicked Bill Clinton’s ášš, and he never would have been president — and even with that knowledge, challenging sexual harrassment is scary as šhìŧ. Maybe this is just a case of Clinton not having a shortage of the right victim.
I don’t agree one woman mishandling the hostile work-atmosphere she was subjected to is evidence “modern feminist agenda has gone to an irrational extreme.”
Can you name one person who feels this way?
While I’ve heard conservatives say the constitution guarantees no right to privacy, I’ve never heard anyone on the left say the same. Nor any feminist.
I think there is a libertian angle for feminism: as the market is leveraged in favor of men and against women, women should reserve their financial support for businesses that benefit women workers and bosses more. A feminist could start a website to track such practices.
A libertian angle could also include the idea women reserve their dating for men whose values are compatible with such feminsim, instead of the common practice of liberal women dating conservative men. In such a manner I think it’s within the power of women to swing the country to their self-interest, more to their control, and good for them if they do.
Instead, the title-articles of the women’s magazines you see in the supermarket aisle are often stories of women who pull up the feminist ladder behind them after feminism has given them the job or relationship they want.
I agree the state of feminist leadership is in a disarray characterized by any large movment, but “anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law?” “The belief that that which is private must also be public?” Those are attacks the similarly disarrayed movements are not subject to.
Only if you believe that one of the principles upon which our nation is founded — the principle of limiting governmental power to ensure the protection of individual liberties — should be tossed out the window.
The problem with your philosophy is that it provides a motive for malicious prosecutions. After all, If the case itself is baseless, then I believe the government has no right to punish the defendant for an offense that wouldn’t have happened but for that baseless prosecution.
You’re making the exact argument that those conservatives who want Libby pardoned are making. Which puts me in the odd position of arguing, as most liberal pundits I’ve read have done, that even IF you think the initial prosecution was flawed–the fact that Richard Armitage is not going to be prosecuted tells us that there was not much of a case to be made–there are consequences to lying to a grand jury. Especially by a government official.
Libby could have simply siad he didn’t remember the exact dates and whatnot. Since his defense is that he made a simple mistake it would have been hard to prove otherwise. Now, should he go to jail for this, given that he was not the one who outed Plame? I don’t want to be cruel to a guy who made a mistake and tried to cover his ášš but making an example of him will probably reduce the liklihood of people lying to a Grand Jury in the future. If, after watching Clinton and Libby get nailed for lying they still do it, well, there is no hope for them.
2 other points– when you say even if you can’t prove your case you can punish the defendant for lying in front of the Grand Jury, right? I’d say yes but, and this is key, only if the defendent is dumb enough to lie to the Grand Jury! If they don’t do that the Prosecuter has nothing.
Also, the problem with I believe the government has no right to punish the defendant for an offense that wouldn’t have happened but for that baseless prosecution. is that the defendent does NOT get to decide whether or not the prosecution is baseless and therefore he or she is no longer bound by the rules of telling the truth. Baseless prosecution should not come to trial. Sometimes they do but that usually does not become obvious until well into it. Lying on the stand during a trila that you will probably win is the ultimate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Boy, I can see that getting over your illness has given you a burst of energy!
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 31, 2007 12:46 AM
I don’t think that’s correct–the prosecuter stated: If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered “information respecting the national defense.” In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.
Well, and Libby wasn’t charged with that
It isn’t a matter of being ignorant of the law–it is a matter of having to know that the agent is covert.
However, anyone familiar with security procedures should have strongly suspected she was covert, if he knew about her at all. If he knew she was a CIA operative/consultant at the level she was, and that she had an “official” job elsewhere (as an energy analyst with “Brewster Jennings and Associates” – a front which is also blown by her outing, exposing who-knows-how-many other covert agents), then it can be argued that he should have made the connection.
Or else that he’s even dumber than his ultimate boss in the Current Ruling Junta.
It’s similar to libel–you have to prove “actual malice”–in other words, the offending statement must not only be untrue but you have to prove that the person who said it KNEW it was untrue.
No, “reckless disregard” for the facts will do nicely in libel cases, i believe; if the plaintiff in such cases can convince the jury that the person making the statement should (or possibly even coud) have known it wasn’t the truth and went ahead and disseminated the information widely, to the plaintiff’s damage, the defendant may well have a case to answer.
Thus if the prosecutor had felt like going forward and had convinced the jury that Libby should (or could) have realised from the facts known to him that she was covert – and if Libby had, in fact been the one who outed her – then Libby would have had a case to answer.
As it was, he was convicted on four charges of lying to prosecutors, the FBI and perjury befor a Grand Jury.
(Incidentally – since either the Nixon or the Reagan days, i forget which “law’n’order” administration shoved it through – it is a crime to lie to the FBI or other Government agencies, evben if you’re not under oath.)
At any rate, since it was Richard Armitage who is now known to have been the first to speak to a reporter–Bob Novak– about Plame, where are the calls for his arrest? Assuming that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It seems as though if it isn’t Rove nobody is interested.
Agreed. Nail Armitage, nail Novak, who peinted the story – he certainly did it “knowingly” – and nail Rove, or at least put him on trial for ordering the leak and see if we can amake it stick. Ho;ld the Republicans to the same satandards they attempted to enforce against Clinton.
One would hope that the CIA has learned something from this–make sure the status of agents is clear. A law that can’t be enforced is not worth the paper it is printed on.
The White House (or one of its surrogates) says that the CIA should inform the White House of the identities of the agents whose covers it doesn’t want blown.
This is such a total violation of basic tradecraft that it is obvious that none of the people involved have ever done any serious military service, or been anywhere, else for that matter, where they might have learnt proper handling of classified material.
The White House has no “need to know” the identity of covert agents. What you don’t know, you can’t reveal. In fact – the White House shouldn’t have known that Plame worked for the CIA at all. Just that was a breach of proper procedure.
Incidentally, as to the “she wasn’t covert” argument – may i introduce this statement by General Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence:
// I don’t agree one woman mishandling the hostile work-atmosphere she was subjected to is evidence “modern feminist agenda has gone to an irrational extreme.”
From any objective standpoint, Jones by her own admission suffered no harm. But modern feminist thought has strayed to an extreme: anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law.
Can you name one person who feels this way? //
Know this wasn’t addressed to me but I hope you don’t mind if I answer
Let’s see off the top of my head, the woman who filed harassment charges against her boss for repeating a joke he heard the night before on what was at the time the most watched show in primtime TV, (seem’s the joke resolved around a womans name ryming with a female body part, if you know the show, you know what I’m talking about).
The female former excutive at the company I work for who had someone fired because she overheard a private conversation where he was talking to a fellow employee about a bit he heard on a morning radio show on his way to work. (the other employee was not in anyway offended).
A speaker (forget her name) who caused quite a controversy when I was in grad school, for suggesting, (quite seriously) that there should be a law requiring men to walk on the other side of the street if they saw a lone woman coming thier way. Apparently, according to her, when a woman sees a man on the street, regardless of the context, (or even time of day or geographical location) she always feels unsafe and uncofortable and the law should protect them, discrimination against the male gender be dammed.
Well, and Libby wasn’t charged with that
I think we all understand that. The point I was answering was whether or not he had to KNOW that he was breaking the law to be charged.
No, “reckless disregard” for the facts will do nicely in libel cases,
It’s very hard to win libel cases in the USA, as opposed to the UK where even Liberace won against a magazine that suggested he was “fruity”.
From wikipedia: For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech had no impact on the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system. This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States announced constitutional restrictions to state defamation law. The court held that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The “actual malice” standard was subsequently extended to public figures in general, and even to private figure plaintiffs seeking punitive or presumptive damages.
Nail Armitage, nail Novak, who peinted the story – he certainly did it “knowingly” – and nail Rove, or at least put him on trial for ordering the leak and see if we can amake it stick.
It would be very hard to nail Novak–according to him he contacted the CIA and they confirmed that Plame worked for them and did not tell him she was covert. Telling a newspaper guy that someone works for you would pretty much eliminate the part about “working to keep her identity secret” that is an essential part of the secrecy act. As for Rove, has Armitage claimed that it was Rove who told him to talk to Novak? I hadn’t heard anything to that effect?
(it also seems to me that it would be hard to convict Novak for reporting what he is hearing from government sources. Her cover was already blown, he can’t be lible for reporting that fact. Neither you nor I are in danger of being prosecuted for repeatedly repeating what we all now know–Plame worked for the CIA. It would be a very danagerous thing to give the CIA the power to enforce secrecy in pereptuity.)
A speaker (forget her name)
Was it Andrea Dworkin?
Darren, I appreciate the reply.
The internet is kind of a big place. Can you cite an example of the sentiment “anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law” characterizing modern feminism that isn’t urban legend, and doesn’t reflect the state of mind of the feminist through hearsay?
…and post Handmaid’s Tale?
// A speaker (forget her name)
Was it Andrea Dworkin? //
Honestly don’t remember the name, I remember being offended by the statement, and I knew lots of students and faculty, including other women, who also found the idea offensive. There were editorials back and forth in the Campus newspaper about it for weeks. It could have been , but I just looked up Dworkin’s picture on the net and unfortunatly the face didn’t ring a bell.
Uh, boy, I’ve touched off a mini-firestorm here.
I’ve been thinking about what I posted regarding feminism and I think the issue bears revisiting on my part. After all, the howling mob that led the charge to impeach and try Clinton was composed primarily of conservative Republicans. And it’s ironic that Micha used the word “Puritanical” to describe some of the extremist feminist factions, as Puritans weren’t known for being particularly liberal on social issues.
I like to point out to conservatives — particularly those on the extreme end of that side of the ideological spectrum — the inherent hypocrisy in talking about “limited government” in one breath and yet advocating the government’s unnecessary interference in people’s personal lives with the next breath. And, in part because I know it bugs them and I’m a bit of a devil, I like to point out the similarities between extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism.
It’s interesting that both the radical right and radical left view each other with such hatred and suspicion when they’re so much alike. Radical conservatives decry liberal “social engineering” and yet often support things like anti-sodomy laws that forbid even married heterosexual couples from engaging in certain consensual sexual practices. Radical liberals yammer on about protecting the rights of the individual to choose and yet try to pass laws (sometimes with success) limiting the rights of individuals in the name of protecting some segment of the public those radical liberals have deemed fragile and in need of paternalistic protection.
It was obviously unfair to solely blame the extremist factions of the feminist movement for the erosion of the wall between the private and the public. Don’t get me wrong — I believe many of society’s ills are traceable to the excesses of the feminist movement. But I also believe many other ills are traceable to the excesses of radical conservatives.
Bottom line — the older I get the less I give a crap about liberalism vs. conservatism. I think the real battle that needs to be fought is one between sensibility and extremism.
// Darren, I appreciate the reply.
The internet is kind of a big place. Can you cite an example of the sentiment “anything that makes a woman feel bad may be actionable under the law” characterizing modern feminism that isn’t urban legend, and doesn’t reflect the state of mind of the feminist through hearsay? //
Urban legends, hardly. The “Sienfield” case was a real case that got national news attention, (the guy who was fired won BTW, a jury decided the woman was overly sensitive). And there were plenty of women with agenda’s who went on talk shows and news programs to declare thier outrage on the verdict. I can remember a woman on Bill Mahr’s old show expressing her outrage, he basic point was that saying the word “vágìņá” made most woman uncofortable, and therfore qualfied for sexual harassment. Marhe responce to her was basically a variation on “oh come on, you can’t be serious”.
The guy in my company was a real person and that was a real incident. In theory he could have sued and I suspect, given how the Sienfield case worked out, he probably would have won but of course he would have had to go though the emotional and financial ringer of a legal trial on top of the emotional and financial ringer of having just been fired. He choose not to pursue this action.
I don’t think the majority of feminist, or even the majority of women feel this way, but yeah they’re out there.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 31, 2007 10:48 AM
…the defendent does NOT get to decide whether or not the prosecution is baseless and therefore he or she is no longer bound by the rules of telling the truth.
Bill, you have a valid point. We certainly can’t allow people to interpret the oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as a mere guideline or option. At the same time, the courts have fairly consistently held that law enforcement officials must not be allowed to use evidence obtained illegally, no matter how dámņìņg the evidence. By the same token, if one can be prosecuted for lying before a grand jury in answer to a question that should never have been asked in the first place, how do we stop prosecutors from using this as a tool to nail people against whom they otherwise have no case? The idea that “people just shouldn’t lie before a grand jury” sounds wonderful on the surface, but it allows for the creation of “perjury traps” that may meet the letter of the law but in no way, shape, nor form serve the cause of justice.
By the way, the usefulness of the grand jury process is suspect. Originally, the process was instituted to limit prosecutorial power but in practice it has had the opposite effect. The rules are stacked in the prosecutors’ favor and it has been said that a good prosecutor could idict “a ham sandwich.”
And I reject comparisons between the prosecution of Libby and that of President Clinton. Libby’s apparent unwillingness to cooperate with prosecutors may well have prevented the prosecutor in that case from getting at the truth in the matter of the Plame outing. Clinton’s lie took place during a deposition in answer to a question that was deemed immaterial to the case. Even if you think that Clinton deserved some punishment, one should not conflate his situation with Libby’s.
Posted by: fairportfan at March 31, 2007 01:10 PM
Incidentally, as to the “she wasn’t covert” argument – may i introduce this statement by General Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence…
It amazes me that people are still talking about Plame’s status as though it were a matter of opinion, when it is actually a matter of fact.
Also, I don’t know what other people were seeing when Plame testified. But from what I watched on the tube, her testimony was confident and credible. She was outed by a member of the Bush administration, period.
If there is any place where Pelosi has been grilled on this decision I’d like to see it.
I don’t know if she has ever been interviewed about it, but the talking heads on TV media certainly spared no outrage over his committee assigned. Ironically, not a peep came out of Hannity, Rush, or O’Reilly when Hastert tried to rewrite House ethics rules so that DeLay could keep his leadership position when he became indicted.
Here’s the thing about Jefferson: So long as he’s a member of the House, they have to put him on some committee and because of Congress’s arcane seniority rules, he gets to make his request for assignment ahead of those with lesser seniority, so it’s not like they can just dump him on some obscure community that no one cares about (like the Ethics committee :-)). Until he’s formally indicted, the only thing they could do was strip him of his leadership position, which they did last year.