http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

Article discusses how libby was told to leak classified information by Chenney who was authorized by Bush. If that is the case they should impeach them both as that is a violation of quite a few federal laws and could potentially put agents lives in danger for thier spouses or thier political views.

Rev

P.S. Dont start the Liberal left wing stuff, I have voted republican in every election but the last one.

"violation of quite a few federal laws"

Please give us a cite to the federal laws violated. I didn't see any mention of laws violated in the article (other than the ones Libby has been indicted for).

regardless if he actually broke a law....what about just being wrong.

you know its bad when your candidate of choice or the person you back, you need to make poeple spell out exactly which law they broke. Basically means you know the fucker did wrong, you just wanting to see how much of it he could dodge. Its ok though, we did the same thing when Clinton was on trial.

Also, to add...didn Bush declare a full scale criminal investigation on information leaking when it came to domestic spying leak? Kinda funny, when its in his best interest its cool, when it's not move out the troops....i love our government

Yes of course here we go again.../rollseyes..

once again adding something of substance to a conversation., thanks for showing up Osg.

You're welcome....=) I aim to please.

federal law prohibits the willful communication to an unauthorized person classified information concerning the communication of intelligence activities of the United States

18 U.S.C. §798(a)(3)

Is the first. it takes time to find the specifics, the US gov site sucks.

What can the VP declassify? A pair of executive orders apply. Here is Clinton's (http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html) term. It mentions the VP, but only says that declassification may be prevented if it'd impair the duties of that office.

EO13292, from Bush, amends this with considerably more involvement of the VP. This order gives the VP the ability to classify information as secret, top secret, or confidential. It also allows preemption of the 25 year declassification rule if that declassification would impair the ability to protect the VP from physical harm. Waivers and access to classified information from former administration officials (including the VP) is discussed. Nowhere does the EO allow the VP to unilaterally declassify information (which is what Libby has implied). The declassification process is distinct from classification. If Cheney declassified information unilaterally, then it would appear he has broken the law.

Cheney seems to slip in his conversation (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/cheney.transcript/) with Brit Hume (the first after the shooting):Question: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors -- unidentified -- authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

Cheney: It's nothing I can talk about, Brit. This is an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor. All of it is now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He's a great guy. I've worked with him for a long time, have enormous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

Question: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

Cheney: There is an executive order to that effect.

Question: There is.

Cheney: Yes.

Question: Have you done it?

Cheney: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

Question: You ever done it unilaterally?

Cheney: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

ob struction of Justice.
Perjury.
Leaking of a under cover agents name-- this one is the hardest to prove because of how narrowly the law was written.

United States Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/toc.html)

TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/toc.html)

CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/toc.html)

SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/toc.html)


section 421. covers the cover operative.

title 18 on perjury.

and
title 18 part 1 section 1510, 1511, possible 1519.

Edited with the areas of the code that are germaine from what I could find.

They followed this law to the letter there are several reporters/newspapers that would be locked up and shut down as well.

Fandros

Yes there are a couple of article talking about that particular angle as well. does national security trump the first amendment?

Rev

Giving out classified information isn't part of your first amendment right, being Classified:Secret, Top-Secret etc, exempts it from normal treatment. Later after it no longer needs to remain secret, it is then de-classified and available for the public. I.E. the old Kennedy tapes and the like.

Some things out there need to remain out of the public eye, not to hide it from the citizens of our country but to hide the information from those that would use it against us. As is, we have far too much sensitive information out there already.

I dont think Bush broke any laws. But im not going to go all the way with that, he might have, I know its enormously complex and will become even more convuluted as you add more lawyers.

What I do know is this...
BUSH: Listen, I know of nobody—I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information—outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something—leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them—there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

liar.. by any standard, if its true.

Fool me once shame on you....fool me twice.....can't get fooled again!!!!

That quote is better than the one L2 picked!

Nothing to this revelation contrary to the spin made by Dean and other Dems...

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

See the spin...

“The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Maybe Dean knows exactly what was disclosed, but the AP doesn't say it was classified.

The only person for certain who has released sensitive intelligence was Wilson in his NYT op-ed, the liar that he is.

And lets not forget that "Classified Information" gets routinely leaked as a method of mis-information.

Thank you Bush for informing me of the existance of the "administrative branch". I had no idea.

Isn't that the Executive Branch?

Phel was commenting on a quote from Bush from the quote that L2 linked.

Well, If he broke the law then he should be punished.
If he didn't, there will be enough of a smudge on his legacy, that will last for a good, long while.
Some people can't tell when the "classified information" and the Classified Information is released.
Misinformation is a great tactic, but in our society, where the 2 parties love to bash on the other to get points for their core constituents, it looks like someone is breaking the law, when in actuality, they are trying to draw out the enemy.
Distrust of the Government, ever since Vietnam, has played a BIG role in our society.

I know the president has the power to decide what is classified and what isnt. Bush I think has empowered Cheney to be able to make that decision as well.

The crux of the issue lies two points.
A. What specifically did he authorize to be leaked. If he leaked that Joe Wilsons wife was a CIA employee, thats one thing, and by far the worse case scenario, if true. Best case would be that the leaking of information about issues of Joe Wilsons credibility. This would be ok.. "Nixonesque" and to a degree dishonest, but not illegal.
B. The secondary issue would be if Bush and/or Cheney declassified information for the sole purpose of leaking it in order to defend itself politically. This would be as blatant a case of Abuse of the Powers of Office as I can imagine. That will get him impeached.

Thing is.. this is going to be stretched out until 2006. If Democrats win the House as expected, Bush will be the 3rd president impeached.

Anyone else just starting to feel massively discouraged about our government? This is a huge generalization I realize, but it seems like in the last two years we've put up with more almost-scandals than any sane population should. The Republicans in power, namely Bush's cronies, seem to be covered in one bit of idiocy after another. I didn't even react when I caught this one on the news, it just isn't worth the energy any more. The Democrats (big generalization again) are only about half a step behind them, and probably only look cleaner because they aren't actually in the majority.

I kept thinking the next presidential election would yield fresh change, but none of the names that I'm hearing being tossed around are especially exciting to me. Political morality seems to be hitting a wonderful low spot, and I don't see much of an end in sight.

On the other hand, suppose Bush is pissed they ever had Scooter around in the first place? :D

I know the president has the power to decide what is classified and what isnt. Bush I think has empowered Cheney to be able to make that decision as well.I see now that I forgot to link to EO13292 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html), the executive order from Bush that deals with classifying and declassifying national security information. The VP has the power to classify and the power to prevent certain types of declassification, but not the power to unilaterally declassify. Bush may have given him the okay to do so, which may make it legal, but there is a procedure to go through, and I'm not sure that it was or was not followed.

If Bush ordered (or, more likely, okay'd) the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity, he needs to explain himself (tho' he'll never do so). The current spin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040602062.html?nav=rss_print/asection) on releasing classified info is:A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.The next paragraph notes that the President has not been accused of authorizing the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity, but that's a crucial question.B. The secondary issue would be if Bush and/or Cheney declassified information for the sole purpose of leaking it in order to defend itself politically. This would be as blatant a case of Abuse of the Powers of Office as I can imagine. That will get him impeached.I don't think anything short of giving nukes to Iran will get him impeached, but the latest revelations (including Gonzoles' testimony that he wouldn't rule out domestic warrantless wiretapping) might give a shot in the arm to Feingold's censure resolution. Thing is.. this is going to be stretched out until 2006. If Democrats win the House as expected, Bush will be the 3rd president impeached.Maybe. The Dems comprise too many conflicting views to make it certain, but at the very least we might see actual inquiries come about.

I know the president has the power to decide what is classified and what isnt. Bush I think has empowered Cheney to be able to make that decision as well.

The crux of the issue lies two points.
A. What specifically did he authorize to be leaked. If he leaked that Joe Wilsons wife was a CIA employee, thats one thing, and by far the worse case scenario, if true. Best case would be that the leaking of information about issues of Joe Wilsons credibility. This would be ok.. "Nixonesque" and to a degree dishonest, but not illegal.
B. The secondary issue would be if Bush and/or Cheney declassified information for the sole purpose of leaking it in order to defend itself politically. This would be as blatant a case of Abuse of the Powers of Office as I can imagine. That will get him impeached.

Thing is.. this is going to be stretched out until 2006. If Democrats win the House as expected, Bush will be the 3rd president impeached.

We know the disclosure (not leak) had nothing to do with Joe Wilson or his wife... it was about the NIE. Nothing in the NIE had anything to do with Vanity Plame.

We have every reason to believe Libby was very careful about what to talk about and what not to talk about, because he went back to Cheney to clarify and then he went to a lawyer to get a better understanding of all of it.

It is also standard practice for every president to leak to a few reporters in advance info that later will be released to the press corps as a whole, especially something as complicated and polarizing as the NIE was at the time. That's called a scoop and I don't see anything wrong with it.

But again, nothing here was classified...or if it was classified at the time, it was going to be made public very soon...and even if so, the president has the Constitutional authority to unclass it as he judges.

I see in this "revelation" yesterday once again by the media a first instinct to play gotcha with president Bush. While all the Chris Matthews are breathlessly going ga ga about this, they all know better. It's simple demagoguery.

All of this could have been avoided if Joe Wilson knew how to tell the truth. He lied in his NYT op-ed. He lied before the Senate committee on Intelligence. He lied about who sent him to Niger in 1999 (his wife.) He lied about who recommended him to Niger before the invasion (his wife again, not Cheney as he stated.) He lied about who he briefed (not the president) when he got back. He lied about the supposedly forged documents. And it's not very suprising, he lied about the actual facts that he discovered while "sipping tea" while on his Niger trip.

The man should have been taken out back and shot for treason.

All of this could have been avoided if Joe Wilson knew how to tell the truth. He lied in his NYT op-ed. He lied before the Senate committee on Intelligence.Given the verifiable lies President Bush has committed, I'm not sure why you care, but please elaborate and provide support. He lied about who sent him to Niger in 1999 (his wife.)Where? Not in his op-ed, where he didn't mention that trip. He lied about who recommended him to Niger before the invasion (his wife again, not Cheney as he stated.)
Wilson did not say (at least in his op-ed) that Cheney recommended him or ordered him to go, though this is a common falsehood passed on by the Bushbots. Provide support for you claim. From his op-ed:In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.The "CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html) has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999" [which his wife did recommend him for]. Also, given his credentials -- years of working as an ambassador in the region and personal knowledge of Hussein -- Wilson was quite qualified to make the trip. This is just one of those strawmen akipt is so fond of spouting off about without supporting his claim.
He lied about who he briefed (not the president) when he got back.Where does he make this claim? It wasn't in his op-ed, where he mentions only "promptly provid[ing] a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. [and] later shar[ing his] conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau."
He lied about the supposedly forged documents. And it's not very suprising, he lied about the actual facts that he discovered while "sipping tea" while on his Niger trip.Again, elaborate with support for your claims. And no sipping tea while you do so, as evidently that undermines the validity of your work.

Why when I read about this did I picture Ritter holding up a letter to Jack Ryan and asking if he had a "get out of jail free card". Scooter has shown the jury resonable doubt that he knownly leaked "classified" info. By saying that Bush authorized the release of "some" information, libby can argue that what he released he "thought" was de-classified.


What I still think is amazing is how people can villianize Libby, but yet call ex-CIA disgrunted employee's that leak classifed terrorist containment camp information a hero and whisleblower.. go figure.. Last I checked, the President definately did NOT declassify that.

What I still think is amazing is how people can villianize Libby, but yet call ex-CIA disgrunted employee's that leak classifed terrorist containment camp information a hero and whisleblower...Because people believe that the use of secret torture camps villainizes us. And you have no idea who is in those camps, what they are or aren't guilty or suspected of, or what is being done to them. But all that is for another thread.

Because people believe that the use of secret torture camps villainizes us. And you have no idea who is in those camps, what they are or aren't guilty or suspected of, or what is being done to them. But all that is for another thread.

Once again, the distrust of our government fuels this line of thinking.
The problem with this way of thinking is that the people who want to do us harm, have access to the same info the general public.
I remember a saying my grandmother told me during WWII: "Loose Lips Sink Ships."
It basically said, we don't know who the enemy is, or what he's planning, so if you know anything, keep your trap shut.
If that tactic was employed nowdays, Geraldo Rivera and company would be leading the charge of the 1st Amendment Protection Society, or some such.
The Government is charged with the protection of it's people. This doesn't mean it has to put up every decision up for public scrutiny.
Just because the guy you didn't like, got voted (Whether he be Democrat or Rebublican) doesn't mean they are to be distrusted, espically with the defense of the nation.

Quote:
He lied about who sent him to Niger in 1999 (his wife.)

Where? Not in his op-ed, where he didn't mention that trip. He has written a book, testified in Senate Intelligence committees, and had his face plastered on just about every talk-show there is. Pick one, he lied in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Remember those "16 words" from the SOTU address that Bush later said shouldn't have been in the address? Wilson's own report backed Bush up on it.

There's more I don't have time for.

Something a bit more recent...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=12864

Even the left is coming to their senses regarding Wilson.

Because people believe that the use of secret torture camps villainizes us. And you have no idea who is in those camps, what they are or aren't guilty or suspected of, or what is being done to them. But all that is for another thread



No, that is not for another thread. The subject is about leaking classified information. I am glad to know that you are an authority on what classified info should be leaked though. You are correct that I had no idea who was in those camps.. BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED!!! If you want to place blame, then you need to be cut and dry about it and hammer everyone, or no one at all. This world we live in will never be a utopia, and we need to maintain secrets... even ones you do not agree with.

Something a bit more recent...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=12864

Even the left is coming to their senses regarding Wilson.


They called him a gay baiter...they didn't question whether he was telling the truth with regard to the Bush fiasco.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. We can dispense with the TNR bit; it has nothing to do with matters of substance (we can say Wilson might be a sinner and be done with it). That he made the media rounds is also neither surprising or pertinent. He may like the sound of his own voice, but given the administration's cavalier treatment of his wife's career and the former ambassador himself, I couldn't blame him for mounting a defense.

As I said before, whether Plame (just to be succinct) recommended Joe or not isn't germane to the legality of outing her. It simply doesn't matter. The right has tried to paint this as a boondoggle as if going to Niger was some kind of treat. Wilson was compensated for basic expenses and nothing more. But the report says that one CIA analyst says Plame recommended her husband for the trip (which, given his credentials, would make sense). Others at CIA dispute that, including (IIRC) George Tenet himself. The question is muddled, but fortunately irrelevant. One of those strawmen meant to detract from the real questions.

I do wonder if Susan Schmidt read the report (http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf) herself or if she got the cliff notes version from a Roberts staffer. For instance, near the end she states that, "According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998." But this is nowhere in the report. Instead, on p44 (p54 of the pdf), we see that, "He [the Niger minister] said than an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran." Confidence isn't high (the Post later ran a correction).

Regarding Wilson's reported "confusion," the ambassador replied in his letter to Roberts and Rockefeller:This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.

On March 7, 2003, the director general of the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic." His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries, "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was. You can read his letter here (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/5278) if you like (scroll down).

As an aside, I do find the several "became confused" notes in the report kind of amusing, given the obvious parallel to the many "I can't recall" statements from Libby, Rove, (every politician ever to be cross-examined), etc. Such vulnerable memories we have. Anyway...And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. This bit of reporting also seems off-base, given p56 of the report (p66 of the pdf):Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."Those aren't qualms?

Lastly, I haven't read the whole report, but while I saw brief mention of "some intelligence analysts" thinking Wilson's report bolstered administration claims, I haven't seen evidence of it (not saying it's not there, just that I haven't found it in the last hour's perusal). On p42 (p52 of pdf) I do findOn March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence estimate, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely. The INR analyst who drafted the assessment told Committee staff that he had been told that the piece was in response to interest from the Vice-President's office in the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. The assessment reiterated INR's view that France controlled the uranium industry and "would take action to block a sale of the kind alleged in a CIA report of questionable credibility from a foreign government service." Wilson's report was reinforced by other reports, and no sale of uranium was ever made. The administration then outed an operative involved in tracking WMD proliferation in the Middle East. They justify that decision by saying it was necessary to "expose Wilson," but if they had such valid reasons why did the administration cover up the source of the leak of Plame's name to Novak, Woodward, Cooper, Miller, etc? It was shady politics of revenge that sacrificed an asset of our intelligence network for cheap political points.

I have no doubt who the real traitors are in this scenario.

No, that is not for another thread. The subject is about leaking classified information. I am glad to know that you are an authority on what classified info should be leaked though. You are correct that I had no idea who was in those camps.. BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED!!! If you want to place blame, then you need to be cut and dry about it and hammer everyone, or no one at all. This world we live in will never be a utopia, and we need to maintain secrets... even ones you do not agree with.You're missing the larger point, and have been for some time. Two larger points, tho' one you simply don't agree with.

The first overarching issue is oversight and accountability. The President operates under the theory that he can do anything he wants in the name of national security without warrant, without congressional or judicial awareness, and -- it seems -- without limit. Just this week Gonzales "wouldn't rule [out]" warrantless domestic wiretapping. Fourth Amendment? Fuck it. Look at his signing statements on the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment (short version: Bush can ignore it if he wants) and the much ballyhooed -- even by the President -- Patriot Act renewal (again, Bush says he can ignore the oversight requirements).

Let me paint a scenario. The President authorizes the creation of a secret prison for political opponents, whom he arranges secret arrest in the name of national security. Joe Wilson? Gone. General Shinseki? Gone. Cindy Sheehan? Gone. Congress, the courts and ourselves are left in the dark, again, in the name of national security. Because their comments undermine the President or some such claptrap we regularly hear. But the asst. warden decides he doesn't like this, it doesn't square with that Constitution thing. He finds a way to go to the press, and the whole shebang is uncovered.

In my view, that guy is -- if not a hero (a word oft-overused) -- at the very least worthy of praise for revealing such a clearly un-American fabrication. Would you agree or disagree?

The second overarching issue -- one you'll likely disagree with -- is my belief that the Founders would find this President's behavior abominable. The secrecy, the torture, rendition, warrantless wiretaps and so on. I believe the Federalist papers, personal writings and the Constitution itself (e.g., text regarding cruel and unusual punishment) express their distaste for these practices. My review of the John Yoo/other guy paper in a thread from a few weeks back bolsters this viewpoint. A king capable of unilaterally invading the freedom and persons of his subjects is exactly what the Founders wished to avoid, and torture was for tyrants.

We know innocent individuals have been tortured, in some cases to death. We know that Bush is willing to lie about his activities (e.g., warrants for wiretaps); he is unworthy of our trust. We know that mistakes can happen, and we know that people with power often use that power for malicious and self-serving ends. And we depend on the press to inform us of all these things, because the perpetrators will not, and will seek to conceal their actions. That is why the Founders gave the press their freedom.

That is why I can praise those individuals who revealed our secret torture prisons and condemn those who revealed the identity of one of our operatives.

In the words of Jon Stewart...Do you ever wonder if Al Qaeda thinks we're retarded?

We know innocent individuals have been tortured, in some cases to death. We know that Bush is willing to lie about his activities (e.g., warrants for wiretaps); he is unworthy of our trust. We know that mistakes can happen, and we know that people with power often use that power for malicious and self-serving ends. And we depend on the press to inform us of all these things, because the perpetrators will not, and will seek to conceal their actions. That is why the Founders gave the press their freedom.

One of the most intelligent things i have ever seen posted on this board...

I still haven't seen the law Bush broke and should be impeached for in this instance.

I also haven't seen the law that was supposedly broken regarding the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Why wasn't Libby charged with "outing" her?

Still waiting for some concrete cites and evidence. Otherwise looks like normal everyday operations where the President declassifies information and allows others in the Executive Branch to discuss the newly declassified information with the press.

I still haven't seen the law Bush broke and should be impeached for in this instance.


He'd have to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy for you to see that.

Anyone know if the odds are set yet in Vegas for Bush scrapping 2008 elections in the name of national security and the war on terror?

meh.

Im fairly certain he has one foot out the door and cant wait for this term to end. The man has undergone Lincoln-esque pressure these last 4 years. Now.. most of it he brought on himself.. but the weight of the office is what it is.

I agree with L2. Shit did I just say that? SOrry won't happen again. That kind of pressure is too much for a person. Look at Clinton. When he started he was fairly young and strong and healthy looking by the end and even now it looks like someone has forgotten to tell him he died like 2 years ago. Looks terrible. I am sure Bush is and will be the same when he is done.

I've seen pre- and post- Presidency pictures of Clinton, the first Bush, Nixon and Reagan (who was old to begin with). It's like they were on daily meth those 4 years. The Presidency does not do a body good.

I've seen pre- and post- Presidency pictures of Clinton, the first Bush, Nixon and Reagan (who was old to begin with). It's like they were on daily meth those 4 years. The Presidency does not do a body good.

Well, just look at the first episode of West Wing and then at last night's......

Martin Sheen looks like he has really taken a beating these least five years:p

I notice it the worst with Regan.
He went in looking 50 yrs old, and left looking 90.
Clinton looked bad at the end of his tenure too.

Clinton didn't really look so bad until he had the heart surgery imo.

Let me paint a scenario. The President authorizes the creation of a secret prison for political opponents, whom he arranges secret arrest in the name of national security. Joe Wilson? Gone. General Shinseki? Gone. Cindy Sheehan? Gone. Congress, the courts and ourselves are left in the dark, again, in the name of national security. Because their comments undermine the President or some such claptrap we regularly hear. But the asst. warden decides he doesn't like this, it doesn't square with that Constitution thing. He finds a way to go to the press, and the whole shebang is uncovered.




First off.. this would be a bad thing? All kidding aside, this is a painting that even Savador Dali would say is fantasy. Now, if people who could harm the President ended up mysteriously dying.. then I would believe it. What I find funny is that you talk about the writings of the Federalists, yet those same individuals tried to stifle criticism by means of the aliens and sedation act. Basically you could not be critical of the president or congress. Thomas Jefferson was able to repeal it..

Let me paint a scenario. The President authorizes the creation of a secret prison for political opponents, whom he arranges secret arrest in the name of national security. Joe Wilson? Gone. General Shinseki? Gone. Cindy Sheehan? Gone. Congress, the courts and ourselves are left in the dark, again, in the name of national security. Because their comments undermine the President or some such claptrap we regularly hear. But the asst. warden decides he doesn't like this, it doesn't square with that Constitution thing. He finds a way to go to the press, and the whole shebang is uncovered.


Wasn't this a Tom Cruise movie?
Maybe you should get in contact with Stephen Spielberg, and pitch the movie to him.
My "American Idol Getting More Votes Than The President" idea was all ready stolen.

First off.. this would be a bad thing? All kidding aside, this is a painting that even Savador Dali would say is fantasy.And yet torture supporters such as yourself justify their pov by alluding to what-if scenarios straight out of Hollywood and 24. "What if a terrorist has a nuclear bomb in NYC and the only way to find out about it is to torture him?!?!" But if it's easier for you, I'll just put your answer down as "Dodge."
Now, if people who could harm the President ended up mysteriously dying.. then I would believe it. What I find funny is that you talk about the writings of the Federalists, yet those same individuals tried to stifle criticism by means of the aliens and sedation act. Basically you could not be critical of the president or congress. Thomas Jefferson was able to repeal it..Aliens and Sedation Act...:p

Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist papers I cite, opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. You also forget that these are the same individuals who wrote the First Amendment. What I find funny is that you don't seem to have a point at all. John Adams (who as President signed the Alien & Sedition Acts) didn't write any of the Federalist papers. James Madison, author of many of them and often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" opposed the acts (as did Jefferson).

Or perhaps your position is that the passage of these acts by certain Founding Fathers renders all their works moot. One could, then, simply rephrase your statement as:What I find funny is that you talk about the writers of the Constitution, yet those same individuals tried to stifle criticism by means of the aliens and sedation act.

Bumping an old post to bring it full circle.

The "outer" is revealed --

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

Too bad it was simply a guy gossiping and not some super tinfoil hat conspiracy. It was even from a guy who dislikes the current administration. Fairly ironic. Looks like there really wasn't a law broken with respect to the underlying discussions. Fitzmas fizzles?

Now I should trust the treasonous leftist MSM? ...

But Clinton......

Now I should trust the treasonous leftist MSM? ...A broken clock is right at least twice a day.

It must be convienient when you get to choose those two times.

Your clock is stuck on a flashing 12:00

You know nothing of me, or my clock, you interpret shadows on the wall of the cave to fit your personal wants. You paint people with the broad brush of "Liberal", or America hater, and attack mostly with ad homs or focus on minor points that dont have significance to the greater point, because you try to avoid that. When I say echo chamber, in case you dont understand the analogy, is that you shout so loud because of your refusal to give any credence to other points of view that the only thing you have coming back to you is your own viewpoint.

Its why your side is failing so badly now. Your leaders raill and rant about no unity during a time of "war", and how we must be united. Yet the idea of leadership to create this unity comes from the "We are in charge and do not care what your opinion is" stance that the Republicans have taken. You cannot ask people in a democracy to follow you when you ignore their views. Unity is the onus of the leadership, and this leadership has failed miserably.

I look on events occuring in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and our electorate with the sad knowledge that the world could have been a much better place with a more capable leader, who had people with less dogmatic ideologies advising him. Tragically we do not, and the world is a worse place than it was on the morning of Sept 11. We have not been attacked on our soil, this is true, but the sword still hangs over Democlicles head, joined now by more.

...you interpret shadows on the wall of the cave to fit your personal wants.Funny. As it finally turns out, that is exactly what you and the media did concerning this supposed "leak."

Blink blink.

I look on events occuring in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and our electorate with the sad knowledge that the world could have been a much better place with a more capable leader, who had people with less dogmatic ideologies advising him. Tragically we do not, and the world is a worse place than it was on the morning of Sept 11. We have not been attacked on our soil, this is true, but the sword still hangs over Democlicles head, joined now by more.

So who would this more capable leader have been? Jack Bauer? Superman? Of course the world would be better off with a more capable leader. Unless you can articulate who this "better leader" is, you might as well wish for a pony, for all the good it will do you.
You also speak on subjects that you have no first hand account of. Have you been to Iraq? Lebanon? Iran? Do you know first hand what is happening there?
You get your information, as many people do, from the news media.
While I think the accusations of a "Liberal" slant is a bit much, it has been proven that "if it bleeds, it leads".
So you take the storys put forth by organizations that are only interested in selling papers, place them into a preconcieved framework of distrust, and call it a valid viewpoint.
Hey, that shadow there looks like a bunny, or Carl Rove leaking information....

L2, you must stop with the assertions that the right is failing badly.

According to the latest Gallup polls Bush has a 42% approval rating ( a drastic increase) and the republicans have made huge gains in their congressional races.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DonaldLambro/2006/08/30/gallup_points_to_gop_resurgence

You can find similar links about this USA Today Gallup poll as I understand the Townhall site is decidedly biased.

By all indications the Right is rising again, and with more money in their political pockets it's likely they'll not lose a thing.

You have to beware your own echo chamber on this issue bud.

Fandros

Note that polls of Bush approval ratings range from 35%-42%, so what may appear to be a big bounce might just be looking at two different polls. I used to have a link that kept a running update across polls...ah, here (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm) it is. Small bounce since May, with Gallup the peak of the most recent lot.

Funny. As it finally turns out, that is exactly what you and the media did concerning this supposed "leak."
Oh bullshit, nowhere in this tread did I say anything happened that was illegal.
I did call someone a liar who lied. Bush said he would fire anyone in his administration found to leak, he didnt. Thats a lie.
I did speculate, but my comments were always couched with "if this is proven to be true" because I am always well aware of the Beltways habit of proclaiming eagles before the chickens eggs have hatched.

So who would this more capable leader have been? Jack Bauer? Superman? Of course the world would be better off with a more capable leader. Unless you can articulate who this "better leader" is, you might as well wish for a pony, for all the good it will do you.
The leader should have been the person elected, he does not escape fault because the other guy wasnt capable either, he wanted the office, the failings are his and his alone, not mitigated by the choice the electors made but by his ability to perform to the level the office he wanted requires.

You also speak on subjects that you have no first hand account of. Have you been to Iraq? Lebanon? Iran? Do you know first hand what is happening there?
What is happening on ground level is not the whole story. The perspective of one person does not complete the picture. The US Soldier, The Iraqi Shia, and the Iraqi Sunni may all be standing next to each other, looking in the same direction, but none of them are seeing the same thing. And their interpretation of whats going on and how interact with their environment based on that interpretation create reality.

You get your information, as many people do, from the news media.
Depends on your defintion of "news media". On a daily basis I read about 20 different and varied sources of news. I also read blogs from local areas, 2 from Iraqis, a few from US soldiers stationed in Iraq for example. Others from places like Egypt of Algeria. I read AlJezeera and a couple other more hardcore jihadi supporting sites. I read Fox News and the Free Republic, I read Daily Kos, LGF, Powerline and Democratic Underground. I read the New York Times and I read Newmax. I read about 25 different columnists a week. I read BBC, Russian, Chinese, African, Israeli, Palestinean and Saudi papers when English translations are possible. I the missives from Center for American Progress, Cato, Project for the New American Century, and the Brookings Institute. I read about 3 foriegn policy journals a week.
These are just from my "Political Links" folder in my bookmarks.
I dont put stock in any one of these sources, I read them and try to create an informed opinion based on the totatlity of what I have read. See Sixee, the Truth in todays market place of Ideas is something that hides. There are massive attempts by people to sell you things that look like truth, sound like truth and contain parts of the truth, but the Truth itself is a pure object that one has to strive toward. I do not know if I have ever uncovered it on my own, but I have endevored to chase the truth whereever it leads ideologically.
All those sites I read, 90% of it is crap. The internet is a wonderful thing. It contains the truth and holds access to more knowledge than human beings have ever had access to in the history of our species. We are all connected literally with all the knowledge of human history at our fingertips, nanoseconds away. Everything, Everybody, All the time.
But its like a river, it rushes past with speed and fury. We are like the men of the 1849 Gold Rush charging out to California. We put our sifters in the river bringing up a load of mud and rock and shake it, hoping to seperate the shit from the gold. On the internet the Truth is gold. Its there, its hiding, its tough to find, but its there.

Say what you will about the conclusions I come to, but dont say I get my news spoonfed to me, my opinions are mine, based on a purposefully wide net of information.

If that slope on the graph Thor posted was ski slope, it would a triple black diamond.

Depends on your defintion of "news media". On a daily basis I read about 20 different and varied sources of news. I also read blogs from local areas, 2 from Iraqis, a few from US soldiers stationed in Iraq for example. Others from places like Egypt of Algeria. I read AlJezeera and a couple other more hardcore jihadi supporting sites. I read Fox News and the Free Republic, I read Daily Kos, LGF, Powerline and Democratic Underground. I read the New York Times and I read Newmax. I read about 25 different columnists a week. I read BBC, Russian, Chinese, African, Israeli, Palestinean and Saudi papers when English translations are possible. I the missives from Center for American Progress, Cato, Project for the New American Century, and the Brookings Institute. I read about 3 foriegn policy journals a week.
These are just from my "Political Links" folder in my bookmarks.
I dont put stock in any one of these sources, I read them and try to create an informed opinion based on the totatlity of what I have read. See Sixee, the Truth in todays market place of Ideas is something that hides. There are massive attempts by people to sell you things that look like truth, sound like truth and contain parts of the truth, but the Truth itself is a pure object that one has to strive toward. I do not know if I have ever uncovered it on my own, but I have endevored to chase the truth whereever it leads ideologically.


Yet you still have time to post here.
Ever think that you skip over the parts that don't fit in to your framework, and pay attention to the ones that do?
If you say you don't, then you are trying to sell me a cowpatty, and tell me it's yummy.
Your 'truth" and the real Truth, might be 2 different things. You even admit not knowing if you have ever seen the Truth. Yet you feel confident in posting your version here.
That shadow looks like a puppy dog, or Bush going to war for oil....

Let it go L2...

You're arguing with an award winner on Carlos Mencia's Dee-Dee-Dee Awards.

Let it go L2...

You're arguing with an award winner on Carlos Mencia's Dee-Dee-Dee Awards.

Yep, your argument is so weak, you resort to personal attacks.

The real Truth is never two different things. The real truth is not subjective or relative. Real Truth exists and can be discovered. Its just not easy.

And I never said I had Truth, nor am I trying to sell you anything. What I am doing is chasing the truth. I offer my opinions and try to get people to find theirs and offer their honest opinions. What I hate and what I attack are the answers that contain built in assumptions or do not answer honestly the question.
An example to me is "Why do they Hate us" and the answer given is "they hate us for our freedom" is the quintessential type of this intellectual dishonesty. The thing that is killing honest debate in this country is the attempt by nefarious people to implant these types of embedded concepts, built in assumptions and disportionalism of variations of degree and kind.
George Bush is not a good President because Liberals hate America.

Through the intellectual laziness of Americans and the pervasiveness of media of all types creating the ability to manipulate our senses in a varity of means, our minds have become the landscape for core political battles which seek to turn us not to the pursuit of truth, but to the pursuit of ends.

2500 years ago a similar battle raged in a polis in Greece. On one side you had the skeptics, learned men who would teach to anyone that paid. The skills these men taught had very practical application and bent to the will of the employer. Arguement was taught so that men could beat anyone in a debate. Truth was irrelevant. The ends were to win the arguement as to let the person prosper. Morality was irrelevant. "Each Man is a measure of all things" was the motto. That is pure advocacy of moral relativism. The belief that there is no natural law, and any action is relative to its context in determining its morality, which is subjective in that sense. That is the present state of American politics. When you counterpoint the actions of another, you set this context up to compare not the actions of an individual on his own merits and his actions against a greater good, but to compare it to another mans, and attempt to avoid truth by the mimilizing effects of a comparision of another mans faults.

There was a man who set himself against this skepticism. This man belived that Good was a truth. That it existed seperate from the individuals contextual situation. When the skeptics shouted "Each man is a measure of all things" this man answered back "God is a measure of all things". This man lived as he taught. His followers learned from him and carried on his teachings after he was put to death for teaching what the local community considered immoral, but really was threat to immoral authority. This man could have avoided death if he gave up his convictions, but he chose to die rather than live in any other way than he considered honest.
This mans name was Socrates. To understand Jesus, you must go through Socrates.

We as a civilization are lurching back to skeptism. Nothing means anything. If the so called "moral" party in this country was so moral, then why do they allow so much moral relativism in thier parties actions.

My only wish is for the truth to become more important than the ends to people. Argue not to win the arguement, like a two bit lawyer trying to win a case for its ends, but to debate in an effort to uncover truth. Am I wrong about things? Yes, hell yes. I would rather be wrong, and have my error shouted to the world than be wrong and my ears stuffed with my own ego to prevent my correction. Honest dialogue is the path to truth, and the truth leads to happiness because it is good. The pursuit of ends in opposition of the truth will never lead to good, because at its heart is a lie.

I get you L2.
I have a hell of a lot more respect for you than I did 10 mins ago, that's for sure.
But my only issue with you, is that you seem dead set against any Conservative ideals.
Would not Conservatism be part of this Truth you seek?
Instead, all I see are comments on how bad the current Administration is (which is true to a certain degree), hence all Conservatives must somehow be bad.
I'll show you what I mean:
Liberals (for the most part) believe in gay marriage. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. I think people who love one another should be allowed to express that love, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. It's not my choice, but others seem to think it's a good thing for them.
Does this mean, that I should throw out the above line of thinking and that all Liberals are bad because I'm against the idea of them wanting to redistribute my income through outrageous taxes?
The key is Balance. I think you will find that the Truth you seek, is rooted in Balance of the 2 ideals; Conservatism and Liberalism.
Both have benefits, and both have detriments. Seek a balance, and you will find the Truth.

Yet you still have time to post here.

Yep..."my" argument is weak. :rolleyes:


"Would not Conservatism be part of this Truth you seek?"

Sixee, if your so "in the middle" why have the vast, vast majority of your posts been conservative and why have consistantly defended the current administration? You have consistantly posted right of center...when we could make sense of you posts that is....and there's nothing wrong with that, at all. But don't post ultra right consistantly then claim to be in the middle...because your posts don't reflect that.

Yep..."my" argument is weak. :rolleyes:


"Would not Conservatism be part of this Truth you seek?"

Sixee, if your so "in the middle" why have the vast, vast majority of your posts been conservative and why have consistantly defended the current administration? You have consistantly posted right of center...when we could make sense of you posts that is....and there's nothing wrong with that, at all. But don't post ultra right consistantly then claim to be in the middle...because your posts don't reflect that.

I never claimed to be a centerist. I am a Conservative in many ways. I'm Liberal in others.
I tend to be Conservative when matters of finance and foreign policy are brought to the front.
I'm Liberal when it comes to letting people do what they want in thier personal lives.
By defenition I'm a Libertarian. Both sides have positives, but sadly they have way more negatives.
Please show me where I have consistantly defended this Administration?
Do you have a political map that shows that I am Right of center on all issues?
Perhaps the issues at hand that are discussed on this board, tend to be the ones where I am more conservative.
No question what side of the bread is buttered in your case, eh Ail?
And once again, since you can't mount a decent argument, you revert to personal attacks. You'd do great in a debate.

Please show me where I have consistantly defended this Administration?

Didn't have to go to farback....


In this thread:



Just because the guy you didn't like, got voted (Whether he be Democrat or Rebublican) doesn't mean they are to be distrusted, espically with the defense of the nation.



Have you been to Iraq? Lebanon? Iran? Do you know first hand what is happening there?



Hey, that shadow there looks like a bunny, or Carl Rove leaking information....



hat shadow looks like a puppy dog, or Bush going to war for oil....



other threads:



When you say,"This war is wrong.", they hear; "America is weak and doesn't want to fight us. If we try harder, we can drive them out and claim a great victory."

I'm not saying you shouldn't express your opinion. What I am saying is, choose what you say wisely. The people that wish to drive us out may take solace in what they hear there.



What's this?

No talk of "Fake Terror Alerts" just before the elections?



The only thing I could see saving the Administration against this decision, is if this was a "Declared war", rather than a "use of military force" situation.



Civil liberties have been regurlarly suspended in wartime.



My only BS question to you is this:

If it were Kerry and Edwards or Gore and Lieberman that were doing the same thing, would you still be in an uproar about it?



oth Lincoln and Bush had been thrust into an extraordinary situation. Both dealt with it as they saw fit.



That whole we don't have a solution, but we are gonna complain about what is actually being done routine doesn't sit well with the American Public.
So enlighten us to what you would do if you were "Prezdent".



Originally Posted by Rover

this summer will see a sudden upsurge in terror warnings and it will all suddenly dissappear as soon as the election is over.



I think your tin foil hat is a little too tight there Rover.



I thought it was attached to his approval ratings? I guess when that didn't pan out, it was tied to the Elections.



But Bill Clinton never had anyone ejected from anything he was in....
http://www.actupny.org/reports/clinton97zap.html



You will also note that none of the people who were asked to leave the current Administration's speeches were not arrested either. Nor do I think Mr Cheney had anything to do with the removal of the "potential weapon stick thingies" which just so happened to have American flags attached to them.



Maybe G.W. and Carl Rove corroded the pipes? We can add that to the list of evils they are responsible for, along with personally blowing up the levees in New Orleans after Katrina.



Thread Title: Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam

Sixee: I think the Banners on the L/H side say it all.
Objective, indeed....



No, it's easier to blame George Bush for the loss of our Civil Liberties, rather then take the precaution that some idiot in the name of Allah will try and kill as many Infidels as possible at one of these events.



Now I'm willing to give some credit....your posts have come more toward the middle as you have continued to post here....but by no means would I call many of your stands as centrist. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions, I just have a problem with you saying your in the middle when your criticism mostly is of anything bashing this admin or the left.

I'm very left when it comes to enviornment, less so on social issues and try to be more in the middle fiscaly...but I'm definitely left of center most of the time.

hmmmm I'll defend the Bush and Co when it comes to Iraq....

But I'm mostly prochoice....no not as a form of birth control

I'm very Pro military....

I'm very anti big government

I'm very anti big spending

I'm for Line Item Veto...

I'm very anti IRS ( FairTax.org)

I'm for state's rights first....don't ask the Feds to intervene in basic issues

I'm America first....forget cash loans to countries that despise us...

lol yup, I'm a republican

Fandros

lol yup, I'm a republican

No, you're a conservative .. with a very strong libertarian foundation. You vote Republican because that's the best (only?) option.

I was for going into Afghanistan originally, not how it was handled in the long term...

I was not for the Iraq war or how it's been handled recently.

I agree with Fandros on abortion so I'll quote him:
But I'm mostly prochoice....no not as a form of birth control

I'm Pro military for Research and development, I'm anti flexing miliarty might just because we can. I am pro being prepared when it's necessary.... I also feel our military should be larger, not smaller.

I am pro welfare (but it needs HUGE reforms). I am pro time limits set on welfare except for disabled that cannot work...

I am pro some form of universal healthcare. No child in the weathiest country in the world should go without health/dental care. There needs to be a limit to this obviously, and it wouldn't cover emergency room visits unless it's absolutely an emergency. It wouldn't cover illegal immigrants or their children if I had my way also. You want to be part of our system, do it the proper way.

So yes, I am pro immigration, but only LEGALLY.

I'm very anti big spending I am for limits on special intrest money or elimination of their influences completely.

I'm not for Line Item Veto, at least as I understand it... I am for limited line item veto power, but i think the bill should go back to be voted on if anything is cut out of it.

I'm anti the current tax code, but I am not for a flat tax as it unfairly burdens the lowest current tax brackets that definately can't afford any further tax burden...

I'm for state's rights, but the feds need to step up when it's obvious that the states need assistance...

I'm America first....forget cash loans to countries that despise us...
agree completely

I am a registered Democrat, but obviously I don't completely toe the party line.

I find myself unable to bring myself to any party affiliation or ideological label.

Neither side can produce resolutions to issues, they have stopped even trying, they now only differ not on solutions, but on what the problems are. The sophistry of lawyers has infected our government. Our nation founded on the premise of natural laws and natural rights now disregards these core beliefs in the name of political expediency.

Where am I politically? I am not with either because neither is engaged any longer in the pursuit of solutions. I would think on more things I am more traditional conservative. I believe in the sancity of laws and in the premise of a society based on these laws. I believe there are firm, unmovable concepts embedded in our nature and in our government that reflects better angels of our nature. I believe in the inherent goodness of man, therefore I feel less governmental control is needed over the individual. But at same time I believe in our system of government and want to government to engage in ambitious projects, to lead us to do extraordinary things, things which 1000s of years from now others will look on with awe.
I love this country, and I believe in its ideals, but I loath nationalism. It is a destructive and blinding force which creates uneeded conflict when left unchecked and unabated. I am neither an isolationist, nor a hawk.
I believe wars are necessary sometimes, but only as the last resort of a moral leader. When Homer wrote the Illiad all those years ago he hit the dichotomy of war on the head.
We love Achilles and Hector for their bravery and Honor and "Arete" (Virtue) for going to war even though they were fated to die, and we hate Agemmenon and Paris for their causing it. This war didnt have to happen. Our bravest and best die for no other reason then they are good.

Hector hurried from the house when she had done speaking, and went down the streets by the same way that he had come. When he had gone through the city and had reached the Scaean gates through which he would go out on to the plain, his wife came running towards him,Andromache, daughter of great Eetion who ruled in Thebe under the wooded slopes of Mt. Placus, and was king of the Cilicians. His
daughter had married Hector, and now came to meet him with a nurse who carried his little child in her bosom- a mere babe. Hector's darling son, and lovely as a star. Hector had named him Scamandrius, but the people called him Astyanax, for his father stood alone as chief guardian of Ilius. Hector smiled as he looked upon the boy, but he did not speak, and Andromache stood by him weeping and taking his hand in her own. "Dear husband," said she, "your valour will bring you to destruction; think on your infant son, and on my hapless self who ere long shall be your widow- for the Achaeans will set upon you in a body and kill you. It would be better for me, should I lose you, to lie dead and buried, for I shall have nothing left to comfort me when you are gone, save only sorrow. I have neither father nor mother now. Achilles slew my father when he sacked Thebe the goodly city of the Cilicians. He slew him, but did not for very shame despoil him; when he had burned him in his wondrous armour, he raised a barrow over his ashes and the mountain nymphs, daughters of aegis-bearing Jove, planted a grove of elms about his tomb. I had seven brothers in my father's house, but on the same day they all went within the house of Hades. Achilles killed them as they were with their sheep and cattle. My mother- her who had been queen of all the land under Mt. Placus- he brought hither with the spoil, and freed her for a great sum, but the archer- queen Diana took her in the house of your father. Nay- Hector- you who to me are father, mother, brother, and dear husband- have mercy upon me; stay here upon this wall; make not your child fatherless, and your wife a widow; as for the host, place them near the fig-tree, where the city can be best scaled, and the wall is weakest. Thrice have the bravest of them come thither and assailed it, under the two Ajaxes, Idomeneus, the sons of Atreus, and the brave son of Tydeus, either of their own bidding, or becausesome soothsayer had told them."

And Hector answered, "Wife, I too have thought upon all this, but with what face should I look upon the Trojans, men or women, if I shirked battle like a coward? I cannot do so: I know nothing save to fight bravely in the forefront of the Trojan host and win renown alike for my father and myself. Well do I know that the day will surely come when mighty Ilius shall be destroyed with Priam and Priam's people, but I grieve for none of these- not even for Hecuba, nor King Priam, nor for my brothers many and brave who may fall in the dust before their foes- for none of these do I grieve as for yourself when the day shall come on which some one of the Achaeans shall rob you for ever of your freedom, and bear you weeping away. It may be that you will have to ply the loom in Argos at the bidding of a mistress, or to fetch water from the springs Messeis or Hypereia, treated brutally by some cruel task-master; then will one say who sees you weeping, 'She was wife to Hector, the bravest warrior among the Trojans during the war before Ilius.' On this your tears will break forth anew for him who would have put away the day of captivity from you. May I lie dead under the barrow that is heaped over my body ere I hear your cry as they carry you into bondage."He stretched his arms towards his child, but the boy cried and nestled in his nurse's bosom, scared at the sight of his father's armour, and at the horse-hair plume that nodded fiercely from his helmet. His father and mother laughed to see him, but Hector took the helmet from his head and laid it all gleaming upon the ground. Then he took his darling child, kissed him, and dandled him in his arms, praying over him the while to Jove and to all the gods. "Jove," he cried, "grant that this my child may be even as myself, chief among the Trojans; let him be not less excellent in strength, and let him rule Ilius with his might. Then may one say of him as he comes from battle, 'The son is far better than the father.' May he bring back the blood-stained spoils of him whom he has laid low, and let his mother's heart be glad.'"

With this he laid the child again in the arms of his wife, who took him to her own soft bosom, smiling through her tears. As her husband watched her his heart yearned towards her and he caressed her fondly, saying, "My own wife, do not take these things too bitterly to heart. No one can hurry me down to Hades before my time, but if a man's hour is come, be he brave or be he coward, there is no escape for him when he has once been born. Go, then, within the house, and busy yourself with your daily duties, your loom, your distaff, and the ordering of your servants; for war is man's matter, and mine above all others of them that have been born in Ilius."

THE LATEST POLLS SHOW:
43 percent of all Americans say that illegal
immigration is a serious problem.
The other 57 percent said, "No hablo inglés"

I'm very anti big government

I'm very anti big spending

I'm for state's rights first....don't ask the Feds to intervene in basic issues

I'm America first....forget cash loans to countries that despise us...


You might want to call and ask for your party back, they haven't been any of that for your lifetime.


I'm anti flexing miliarty might just because we can

There has been no state or empire in history, ever, that had a large army and did not find ways to use it for their gain at other's expense. We have not and will not beat that trend.

I normally wouldn't bother with this post, but you are both being misrepresented by your elected leaders, and as long as the majority of people let that happen with rationalizations about it being "the only option," this country will slide further and further from democracy. We're already a near total plutocracy.

did you just completely ignore when I said:

I am a registered Democrat, but obviously I don't completely toe the party line.

Just because I am registered a certain way doesn't mean I toe the party line on everything nor have i EVER voted straight ticket. And I won't delude myself into thinking that politicians are going to vote the way I feel every time. I'm sure no one in the world feels exactly the same way I do about every issue. I have to choose who best represents what is most important to me.

We're already a near total plutocracy.

Which is quite tragic since Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!

did you just completely ignore when I said:


No. But you should investigate who actually benefits from our military establishment, since I can all but guarantee it is not you.

Just as an example, we were planning to invade Afghanistan in 2000, but didn't have a politically expedient opportunity until 2001. Little wonder why our subsequent conduct there hasn't been to your liking.

But you should investigate who actually benefits from our military establishment,

We all benefit from the RnD aspect of the military. We wouldn't be sitting here on the internet without it.

Putting public money into research has nothing to do with the Department of Defense other than them historically having more of it to spread around. The internet would have happened without ARPAnet, though I am quite thankful tax dollars were for once spent on something that generated unequivocable public good.

(apologies for post-stalking, sitting here watching water boil, metaphorically)

Somebody put up something about the government messing with people's personal lives so I can show my Liberal side......

And Fandro's list pretty much sums me up except for the Republican comment.

Putting public money into research has nothing to do with the Department of Defense other than them historically having more of it to spread around. The internet would have happened without ARPAnet, though I am quite thankful tax dollars were for once spent on something that generated unequivocable public good.

(apologies for post-stalking, sitting here watching water boil, metaphorically)

We can't know that. We definately can't know it would have happened as early as it did.

Know the network that SMS text messages are sent over? It has most of the properties of the internet ... but because it is propietary, it has not grown into anything at all like the internet.

What made DARPA special is that it didn't try to monitize the civilian benefits that it's research generated. It had a goal -- to make a robust communication network capable of surviving a nuclear attack. A private research house might have wanted to "own" the internet (like the various cell phone companies own the SMS network).

Instead of an open internet, where anyone can create a webpage and put whatever they want up on it -- imagine a network where you had to get the OK from each backbone provider to provide any commercial service over their backbone (and, of course, each of them having different restrictions, fees for approval, etc). It would be "internet like" -- computers could send messages to each other -- but it won't have to be the same. Email might be a pay-for-each-message service, the only shops might be those official approved of, etc.

That is a pretty bleak possibility, compared to today's internet.

...

Then again, maybe you are right. Maybe the hard-to-control, public good that is the internet was inevidible -- once the capability existed, *poof*, it was guaranteed to appear because it is both a global and local optimal point.

But maybe not. :)

You might want to call and ask for your party back, they haven't been any of that for your lifetime.

Guess I'm much older than you think, and your comments later on about our military...c'mon dude how many times have I proven you completely ignorant when it comes to military matters?

You're a damn intelligent individual, but you are simply not wise in all things military.

Fandros

No. But you should investigate who actually benefits from our military establishment, since I can all but guarantee it is not you.

Just as an example, we were planning to invade Afghanistan in 2000, but didn't have a politically expedient opportunity until 2001. Little wonder why our subsequent conduct there hasn't been to your liking.

Score another one for Malse, the man who knows nothing of our military engine or who bennies from it. I know for a fact I do, I know for a fact every American does. The cold war wasn't won because we smiled at them, it was won because Russia tried to play the game with us and broke their backs doing so.

Our might has done wonders for the world simply because it's there. I wish it wasn't needed nor needed to be used from time to time but that's a fact of life jack.

Fandros

We can't know that. We definately can't know it would have happened as early as it did.


Oh, I agree it would would have likely not have been the glorious free for at all that it used to be, but my point was mostly that it did not have to be DoD funding it. DoE or NSF could have easily engendered a similiar public good if they had a fraction of the money to use for research that the DoD historically gets. Imagine if the money used for that boondoggle anti-missile system we keep pissing the world off with had been used for like ... creating a functional ethanol fuel production and distribution system.


Guess I'm much older than you think, and your comments later on about our military...c'mon dude how many times have I proven you completely ignorant when it comes to military matters?

The last Republican president who exhibited any sort of fiscal responsibility was Eisenhower. I'm fairly confident you're not 60.

As for "proven" my ignorance, I'm quite curious where your counterexample on any nation in history maintaining a large standing army and not using it. Take your time getting back on that one, I've only been studying that sort of thing for the last ten years stretching from the earliest armies of Sumeria and Egypt to the actual (as opposed to demonized) operation of the Russian military system in the Cold War.

The old Roman maxim of "If you desire peace, prepare for war" has a counter argument of "The blade itself incites to violence" and Rome provides a wonderful point of discussion for modern American policy since our current administration has explicitly stated they view themselves in that model - the Pax Americana is the new Roman Empire in their thinking, and our vast network of bases in foreign countries is unequivocable proof.

You certainly know more about serving enlisted in the Air Force than I do (and I have yet to see any argument about, for instance, your experience in the 91 Gulf War vis a vis anything), and I remain grateful for yours and other's service, but that is not and has never been the topic of discussion.

We've discussed military hardware a few times and you've shown there that you lack an understanding of what's what in our arsenal today.

You are right tho, I wasn't referring to history nor would I dare to debate you or L2 on said subject.

As for Eisenhower being the last, perhaps your right. But that's not so much the party as it is our culture. I'd still chose the Republican's version of fiscal responsibility over the Democrats any day of the week.

Neither will be held accountable till we make the Bill process such that you cannot attach any riders having nothing to do with said bill.

That's just crooken politics imho

Fandros

Line Item Veto FTW.
Strip the crap that gets added to the bills.
But do you REALLY think Congress would go for it? LOL....

related

Rendezvous With Oblivion

By THOMAS FRANK
Over the last month I have tried to describe conservative power in Washington, but with a small change of emphasis I could just as well have been describing the failure of liberalism: the center-left’s inability to comprehend the current political situation or to draw upon what is most vital in its own history.

What we have watched unfold for a few decades, I have argued, is a broad reversion to 19th-century political form, with free-market economics understood as the state of nature, plutocracy as the default social condition, and, enthroned as the nation’s necessary vice, an institutionalized corruption surpassing anything we have seen for 80 years. All that is missing is a return to the gold standard and a war to Christianize the Philippines.

Historically, liberalism was a fighting response to precisely these conditions. Look through the foundational texts of American liberalism and you can find everything you need to derail the conservative juggernaut. But don’t expect liberal leaders in Washington to use those things. They are “New Democrats” now, enlightened and entrepreneurial and barely able to get out of bed in the morning, let alone muster the strength to deliver some Rooseveltian stemwinder (http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0627.html) against “economic royalists.”

Mounting a campaign against plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity. What our modernized liberal leaders offer — that is, when they’re not gushing about the glory of it all at Davos — is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation and to try to understand how we might retrain or re-educate ourselves so we will fit in better next time.

This last point was a priority for the Clinton administration. But in “The Disposable American,” a disturbing history of job security, Louis Uchitelle points out that the New Democrats’ emphasis on retraining (as opposed to broader solutions that Old Democrats used to favor) is merely a kinder version of the 19th-century view of unemployment, in which economic dislocation always boils down to the fitness of the unemployed person himself.

Or take the “inevitability” of recent economic changes, a word that the centrist liberals of the Washington school like to pair with “globalization.” We are told to regard the “free-trade” deals that have hammered the working class almost as acts of nature. As the economist Dean Baker points out, however, we could just as easily have crafted “free-trade” agreements that protected manufacturing while exposing professions like law, journalism and even medicine to ruinous foreign competition, losing nothing in quality but saving consumers far more than Nafta did.

When you view the world from the satisfied environs of Washington — a place where lawyers outnumber machinists 27 to 1 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_47900.htm) and where five suburban counties rank among the seven wealthiest in the nation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901543.html) — the fantasies of postindustrial liberalism make perfect sense. The reign of the “knowledge workers” seems noble.

Seen from almost anywhere else, however, these are lousy times. The latest data (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html) confirms that as the productivity of workers has increased, the ones reaping the benefits are stockholders. Census (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/us/30census.html) data tells us that the only reason family income is keeping up with inflation is that more family members are working.

Everything I have written about in this space points to the same conclusion: Democratic leaders must learn to talk about class issues again. But they won’t on their own. So pressure must come from traditional liberal constituencies and the grass roots, like the much-vilified bloggers. Liberalism also needs strong, well-funded institutions fighting the rhetorical battle. Laying out policy objectives is all well and good, but the reason the right has prevailed is its army of journalists and public intellectuals. Moving the economic debate to the right are dozens if not hundreds of well-funded Washington think tanks, lobbying outfits and news media outlets. Pushing the other way are perhaps 10.

The more comfortable option for Democrats is to maintain their present course, gaming out each election with political science and a little triangulation magic, their relevance slowly ebbing as memories of the middle-class republic fade.

Does anyone else think that Liberals tend to view "blue collar" jobs as beneath an American's dignity? Is that why so many of them become lawyers? Is that why there is such a push to outsource manual labor?
Or is this just a case of following where the money is to be made? Either way, I don't think this rings true to the Liberal ethos.
I thought Liberals placed Society's gain above the gain of the individual?

Does anyone else think that Liberals tend to view "blue collar" jobs as beneath an American's dignity?

Wow, what astonishing ignorance of history - Sixee, what do you think most members of labor unions have historically been? The Democratic party has, for most of the 20th century anyway, been the refuge and champion of the blue collar worker. Many, if not most, blue collar workers, from bus drivers to bricklayers in large cities, have been, and vote, Democratic - it's why the hue and cry over minimum wage, affirmative action, support of labor unions, etc from the Dems, but rejection of these things by the Republicans. It was the support of Labor in the mid-20th century, as well as our booming post-war economy, which allowed the rise of middle class blue collar workers in the first place, and why liberals have been so concerned about the maintenance of employee, labor, and trade protections. In South Texas, where I live, nearly *everyone* is employed in blue collar work (law enforcement, ranching, or trucking), and Webb County consistently votes Democratic. Blue collar work does *not* necessarily correlate with the 'myth of the rugged individual' and a red state mentality, although the Republicans have managed to seduce a large number of blue collar workers via appeals to that myth and to patriotism, despite championing policies that repeatedly sell them down the river.

L2s article expresses concern for the 'new Democrats' or the 'Republican lite', as some like to call them, abandoning (or rather, being bribed away from) their positions as the guardians of the working class and throwing their lot in with the 'globalization is inevitable' plutocrats. The only thing 'inevitable' about allowing the US to float freely in the globalization market is the reduction of the working class's standard of living and labor standards to that of your average Malaysian. Complicating the issue is liberals' traditional position in support of immigrants with the nation's 'ignore the open barn door' policy (and don't get me started with H1bs) that has been perpetrated for the last 25 years because certain factions were *very* happy with the downward wage pressure that resulted (but now is not so happy with the resulting *cultural* change in the Southwest :) ).

Is that why so many of them become lawyers? Is that why there is such a push to outsource manual labor?

I just don't know what to say about the first part of this statement - it displays a mentality along the lines of "Those Jews (Koreans, Arabs) have all the money and get rich off us" (which we've heard, sadly, from certain Black activist groups in the inner cities) and the like. In any case, there's a pretty substantial body of evidence that Democrats, even New Democrats, are in fact much less likely to support outsourcing of manual labor than are Republicans, despite what they tell segments of their base when they discuss 'getting tough' on immigration.

I'm late for lecture, have a good morning, all...

Regards,
Nydia

We've discussed military hardware a few times and you've shown there that you lack an understanding of what's what in our arsenal today.

IIRC We were talking about the accuracy of "smart" bombs, and unless you were on post-mortem analyses of the intended target sites I don't see how your information on the subject is any better than mine. You may be confusing me with L2, who considered the F117 "oversold." My conjecture was that while various laser/gps guided free fall munitions are more accurate than classic dumb bombs, they are no where near as good as the public has been lead to believe. Elements of the military zeitgiest seem to agree with that, as there has been a move towards Predator-style armed drones with guided short range missiles.


I'd still chose the Republican's version of fiscal responsibility over the Democrats any day of the week.


If two things are indistinguishable in practice, what's the real difference?



Neither will be held accountable till we make the Bill process such that you cannot attach any riders having nothing to do with said bill.

That's just crooken politics imho


Very true.



Score another one for Malse, the man who knows nothing of our military engine or who bennies from it. I know for a fact I do, I know for a fact every American does. The cold war wasn't won because we smiled at them, it was won because Russia tried to play the game with us and broke their backs doing so.

The Cold War was "won" because the Russians realized they were going bankrupt playing a pointless game of brinksmanship -- the USA was always a richer nation and their own economic policies of the 60s and 70s had largely failed. We still have not taken a good look at the hole we are digging ourselves into as we move into our second decade of post-Cold War military. Perhaps Iraq will be our version of Russia's Afghanistan experience. Beneath our veneer of being "the globalisation good guys" we have a lot more in common with communist Russia than anyone here wants to admit. Numbers don't lie though ...

Here's an interesting experiment. Visit the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) . I think we can all agree on the relative accuracy of it. Compare the GINI index of various nations.

Why are the United States' peers "countries in sub-Saharan Africa." (so rich I had to quote the source.

For the record, I wasn't speaking of the "Old School" liberals, the ones that brought us the 5 day work week. ;)
I was talking about "Today's Liberals".

Um what do you mean by our peers are sub africa. The data in the GINI index varies from as far back as 1995 to 2004, Ie you cant compare various years from one country to another as there are varied economic changes that affect the total ever year. Add in that the curve is calcuated by wealth per family and the US has more millionaire and up than any other country and a greater population than most countries and more land mass/ oportutnities for growth and you get an index that becomes more and more invalid as the variables are truely examined.

According to this index, everyone should be equal for the curve to work, IE same ecomonic opportinities, same immigration rates etc, which is an inequallity since america is one of the only if not hte only country with open immigration policies.

Toss in that the data date ranges and you get an index that is comparing apples to oranges. you want to compare something to deterime wealth or living conditions compare Median Income VS cost of living, and even that will be biased by population samples etc.

Rev

The Cold War was won because Communism is a failed ideology.
Maybe it could have staggered on a decade longer, but it was dead even if it didnt realize it. What Reagan and Thatcher did was the equivilant of a State Trooper putting a bullet in the head of a wounded deer on the side of the road.

Reagan and Thatcher had far less to do with the ending of the Cold War than *this* man did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

Look well upon the face of courage. Could you imagine a president in this country (subsequent to FDR) standing up in front of Congress and declaring: "This cannot go on", and then instituting a series of reforms that would not only radically reform the government, but allow a degree of self-determination and freedom to criticize that would tear the country apart in the process of their implementation, deliberately and with knowledge of the consequences? One can argue how successful Gorbachev was in bringing democracy to the former Soviet republics (his reforms lit a fuse that spiralled out of control within a few years, but it's clear the republics were *granted* the right to leave) but as one looks down the list of reforms it is undeniable that he was the primary architect and executor of the Soviet Union's reformation, knowing full well as a former peasant what disastrous effects his economic and social reforms would extract upon the masses. He has paid for that, I might add, by being unappreciated, and frequently reviled, in Russia and the former republics. He and his cohorts (most notably Eduard Shevardnadze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Shevardnadze)) were willing to pay the price of freedom, and willing, with heavy hearts, to allow the Baltic and other states to secede rather than engage in force to keep them in the fold.

Gorbachev was the one who suggested to Reagan that various disarmament treaties be signed. In the face of such a request, and such obvious moves towards democracy, how would it have looked for the US if Reagan had refused? I do believe that Reagan, despite his close relationship to and support of the military-industrial complex, was genuinely glad to sign the treaties and for the change in the Soviet leadership, but I don't think some of Reagan's more famous rhetoric: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", for example, would have occurred were not Gorbachev and the USSR already clearly moving in that direction.

Regards,
Nydia