Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[TrailBate]

George W Bush. Helping to finance terrorists everywhere.

BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many of the insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says that $25 million to $100 million of the total comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials…


This pretty much rules out the "go Long" strategy, I think

[off piste]

No one's arguing with you. We know the Bush Administration is the worst thing to happen to American politics.. Big surprise.

Your party is in control now. They've said they're going to have a moderate approach. I doubt it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, the fact is, Bush is a lame duck now, of little consequense. And, you're still on here, with nothing to yell about but Bush. It'd time to forget about Bush -- he did his part to prove that the Constitution and Balance of Power is alive and well -- I may even ditch this tagline eventually. But, please don't give us 2 years of complaining -- the honeymoon's over -- the Dems won. Now, get to work and actually institute a plan the people trusted you to come up with.

My prediction, in two years, when things are in even more of a mess, the catch phrase will be -- "We could've done a good job, but Bush came before us, so we're not responsible for things".

Sorry, won't be allowed. There's a 3rd party waiting in the wings for the Left to destroy itself as the Right has done. It will happen, it's only a matter of time.

[catbbq]

No one's arguing with you. We know the Bush Administration is the worst thing to happen to American politics.. Big surprise.

Your party is in control now. They've said they're going to have a moderate approach. I doubt it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, the fact is, Bush is a lame duck now, of little consequense. And, you're still on here, with nothing to yell about but Bush. It'd time to forget about Bush -- he did his part to prove that the Constitution and Balance of Power is alive and well -- I may even ditch this tagline eventually. But, please don't give us 2 years of complaining -- the honeymoon's over -- the Dems won. Now, get to work and actually institute a plan the people trusted you to come up with.

My prediction, in two years, when things are in even more of a mess, the catch phrase will be -- "We could've done a good job, but Bush came before us, so we're not responsible for things".

Sorry, won't be allowed. There's a 3rd party waiting in the wings for the Left to destroy itself as the Right has done. It will happen, it's only a matter of time.

How long til the dems and reps are the "third and fourth" party?

Libertarians put the party back into politics.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I would love to agree with you, but these Libertarians are hapless when it comes to finding electable candidates. Their agenda is just too extreme. What we need is a sort of "Libertarian-lite" party or candidate.


From Wikipedia

Adoption of laissez-faire principles which will result in the complete separation of state and economics. This will include, among other things, enormous reduction in taxation, privatization of Social Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29) and welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare) (for both individuals and companies), elimination of business regulation, abolition of labor regulations such as the minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage) and the cessation of government interference in foreign trade.

I don't know how realistic all of that sounds to you, but there is no WAY a candidate would ever get election by espousing such ideas. Not today.

[TrailBate]

No one's arguing with you. We know the Bush Administration is the worst thing to happen to American politics.. Big surprise.

Your party is in control now. They've said they're going to have a moderate approach. I doubt it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, the fact is, Bush is a lame duck now, of little consequense. And, you're still on here, with nothing to yell about but Bush. It'd time to forget about Bush -- he did his part to prove that the Constitution and Balance of Power is alive and well -- I may even ditch this tagline eventually. But, please don't give us 2 years of complaining -- the honeymoon's over -- the Dems won.

So that's it? 2,900 dead Americans forgotten? Bush and the Neocons will now bend to the will of the Democrats? Let's forget about the fascist path Bush started us on, and just move on?

No. Don't think so.

[off piste]

Huh? What're you talking about? Who said anything about forgetting? Do you ever parse anything anyone writes, or do you just endlessly see only what you want?

Now, please, show us how you got your response out of what I wrote above. I asked what the big Dem Plan was, but you're just proving my point quite eloquently -- that there's no plan -- you can only complain. It's going to really, really be funny watching over the next few years as that reality starts to sink in. Hell, I'll even predict that the Dems won't even push too hard to get us out of Iraq. To do so would talke their main crying point out of the public eye before the 2008 elections, which is the REAL motivation behind everything they and the Republicans do -- power. Yep, we'll see how much caring there really is over the next few years.

[TrailBate]

Huh? What're you talking about? Who said anything about forgetting? Do you ever parse anything anyone writes, or do you just endlessly see only what you want?

Uh, maybe it was this: "Also, the fact is, Bush is a lame duck now, of little consequense. And, you're still on here, with nothing to yell about but Bush. It'd time to forget about Bush"



Now, please, show us how you got your response out of what I wrote above. I asked what the big Dem Plan was, but you're just proving my point quite eloquently -- that there's no plan -- you can only complain. It's going to really, really be funny watching over the next few years as that reality starts to sink in. Hell, I'll even predict that the Dems won't even push too hard to get us out of Iraq. To do so would talke their main crying point out of the public eye before the 2008 elections, which is the REAL motivation behind everything they and the Republicans do -- power. Yep, we'll see how much caring there really is over the next few years.

Part of the Dem's plan was to get Rummy out. Another part was to form a bi-partisan committee to come up with a better plan in Iraq. What is Bush doing? He's making his OWN committee, so he can come up with his own ideas. Another part of the Dem's plan is to get some REAL oversight in Iraq. Billions of dollars are being thrown at that country, and disappearing into thin air, because the Republicans eliminated a lot of oversight years ago.

[Slappy]

So the plan is to start thinking about talking and watching?

Sounds effective. And timely.

[kernel crash]

"Bush is a lame duck now, of little consequense. And, you're still on here, with nothing to yell about but Bush... -- I may even ditch this tagline eventually. But, please don't give us 2 years of complaining -- the honeymoon's over -- the Dems won. Now, get to work and actually institute a plan the people trusted you to come up with."

This tagline and thread is way too bloated. Takes too long to open and maneuver around. Plus the script messages that pop up are a pain. I say start a new thread, like say, "Why Trailbait and Slider absolutely hates and loathes George Bush and will never let up even when he is way out of office." Ya I know, a bit too long. But seriously the Dems have to be careful. If they cut funding and start to pull back in Iraq, and that country really goes down the tubes, along with several of the more moderate Arab states, the Dems will forever be know as the cut and run party, and the Middle East mess will be neatly wrapped around their necks. I know its not fair but that's the way it works in politics. So I agree with Mark, stop whinning about Bush and show us what you got. You wanted the drivers seat. Now lets show the country and the world how brilliant you guys are. Frankly I'm not expecting much from them. (I mean now Obama is the future of the Democratic party! What has he done except put two intelligence sentences together?) I do predict that we will see more video of hooded insurgents in Iraq "preaching" to the democrats what the true meaning of this past election was about. They will expect to see evidence of a quick exit and will be damn vocal about it. That should play out nicely on the evening news.

[Mr_Cheeze]

But seriously the Dems have to be careful. If they cut funding and start to pull back in Iraq, and that country really goes down the tubes...

Hmm, I don't know what Iraq you are watching, but the one I see has gone down the tubes, through the plumbing, and into the cesspool. Our Roto-Rooter military is only mopping up the sh*t that is coming out of the overflow of the insurgent turds.

Like you, I don't expect the Democrats to do much, but let's be fair... what can they do? Bush and company has screwed this war up so badly, and it just continues to get worse. Civil war is happening right now. For all of his faults, at least Saddam was able to keep a fairly tight lid on the endless Shia versus Sunni strife that characterizes much of the Middle East Muslim conflict.

Now Iran wants to get involved. Talk about a catch-22 for the US. Iran could be a very valuable ally for us in Iraq and against the rest of the Sunni extremism that is the basis of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Unfortunately, the Shiites want to destroy Israel first, and the other non-Shia Muslems second. Israel would never allow Iran participation without guarantees. And why would we bother to heed to what Israel wants? Because the pro-Israel, Jewish lobby is perhaps the single most powerful lobby that controls the foreign policy decisions that our government leaders make.

So it comes back to Bush. The dumbass had no idea what he was getting us into, that much is obvious. You might get tired of seeing the same constant blather from Slider and Trailbate, but they are right. Bush is a criminal for what he's done. He should be impeached and convicted for war crimes. That's harsh, I know. But 3000 US deaths has resulted in what? Civil war.

So maybe the Dems should grow a set of balls and demand a pullout. But they won't. Why? Because of Israel.

Confused yet?

[Slider]

The “plan” is to extricate ourselves from Bush's complete ****-up. Is it as simple as "No gay marriage"? Absolutely not. But we do need to get ourselves out from between the rock and the hard place where the Moron in Charge put us.

Now to a NeoCon steeped in simple solutions to complex problems, that may sound like no plan. International relations like, say, environmental science, just don't resolve themselves because you come up with some inane catch phrase like "Cut and run" or “Global warming is a con.” Try "Stop the senseless troop deaths”, and you are at least on the right path. And that will take time and negotiation in an ever-changing environment. It would be stupid to determine a step-wise strategy when there are so many potential results from each footfall. Just like it was idiotic to enter in the first place, with absolutely no idea of the overwhelming odds against "success" in Iraq, and no game plan beyond "Let's get Saddam."

So, sorry to say it, but there’s no Rovian marketing phrase that ends the war. There’s only “let’s step back slowly, and see if we can enlist the help of anyone else who doesn’t want Iran to run the show.” And if that is what eventually happens, with Iran gaining influence and prestige, it wasn’t the Dems that brought it about.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Kernel Crash might have to change his quote:

Imagine, for a moment, what would have happened if a Muslim extremist with an apparent hatred of the American government had been apprehended in, say, Tennessee, and charged with plotting to blow up Congress with a briefcase bomb.

Do you suppose that the case would then be relegated to the back pages of the local papers? Do you suppose it would go unmentioned by the 101st Keyboard Kommandos in their ever-vigilant search for proof that the War on Terror is right here in our midst?

Of course not. You can be certain Fox News would have splashed the case across its broadcasts, and Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs would have been all over it.

Now consider the case of Demetrius "Van" Crocker, who just happens to be a white right-wing extremist:

Demetrius "Van" Crocker of McKenzie, convicted in April of attempting to obtain a chemical weapon and possession of stolen explosives, was sentenced to 30 years in prison Tuesday by U.S. District Judge James Todd in Jackson.

Crocker, who told undercover FBI agents of his desire to explode a briefcase bomb while Congress was in session, was found guilty by a jury in about 90 minutes in April.

The 40-year-old farmhand and father of two was convicted of accepting what he thought were ingredients to make Sarin nerve gas and a block of C-4 explosive from undercover agents in October 2004.

The maximum penalty Crocker could have faced for the convictions would have been a life sentence. Todd did order lifetime supervised release for Crocker once he gets out of prison.

In all, Crocker was convicted on five charges: one count of attempted possession of a chemical weapon, one count of inducing another person to acquire a chemical weapon, one count of possession of stolen explosives, one count of possession of explosive material with intent to harm an individual or damage or destroy a building, and one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device.

During the trial, prosecutors introduced video- and audio-taped conversations that Crocker had with undercover agents, laced with profanity, racial slurs and Crocker's open hatred of all things to do with the government.

Of course, this story is not even on the front page of the Jackson paper, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any Fox coverage, either.

crooksandliars. com

[Mr_Cheeze]

"And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim." Pat Buchanan

Why, does this story somehow invalidate the quote? Does one schizo bite so heavily into the Muslim/non-Muslim ratio of terrorists so that one cannot even qualify this fact with the adjective "almost"?

This story changes nothing about the unfortunate realities concerning Muslim extremism. But Fox News isn't the only major news outlet not covering this story. Here is the one page returned in a Google News search.
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DELA,DELA:2006-01,DELA:en&q=Demetrius%20Crocker&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Funny... no ABC, NBC, New York Times, CNN, Reuters, etc. Just a bunch of locan news outlets. So you might want to expand your inditement to outside of favorite whipping target FOX.

[Slider]

I can't believe that anyone takes Buchanan seriously anyway. If the man had more feet, those would be in his mouth, too.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I also can't believe that more people don't take Buchanon seriously, what with the left wing media always trying to label him as racist for daring to be politically incorrect, and the right wing always trying to dismiss him as looney for coming down hard on the Bush administration. What kind of chance does he have with both sides against him? You won't find that Mr. Buchanon has any regrets for anything he has ever said or written. So the foot-in-mouth thing doesn't fit.

[Slappy]

http://www.theonion.com/content/

Special issue just for Slider this week...

[Slider]

I just KNEW Bush was a math genius. Something in that smirk gives it away.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ok, come on you Bush rumpswabs. Do you want to defend the so-called necessity for another 21,500 troops in Iraq? Sean Hannity is still sticking to his guns. Big surprise. 70% of America is now unpatriotic. Well, at least being as such is the in thing.

[kernel crash]

This is a pretty interesting piece that seems to sum up the current situation pretty well. By the way, I wouldn't say there are a lot of real die hard Bush rumpswabs on this forum. I think Bush has been out there on a limb for quite some time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/there-is-no-itself-ther_b_38247.html

[Slider]

Bush is gonna force the Dems to try to cut off funding, so he can point the finger at anyone but himself for the obviously inevitable withdrawal. There should be an intense Constitutional battle in there somewhere. His version of Seperation of Powers, AKA Fascism, is what he's been pushing all along. He get's to push the claim further now, and can have it both ways by blaming the Senate for his own incompetence.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006531225

http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=59673

Coincidence? You decide.

[orangediamback]

wow cause they were such a huge asset and all....lol

"Britain has 7,000 troops stations in Iraq, the second largest contingent after the U.S."

[BG]

Those damn Fascists

Contents of the Fascist Manifesto
The Manifesto (published in "Popolo d'Italia" on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (At the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the King. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown);
The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers. (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine)
In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalised;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
The Manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

[Slider]

That's the platform. It is the concentration of power that's the real problem. I'll pass on Benito Mussolini, thanks, and anyone else whose ass the voters can't can if things go wrong. It is all about oversight and preservation of democracy.

Slider

[BG]

Ah yes, the manifesto and the man...two different beasts.

BG

[Slider]

Definitely, and more. Power corrupts, so no matter who da man, it goes bad eventually. We need the mechanisms that let us clean house when necessary.

Italian Fascism was all about control of everything. You didn't dissent much.

Slider

[BG]

Heavens, are we on the eve of open source politics?

BG

[Slider]

Dissent and democracy. Can't ask for anything more.

Slider

[catbbq]

I'll be in Italy in about 2 weeks for a 6 month study of the subject. I'll get back you guys then.

[Slider]

This story perfectly captures Bush's complete abandonment of the taxpayers in place of industry. I would really like to hear a reason this candidate should ever have been considered as an advocate for the consumer. It makes absolutely no sense.

Slider

May 23, 2007
Nominee to Head Consumer Agency Withdraws
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, May 23 — President Bush’s nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission withdrew his name from consideration today, as a growing number of senators questioned both his suitability and a $150,000 departure payment that the National Association of Manufacturers was preparing to pay him. The nominee, Michael E. Baroody, is a senior lobbyist for the association.

Administration officials and Congressional leaders said that Mr. Baroody decided to withdraw after it became increasingly clear that his nomination would be rejected by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. The committee was scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing on Thursday.

After he was nominated by President Bush last March, Mr. Baroody came under heavy criticism from consumer groups, as well as trial lawyers, medical doctors and firefighters. They said that Mr. Baroody’s record, and that of the association, in opposing safety regulations demonstrated that he was not qualified for the job.

In recent years, Mr. Baroody has lobbied Congress to protect companies against lawsuits brought by workers who claim to have been injured by asbestos exposure. He also opposed legislation in New York to force tobacco companies to make cigarettes that are less likely to cause fires.

White House officials rejected the criticism, saying that Mr. Baroody’s earlier experience at the Labor Department during the Reagan administration, along with an extensive background in consumer issues gained at the manufacturers’ association, suited him well for the job.

Mr. Baroody was the latest in a line of industry executives and lawyers who have been put forward by President Bush to head safety agencies. Some of them have been vocally critical of federal regulation and have called for rolling back many rules.

His nomination began to founder after the disclosure last Wednesday that he would be receiving a $150,000 special payment from the association, and that the severance package was amended by the association shortly after he was identified as the top candidate for the post.

The White House had continued to defend Mr. Baroody publicly, but, in contrast with other contentious nominations, it refused to expend any significant political capital to lobby on his behalf. Nor did President Bush appear to be willing to appoint him during a Congressional recess, as he has sometimes done with other nominees who have run into problems on Capitol Hill.

The manufacturers’ association and its business members have many issues before the commission. The association recently persuaded the agency to relax rules that dictate when companies must notify it about defective products. And the association’s member companies are often involved in proceedings before the commission to determine whether their products are safe or may need to be recalled or withdrawn from the marketplace.

It was not clear how much the White House knew about Mr. Baroody’s severance agreement before last week. Last Tuesday, a White House official said the administration had been assured by the general counsel of the association that the payment was unconnected to the nomination. That appeared to suggest that the White House had not seen the actual agreement.

According to Mr. Baroody’s financial disclosure statement, the severance agreement was originally written in January 2006, long before a vacancy arose at the commission, but was amended last January, days after Mr. Baroody was publicly identified on Web sites and in trade publications as the leading candidate.

The White House refused to release details of the agreement or the amendment, and rejected Congressional requests for copies of them.

In a letter to the commission’s general counsel that neither the White House nor Mr. Baroody would make public, Mr. Baroody said that, because of the $150,000 payment, government regulations required him to remove himself from agency matters involving the association for two years. He also said that the payment would not preclude him from hearing cases involving individual companies that are members of the association. Such cases are common.

In accepting Mr. Baroody’s withdrawal today, the White House attacked his critics.

“Obviously we feel that he was a strong candidate who would have done a wonderful job at the Consumer Product Safety Commission,” said Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman. “After some in the Senate rushed to judgment about Mr. Baroody and his qualifications, it became evident to Mr. Baroody that he would not be confirmed.”

Mr. Baroody did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment.

John Engler, the president of the manufacturers’ association and former governor of Michigan, issued a statement today saying that Mr. Baroody’s withdrawal had come after an “unprincipled smear campaign waged against Mike, aided and abetted by an unethical release of his financial records.”

“Watching this abuse of process, apparently without consequence for the wrongdoers, makes me wonder why any qualified citizen would submit to run today’s Senate gauntlet,” Mr. Engler said.

Many of the Democrats on the commerce committee, including Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, said they had serious concerns about the nomination.

Mr. Baroody met on Monday with a leading Democratic critic, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. Mr. Nelson said today that Mr. Baroody had provided an explanation of the payment, which prompted Mr. Nelson to ask for copies of the severance agreement and the revisions to it. Two Illinois Democrats, Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, also sought details of the severance package. Mr. Baroody told Mr. Nelson that he would consider the request.

But Mr. Nelson said today that he never received the information.

“Mr. Baroody is a consummate professional, but his ties to the industries he would have had to regulate were just too strong, creating at least the appearance of a conflict of interest,” Mr. Nelson said.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I thought this would be an appropriate post concerning last nights GOP debate in Manchester based on the fact that most of these candidates be hatin' the Pres. My first thought is more of a wonder, and that is I wonder who believes any of these a-holes that now want to act as though they are "feeling the pain" over the present state of the war. Aside from Guiliani, who is pretty much sucking up the neo-con Kool Aid he has chosen to drink, they all want to distance themselves from this administrations foreign policy foibles. Does anyone truly believe in the sincerity of any of them, aside from Ron Paul, who has had this position far before any of these "enlightened" candidates?

Here's how bad it gets. Three of them admit they do not believe in evolution, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. Assuming all o fthem stick around until the primary, it's probably a good thing there are three of them to split the moron vote.

Guiliani looks more like an idiot every day. Parhaps more people are finally beginning to see the bullshiat that "they (Muslims) hate us for our freedom". Or maybe people are just tired of reading about and seeing reports about more servicemen dying while Osama "the Boogeyman" Bin Laden still lurks about... supposedly.

McCain? Sorry, but the man is a nutball. Most hardline Republicans oppose him because of his stances on immigration and soft-stand on abortion.

Romney just looks like a golem to me. But that might be his biggest strength outside of the party.

I still like Ron Paul more than ever. Too bad he has prettyy much no chance, but there's hope that the big internet push he benefits from at the moment makes some noise.

[Slider]

If you try to tell me this destruction of federally protected archival records is anything other than deliberate, you're smoking something. Yet Tony Snow says ""This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal counsel's office takes it seriously."

Just like the Justice Department, I guess. Unfucking believable.

Now you gotta wonder exactly what they're hiding. And why they have absolutely no respect for federal law.


Slider

CNN, Today:

Story Highlights• Large volume of GOP e-mails have been deleted, House committee reports
• Accounts used in way that circumvented Presidential Records Act, report says
• Report also finds "major gaps in the e-mail records" for accounts that were saved
• GOP spokeswoman says report presents "Democrats' partisan spin as fact"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mail records are missing for 51 of the 88 White House aides with Republican Party accounts, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported Monday.

The White House says the accounts were set up to keep political work separate from official business, but investigators concluded White House officials used the accounts to conduct official business in a way that circumvented the Watergate-era Presidential Records Act.

The 37 accounts the Republican National Committee did save include nearly 675,000 individual messages -- more than 140,000 of them from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it appears that the RNC has destroyed a large volume of the e-mails of White House officials who used RNC e-mail accounts," the report states.

The committee found 88 officials who held GOP e-mail accounts; the White House had acknowledged 50.

In a deposition given to committee aides, former Rove deputy Susan Ralston listed a series of White House officials who used party accounts daily. But the RNC "has not retained a single e-mail to or from any of these officials," the report states.

Ralston testified that Ken Mehlman, former director of political affairs, used his account daily, but the RNC has no e-mail records for him.

Additionally, "there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails," the report states.

The committee, led by California Democrat Henry Waxman, began looking into the GOP e-mail accounts after messages from the accounts turned up in two cases -- the case of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department.

The committee found that although then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered presidential staff to preserve official e-mails from outside accounts, he failed to enforce that policy.

Ralston told investigators that Gonzales, now attorney general, knew Rove was using his party e-mail account for official business, "but took no action to preserve Mr. Rove's official communications," the report states.

GOP spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the report "jumped the gun and appears to be representing Democrats' partisan spin as fact."

"Not only have we been clear that we are continuing our efforts to search for e-mails, but there is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," Schmitt said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment on the report's specifics, but said separate accounts were set up under the Clinton administration to comply with the federal Hatch Act, which bars the use of federal resources for partisan political activity. Snow said e-mail sent to or from a White House e-mail account was automatically archived.

He said White House officials are willing to cooperate with congressional investigators, but he added, "We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks."

"This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal counsel's office takes it seriously."

The committee also accused Bush's 2004 re-election campaign of failing to cooperate with the House investigation. Monday's report said the campaign acknowledged that at least 11 White House officials used campaign e-mail accounts, but said the organization refuses to identify all of them or provide "basic statistical information."

"This recalcitrance is an unwarranted obstacle to the committee's inquiry into potential violations of the Presidential Records Act," the report states, warning that it could subpoena campaign officials for the records.

In a statement released Monday evening, campaign lawyer Eric Kuwana said the documents "are from a limited period of time years ago, have no articulated connection to the investigations of the committee, and very well may be the type and nature of political documents that are specifically exempt from the Presidential Records Act." He said campaign officials have been discussing what information they would produce to Congress for more than a month.

[Slider]

Spin this.

Slider

Bush concedes CIA leak likely came from administration
Story Highlights
NEW: Judge takes issue with Bush's claim that Libby sentence was "excessive"

Bush asks to "move on" after conceding leak likely came from White House

President would not say if he was disappointed in officials involved in CIA leak

Decision to commute Libby's sentence "fair and balanced," Bush says

WASHINGTON (AP)-- President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative.

Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had been convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the CIA-leak case.

Bush would not directly address a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Plame's name.

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."

He also defended the decision to commute Libby's sentence. "The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said. Watch Bush defend the clemency he granted Libby »

Several Bush administration officials revealed Plame's identity.

White House political adviser Karl Rove and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the primary sources for a 2003 newspaper article outing Plame. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer also admitted telling reporters about her. And jurors apparently believed prosecutors who said Libby discussed Plame with reporters from The New York Times and Time magazine. Libby was the only one charged in the matter.

Meanwhile, the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, took issue Thursday with Bush's characterization of Libby's sentence as "excessive."

"It is fair to say the court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could be accurately described as 'excessive,' " wrote Walton, a Bush appointee. He noted that the 2½ year sentence was at the low end of federal sentencing guidelines.

Walton's comments came in a footnote to an opinion formalizing Libby's probation term. Bush kept in place two years probation and a $250,000 fine, which Libby has already paid.

Iraq, terror and Lady Bird

Bush also presented a mixed picture of progress in Iraq, coinciding with an interim report to Congress by his administration that asserted progress on some fronts but not on others.

He said he understood the growing opposition to the war among the American public and recent defections by some Republicans in Congress.

"There's war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I understand that. It's an ugly war," Bush said.

He said he had listened carefully to influential Republican senators who had recently been critical of his war strategy. But, in the end, he said, he was commander in chief and he would rely on advice from his military commanders.

"I value the advice of those senators, I appreciate their concern. ... I'm going to continue to listen to them," Bush said.

He said he still believed the war could -- and must -- be won. "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, we can hasten the day when our troops come home," Bush said.

Questions on Iraq dominated Bush's news conference, his first full-blown question-and-answer session with reporters since May 24.

The administration's report said there has been satisfactory progress on eight political and military benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on another eight, and mixed results in two other areas.

On one of the few other questions of the news conference not related to Iraq, Bush was asked if he also had a "gut feeling" there might be a terror attack this summer, as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had recently suggested.

"My gut tells me that, which my head tells as well, is that: When we find a credible threat, we'll share it with you."

Bush opened the news conference with a tribute to Lady Bird Johnson. The former first lady died Wednesday at age 94.

Bush called her "an extraordinary first lady and a fine Texan. ... She brought grace to the White House and beauty to our country."

[Rich6896]

Make those tax cuts permanent.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections.
The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2% from the same period a year ago.
The amount of revenues collected from October through January were up 9.7% from the same period a year ago, climbing to a record level for the period of $834.1 billion.
Government spending also set a record for the period, but the growth was a slower 2.1%, pushing the total to $876.3 billion for the first four months of the current budget year.
The continued strong growth in revenues reflects the record profits corporations have been recording in recent years and low levels of unemployment, which means more Americans are working and paying taxes.
For the full year, the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the budget deficit will shrink to around $200 billion. The deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended last Sept. 30, was $247.7 billion, the lowest in four years.
In the budget it sent Congress last week, the administration was less optimistic than the CBO about the current budget year, forecasting a deficit of $244.2 billion.
However, the administration's February forecasts have in recent years overshot the actual deficit, allowing the administration to take credit for better-than-expected results.
Bush's budget laid out a plan to eliminate the deficit entirely by 2012, three years after he has left office. But Democrats charged that this was accomplished by not dealing with major issues such as the cost of the war on terrorism beyond 2009 or a fix for the alternative minimum tax.
For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion.

[S2RT]

More of the same from D.C. Mandatory stoning for pols who fail to deliver on campaign promises might help.

Justa Thot

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/18/2007-07-18_watch_out_for_terror_.html

So I wonder what the occasion is this time. My guess is the Democrat candidates for President are getting too much positive press. Time to instill more fear into the populace.

[off piste]

Maybe it's a gut feeling....

[SkotOn]

Would anyone buy a shirt if I made it...

"President Bush our Lord and Savior"?

Hang out down south and one of the main reasons he was elected because he was a christian and evokes "christian" values... HE can do no wrong and all of his actions are lead by God. ....

GEEEEEEEEZ, we need another Clinton in the WhiteHouse! Perhaps they will turn it into a Bourdelou (or however you spell it...)

[Slider]

Time to revive this one. I can hear Gonzales, upright defender of the law, saying "We must preserve the evidence that this administration is a bunch of lawless a**holes. It is the right thing to do!"

Slider
-----------------------------------------------
Newspaper: Gonzales in on tape destruction talks

New York Times reports White House lawyers discussed action with CIA
Former attorney general was administration counsel at the time
Harriet Miers and Cheney's chief of staff also named
Judge orders hearing on whether destruction violated court order

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Alberto Gonzales and other top White House lawyers took part in discussions about destroying CIA videotapes of interrogation of two al Qaeda suspects, the New York Times reported Tuesday night on its Web site.

At least four top White House lawyers discussed the issue with the CIA between 2003 and 2005, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials the newspaper did not identify.

Gonzales, the former attorney general who served as White House counsel until early 2005, was among those who took part, the officials said.

Also involved, according to the Times' sources, were David Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet Miers, who succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel.

One former senior intelligence official told the Times there had been "vigorous sentiment" among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.

Other officials asserted that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes, the newspaper said. Those officials added that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy on Tuesday ordered Justice Department lawyers to appear before him at 11 a.m. Friday to discuss whether destroying the tapes, which showed two al Qaeda suspects being questioned, violated a court order.

The Justice Department has urged Congress and the courts to back off, saying its investigators need time to complete their inquiry. Government attorneys say the courts don't have the authority to get involved in the matter and could jeopardize the case.

For now, at least, Kennedy disagreed. Attorneys in unrelated cases, meanwhile, began pressing other judges to demand information about the tapes.

In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

The Justice Department argued that the videos weren't covered by the order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

David Remes, a lawyer who represents Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said the government was obligated to keep the tapes and he wants to be sure other evidence is not being destroyed.

"We want more than just the government's assurances. The government has given these assurances in the past and they've proven unreliable," Remes said. "The recent revelation of the CIA tape destruction indicates that the government cannot be trusted to preserve evidence."

Kennedy did not say why he was ordering the hearing or what he planned to ask. Even if the judge accepts the argument that the government did not violate his order, he still could raise questions about obstruction or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

Also Tuesday, lawyers for a man convicted of terrorism charges alongside Jose Padilla asked a federal judge in Miami to force the government to turn over any remaining evidence regarding Zubaydah's interrogation.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Zubaydah provided information identifying Padilla as an al Qaeda operative working on a purported "dirty bomb" plot, leading to his May 2002 arrest at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

Lawyer Ken Swartz said information about his client, convicted terrorism supporter Adham Amin Hassoun, might be found in those interrogations.

In a third case, this one involving another Guantanamo Bay detainee, attorney Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice asked U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington to schedule a hearing. Kessler's order, filed in July 2005, is almost identical to Kennedy's, and Hafetz says he worries key evidence was destroyed.

The Justice Department had no comment on Kennedy's decision to hold a hearing. Its lawyers are working with the CIA to investigate the destruction of the tapes and urged Kennedy to give them space and time to let them investigate.

Remes had urged Kennedy not to comply.

"Plainly the government wants only foxes guarding this henhouse," Remes wrote in court documents this week.

The Bush administration has taken a similar strategy in its dealings with Congress on the issue. Last week, the Justice Department urged lawmakers to hold off on questioning witnesses and demanding documents because that evidence is part of a joint CIA-Justice Department investigation.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to give Congress details of the government's investigation into the matter Friday, saying doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry was vulnerable to political pressure.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/19/cia.tapes.ap/index.html

[kernel crash]

Fact #1

In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Loophole #1

The Justice Department argued that the videos weren't covered by the order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

I know its splitting hairs but haven't we seen this before.

[Slider]

Destruction of evidence is what it is, regardless of what the judge's order said. And you KNOW Gonzales and the whole Bush crew was not on the side of the law. No surprise that the new Atty Gen'l is as slimy as the last.

We've definitely seen it before. I just wonder what it will take to get the rest of the government to stand up to this scumbag.

Slider'

[Slider]

I guess we no longer prosecute murderers. They were only Iraqis anyway.

Slider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 2008
Blackwater Case Faces Obstacles, Justice Dept. Says
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials have told Congress that they face serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead.

In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent any prosecution. Justice officials were careful not to say whether any decision had been made in the matter, according to two of the Congressional staff members who received the briefing.

The staff members, who asked not to be identified, disclosed details of the meeting in interviews this week.

The December briefing took place after a federal grand jury had been convened in the case, suggesting that prosecutors had decided to begin hearing testimony with potential prosecution problems still unresolved.

Justice Department officials said Tuesday that the briefing had principally been held to answer questions concerning those problems, one of which arose when State Department investigators granted Blackwater employees a limited form of immunity for what they disclosed. There are also questions about whether federal law applies to the Blackwater contractors.

Justice officials have acknowledged the potential problems, but they have said they were not insurmountable and reiterated that point on Tuesday.

The September shooting, one of the bloodiest involving private security guards in Iraq, set off furious protests from the Iraqi government and has forced a major reassessment in both the Bush administration and Congress over the role of private contractors in the war zone.

Justice Department officials have not publicly discussed the difficulties they face in pursuing prosecutions in the Blackwater case. But according to Congressional aides who received the closed briefing, Justice officials told them they were concerned about both the gaps in the law and the immunity deal.

Those officials said in the briefing that federal law that applied to civilians employed by or accompanying the American military overseas might not apply to contractors in Iraq working for the State Department. Blackwater is under contract to the State Department to provide security for American diplomats in Baghdad.

The officials from the Justice and State Departments “didn’t say they weren’t going to prosecute,” said one Congressional aide who attended the briefing. “They said there would be a lot of difficulties.”

The Justice officials also said the immunity deals offered to the Blackwater guards by investigators from the Diplomatic Security Service of the State Department might make it difficult to prove that evidence gathered by federal prosecutors did not stem from statements made by the guards after they were promised limited immunity. Under those promises, the guards could not be prosecuted for anything they said in their statements, as long as what they said was true. The Justice Department had not been notified of the State Department’s plan to offer the deals.

A Justice Department spokesman declined Tuesday to comment on the briefing.

The signs that Justice officials believe they face significant obstacles in prosecuting the Blackwater guards come as an independent human rights group prepared to criticize the Bush administration for failing to aggressively investigate contractors accused of crimes in Iraq.

In a report to be issued Wednesday, the group, Human Rights First, argues that the laws are sufficient to prosecute contractors, including those working for the State Department, and that the Bush administration has failed to do so because of a lack of political will. The report specifically criticizes the government’s response to the September shooting in Baghdad.

“The U.S. government’s reaction to the shootings,” the report says, “has been characterized by confusion, defensiveness, a multiplicity of uncoordinated ad hoc investigations, and interagency finger-pointing. These failures underscored the Justice Department’s unwillingness or inability to systematically investigate and prosecute allegations of serious violent crimes.”

Since the September shooting, the State Department and the Pentagon have reached an agreement to put private contractors under greater military control.

[kernel crash]

"The officials from the Justice and State Departments “didn’t say they weren’t going to prosecute,” said one Congressional aide who attended the briefing. “They said there would be a lot of difficulties.”"

Maybe it isn't such an open and shut case after all. You do believe in presumed innocence until proven guilty don't you?

[Slider]

If you are a prosecutor, and KNOW mass murder has been committed, you run with what you got and let the courts sort it out. Stating up front that there are issues pretty much tips your hand that you are not, let's say, fully committed.

They'll either bail or do a really crappy job. Watch.

Slider

[FriedRys]

I was under the impression that most decent prosecuters would take their time and build as strong of a case as possible before going to court. We have that pesky double-jeopardy rule and all ya know. The throw it up and see what sticks method is fine in the court of public opinion, but in an actual court of law, it doesn't play out so well.

So, would you rather have a case get prosecuted later and any guilty parties be held to account, or would you rather have this case get thrown out and have another talking point for this thread?

[Slider]

It is a strong case. They are foot-dragging, purposely. The past history shows that.

Slider

[FriedRys]

How do you know what kind of case it is? Have you seen the case file? Do you have any idea what is or isn't admissable in this case? Do you know the laws surrounding Blackwaters involvement with the State Dept. and Iraq?


"The December briefing took place after a federal grand jury had been convened in the case, suggesting that prosecutors had decided to begin hearing testimony with potential prosecution problems still unresolved." Yeah, sounds like footdragging to me.

[Slider]

The Iraqi police who investigated say that witnesses report that the guards we not attacked and shot full circle at anything that moved, then drove further down the street and shot more people.

There are no laws that provide immunity to murder. If there were, they'd be unconstitutional.

Whaddya got to contradict eyewitness accounts?

Slider

[FriedRys]

There is a little thing about the credibility of eyewitnesses, they are almost always wrong. Any prosecutor will tell you that they would much rather keep a witness OFF the stand rather than have the defence rip them to shreds (and consequently the case) by discrediting them due to inconsistencies in their stories.

Aren't you the guy always harping about due process and the right to fair trial? Or does that only go for certain people that you deem worthy?

The sad fact is the American judicial system always favors the defence, I don't much like it, and I'm guessing that in this case, it kind grates on you as well.

[Slider]

Bunch of civilians machine gunned. I guess everyone was hallucinating.

And I DO want a fair trial. That is what we are talking about, right? I am saying, based on past history and the obvious soft-peddle that Justice did in front of Congress, that it won't happen, fair or otherwise. If public pressure makes it move forward, they won't give a full effort.

How does that mean I don't want them to have their day in court?

Slider

[FriedRys]

How is Justice doing a "soft-peddle"? Are you sure you don't have State and Justice mixed up here?

"Justice Department officials said Tuesday that the briefing had principally been held to answer questions concerning those problems, one of which arose when State Department investigators granted Blackwater employees a limited form of immunity for what they disclosed. There are also questions about whether federal law applies to the Blackwater contractors.

Justice officials have acknowledged the potential problems, but they have said they were not insurmountable and reiterated that point on Tuesday. "

State Dept. gives partial immunity, Justice says it's going after them anyway, where is the soft-peddle?

[kernel crash]

Hey its an imperfect system. Look at OJ, Robert Blake, Ted Kennedy

[FriedRys]

All too true.

But Slider isn't interested in a fair trial, his mind is made up, anything less than a first degree murder conviction and he'll cry FIX. He's as much as said so.

[Slider]

I am saying the Justice Department is an arm of the administration. I am saying they won't prosecute whole heartedly. I am saying this case will be lost and the Blackwater murderers will walk.

Yep, I am saying that I believe they are guilty. And I do want a trial to air out the evidence so we can look at the facts and the process of revealing them. State will do what it can to stop that, and the Justice Department will take up where their effort fails.

I mean, how can you NOT suspect the potential for a fix. The current Attorney General is little different than the last, and was selected specifically because he'd support things like signing statements so that the adminstration could do what it pleases. The same concept extends to supression of the many misdeeds in this fiasco of a war.

I'll give odds on no murder convictions arising out of this incident. Let's keep it friendly, say 10 tubes from me to one of yours. 10-1 is pretty good, don't you think?

Slider

[FriedRys]

Building a criminal case 6,000 miles away from the warzone that it occured in is probably not the easiest thing in the world to do. Add to that the favoring of the defendent our legal system grants, the shoddy to non-existen police investigatory abilities of the locals, sprinkle in the un-uniformed combatants, and ya got a no-win case already. No need for political cover-up, it's already lost.

I have no doubt that they are guilty of the crime, but if we're gonna do thing's all legal like, ya gotta look at how the hell any prosecutor is going to build a sucessful case.

My money is on no case ever making it to trial. It's fuggin dumb to make this an American case, let the Iraqis handle it if ya want something done.

But hey, in a year the Dems will be in charge, they can bring in their own batch at Justice, and take over the case.

As far as the bet goes, I have been on the side of nothing happening to these jamokes from the beggining on account of American legal standards, so to make things fair, I'll switch this around. If the Dems take them to task and get a conviction, I'll pay 10 tubes, if they don't 1 tube for me. Sound fair?


EDIT* WOW, just got a look at thier rules of engagement, to say they are relaxed would be a gross understatement. It will be absolutely impossible to get a 1st degree conviction, IMPOSSIBLE, not even close. I can't see how they could get any degree of murder conviction, Manslaughter is about the best you can hope for. After reading some of the other articles I found, I'd bet that at least 1 and more likely a few will be brought up on manslaughter charges. It's like Capt. Willard says, "Charging a guy with murder here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500"

[Slider]

The question is whether the rules of engagement apply to contractors. I can't see civilians being tried in a military court, so I would guess that either Iraqi or US law applies. Otherwise, there is no accounting at all.

I don't see a middle ground on the tubes bet. With the current situation, we all lose anyway.

Slider

[FriedRys]

I was referring to contractor's R.O.E., and being that they are contracted by the State Dept. DSS(Diplomatic Security Service), I'm gonna guess they are under U.S. law (though that is pretty damned unclear).

I'm not a betting man anyway, and I havn't got a flat in over a year.

[Slider]

More non-surprises. Turns out the lost email, recently denied as being lost by the White House, covered the Plame period. I bet it was that damn Roseamary Woods...

So we have evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, violations of several federal laws regarding protection of records, conspiracy, many instances of perjury, and, I am sure, lots more.

Slider

courant.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top13jan19,0,1301787.story

Courant.com
White House Missing CIA, Iraq E-Mails
By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

6:55 AM EST, January 19, 2008

WASHINGTON

Apparent gaps in White House e-mail archives coincide with dates in late 2003 and early 2004 when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation and the possibility of a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence failures.

The gaps -- 473 days over a period of 20 months -- are cited in a chart prepared by White House computer technicians and shared in September with the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee, which has been looking into reports of missing e-mail.

Among the times for which e-mail may not have been archived from Vice President Dick Cheney's office are four days in early October 2003, just as a federal probe was beginning into the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity, an inquiry that eventually ensnared Cheney's chief of staff.

Contents of the chart -- which the White House now disputes -- were disclosed Thursday by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the House committee, as he announced plans for a Feb. 15 hearing.

Waxman said he decided to release details from the White House-prepared chart after presidential spokesman Tony Fratto declared "we have absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing."

Among the periods of time for which the chart indicates e-mail is missing is a five-day span starting on Jan. 29, 2004, when the White House was dealing with the possibility of an election-year probe by Congress into Iraq intelligence failures.

Not archived by the office of the vice president is e-mail for Jan. 29-31, 2004, according to chart information released by Waxman. In addition, all e-mail from the White House Office in the Executive Office of the President was listed as missing for one of those days.

The chart indicates that e-mail also was not archived by the White House on the following Monday -- Feb. 2, 2004 -- the day President Bush took a big step in averting what could have been a politically troublesome congressional inquiry. He ordered an independent investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq.

The president conferred that day with former chief weapons inspector David Kay, declaring, "I want to know all the facts."

The commission named by Bush reached a harsh verdict about the U.S. intelligence community's performance, but the panel stopped short of addressing the White House's use of the intelligence data to support the idea of war with Iraq.

The White House says computer back-up tapes should contain substantially all e-mails between 2003 and 2005. However, the White House recycled backup tapes until sometime in October 2003, taping over existing data. That could mean some e-mail is gone forever if it is also missing from archives.

An example might be any missing e-mail from Cheney's office in the early days of the CIA leak probe. The White House has not said when in October 2003 it halted the recycling of backup tapes.

E-mails in early October 2003 could reveal key discussions between White House personnel in the week after the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's CIA identity. The White House denied that Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby or top presidential adviser Karl Rove were involved in the leak, an assertion that turned out to be false.

"Can it be a mere coincidence that some of the missing e-mail correspond to a key period during the Valerie Plame investigation?" asked Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Given everything else we know, that is nearly impossible to believe."

Her organization is one of two private advocacy groups suing the White House in the e-mail controversy.

At issue on Oct. 1, 2003, was the push by congressional Democrats for Attorney General John Ashcroft to step aside and appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the White House.

Ashcroft eventually recused himself, and at the end of 2003 U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by a Justice Department official to head the probe. Two years later, Libby was indicted, and he was later convicted of obstructing the investigation. His 30-month prison sentence was commuted by Bush. Rove was questioned by a federal grand jury five times but was never charged.

In January 2006, shortly after Libby was indicted, a letter from Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers was the first public disclosure that the White House was having a problem with its e-mail system.

Fitzgerald wrote: "We have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

The White House says the e-mail matter arose in October 2005 in connection with the Justice Department's CIA leak probe, in which Fitzgerald later that month obtained a grand jury indictment against Libby for perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

[Slider]

Here's the Rand Corp, an acknowledged independent observer, pretty much saying that we couldn't have done much more damage in Iraq and Afghanistan if we tried. My guess, is we are trying, purposely, to help that spread of dollars among FOB (Friends of Bush).

Tell me why I am wrong, please.

Slider

U.S. deficient against Muslim insurgents, study says
Rand Corp.: Forces "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive," "infeasible"
Violent Muslim extremism "gravest national security threat," study says

U.S. should focus on "civil governance" and building "local security forces"

Such "capabilities ... have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan," says report

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military is seriously deficient in meeting "the threat of Islamist insurgencies," says a Pentagon-commissioned study released Monday.

The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible." The Pentagon asked the nonprofit research organization to review strategies to thwart insurgents.

The United States should instead focus its priorities on improving "civil governance" and building "local security forces," according to the report, referring to those steps as "capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces," said David C. Gompert, the report's lead author and a senior fellow at Rand. "Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge."

The Pentagon did not respond to calls Monday from CNN seeking comment.

The report is titled "War by Other Means: Building Complete and Balanced Capabilities for Counterinsurgency."

It focused on the increase of about 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over the past year -- the "surge" -- which supporters have credited for a decrease in insurgent attacks.

But "it would be a profound mistake to conclude from [the troop increase] that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies," Gompert said. "One need only contemplate the precarious condition of Pakistan to realize the limitations of U.S. military power and the peril of relying upon it."

The study notes that U.S. military interventions can be risky as well as costly because of the tenacity of jihadists, "infected by religious extremism." It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail.

Looking at some 90 conflicts since World War II, the report concludes that establishing "representative, competent and honest" local government is the way to go.

"Foreign forces cannot substitute for effective local governments, and they can even weaken their legitimacy," said co-author John Gordon. The study says the United States would have more success if the insurgency were defused early and it must develop ways to interpret early "indicators and warnings."

Along with building "effective and legitimate local governments," the report says the United States must do a better job of organizing, training and equipping local security forces, and gathering and sharing information.

To beef up counterinsurgency efforts, local governments must develop "job training and placement of ex-combatants; an efficient and fair justice system, including laws, courts and prisons; and accessible mass lower education," it says.

"When it comes to building these and other civil capabilities abroad, the United States is alarmingly weak," Gompert said. "To fix this problem, the federal government will need a dramatic increase in civilian capabilities, new organizational arrangements, and more flexible personnel policies."

More money in foreign aid, more civilian professionals and help from U.S. allies and international groups are needed, the report said.

Other observations from the report include:


American military forces can't keep up with training local militaries to match the growth of Muslim insurgent groups and that must improve. Police should be trained by professional police trainers.

American military prowess should focus "on border and coastal surveillance, technical intelligence collection, air mobility, large-scale logistics, and special operations against high-value targets."

A new information-sharing architecture should be created. This "Integrated Counterinsurgency Operating Network" would promote "universal cell phone use, 'wikis' and video monitoring."

"Pro-America" themes should be dropped "in favor of strengthening local government" and emphasizing the failure of jihadists to meet people's needs.

U.S. allies and international organizations, such as NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations could help the United States in areas such as "building education, health and justice systems, and training police and" military forces that perform civilian police duties.

[Slappy]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/africa/view.bg?&articleid=1073767&format=&page=1&listingType=intafri#articleFull

"If you were to take a survey, you would find that there is not one Liberian that doesn’t love George Bush,"

[Slider]

Lessee.....Charles Taylor, George W. Bush.....Charles Taylor, George W. Bush....Lemme think.

OK, I'd take Bush under those circumstances, too.

Slider

[Slappy]

Finally, after 182 pages, a chink in the armor...

:D

[FriedRys]

a chink in the armor...

:D
You sir, are a racist.

[Slider]

Finally, after 182 pages, a chink in the armor...

:D

Well, it was a lot closer than it should have been. Taylor was helped by the local connection. He went to BU, but I am a CT boy now, and we all know Bush was a brilliant Yalie.

Slider

[Slider]

Here's the scariest reason of all to hate Bush: he's made us less safe. You think a little opportunism isn't starting to color the strategy of Korea, China and Russia?

Slider

Officers: U.S. military stretched 'dangerously thin'
Story Highlights
Eighty percent of officers: It's unreasonable to expect U.S. to wage another major war

Officers have "overwhelmingly negative view" of early decisions shaping Iraq war

Fifty-six percent of officers disagree that the Iraq war has "broken" the military

Results based on survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers.

Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."

On the other hand, 56 percent of the officers disagree that the war has "broken" the military.

Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at present.

Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday issued the U.S. Military Index, a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers.

"These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war," the report said, with 60 percent saying the military is weaker than it was five years ago. More than half of them point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "pace of troop deployments" needed for those conflicts.

The report comes a few weeks before the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, where a troop "surge" is winding down by summer. The U.S. military is proposing a pause in troop reductions for a period of review before any more decisions on withdrawals.

The officers have "an overwhelmingly negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war, but most believe the present U.S. counterinsurgency strategy and troop increases are good omens for success in Iraq.

A majority of officers in the Iraq war say some policy decisions have "hindered the prospects for success there."

"These include shortening the time units spend at home between deployments and accepting more recruits who do not meet the military's standards. Even the military's ability to care for some of its own -- mentally wounded soldiers and veterans -- was judged by most officers to be substandard," the survey found.

At the same time, 64 percent of the officers believe morale in the military remains high.

Nearly three-quarters of the officers believe civilian leaders set "unreasonable goals for the military in post-Saddam Iraq."

"They believe more troops were needed on the ground at the start of the fighting. They believe disbanding the Iraqi military was a mistake," the survey said. However, nearly nine of 10 think the surge and Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy are "raising the U.S. military's chance for success there."

The officers believe "that either China or Iran, not the United States, is emerging as the strategic victor" in the Iraq war.

The report does not elaborate on this view, but it does address Iran, the Taiwan Strait, Syria and North Korea and how prepared generals think the U.S. is "to successfully fight a major combat operation there."

Officers were asked to judge the preparedness of the U.S. on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning "fully prepared" and one indicating "unable to execute."

Iran was rated 4.5, the Taiwan Strait ( where there have been tensions between China and Taiwan) 4.9, Syria 5.1, and North Korea 4.7.

The officers ranked the Navy and Air Force readiness the highest at 6.8 and 6.6, respectively. The Army and Marines, which have assumed the "bulk of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan," ranked 4.7 and 5.7, respectively.

Other results of the survey:


Officers call for more Special Operations Forces, improvements in intelligence, and better space and cyberwarfare capabilities for the military's fight in the war on terror.

To improve recruitment efforts, nearly 80 percent back "expanding options for legal, foreign permanent residents of the United States to serve in exchange for U.S. citizenship."

When asked if they agree or disagree with the statement "torture is never acceptable," 53 percent agreed and 44 percent disagreed.

Officers have relatively low confidence in civilian institutions -- giving the presidency a 5.5 rating and Congress 2.7. The Defense Department received 5.6, the CIA 4.7, Department of Veterans Affairs 4.5, and State Department 4.1.

"Sixty-six percent of the officers say they believe U.S. elected leaders are either somewhat or very uninformed about the military," the survey says.

The survey finds nearly nine in 10 officers "agree that, all other things being equal, the military will respect a president of the United States who has served in the military more than one who has not."

[kernel crash]

Kind of shows you how the previous administration, that would be Clinton, left the military in such a poor state. How so? Hey if were stretched 'dangerously thin' by a third world piss hole country like Iraq what does that say about our overall preparedness.

But I do see good news in that report. The officers have "an overwhelmingly negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war. That's encouraging. The fact that they accept that they were many mistakes made in the early going might make it more difficult to repeat those mistakes in the future.

"The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers." I would think this would be seen as good news to many on the left. That would be you Slider. Does this make it less likely that we would be dragged into a conflict in Korea? Taiwan? The Balkans?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Uh..huh huh huh... Chink
huh huh

[Slider]

Kind of shows you how the previous administration, that would be Clinton, left the military in such a poor state. How so? Hey if were stretched 'dangerously thin' by a third world piss hole country like Iraq what does that say about our overall preparedness.

But I do see good news in that report. The officers have "an overwhelmingly negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war. That's encouraging. The fact that they accept that they were many mistakes made in the early going might make it more difficult to repeat those mistakes in the future.

"The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers." I would think this would be seen as good news to many on the left. That would be you Slider. Does this make it less likely that we would be dragged into a conflict in Korea? Taiwan? The Balkans?

Some twisted reasoning there. The ONLY strain on the military comes from the debacle in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, we are at nearly $.5 TRILLION dollars at this point. We could recruit, train, and equip a lot of troops with that squandered money. Maybe Halliburton will hand it back?

And the left isn't against all war, just fraudulent ones dreamt up so connected companies can take tax dollars. Leaving the country poorly defended, and a tempting target for maniacal opportunists, is the result. Iraq was never a threat to the US, but lots of other countries are.

Slider

[Enigma]

Here's the scariest reason of all to hate Bush: he's made us less safe. You think a little opportunism isn't starting to color the strategy of Korea, China and Russia?

Slider

Officers: U.S. military stretched 'dangerously thin'
Story Highlights
Eighty percent of officers: It's unreasonable to expect U.S. to wage another major war

Officers have "overwhelmingly negative view" of early decisions shaping Iraq war

Fifty-six percent of officers disagree that the Iraq war has "broken" the military

Results based on survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers.

Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."

On the other hand, 56 percent of the officers disagree that the war has "broken" the military.

Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at present.

Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday issued the U.S. Military Index, a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers.

"These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war," the report said, with 60 percent saying the military is weaker than it was five years ago. More than half of them point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "pace of troop deployments" needed for those conflicts.

The report comes a few weeks before the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, where a troop "surge" is winding down by summer. The U.S. military is proposing a pause in troop reductions for a period of review before any more decisions on withdrawals.

The officers have "an overwhelmingly negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war, but most believe the present U.S. counterinsurgency strategy and troop increases are good omens for success in Iraq.

A majority of officers in the Iraq war say some policy decisions have "hindered the prospects for success there."

"These include shortening the time units spend at home between deployments and accepting more recruits who do not meet the military's standards. Even the military's ability to care for some of its own -- mentally wounded soldiers and veterans -- was judged by most officers to be substandard," the survey found.

At the same time, 64 percent of the officers believe morale in the military remains high.

Nearly three-quarters of the officers believe civilian leaders set "unreasonable goals for the military in post-Saddam Iraq."

"They believe more troops were needed on the ground at the start of the fighting. They believe disbanding the Iraqi military was a mistake," the survey said. However, nearly nine of 10 think the surge and Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy are "raising the U.S. military's chance for success there."

The officers believe "that either China or Iran, not the United States, is emerging as the strategic victor" in the Iraq war.

The report does not elaborate on this view, but it does address Iran, the Taiwan Strait, Syria and North Korea and how prepared generals think the U.S. is "to successfully fight a major combat operation there."

Officers were asked to judge the preparedness of the U.S. on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning "fully prepared" and one indicating "unable to execute."

Iran was rated 4.5, the Taiwan Strait ( where there have been tensions between China and Taiwan) 4.9, Syria 5.1, and North Korea 4.7.

The officers ranked the Navy and Air Force readiness the highest at 6.8 and 6.6, respectively. The Army and Marines, which have assumed the "bulk of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan," ranked 4.7 and 5.7, respectively.

Other results of the survey:


Officers call for more Special Operations Forces, improvements in intelligence, and better space and cyberwarfare capabilities for the military's fight in the war on terror.

To improve recruitment efforts, nearly 80 percent back "expanding options for legal, foreign permanent residents of the United States to serve in exchange for U.S. citizenship."

When asked if they agree or disagree with the statement "torture is never acceptable," 53 percent agreed and 44 percent disagreed.

Officers have relatively low confidence in civilian institutions -- giving the presidency a 5.5 rating and Congress 2.7. The Defense Department received 5.6, the CIA 4.7, Department of Veterans Affairs 4.5, and State Department 4.1.

"Sixty-six percent of the officers say they believe U.S. elected leaders are either somewhat or very uninformed about the military," the survey says.

The survey finds nearly nine in 10 officers "agree that, all other things being equal, the military will respect a president of the United States who has served in the military more than one who has not."

It's obvious that the questions asked in the "survey" were formulated to elicit answers that someone with Leftist leanings could swing like a club while shouting "See, see!!! I told you so!!!".

The same BS was printed about the previous incursion into Iraq.

[Enigma]

Some twisted reasoning there. The ONLY strain on the military comes from the debacle in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, we are at nearly $.5 TRILLION dollars at this point. We could recruit, train, and equip a lot of troops with that squandered money. Maybe Halliburton will hand it back?

And the left isn't against all war, just fraudulent ones dreamt up so connected companies can take tax dollars. Leaving the country poorly defended, and a tempting target for maniacal opportunists, is the result. Iraq was never a threat to the US, but lots of other countries are.

Slider

So all $5.6T went to Halliburton , and not a dime to the military eh?

Doubt it.

[Enigma]

:D

[Slider]

It's obvious that the questions asked in the "survey" were formulated to elicit answers that someone with Leftist leanings could swing like a club while shouting "See, see!!! I told you so!!!".

The same BS was printed about the previous incursion into Iraq.

Did you read the questions? Which ones were stacked?

This is pretty definitive: "Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."


Slider

[Slider]

So all $5.6T went to Halliburton , and not a dime to the military eh?

Doubt it.

Said as if it matters.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Some twisted reasoning there. The ONLY strain on the military comes from the debacle in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, we are at nearly $.5 TRILLION dollars at this point. We could recruit, train, and equip a lot of troops with that squandered money. Maybe Halliburton will hand it back?

And the left isn't against all war, just fraudulent ones dreamt up so connected companies can take tax dollars. Leaving the country poorly defended, and a tempting target for maniacal opportunists, is the result. Iraq was never a threat to the US, but lots of other countries are.

Slider

As you all know, I don't usually agree with Slider, but he is right on target here. Unless you're a blatant Fox news watching, Limbaugh listening right wing neo-con badge wearer, you can't think that this war has been good for the US.

[Enigma]

Did you read the questions? Which ones were stacked?

This is pretty definitive: "Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."Slider

As I stated in my previous post, it is as plain as day that the questions asked in the "survey" were formulated to produce answers that 'left leanings' ideologues could hold up and shout "See, see!!! we told you so!!!".

Once again, the same BS survey appeared over the first Iraq invasion.

(psst, slider, that means yes, I did read the questions, and yes they are nonsense.)

[Enigma]

Said as if it matters.

Slider

Of course it matters. Check your post. That is what YOU stated. "$5.6 trillion spent blah, blah, blah, maybe Halliburton will give IT back."

I merely took exception to your misrepresentation.

[Enigma]

As you all know, I don't usually agree with Slider, but he is right on target here. Unless you're a blatant Fox news watching, Limbaugh listening right wing neo-con badge wearer, you can't think that this war has been good for the US.

Nor do I.
However one cannot drum up legitimate opposition to the boondoggle in Iraq by taking cheap (unfounded) shots and hurling personal insults at the president. By and large Iraqis welcome their liberation from a brutal and insane thug. Their lives will ultimately be better without Hussein. The blunder was Rumsfeld's overconfidence in his troop numbers, coupled with his gross miscalculation of the ensuing insurgency (which by the way, was caused by his first boner). Top that idiocy off with his unwillingness to admit and correct his mistake when he could have, and you have the military in a compromised situation. Hence Rumsfeld's too late departure. Increased troop strength has (again too late) diffused some of the insurgency. Nevertheless, the aftermath of the invasion is an ugly mess that could well have been averted.

[Slider]

As I stated in my previous post, it is as plain as day that the questions asked in the "survey" were formulated to produce answers that 'left leanings' ideologues could hold up and shout "See, see!!! we told you so!!!".

Once again, the same BS survey appeared over the first Iraq invasion.

(psst, slider, that means yes, I did read the questions, and yes they are nonsense.)

Post the questions.

But there is no way to trick 150 military men into saying the Iraq was has stretched us dangerously thin. If they said it, they think it.

Slider

[Slider]

Of course it matters. Check your post. That is what YOU stated. "$5.6 trillion spent blah, blah, blah, maybe Halliburton will give IT back."

I merely took exception to your misrepresentation.

First, it is $.5 trillion, but what's a few times the national budget, anyway. And it was all spent in Iraq, or for Iraq, which was the point in case you missed it.

Slider

[Slider]

Nor do I.
However one cannot drum up legitimate opposition to the boondoggle in Iraq by taking cheap (unfounded) shots and hurling personal insults at the president. By and large Iraqis welcome their liberation from a brutal and insane thug. Their lives will ultimately be better without Hussein. The blunder was Rumsfeld's overconfidence in his troop numbers, coupled with his gross miscalculation of the ensuing insurgency (which by the way, was caused by his first boner). Top that idiocy off with his unwillingness to admit and correct his mistake when he could have, and you have the military in a compromised situation. Hence Rumsfeld's too late departure. Increased troop strength has (again too late) diffused some of the insurgency. Nevertheless, the aftermath of the invasion is an ugly mess that could well have been averted.

Right. Cheney had no role whatsoever, there were no fables to dupe the public into it, and Bush was a victim. Poor guy!

And WTF makes you think that whatever gains those Iraqis MAY feel, is worth the damage done to our country?

The president is more than an effing moron. He is a treasonous criminal.

Slider

[kernel crash]

As you all know, I don't usually agree with Slider, but he is right on target here. Unless you're a blatant Fox news watching, Limbaugh listening right wing neo-con badge wearer, you can't think that this war has been good for the US.

That quote doesn't describe me either or what my response was to Slider. If Iraq had WMD, then Sadamn was a threat to our troops, our allies and the flow of oil that our economy depends on. It's as simple as that. Without WMD's, he's no threat and there's no justification for war. Remember this was all playing out in a post 9/11 world. The mindset was a bit different. Unless somebody's invented a way back machine I don't know about, we can't change the past. We have to live with our decisions, good and bad, and figure out how to move forward. My point was looking at the information in that piece, it looks like for the short term anyway, it would be more difficult to put boots on the ground in places we don't belong. That might turn out to be a good thing. That was my point.

[Slider]

C'mon. It should be real clear that there was a campaign to sell this unnecessary war. Take the destruction of email archives during the Plame investigation as a sign of the depth the adminstration would go to foist this on us, covering treason with yet another federal crime.

And Iraq oil was being sold on the open market under Saddam. It only came OFF the market as a result of the war.

Nope, we can't change the fact that Bush f****d us. We can end the war and limit the damage, though.

Slider

[Enigma]

Right. Cheney had no role whatsoever, there were no fables to dupe the public into it, and Bush was a victim. Poor guy!

And WTF makes you think that whatever gains those Iraqis MAY feel, is worth the damage done to our country?

The president is more than an effing moron. He is a treasonous criminal.

Slider

Waa, waa! Somebody call the waambulance!!!
Do I like the fact that even one US soldier died in a non strategic country half way around the world? NO.

Do I like the fact that hundreds of millions of US dollars are being spent outside the US in what has turned into an ugly mess? NO.

What could be more intolerable? How about a brutal dictator gassing his countrymen? How about a brutal dictator systematically raping and disfiguring women, or torturing and murdering men and children?

The men and women of our armed forces knew what they were getting into when they signed on. And, a couple of tax dollars out of your pocket hasn't caused you to miss a meal.

I suggest you stop the childish whining and name calling (for a few seconds anyway), and thank whatever God you pray to that you live in a country that affords you the personal freedom and opportunity you have.

[Slider]

Wow. Talk about whining. If you don't see the connection between the fraud that got us here, the exposure it created, the immense economic strain that will affect every decision we make going forward, and the very deep hole that we are leaving to the next generation, then it is no wonder you still support Bush.

But even more important is that you seem to miss the point of democracy and the most crucial compenents of our Constitution. You are about as un-American as it gets.

Slider

[Enigma]

Wow. Talk about whining. If you don't see the connection between the fraud that got us here, the exposure it created, the immense economic strain that will affect every decision we make going forward, and the very deep hole that we are leaving to the next generation, then it is no wonder you still support Bush.

But even more important is that you seem to miss the point of democracy and the most crucial compenents of our Constitution. You are about as un-American as it gets.

Slider

You're spinning your wheels bub. Either you didn't read, or don't comprehend what I wrote in my previous post.

For the record - we do not live in a Democracy.

[Slider]

You're spinning your wheels bub. Either you didn't read, or don't comprehend what I wrote in my previous post.

For the record - we do not live in a Democracy.


Ah, despite your boy's harping on the need to spread democracy, we don't actually have one ourselves. True, he's done his best to convert us to something more fascisitic, but last time I checked we actually voted for our leaders.

Ironic that you're trying to tell me I missed your point, when you've missed pretty much every one I've made, make a point about whining, and when a review of your posts, as I posted earlier, shows nothing BUT whining.

But let's sidestep that. Tell me what system we DO live under.

Slider

[Enigma]

Wow!
You post up and down the political forums about how the President is a moron, a scumbag and a treasonous criminal. Swagger away like you’re proficient in world politics and the machinations of government, write it like you think you know what you’re talking about. Anyone who disagrees with you gets the same treatment. Yet you know not what form of government we have.

.....
The president is more than an effing moron. He is a treasonous criminal. Slider

At least President Bush knows what form of government we have. Puts him a rung or two up on you.


So glad you cleared things up.

[Slider]

So here's your approach. Make a statement, back it up not at all.

You whined about the military poll, claimed to have read the questions, never posted them or made any specific point about where they were leading.

You rant about the military and how happy the troops are to serve, when that was never in question anywhere in this discussion.

You whine about name calling, tell me to thank God about the good ol' USA, but never cite any specific rebuttal to ANY point I made.

Clear things up? I'm specific and will discuss any point you like, but you first have to figure out how to make one.

So if we are not living in a democracy, what system are we living under? Real simple, direct question. Got it in you to offer an answer?

Slider

[BG]

I live in a republic...

By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words, namely democracy and republic, stems from the fact that many consider them synonyms, which they aren’t. They are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter; in a democracy, with the rule of the majority. And yet they are often lumped together. Consider the words to the United States' Pledge of Allegiance, which adds to some of the confusion by proudly touting: “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible,” Was this the dream of America's forefathers? Even if it was, isn't the US, the epitome of the word democracy?

Yes it is and no it isn't. In a democracy, to decide on an issue, the question is put to the vote of the population and the majority of those votes determine the outcome. In essence, a democracy is only as free as its people deem it to be. In an extreme state of ignorance and apathy, a democracy can be just as tyrannical as the regime of the most tyrannical dictator who ever walked the face the earth.

In seeking clarification between a democracy and a republic, look no further than the names of American political parties and how they loosely define their boundaries. If nothing else, the names republican and democrat are definitely about a Republican’s looser view of government and a Democrat’s centralized one. In a republic, people may vote for their representatives, but the state’s responsibilities are limited because they are clearly bound by a charter. Freedom is realized by the willingness of the people to live by the dictates of the charter. The republic’s charter protects the individual’s rights.

The detailed organization of the government of a republic can vary widely, but in most cases, the head of state, as it is in France, for example, is referred to as the president. In republics, which are also democracies, the head of state is always appointed as the result of either a direct or indirect election. In the case of some republics, such as Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is actually a committee of several persons in aggregate. Republics can be led by a head of state that retains many characteristics of a monarch, as in some instances the president may rule for the duration of his life. Such an example would be the Syrian Arab Republic.

Republics and democracies represent two forms representative government out of many found in the world today. The rights of the individual are always protected, no matter how they are represented.

[Slappy]

So, what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this anyway? :D

[BG]

I like BAD boys

[Slider]

Per your definition, BG, we are a democracy, too. "In republics, which are also democracies,..."

Democratic Republic is the most common description of the US. There are no pure democracies anywhere. We'd have to be voting on traffic light intervals. Not very practical.

Slider

[BG]

Are we a republic or a democracy?



© 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc.




We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution ? two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?


So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?



James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.


Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

[Slider]

We can go back and forth on this forever. You've clearly done the Google seach, and everyone seems to have a say on republic versus democracy. In common usage, voting for leaders makes a democracy. There are many variations.

The real point, in this thread, is that is has nothing to do with the disucssion. It was more misdirection from Enigma who can't seem to make a relevant point, and let's others defend his babble for him.

Slider

[BG]

And the point of this discussion/thread being???

[Slider]

Bush sucks. Remember?

Slider

[BG]

Oh Yeh...Thanks for the reminder, if it wasn't for you we would have forgot

Well, back to Google...

[Slappy]

Clearly.

[Slider]

That's the beauty of this thread. Bush's suckage is so multi-faceted, that you really can't exhaust the subject.

Slider

[Slappy]

Specially not with teh Google to fall back on.

[kernel crash]

That's the beauty of this thread. Bush's suckage is so multi-faceted, that you really can't exhaust the subject.

Slider

Actually its tiresome. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. What's the point?

[Slider]

Well, he does still run the country, and the damage has yet to be rectified. We need trials. Lots of them.

Slider

[Slider]

This thread needs a revival, and they don't get much better than this. Bush invades Iraq, under the pretense of helping democracy thrive there. But, if you have a brain, you know it is about the oil. This story proves it.

He undermined the government HE SET UP, so that his oil friends could cut an oil deal. It works for him on so many levels. Pads his buds pockets AND keeps us there longer. The thousands of deaths and the $trillions mean nothing this scumbag, when there's money to be made.

Slider

July 3, 2008
Committee Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal
By JAMES GLANZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Bush administration officials knew that a Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush was planning to sign an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central government, a Congressional committee has concluded.

The conclusions were based on e-mail messages and other documents that the committee released Wednesday.

United States policy is to warn companies that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law and to strengthen Iraq’s central government. The Kurdistan deal, by ceding responsibility for writing contracts directly to a regional government, infuriated Iraqi officials. But State Department officials did nothing to discourage the deal and in some cases appeared to welcome it, the documents show.

The company, Hunt Oil of Dallas, signed the deal with Kurdistan’s semiautonomous government last September. Its chief executive, Ray L. Hunt, a close political ally of President Bush, briefed an advisory board to Mr. Bush on his contacts with Kurdish officials before the deal was signed.

In an e-mail message released by the Congressional committee, a State Department official in Washington, briefed by a colleague about the impending deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government, wrote: “Many thanks for the heads up; getting an American company to sign a deal with the K.R.G. will make big news back here. Please keep us posted.”

The release of the documents comes as the administration is defending help that United States officials provided in drawing up a separate set of no-bid contracts, still pending, between Iraq’s Oil Ministry in Baghdad and five major Western oil companies to provide services at other Iraqi oil fields.

In the no-bid contracts, the administration said it had provided what it called purely technical help writing the contracts. The United States played no role in choosing the companies, the administration has said.

Disclosure of those contracts has provided substantial fuel to critics of the Iraq war, both in the United States and abroad, who contend that the enormous Iraqi oil reserves were a motivation for the American-led invasion — an assertion the administration has repeatedly denied.

Iraq’s oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, has condemned the Kurdistan deal as illegal because it was not approved by Iraq’s central government and was struck without an oil law, which has still not been passed.

After the deal was signed last year, a senior State Department official in Baghdad criticized it, saying, “We believe these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the K.R.G. and the national government of Iraq.”

The State Department said Wednesday that it had discouraged the deal. Hunt officials declined to comment, and Kurdish government officials said there was no impropriety.

In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose chairman is Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, a State Department official wrote that the department had strongly discouraged Hunt from signing the deal until an oil law had been passed.

The State Department told Hunt that “we continue to advise all companies that they incur significant political and legal risk by signing contracts” before then, wrote Jeffrey T. Bergner, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the department, in one of the documents made public on Wednesday.

But in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Waxman wrote that the documents his committee had collected “tell a different story about the role of administration officials.” In letters obtained by the committee, Mr. Hunt informed the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, of which he was a member, last July and August that he was pursuing serious business interests in Kurdistan.

“We were approached a month ago by representatives of a private group in Kurdistan as to the possibility of our becoming interested in that region,” Mr. Hunt wrote to the board last July 12. “We had one team of geoscientists travel to Kurdistan several weeks ago and we were encouraged by what we saw.”

In August 2007, Mr. Hunt informed State Department officials directly of his intentions in Kurdistan, and on Sept. 5, three days before the deal was signed, a flurry of e-mail messages among Hunt and State Department officials make clear that the department was aware of what was in the works.

In a message to a colleague with the subject line “Hunt Oil to Sign Contract With K.R.G.,” one State Department official gives a highly detailed summary of the agreement. Mr. Hunt, the official wrote, “is expecting to sign an exploration contract with the K.R.G. for a field located in the Shakkan district, an area under K.R.G. control (inside the Green Line) but technically in Nineveh Governorate.”

“Hunt would be the first U.S. company to sign such a deal,” the official wrote, suggesting that the news should be rushed onto the State Department’s internal distribution network as quickly as possible.

Despite those exchanges, a State Department official said Wednesday that the company had in fact been discouraged from completing its deal.

“All companies, including Hunt Oil, which have spoken with the United States government about investing in Iraq’s oil sector, have and will continue to be given the same advice,” John Fleming, an Iraq press officer in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, wrote Wednesday in an e-mailed response to questions. “We advise companies that they incur significant political and legal risk by signing any contracts with any party before a national law is passed by the Iraqi Parliament.”

Another State Department official, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed frustration, saying that a local State Department official in Erbil, the Kurdish provincial capital, who was the head of a so-called Regional Reconstruction Team, tried to dissuade Hunt officials from making the deal.

But no notes were taken at that meeting, the official said, and Hunt representatives later gave a conflicting account of what had been said.

“I have talked to the R.R.T. team leader personally, and he sticks by his story and they stick by theirs,” the State Department official said.

Jeanne L. Phillips, a senior vice president for corporate affairs and international relations at Hunt Oil whose correspondence appears at certain points in the documents released Wednesday, said that because Mr. Waxman’s letter was not addressed directly to the company, she could not comment on it.

“As a matter of company policy, Hunt Oil Company does not comment on correspondence between third parties,” Ms. Phillips wrote in an e-mail message.

An official in the Kurdistan Regional Government reached late Wednesday who asked not to be named said that the government had written some 22 contracts to date.

“Anyone can have a contract with the K.R.G., but it must be accepted and suitable according to assessment by our experts,” the official said. “Hunt is a good company and never had its contracts with us illegally or improperly.”

The documents released by Mr. Waxman also lay bare what has become a serious dispute between the company and the State Department over what was said between them before the deal last year.

For example, a senior Hunt official said he was told by State Department officials during a meeting on June 15, 2007, that the United States government did not object to deals with the Kurdish regional government.

“I specifically asked if the U.S.G. had a policy toward companies entering contracts with the K.R.G.,” the Hunt official, David McDonald, wrote in an e-mail message to a colleague last Sept. 28. The State Department officials, Mr. McDonald wrote, replied that there was no policy, neither for nor against.

His message concluded: “There was no communication to me or in my presence made by the nine State Department officials with whom I met prior to 8 September that Hunt should not pursue our course of action leading to a contract. In fact, there was ample opportunity to do so, but it did not happen.”

The encouragement by State Department officials did not end with the signing of the contract on Sept. 8, the documents suggest. Five days later, a State Department official in the southern city of Basra wrote to Ms. Phillips, “I read and heard about with interest your deal with the regional Kurdish government.”

“I don’t know if you are aware of another opportunity,” the official wrote, mentioning an enormous port project and a natural gas project in the south. After a few more lines, the official concluded, “This seems like it would be a good opportunity for Hunt.”

James Glanz reported from New York, and Richard A. Oppel Jr. from Baghdad. Andrew E. Kramer contributed reporting from Moscow, Mudhafer al-Husaini from Baghdad and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Kurdistan.

[kernel crash]

I guess now we can expect hearings from the Democratic controlled congress. Expert witnesses, supenas, waterboarding etc. I mean it sounds like such an open and shut case. Yet they can't seem to lay a glove on the chief douch bag. What's wrong with this picture?

[Slider]

Well, 'controlled' is a pretty strong word. And a constitutional crisis is nothing to trifle with, Clinton's sex life notwithstanding. But still, you gotta wonder WTF it will take to get SOME sort of ball rolling on Bush. There are SO many opps, and so little time.

The time thing might be it. Why put the country through impeachment, when we have the economy to deal with, and Bush exits soon. Hearings really bring everything else to a halt. Still, with the ongoing damage, there really has to be a point where we say STOP!

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

All the article shows is that a deal was recently made. Your burden of proof in tying the onset of the war to a supposedly eventual deal has to go much further than simply claiming the connection. I have grave misgivings about how the war started as well; however I am not convinced that oil, at the time, was the main culprit. You want to start looking under rocks? Well, there's a big giant one abutting Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

[Slider]

If the invasion of Iraq was to foster democracy, as Bush claims, then why undermine the government that was our objective?

Doesn't matter WHEN the deal was made, just that it happened at all.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't claim for a minute that the invasion was to foster Democracy, unless you're counting Democracy in Israel. In retrospect, I think the reason and timing of the invasion had very much to do with a gung ho Israel prodding Bush to do their bidding. If that sounds too simplistic, then take it as one of the main contributing factors. I don't doubt that the presence of oil was an attractive prospect for Bush. Neither he nor Israel anticipated that this war would be so long and costly. And I do think that the Jewish state is crapping their pants at the propect of Obama becoming president, no matter how much lip service the Democrat candidate did in front of AIPAC. They just know that McCain is the far stronger pro-Israel candidate, and the most likely to prolong our presence in the region. I just wonder when we will have a government, not just a President, who will take to task those entities that control the oil, and thus, world economies, like Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia, the chief fananciers behind 9/11. I'm not one to buy into the fanciful conspiracy theories surrounding that fateful day, but I do think that Bush and others have given the Saudi's a pass because of oil. So while our presence in Iraq may not have everything to do with oil, it, as well as the state of our nation certainly can look at oil as a major factor.

You ever wonder how different things would be if we could simply take Saudi Arabia and Israel out of the equation? Two piddly little countries have way too much power.

[Slider]

I don't think Iraq meant that much to Israel. Iran, maybe. And, unlike the US, Israel thinks through its military decisions, at least long enough to consider if there's an upside. Anyone who was concerned with stability in the Mideast had to forsee that this was going to piss off a lot of Muslims, and Israel knows there is no upside there, unless it addressed a direct threat. There was no threat in Iraq, and they didn't fall for the manufactured pretense Bush provided.

All we really need to do is drop out of the oil economy. But, of course, that wouldn't even be considered under Bush.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

It is known inside Israel and the Israeli media that Ariel Sharon was heavily involved in pushing Bush towards Iraq during the period leading up to the invasion. In fact, the Israelis and pro-Israel lobbyists in the US were directly involved in cooking up the faux WMD evidence that seemed to seal the deal. Yes, they are more concerned about Iran, but Hussein was an easier target, and Iraq was and is a stronghold for Shiites. They felt the time was right to make a move... well, for us to make a move for them.

The problem with Israel is illustrated perfectly by your reticence to acknowledge their influence. People have been brainwashed into believing that to talk negatively about Israel in any fashion automatically makes one an anti-Semite, and that could be no further from the truth. A better Middle East policy begins and ends with a different kind of relationship with Israel, one that doesn't have us turning a blind eye to their heavy handed approach against their neighbors. Once that is done, then maybe we can begin to make inroads towards an ebbing oil dependency.

[Slider]

I admit to not following Israeli politics very closely. I guess even the Israeilis are suckers for a war monger every once in a while. Nothing like a little 'rah rah' to get the electorate behind you. Being truly threatened by imminent war, all the time, unlike us, I gave them more credit for having a realistic grasp on any particular threat.

We can only hope the Iraq fiasco leaves an impression that lasts more than a couple of years, here and elsewhere. I know better, though.

Slider

[MTBME]

Think of the definition of pro active vrs. reactive. Why is it all we get out of our government, at all levels mind you, is this reactive response to everything that comes down the road. Wasn't there plenty of warning signs that this housing market wasn't built on a solid foundation. People getting loans they could never repay. Where was the government oversight. Now WE have to pay for those loans.

Look at GM, Ford etc. There all practically bankrupt. They decide now that they should be building smaller more gas efficient cars. But they can't re-tool their assembly lines fast enough like Toyota can. So they'll lay off and make more cuts. So now everybody is saying we need to drill for more oil. Well not everybody. We have politicians with their ties to the special interest of the environmental groups. If we don't take the oil off our coast, foreign countries will. It's that simple. People are so stupid. It's like were supplying the ammunition to the people who want to kill us. My IRA is down about 25 grand since the 1st of the year. I haven't even looked lately. How long will that take me to recover that, if ever. Pretty soon the dollar will be worth a Mexican Peso. Why are we letting that happen?

Hey the Democrats wanted control of the house and Senate. Well they got it. Looks what happened since then to the price of gas, food and the housing market. (And its not just the Democrats.) And wait till the winter gets here with the heating oil costs. I don't know how some people will get by. Think the retailers will be crying over poor Christmas sales this year? If I lost my job I'd be stocking up on guns and ammo. Seriously. Yet with all these problems it's business as usual in Washington. I think we need a million man/woman army to descend on Washington and forcefully kick the crap out of these hacks that are bought and paid for by special interest. Can anybody in Washington come up with an original idea to move this country forward? Look at Bush. He looks and sounds like he's thrown in the towel a long time ago. He's got nuthin. No actually I'll take that back. He's got his retirement all sewn up with nothing to worry about. So 18,435 reasons to hate Bush? I got about 25 thousand reasons right now and counting.



http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/july/0716_energy_tsunami1.shtml

[Slider]

"Hey the Democrats wanted control of the house and Senate. Well they got it. Looks what happened since then to the price of gas, food and the housing market. (And its not just the Democrats.)"

C'mon, MTBME. Despite your sorta qualifier in parenthesis, you're trying to pin the current economic disaster on the Dems. Gimme a break.

Slider

[Slider]

Not to shift focus, and happy to go further on the previous topic, but this says a lot about the moron who got us where we are. It is about favors for friends, and most of the US doesn't qualify.

Slider
----
Courant.com
A Bad Backroom Deal
July 17, 2008

For years, the Bush administration has tried to detour around federal protections and open millions of acres of national forest to road construction and logging.

Now it has quietly negotiated a deal to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned Montana forest to residential subdivisions by paving roads in national forests.

It's hard to square this deal with the guiding principle espoused by the Forest Service's first chief, Simsbury native Gifford Pinchot: "To provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run."

The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors between the service's current chief, Mark E. Rey, and Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust.

The nation's largest private landowner, Plum Creek owns more than 8 million acres, including 1.2 million in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem of western Montana, an area of rugged peaks, glacier-carved valleys, rivers and lakes.

Under the deal, which Mr. Rey says will be formalized next month, logging roads in national forest land that adjoin areas controlled by Plum Creek could be paved. Mr. Rey, a former timber lobbyist, says federal law requires him to accommodate Plum Creek's request.

Mr. Rey should have been at least as accommodating to the public, which owns the national forests. Yet the public has been given no opportunity to weigh in on this agreement.

Nor has the Forest Service conducted assessments of the plan's potential impacts on grizzly bears, lynxes and other local species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

This agreement has the markings of a backroom deal. It's the product of a bad process, bad precedent and fundamentally bad policy.

[MTBME]

C'mon, MTBME. Despite your sorta qualifier in parenthesis, you're trying to pin the current economic disaster on the Dems. Gimme a break.

Slider

Nope. They all have a hand in it but ultimetely the buck stops with W. Make no mistake, there's no shining stars here.

" Paulson's tardy attention to the mortgage companies is not unique. The only senior executive branch officials who expressed alarm about overextended Fannie and Freddie were Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and their warnings were shrugged off.

It was worse on Capitol Hill. Former Rep. Richard Baker could not find a single House co-sponsor for his reform bill. He lost his bid to become ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee though he had seniority, and then retired from Congress to become a lobbyist. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel had trouble finding other Senate supporters of Baker's bill.

Baker, Hagel and Sen. Richard Shelby, ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, were rare members of committees with jurisdiction who took the issue seriously. The powerhouse Democratic overseers of the banking committees -- Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Christopher Dodd and Sen. Chuck Schumer -- protected Fannie and Freddie. "

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/rnovak/2008/rdn_07171.shtml

[Slider]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not the cause of the current housing finance crisis, but victims of it. Not to say they haven't been mismanaged, but the collapse of prices is what's driving people to walk from their mortgages and helping sink them. Even banks that had strict lending rules are in trouble. Falling tide, all boats...

Frank and company were trying to protect the lower end of the economic pile - no shame in that. The question is really about who'll pay to bail us out of this mess. If the lower middle class has no protection, as the wealthy have in spades, whose back do you think would carry the weight?

There have been warnings about both mortgage backers for 20 years or more. Inertia is about the only consistant point about government. Like you say, there is no proactvity.

Slider

[MTBME]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not the cause of the current housing finance crisis,
Slider

Agree. My point was that everywhere you look its business as usual. With Congressional approval down to about 10% you think these guys would get it. Hey the system is set up so that can't be dislodged.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Blame the Fed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6D_tWetv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBEr73zOPk

And you wonder why everybody in Washington is scared to death of this man? He's the only one telling it like it is.

[MTBME]

And you wonder why everybody in Washington is scared to death of this man? He's the only one telling it like it is.

In this system if you don't have the big money behind you, you don't have the power. He doesn't have the money so I'm not sure many people are afraid of him. That doesn't mean he isn't a smart guy and I hope he keeps speaking out. He refers to the Austrian system. I wonder what that's all about? Maybe I'll google it.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Washington is afraid of him because he is anti-establishment and has a growing base of support. His policies would spell the end of most of what those people count on to keep them in office year after year after year. The Federal government is like the housing bubble. It is so bloated that it seems to be bursting at the seams.

I think that his solution to simply dissolve the debt and take a short term hit is the best solution.

He explains it well in this article.

http://mises.org/story/2895

I found this YouTube video of a read of Paul's book, Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View. It's about an hour long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPgFoJh9f8

[BG]

Only one thing to do...

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6214

[Slider]

Won't catch me saying "I told you so..."

At least not until the trial starts. There HAVE to be some balls somewhere in our government. Or not.

Slider

Should have added: At least Kucinich tried.

[Slider]

It's a start...

Slider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 31, 2008
Democrats Call for Contempt Charges Against Rove
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — Democrats on both sides of the Capitol assailed the administration’s handling of the Justice Department yet again on Wednesday, and a House committee recommended contempt charges against Karl Rove, who was President Bush’s top political adviser.

The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines, 20 to 14, to cite Mr. Rove for defying its subpoena to testify in an inquiry into improper political meddling in the department.

“Mr. Rove has left us no option,” said Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the committee. Mr. Conyers expressed regret that the committee had been forced to use its subpoena power.

“Today’s vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person — not even Karl Rove — is above the law,” Mr. Conyers said.

But the panel’s top Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, accused Democrats of conducting “witch hunts” and neglecting the people’s real business, like energy needs and border security.

The White House has invoked executive privilege in asserting that current and former top officials cannot be forced to testify before Congress, because the president’s right to confidential advice from his trusted aides would then be compromised.

The committee recommendation now goes to the full House, which voted in February to hold two other former White House officials in contempt in connection with the same inquiry. The House’s votes against Joshua B. Bolten, the former White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, were the first contempt of Congress citations against the executive branch since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Congressional Democrats have been investigating the possibility that nine United States attorneys were dismissed in 2006 because their handling of politically charged cases, like allegations of wrongdoing by elected officials, was out of step with the administration’s political agenda.

As part of its inquiry, the committee headed by Mr. Conyers wants to question Mr. Rove about his knowledge, if any, of the decision to prosecute former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat, who was convicted of bribery two years ago. Several Democrats have asserted that the charges were trumped up and politically motivated.

Mr. Siegelman has been freed on appeal after serving nine months of a seven-year sentence and has won the support of several dozen former state attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. Rove has repeatedly stated — tho7ugh not before Congress and not under oath — that he had no involvement in the Siegelman case, but Mr. Conyers said he is not convinced. “The questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount,” he said.

Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison. In practice, however, disputes between Congress and the White House in which the specter of contempt charges has been raised have usually been settled well short of the jailhouse door.

As a practical matter, it is highly unlikely that the United States attorney’s office in Washington will seek to prosecute former White House officials on the contempt charges.

While the House Judiciary Committee was deliberating, the Senate Judiciary Committee was convening to hear Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general. Mr. Fine testified about his report on Monday that senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by letting partisan politics guide their hiring decisions for positions that were supposed to be nonpolitical.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee, said at the start of Wednesday’s session that what had been uncovered so far about the Justice Department represented “the most serious threat to the effectiveness, professionalism and independence of the department since Watergate.”

Mr. Fine reviewed his findings about the activities of Monica Goodling, a former top adviser to the attorney general, and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, who were instrumental in some of the hiring decisions.

Responding to questions, Mr. Fine said prosecutors had concluded that Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson committed civil, as opposed to criminal violations, and therefore were not liable to charges. Mr. Fine portrayed Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson, both in their 30’s, as out of their depth.

“These were inexperienced, junior people, to some extent,” Mr. Fine said. “They rose to high-level positions, and they were allowed to implement these actions and changes unchecked, without adequate supervision, without adequate oversight. And it resulted in very serious damage to the Department of Justice. “

Last December, Mr. Leahy’s panel voted, 12 to 7, to hold Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten in contempt for refusing to comply with its subpoenas. The panel’s ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has been extremely critical of the Justice Department, voted in favor of the contempt citations “knowing that it’s highly likely to be a meaningless act,” as he put it then.

[kernel crash]

I knew this post would be coming but the bottom line from the article is this little jem...

"As a practical matter, it is highly unlikely that the United States attorneys office in Washington will seek to prosecute former White House officials on the contempt charges."

[Slider]

Yeah, just a start. We need impeachment for anything real to happen.

Slider

[catbbq]

Yeah, just a start. We need impeachment for anything real to happen.

Slider


Nothing real happened when they impeached Clinton.

[Slider]

Clinton got a blow job. Bush effed the whole country.

Slider

[catbbq]

Regardless of your feeling about enforcing certain laws but not others, nothing happened. So go ahead and waste more money impeaching Bush. I think the funds should be provided by those who want it so bad.

[Slider]

It ain't wasting money to protect the Constitution. We went through with a meaningless excercise to chase down Clinton for a blow job - that is why nothing happened. Treason, fascism, war-mongering, war crimes, environmental rape - that is worth trying to correct. At least so that the next generation of presidents don't think they can make their own laws, too.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

It ain't wasting money to protect the Constitution. We went through with a meaningless excercise to chase down Clinton for a blow job - that is why nothing happened. Treason, fascism, war-mongering, war crimes, environmental rape - that is worth trying to correct. At least so that the next generation of presidents don't think they can make their own laws, too.

Slider:har:

It wasn't the B Job numbnuts. It was the fact that he lied about it (and many other things) to congress and the public.

But, that's what you get for electing a slimeball who's campaign slogan is "character doesn't matter".

As for those " Treason, fascism, war-mongering, war crimes, environmental rape" allegations of yours...return to fantasy island and dream up something substantial. Something people might be interested in hearing you whine about.

[Mr_Cheeze]

:har:

It wasn't the B Job numbnuts. It was the fact that he lied about it (and many other things) to congress and the public.

But, that's what you get for electing a slimeball who's campaign slogan is "character doesn't matter".

As for those " Treason, fascism, war-mongering, war crimes, environmental rape" allegations of yours...return to fantasy island and dream up something substantial. Something people might be interested in hearing you whine about.

http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg

Let us know when you are ready to come up for air, dude.

I might be time for you to realize that you are actually in the minority these days. Nah, you'll vote for George John McCain Bush and keep watching Fox news, pretending everything is peachy keen on the home front, while the boogie man still lurks somewhere in Pashtun. I guess it's easier to go with the flow.

[Slider]

So Clinton allegedly lied, and was subjected to an impeachment trial, where he was found Not Guilty. Bush commits treason, just for starters, and....What?

I'd like to know any one thing that Bush HASN'T lied about. Really, gimme just one thing and let's explore a bit.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Put up the bucks for the investigation. Since you obviously know more than Congress, provide the evidence (other than the "proof" you get from the rags you've been reading), and I'm sure they'll get on with it.

[Slider]

Can't think of one thing he didn't lie about, eh?

Slider

[kernel crash]

I might be time for you to realize that you are actually in the minority these days. Nah, you'll vote for George John McCain Bush and keep watching Fox news, pretending everything is peachy keen on the home front,

Why the slam on Fox News? Now you're starting to sound like Nancy Pelosi. Give me several examples where Fox News has deliberately gone out of there way to create deception in their reporting. I don't watch it often but when I do I generally see two guests on opposite sides of a story, each getting time to present their viewpoints. You don't see that on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Thank God were allowed to hear other viewpoints.

[Mr_Cheeze]

lol... I see we have a believer in "FAIR AND BALANCED". Want to buy some oceanfront property in the Baha Peninsula?

[Enigma]

Just exactly where is this 'Baha' peninsula? And do you know what a peninsula is?

[Slider]

The first question on an intelligence test out to be "Is Fox News Fair and Balanced". You guys flunk.

Cheeze - Theses two are all yours, but it ain't worth the time.

Slider

[kernel crash]

The first question on an intelligence test out to be "Is Fox News Fair and Balanced". You guys flunk.

Cheeze - Theses two are all yours, but it ain't worth the time.

Slider

And what do you consider to be fair and balanced Mr. superior intellegence? Actually there is no such thing is there? Everybody has their bias and it is difficult to filter it out 100%. But my point is do you think ABC, NBC or CBS does a BETTER job of fair and balance? I don't and neither does anybody with half a functioning brain. Half a functioning brain? Ahhh. So maybe that's where were having a disconnect here.

And I'm still waiting for an example of where Fox News went out of there way to deliberately falsify a news report to create deception.

[MTBME]

I'm no fan of Hillary but recall during the Democratic primaries that Hillary and Company, on more than one occasion, was quoted as saying that Fox News was the only major news outlet that was giving a fair and balanced coverage. How's that for strange bedfellows. Sorry for that image of Hillary, you know neked... and well...

[Mr_Cheeze]

Just exactly where is this 'Baha' peninsula? And do you know what a peninsula is?

I'll just assume your questions are facetious... but just in case:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Baja_peninsula_%28mexico%29_250m.jpg/450px-Baja_peninsula_%28mexico%29_250m.jpg

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'm no fan of Hillary but recall during the Democratic primaries that Hillary and Company, on more than one occasion, was quoted as saying that Fox News was the only major news outlet that was giving a fair and balanced coverage. How's that for strange bedfellows. Sorry for that image of Hillary, you know neked... and well...

I'm just going to take a wild stab at this one. This quote. Is it from some FOX News source? O'Reilley?

Oh, and before you go citing the Center For Media and Public Affairs on the matter, I suggest you look into who funds this supposedly non-partisan think tank.

At my behest, I suggest that it's probably just best to put the matter to rest, lest you gest to continue being a pest with your ill conceived FOX news love fest.

They don't even have the best looking news babes. (CNN, hands down the clear winner)

[Slider]

Fox bias? Geez - talk about fish in a barrel. Just two to whet your appetite:

Scott McClellan said, just last week, that Fox commentators regularly got briefs from the Bush administration to point them in the right, RIGHT, direction. He's Bush's former press secretary, just so you get that he WAS THERE.

Here's a revealing compilation of internal Fox memos that clearly show management telling reporters to skew their stories: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

Need more? The list is really close to endless, and I am leaving out the Katrina BS. That alone is a gold mine.

Slider

[Slider]

I really want to help the discussion here, so I am going to clue you in. Fox is a mouthpiece, defend them if you can, but really, that's a dry hole. Don't waste your time. Believe me, I can cite a lot more examples of 'reporting' that is nothing more than propaganda.

A better tactic would be for you to pick a media outlet that you consider biased, then define how they skew their reporting in opposition to the Bush scumbags, and define the bias.

Take the New York Times, for example. Pick a story, any story. Show the bias. Beyond that, to help wth the argument here, show how they fail to qualify their sources, or fail to present an opposing view point.

If you want me to do that with ANY Fox story, cite it. I promise to do my best.

Slider

[FriedRys]

The first question on an intelligence test out to be "Is Fox News Fair and Balanced". You guys flunk.

Cheeze - Theses two are all yours, but it ain't worth the time.

SliderI think spelling ought to be correct as well.

[Unbreakable]

Ain't no debating Cheeze & Slider, (they think) they're always right.

Of course that only comes natural to these two because they have tunnel vision from staring up their colons for so long.

[Unbreakable]

:har::har::har:

[Slider]

Ain't no debating Cheeze & Slider, (they think) they're always right.

Of course that only comes natural to these two because they have tunnel vision from staring up their colons for so long.

Aint no debating if you haven't got an opinion, the ability to state it, or the maturity to engage in a conversation.

Attacking typos - sure proof that the poster has nothing.

I can defend anything I post here. You got nothing but complete BS.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Scott McClellan said, just last week, that Fox commentators regularly got briefs from the Bush administration to point them in the right, RIGHT, direction. He's Bush's former press secretary, just so you get that he WAS THERE.

Here's a revealing compilation of internal Fox memos that clearly show management telling reporters to skew their stories: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

Slider

That's weak. Scott is trying to sell a book so yeah he's trying to create a buzz. As far as those talking point you cite I suspect similar conversations go on in most closed door meetings in all the major news outlets both print and screen. The bottom line is you think Fox News is biased and the other major outlets are not. Your in a very small minority here. That's just shows how clueless you are and maybe indicates you went over the bars a few too many times.

[Slider]

Riiiight. McClellan is making things up wholesale, and newscasters take direction from political parties routinely. You really believe that?

If it happens elsewhere, post the evidence. Show quotes or other information from an insider that shows that ANY other news outlet gets direction from a political party. If it is so common, there HAS to be something to support your otherwise baseless claim.

I have evidence from two separate sources backing what I say about Fox. You should be able to dig up something to support your opinion that others commit the same journalistic falsifications from somewhere.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's weak. Scott is trying to sell a book so yeah he's trying to create a buzz. As far as those talking point you cite I suspect similar conversations go on in most closed door meetings in all the major news outlets both print and screen. The bottom line is you think Fox News is biased and the other major outlets are not. Your in a very small minority here. That's just shows how clueless you are and maybe indicates you went over the bars a few too many times.

Nobody said anything about the other networks not being biased. Just that FOX is. What befuddles me is why you would bother to deny it, since their obvious modus operandi has, from day one, been to be the counter to the liberally biased networks like CNN and NBC. I'm not trying to say that the media, in general, is baised to the right. I actually believe to the contrary. But FOX? Please, of course they're blatantly biased. It's almost as if they're laughing in the faces of "conservatives" by claiming to be fair and balanced. They are just not. You, or anyone, lose all credibility by trying to suggest otherwise.

As for the other guy. He's obviously not ready for an exchange of ideas with a childish retort such as "they're always right". I am always right, but that's beside the point. If you disagree, please explain instead of whining.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Riiiight. McClellan is making things up wholesale, and newscasters take direction from political parties routinely. You really believe that?

If it happens elsewhere, post the evidence. Show quotes or other information from an insider that shows that ANY other news outlet gets direction from a political party. If it is so common, there HAS to be something to support your otherwise baseless claim.

I have evidence from two separate sources backing what I say about Fox. You should be able to dig up something to support your opinion that others commit the same journalistic falsifications from somewhere.

Slider

The New York Times and other outlets have never needed "direction" from a party. Their editorial boards are openly liberal. Not even you can try to claim that the Times is not biased when you can't even tell me the last time they endorsed a candidate for any office who was not Democrat.

[kernel crash]

I have evidence from two separate sources backing what I say about Fox. You should be able to dig up something to support your opinion that others commit the same journalistic falsifications from somewhere.

Slider

Journalistic falsifications is a bit of a stretch don't you think. Lets look at that link you posted.

"Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04)."

"The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04)."

"Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04)."

Now this next one is interesting.

"[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04)."

Can you imagine this same conversation occurring at CBS when Dan Rather was there. I can. And the discussion would have been to go with sniper not sharpshooter. How do suppose the discussion to go with the fake documents on Bush's National Guard history played out?

Hey Bush is scum, I'm not defending him. But I'm not naive enough to believe that this sort of thing hasn't been going on for a long time. Go back to the Kennedy years. How much discussion was going on in the back room of the networks to decide what they would talk about regarding his romantic indiscressions etc, etc. I could go on and on.

[kernel crash]

What befuddles me is why you would bother to deny it, since their obvious modus operandi has, from day one, been to be the counter to the liberally biased networks like CNN and NBC.

Show me my post where I have said that Fox News is not biased. I have said that everyone has a bias and some do a better job than others in hiding that bias. I would put Fox News to the right of center. I would put the rest of them to the left, far to the left. They were the only game in town for so long they take exception to anyone challenging their tripe. I also think that people were so conditioned to hearing the news through a liberal filter that when they heard Fox News they took offense that a news outlet would challenge what they conceive as the "conventional wisdom." It may be conventional but its not necessarily wisdom.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Show me my post where I have said that Fox News is not biased. I have said that everyone has a bias and some do a better job than others in hiding that bias. I would put Fox News to the right of center. I would put the rest of them to the left, far to the left. They were the only game in town for so long they take exception to anyone challenging their tripe. I also think that people were so conditioned to hearing the news through a liberal filter that when they heard Fox News they took offense that a news outlet would challenge what they conceive as the "conventional wisdom." It may be conventional but its not necessarily wisdom.

Hmmm...


Why the slam on Fox News? Now you're starting to sound like Nancy Pelosi. Give me several examples where Fox News has deliberately gone out of there way to create deception in their reporting. I don't watch it often but when I do I generally see two guests on opposite sides of a story, each getting time to present their viewpoints. You don't see that on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Thank God were allowed to hear other viewpoints.

Yea, nice backpeddle.

[kernel crash]

I stand by my original statement. No back peddaling here. Look it up dickward. There's a difference between bias and deception. I still don't see the word bias in that statement your quoting.

bias—Synonyms 2. predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity; bent, leaning. Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone.

deception—Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

[Unbreakable]

Because yer arguing with a loser, you lose. In slidee's parochial brain the democrats are angels and can do no wrong...and so must always be right. Thus, republicans can never be right, and so must always be wrong and therfore evil, criminal, treasonous scum. Oh and besides which, we all (who share the majority opinion in this forum)..... GOT NOTHING;)

[Slider]

Ignore Unbreakable's posts - he brings nothing, but complains incessantly about others not bringing something. In fact, that is all he does.

Kernel - I don't have the time right now, but will get to it. There are lots of example of outright fabrication by Fox personalities. I can't bring myself to call them journalists. I will do the research and post, but what immediately comes to mind is that guy during the last elections that made up the interview with a fake socialist group that was praising Kerry. And you probably remember Rivera faking the battle account in Afghanistan. Not exactly politics related, but I got more.

Work is pressing this week, but gimme a few days for the research.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Work is pressing this week, but gimme a few days for the research.

Slider

That's not necessary. We could go back and forth forever. Nothing will change. I can keep finding stuff like this regarding examples of liberal bias that you seem to think doesn't exist. Here's a tidbit from that liberal icon the LA TIMES.

"this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:

From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,
Tony"

by the way Cheeze, this is an example of bias not deception.

[Slider]

That was an email to bloggers, not part of the newspaper. There is a HUGE difference. Differentiating between a blog and a news story is pretty key in vetting information sources, and only one part of many that need to be considered. Bloggers have none of the weight that journalists do. And an open email to bloggers is nothing like leaked internal memos.

Still no time for the research - gotta close some sales.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I stand by my original statement. No back peddaling here. Look it up dickward. There's a difference between bias and deception. I still don't see the word bias in that statement your quoting.

bias—Synonyms 2. predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity; bent, leaning. Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone.

deception—Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

Dickward? Wasn't he on Leave It To Beaver? Um, thanks, I think.

The backpeddle is you now qualifying your original objection to my FOX News slam, which was accurate and deserved. No need to bring yourself to start calling me names of old actors. I may cry.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ignore Unbreakable's posts - he brings nothing, but complains incessantly about others not bringing something. In fact, that is all he does.

Kernel - I don't have the time right now, but will get to it. There are lots of example of outright fabrication by Fox personalities. I can't bring myself to call them journalists. I will do the research and post, but what immediately comes to mind is that guy during the last elections that made up the interview with a fake socialist group that was praising Kerry. And you probably remember Rivera faking the battle account in Afghanistan. Not exactly politics related, but I got more.

Work is pressing this week, but gimme a few days for the research.

Slider

I have an easy one. Who was the dumbass who referred to an Obama act as a "Terrorist Fist Jab"? Sure, she was punished for it (not fired, though) but only after the comment got lots of negative press. They got their Obama is a Muslim dig, however crude.

This is just one example of the kind of things FOX does. Their personalities are, by and large, biased to the right, and they are encouraged to speak their minds. And don't bother bringing up Alan Colmes. He's a pathetically weak, token lefty to Hannity's overbearing personality. Hardly a fair and balanced pairing.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I..... GOT NOTHING;)

Fixed that for you.

[kernel crash]

I have an easy one. Who was the dumbass who referred to an Obama act as a "Terrorist Fist Jab"? Sure, she was punished for it (not fired, though) but only after the comment got lots of negative press. They got their Obama is a Muslim dig, however crude.

This is just one example of the kind of things FOX does. Their personalities are, by and large, biased to the right, and they are encouraged to speak their minds. And don't bother bringing up Alan Colmes. He's a pathetically weak, token lefty to Hannity's overbearing personality. Hardly a fair and balanced pairing.

Looks like you watch more of Fox News than I do because I am not familiar with the "she" who was involved with the fist jab comment. I can't even begin to answer that one. As far as Hannity and Colmes I have never watched them so I can't speak for or against them.

[Slider]

If you don't follow Fox that much, then how can you be so sure they aren't full of ****? I get a laugh every once in a while by tuning in. It amazes me, getting back my initial post, that anyone who pays attention can't see through the bias.

And you say you can find as much about the Times, or anywhere else. If you can, do it. Let's toss it around. That is what we're here for, right? Don't go down Unfathomable's path of trying to make this personal and fact-free, okay?

Here's a pretty clean cut example: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/04/fox-news-repeatedly-lies-about-obamas-voting-record/

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Here's a pretty clean cut example: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/04/fox-news-repeatedly-lies-about-obamas-voting-record/

Slider

It might be even cleaner if Crooks And Liars wasn't blatantly biased to the left. I does seem as though they found some clear deceptive practices, but that entire site is shilling for Obama. So I'll reserve a big grain of salt.

[Slider]

It is direct cuts from Fox, dated, with outright lies. Souces are all biased, remember? It's the citation of references that counts.

Slider

[kernel crash]

And you say you can find as much about the Times, or anywhere else. If you can, do it. Let's toss it around. That is what we're here for, right? Don't go down Unfathomable's path of trying to make this personal and fact-free, okay?
Slider

That's not why I'm here. I don't want to crawl down that rat hole. I'll be going on vacation for a while and won't be checking here too often.

[Slider]

Begs the question - why are you here?

Enjoy the vacation.

Slider

[catbbq]

If you don't follow Fox that much, then how can you be so sure they aren't full of ****? I get a laugh every once in a while by tuning in. It amazes me, getting back my initial post, that anyone who pays attention can't see through the bias.

And you say you can find as much about the Times, or anywhere else. If you can, do it. Let's toss it around. That is what we're here for, right? Don't go down Unfathomable's path of trying to make this personal and fact-free, okay?

Here's a pretty clean cut example: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/04/fox-news-repeatedly-lies-about-obamas-voting-record/

Slider

I watched the crooksandliars.com snipet. It does seem that they may be saying Obama didn't vote to condemn the ad, but its tough to tell from all the cuts. I would prefer to see the entire casts in context.

Assuming they are lying, this is like the BJ of the month. A vote on whether or not to condemn some 2 bit advertisement from a blantently biased source like moveon.org. Got anything with some meaning behind it?

[Slider]

Lesseee....In direct clips from Fox, bubbleheads say Obama "did not condemn" and "did not vote to condemn" the Moveon.org Petraeus/betray us piece. In fact, he did vote in support of the resolution to condemn the piece.

What else can you call that other than a lie? It sure isn't journalism, and has as much 'meaning', relevant to the topic at hand, as any of the other crap Fox spews.

What meaning are you looking for? You want, say, a lie related to Obama's plot to nuke the midwest? Wait long enough and maybe I can provide that, too.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't know why you guys are getting so defensive over FOX. They know what they are and don't hide behind their bias. Conservatives love having what they feel to be the only TV network on their side. I get it. Just don't get huffy when they are called on it. There's plenty of bias to go around for every partisan. The liberals have most of the TV networks, and the conservatives have FOX and pretty much every talk radio venue. Which sort of leaves true independents scrambling to find neutral ground. PBS? Hardly. Some people think they are the least biased. I think they may be the most, just in a much more subtle way.

I'm happy to have Sirius radio where IndyTalk is a breath of fresh air.

[Slider]

Fabrication isn't bias. It is something a lot more insidious, calculated to create "fact" where none exists. That makes it both easier to expose and more fun, too.

As we said, you can find bias everwhere. Just choosing what stories to focus on is a simple example of bias. With proper citation, readers/viewers can guage it and adjust the creedence they give to the stories. Lack of critical judgement makes them suckers for both fabrication and bias, though.

Fox fabrication is easy to find, but I'd like to see the same from just about any other recognized news source. Editors elsewhere don't openly encourage the writers/broadcasters to skew things like they do at Fox. It's a cesspool.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I seem to remember a certain CBS controversy with Dan Rather surrounding a certain willingness to present a certain story about a certain President's military service. I think we both know they knew exactly what they were trying to do, there. It effectively ended Rather's career.

[MTBME]

Editors elsewhere don't openly encourage the writers/broadcasters to skew things like they do at Fox. It's a cesspool.

Slider

You have no proof of that statement. Your not sitting in the boardroom when the editors are discussing which stories there going to cover and from what angle. You think the Boston Globe and the New York Times are such stand up examples of straight journalism? You want cesspool? I remember when the Boston Globe put out a photo, on the front page, of American soldiers raping women in Iraq. Turns out it was a photo from an internet porn site. How's that for fair and balanced. Your rant on Fox rings Faux.

[Slider]

Mistaken news stories happen. Responsible media outlets own up to them. The Globe published a retraction and an apology. Fox repeated the fabrications multiple times. See any difference there?

Slider

[MTBME]

Mistaken news stories happen. Responsible media outlets own up to them. The Globe published a retraction and an apology. Fox repeated the fabrications multiple times. See any difference there?

Slider

So there you have it. When the Globe does it, its a mistake. Was the retraction on page 1? No I don't believe it was. How sorry was the Globe? Let me refresh your memory.

"WorldNetDaily asked for an explanation for the Boston Globe’s having not checked or verified the photos: Not even as much as a Google search was performed by the reporters and editors involved. WorldNetDaily says Boston Globe staff was "furious at WorldNetDaily for exposing their gaffe." "Within minutes of the posting of the story, the Globe reporter and editors were angrily demanding WND editors retract the story, pull it from the website, make it go away. ... "

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-29.php

[Slider]

Here's the Globe's retraction for an ERROR. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/13/may_13_2004/

Where is Fox's for a LIE?

Slider

[MTBME]

So what your saying is that they buried the "retraction" in the back of the paper. Actually there is no real retraction in the link you posted. The pictures don't meet their standards and something about the authenticity hasn't been proven. They don't actually apologize for publishing the story. Which by the way was widely viewed throughout the Arab world. Do you think the folks in Egypt ever saw the "retraction".

"Images contained in the photograph were overly graphic, and the purported abuse portrayed had not been authenticated. The Globe apologizes for publishing the photo."

[Slider]

There is no 'burying' in the days of the Web. I found it in, literally, 15 seconds. So you should be able to do the same for Fox, assuming they owned up to their fabrication.

To go a little deeper, the Globe reported on real actions by Boston City Councillors. Bad reporting, definitely, but the councillors did display the photo.

Fox fabricated stories out of whole cloth regarding the Obama vote. There is only one source, easily checked, for a rollcall vote. It is impossible to get wrong, unless you try to.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Alan Colmes sneaks in huge uppercut... conservatives on wobbly knees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDewF41rJI

[MTBME]

Now some might see that as "fair and balanced" with both sides passionately presenting their views, regardless of which opinion you line up behind.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Some? Sure, some who like FOX. There you have 3 conservatives, and two liberals. The former Jesse Jackson adviser was obviously there because he was an easy mark (I think he spoke for a whole 20 seconds)... which happens to be the same reason Colmes is the token lib. Even a .200 hitter is going to get a big hit every so often.

This is typical of that show, and FOX News in general. But it's fun seeing Hannity get so apoplectic. He's such a douche.

[Slider]

Both sides of an issue that no one really gives a crap about, except conservatives looking to made some headway. And really, you think that is a balanced format? Not even close, except that the emperor has no clothes and there was no hiding from it.

Fox set the table and was had for dinner.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

FOX up to their old shenanigans:

[Slider]

Can you fix that link, Cheeze?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

O'Reilly called out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObY922U-Ms

How can anybody like this guy?