It really sucks that the New York Times has put its columnists behind a firewall, but for those of you with access to their “select” service, I hope you read today’s column by Frank Rich: “It’s Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby.” As the headline implies, Rich once again gets to the heart of the Plamegate scandal, that this is much more than just the story of a strategic leak intended to payback a whistle blower… this is about an administration that lied the nation into a disastrous war.
Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove’s boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby’s boss, Dick Cheney.
Rich delves into the little known White House Iraq Group (WHIG), set up by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August of 2002, and whose members include Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Condoleeza Rice, Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Their mission: market a war in Iraq to the American people. Of course, WMDs were always the focus of the sales pitch, which explains the attempt to discredit Wilson and his debunking of the yellow cake uranium story.
And as usual, it’s the coverup that’s causing WHIG all it’s troubles.
It’s long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were “not involved” with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as “Bush’s brain,” he wasn’t smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.
“Bush’s Brain” is the title of James Moore and Wayne Slater’s definitive account of Mr. Rove’s political career. But Mr. Rove is less his boss’s brain than another alliterative organ (or organs), that which provides testosterone. As we learn in “Bush’s Brain,” bad things (usually character assassination) often happen to Bush foes, whether Ann Richards or John McCain. On such occasions, Mr. Bush stays compassionately above the fray while the ruthless Mr. Rove operates below the radar, always separated by “a layer of operatives” from any ill behavior that might implicate him. “There is no crime, just a victim,” Mr. Moore and Mr. Slater write of this repeated pattern.
THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it’s about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.”
Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it’s the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend’s constitutional referendum as yet another “victory” for democracy in Iraq, we still don’t know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.
The consensus in the other Washington is that there soon will be indictments in the Plamegate investigation, but either way, it will be nothing compared to the scandal that prompted the leak: President Bush led the nation into war, based on a lie. No coverup can hide that ugly truth.
UPDATE:
Reader Kevin points out that Truthout has posted the full text of Rich’s column here. Don’t know if it’s legal or not, so read it while you can.
Nobody died when Clinton lied.
Bush, cheney, and Rumsfailed have led America into the first massive foriegn policy blunder of the 21st century. I’m not sure a future administration will be able to top this.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton said Tuesday that the U.S. missile attack against Iraqi targets was in retaliation for Iraq’s assault on a Kurdish-controlled city in northern Iraq.
Navy ships and Air Force B-52 bombers fired a total of 27 cruise missiles at “selected air defense targets” in southern Iraq for about a 45-minute period beginning midmorning, the Pentagon told CNN.
“Our objectives are limited, but clear,” the president said. “To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, and to reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors and America’s interests.”
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.clinton/
Is you contention that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors and America’s interests (Clinton lied)?
Michael @2,
Blah, blah, blah. I’m not defending Clinton, I’m attacking Bush. So please stop trying to change the subject.
Goldy @ 3
Nobody said you were defending Clinton and Michael isn’t trying to change the subject. If you were intellectually honest, you’d admit that the Clinton’s views on Saddam and Iraq are relevant to the whole “Bush lied” mantra. (By the way, you Lefties do deserve credit for your prolific chant writing.)
But viewing Middle East issues in their proper historical context is much more taxing on the Lefty brain than just blaming the Right for all of your woes, so that is what you continue to do.
3: Correct, perspective was never your strong point.
Why not allow people (and yourself) to look at the events in perspective. The events in Iraq did not just come out of thin air, a long string of events did lead to it. Agree with it or not, you can’t blame Bush and Co for “inventing” the WMDs when everyone else before them were convinced they were there. If you disagree with Bush and want to attack his stand, you’ll gain more credibility by “explaining” where they went to far or chose the wrong path in your opinion. But forgetting or ommitting everything from the past which doesn’t suit your agenda gives you less credibility.
rabbitwho-5 ‘But forgetting or ommitting everything from the past which doesn�t suit your agenda gives you less credibility.’
Too late. Quoting Frank Rich is clue #1 that credibility is not what Goldy seeks here. Yet Rich’s selective mis-quotes and partisan hack-jobs do expose the left for what they are, and I encourage all who enjoy his work to reference it whenever possible.
Frank Rich and the rest of the left are, in effect, hoping for a disastrous and defeated Iraq. Only then will their view be vindicated. You can see this by Rich putting the result of the vote as “victory”, in quotes.
Why can’t you just be happy for the people of a country who are now free to vote?
Goldy @ 3
“I’m not defending Clinton, I’m attacking Bush. So please stop trying to change the subject.”
That speaks volumes. Fact and historical perspective are irrelevant whenever talking about Bush. This is why I think the left has made such little progress (side note: ironic that lefties want to be called progressives) in getting their candidates elected on the national level. This despite many “own goals” by the Republicans.
ConFirst @8,
How hard is this to understand? Bush lied about WMDs. Bush lied about Saddam’s connection to 9/11. Bush lied about Iraq being at the center of the “War on Terror.” And the purpose of all these lies was to bring the US into an unprovoked war in Iraq.
It doesn’t matter whether Saddam was a bad man (he was) or whether the war is ultimately successful… hell, I’m not sure we could ever agree on the definition of success. And it sure as hell doesn’t matter what Clinton or George I did on their watch. Plamegate is about the Bush administration lying to the Amercian people, and then leaking classified information in an effort to coverup their lies.
This is about Bush.
I disagree Goldy… it is NOT about lying, though that is something they did. (What will we tell the children?!!?)
This is about traitors in the White House. This is about political operatives willing to put what they saw as their party’s interests over that of the nation. This is about the maintaning power by any means needed.
The lies that got us into the war – and yes they were lies at the time he made them no matter what Clinton or anyone else believed years before – were disgusting attempts to enter into a ideological war of choice.
But the real issue, which we see everyday from our resident trolls is that they put the interests of the Republican Party above that of the US, and are willing to do and justify anything for thier cause.
Oh yea, did anyone mention that this was about oil as well?
I saw Montana Gov. Schweitzer over the weekend. (you righties should actually love this guy!). He is of the view that we could have just invested the war dollars into energy independance for the US. Novel idea eh? Unless you are a simple minded oil man that is.
We don’t have terrorists because of Islam. We have terrorist because of oil.
Nindid @ 10
“This is about traitors in the White House. This is about political operatives willing to put what they saw as their party’s interests over that of the nation. This is about the maintaning power by any means needed.”
You’re talking about LBJ, right?
Goldy @ 9
“Plamegate is about the Bush administration lying to the Amercian people, and then leaking classified information in an effort to coverup their lies.”
Actually I think the Valerie Plame (or is it Flame) controversy is really the liberals obsession with “getting” Karl Rove.
I also think the left needs to come up with a better slogan, because “Bush lied. People died.”, while catchy, just doesn’t hold up.
Here’s the definitiion of the word lie:
“A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.”
For Bush to lie about any of the things you’ve stated, he’d have to know they weren’t true when he made them. The main reason stated for going to war was clearly Iraq’s possession of WMDs. France and Germany, both oppossed to the war, but both voted for UN Resolution 1441. Did Schoeder and Chirac lie too?
When you can credibly show Bush knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs prior to the war, I’ll agree with you, he lied. Until then all you have is an empty slogan.
“This is about Bush.”
Keep beating a dead horse. You may diminish Bush’s popularity. You won’t win many elections running on the “hate Bush” platform. That idea was clearly invalidated in 2004.
Jimmy @ 11: “We don’t have terrorists because of Islam. We have terrorist because of oil.”
Jimmy, need a napkin? You’ve dribbled a bunch of that Kool-Aid down your shirt. There have been crazy religious fanatics LONG before the petroleum industry — heck, long before there even was a USA. Neither Bush nor the GOP nor Clinton nor the Dems created terrorism. Radical Islamists also hate us just for… being us! Imagine the blind, flailing rage you Lefties feel toward anything GOP, multiply by a thousand and add religion and a vulnerable people.
Jimmy @ 11
“We don’t have terrorists because of Islam. We have terrorist because of oil.”
I’d really like you elaborate on this statement. I’m not sure how liquid hydrocarbons, unless ingested, would make anyone choose to be a terrorist.
Mark, historically speaking you may be correct but not for the right reasons. “Radical Islam” is the silly coin phrase that any of this has anything to really do with religion. To the average young radical it might. But those who orchestrate are pretenders. Rembember the Egyptian priest’s using the “Book of the Dead” for extortion? It has always been about money and power. That has a familiar ring to it huh? Would OBL hijack more planes and blow up more bombs if we took our money elsewhere. Probably not but he should think about that possibilty. The less dependant we are on oil, the less we have to look at their countries as strategic interests that we have to protect.
Conservative First…
THAT WAS FUNNY! thanks! I wish I would have thought of that. I actually could have worked it into the comment for a laugh. I’ll keep it in my pocket.
The last sentence does sum up what you asked. Bush and Co. understand that very clearly. And while I am glad they recognize this (transportation and fuel is pretty dammed important in this country..er.. our survival depends on it), I am dissapointed they didn’t take an alternative route and look to our energy independence instead. It would have been a quiet and peaceful way to tell the Middle East to Fuck Off!
Jimmy @ 15
I never said it was a religious cause, per se. “Radical Islam” IS an appropriate description for those who (radically) pervert the Islamic religion for radical purposes. It DOES involve religion to the extent that it is the method the leadership uses to draw in followers and also justify their actions to a religious populace.
There is plenty of blame on both sides of the US political aisle for the rise of terrorism. To oversimplify, one could argue that Bush is to blame for stirring a hornets’ nest and Clinton was either in denial or asleep at the wheel.
“For Bush to lie about any of the things you’ve stated, he’d have to know they weren’t true when he made them.”
Hmmm…
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush September 12, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell February 5, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003
[My note: this one was WHILE UN inspectors were pointing out that despite their unprecedented access, NO weapons and NO precurspor chemicals were turning up ANYWHERE]
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
[My note: ummm, there is “no doubt?” You see, THIS was the Big Lie. There was plenty of doubt, which these lying liears never told the Amercian people about, while they pecddled Curveball’s fairy tales to us as fact.]
I have NO DOUBT we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003
Simply stated, there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein NOW has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
we will find them.
George Bush April 24, 2003
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush May 3, 2003
The OTHER Big Lie is the intentional conflation, seen even in the comments in here, between what was meant by the use of the term “weapons of mass destruction” in the Clinton era and before and what the Bush team was pushing. Clinton’s people, and others of that time, meant chemical and bio weapons: hard to deploy, difficult to keep, and not a danger to very many people, especially outside of a battlefield. The BUSH people, on teh other hand, made it clear time and again that what they meant were nuclear weapons (along with chem and bio). Repeated propaganda about “mushroom clouds,” the intentional rigging of the NIE, and cherry-picked the most extreme and least credible reports of the POSSIBILITY of nuclear weapons (the famous inclusion of the “16 words” in the SOTU months after Tenet had demanded that such refernces be removed from an earlier speech comes to mind) were all used to quite deliberately spread the almost-certainly-false but useful idea that Iraq had a nuclear capability and was going to somehow equip “terrorists” (despite al-Qaida’s known antipathy toward secular rulers in general and Saddam in particular) with nuclear weapons to attack the US.
All lies. All either known to be false or known to have almost no chance of being true but rpesented as verified fact.
And Carter (Carter Doctrine), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, The Baby Boom, and our general dependence on oil. It really is OUR problem and not any particular President. I defend Goldy here in that Bush used deceptions (and continues to do so) to get us into this war. It really was a wasteful mistake and took away US direction and resources to rid ourselves of our dependancies.
I would love to hear all the Mid-East sabre rattling suddenly stop with the 4 words “where did they go?”.
What do you suppose real conservatives will call themselves after they realize the neo-cons have transformed the word conservative to mean a corrupt, lying, incompetent spendthrift?
How ’bout that missing $9 billion in Iraq. Where is the righty outrage and desire to perform intense “audits”? What a conservative means by an audit is an excuse to hector and slow down Denocratic progress. Progressive means to go forward. Conservatives admittedly are only interested in rollback. Katrina gave the whole nation a chance to see you incompetent neo-con jerkoffs in action!
Headless sez” Katrina gave the whole nation a chance to see you incompetent neo-con jerkoffs in action!
Yet once again Lucy, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. What nearly 60% of the population believe is that state and local government there in N.O. is to blame and what’s even funnier and typically delusional for you…60 years of failed Liberal/Progressive/Democratic control there shoulda made the the little utopia that you so ofteen crow about! America, the majority of reasonable, rational, logical and intelligent people see it for what is was; a graphic example of failed policy, leadership and incompetance. But I’m sure you view them as hero’s.
Curtis @ 18
“All lies. All either known to be false or known to have almost no chance of being true but rpesented as verified fact.”
You’re confusing being shown to be incorrect, and lying. For example your quote of Bush asserting that the U.S. will find WMDs. For that statement to meet the defintition of a lie, Bush would have had to have known at the time he made that statement, there were no WMDs in Iraq. No one knew for sure, well except for Saddam and his advisors, that Iraq didn’t have WMDs until after the war started. That is my dispute on this issue. The left is being intellectually dishonest.
Jimmy @ 16
“And while I am glad they recognize this (transportation and fuel is pretty dammed important in this country..er.. our survival depends on it), I am dissapointed they didn’t take an alternative route and look to our energy independence instead.”
I agree, well partially. Transportation and fuel are important. Unfortunately, until the recent rise in oil prices, replacing our dependence on foreign oil requires either heavy government subsidies, or domestic exploration on a large scale, and the will to extract that oil at some cost to the environment. The former has been tried under Carter, the later is stifled by the exagerated claims of environmental damage by the left and lack of proven reserves.
I think biodiesel is a great idea, I just don’t want to spend tax dollars on a perpetual subsidy like we currently do with mass transit.
Shiftless Loose-y @ 20
Please, God, tell me that the reason Lucy’s posting at this hour is that “she” somehow screwed the pooch so badly that even her child-hating union couldn’t defend her child-hating ass from being fired!
lucy@20
In fairness, these people aren’t really even neo-cons. They took one piece of the Neocon agenda, and spun it out to the nth degree.
I’m not a fan of the philosophy either, but don’t give the leaders of this administration credit for having a philosophy beyond “Lets do what we want, and think up a reason later!”
Goldy is calling Condi Rice a liar. He hates women and blacks. He must be a sexist and racist and obviously he hates successful women. [hehe……I love to use the “Hillary” logic that Democrats love.]
re 21: You and your delusional fellow travelers believe that , but the gig is up for you neo-cons.
Shake dust!!!!!!!!!!
22 – Biodeisel ROCKS. I watched a great presentation on that over the weekend. I need to get some of those links on my web site.
Minnesota enacted what is called either the B2 mandate or B2 Initiative where at least 2% of deisel fuel consumed in the state come from Biodeisel source. Washington can do the same. Now I know the conservative in you might not like the mandate language but here is the catch. It tells the companies interested (and their investors) in getting the canola crushers and biodeisel refineries that they WILL have a customer. Farmers are happy to rotate canola into their fields and happy to have a crop they can make a buck on. Pretty sweet stuff.
A couple more states do this and do it well, it could well prove to be a good national policy.
Oh, and it is less expensive than deisel at prices seen in the last two years.
One more thing:
The former has been tried under Carter, the later is stifled by the exagerated claims of environmental damage by the left and lack of proven reserves.
The conservationist in me says environmental damage in most cases can be limited with good practices and committments from good companies with proven conservation track records. And for the reserves, technology and research is showing better proof. And the coal in Montana has been known about for some time.
If we could only get the unscrupulous oil men out of the white house, we might actually get somewhere with all of this.
Jimmy, you are nuts. To get a better perspective on what really is going on or went on…read the book “What went wrong” by Bernhard Lewis, the West’s greatest historian and interpreter of the Near East.
Apperantly you did not read it. Lewis’ book supports what I am talking about. Obviously the Middle East is more complicated than can be described in a comment thread. But the simplicity of our energy independence is key to avoid our involvement in their eventual implosion. Also, I stayed off the class separation issue (as noted by Lewis) in this thread deliberately as it is another subject entirely (although you can tie them together in a larger context). Lewis’ contention that the options of the Islamic states are limited to war, isolation or secularism may be correct. And what better way to hasten the last option by showing them how to lead without a war.
You were saying?
ConservativeFirst @ 22
Wrong. he said:
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush September 12, 2002”
He knew nothing fo the sort. He knew, in fact, that we knew almost nothing of Iraqi programs since the inspectors were expelled in 1998. You don’t think that telling the American people, in a case of national importance, that a statement he could not possibly verify is an unquestionable fact is a lie?
Then there were the 16 words, which George Tenet has INSISTED be removed from a Cincinnati speech months before the SOTU. Bush knew they weren’t true. He said them anyway.
Bush claimed that Iraq possessed a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.” He insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be “six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon.”
Sorry pal. Liar.
Really.
I was saying you were nuts…
and I repeat it: You are nuts.
Blaming everyting on “oil” and the “oil men in the whitehouse” is a) wrong, b) a simplistic view to validate your view point.
Yes, I did read the book (why else would I recommend it to you :-)..
If you want to provide simplistic views (which seems to be prevelant on this board) go for it, but as usual, things are way more complex than you’d like to see. How can you not look at the class separation issue, the fear of loss of power in the theocracy, the comparision between the Ayatollahs and the council of cardinals in the early 1300th, etc…
How can you not look at the population dynamics and everything else. Just because” It’s all caused by oil” is so much more simplistic and easier to grasp for you ? Come on…you can do better.
Ad not to completely destroy your day: Bio diesel is not less expensive than what regular diesel is/was over the last two years… Oh, if you compare the price you pay at the pump…sure, but again, you are a using the simplistic view. If you take away the subsidies, the opportunity cost and everything else (not to even take the environmental issues caused by overuse of fertilizer ) into account, Biodiesel is still more expensive. And…you need to burn 10% more biodiesel to get the same result.
But…it’s one way to look for alternate resources…no question about this. Just…spare me the simple views.
:-)
You are an angry human. As I did say, it is much more complex than this thread. The two classes of Rulers and Ruled in islamic societies is indeed a factor. I am simply saying, and briefly, that our current situation could be vastly improved upon through energy independance. Class separation in the middle east has been compounded by oil riches. Bowing out is a peaceful alternative to the riot we are inciting in Iraq and the region in general.
If you look at the technology of Biodiesel you will see that, yes, two years ago it was more expensive to produce than it’s petrol counterpart. Today it is just not so and NOT just because of high fuel prices. It was new ideas in firing refineries that brought this about. Again, there is a ton of info on this.
Spare you the simple views? Well, if you don’t want me to write a book you are going to have to live with a comment thread. But you could stop flinging dung like a monkey at the zoo everytime someone parts from the neocon mantra and ideals. The one’s the republican’s have come up with has so far been a miserable failure.
What this blog demonstrates is that the term conservative means “without a moral compass.”
Because if President Clinton in White House, and it was HIS staff who outted a CIA NOC, the Republicans, Rush, Hannity et al would be calling for impeachment of President Clinton again.
Every Republican or conservative on this blog knows this to be true. Since they know this would be the case, the very fact they continue to defend the indefensible demonstrates their complete lack of discerning between right and wrong, moral or immoral or, they recognize the difference and choose to do the wrong thing any way.
Conservative First @ 12 demonstrates this moral ineptness perfectly. Here he copies and pastes Nindid’s comments at 10 then proposes a rhetorical question:
“Nindid @ 10
This is about traitors in the White House. This is about political operatives willing to put what they saw as their party’s interests over that of the nation. This is about the maintaning power by any means needed.”
You’re talking about LBJ, right?”
Here is the difference. LBJ DID lie to draw support of the American public to go to war in Viet Nam.
Bush lied to garner the support of the American public to support his vendetta in Iraq.
Here is where morality comes in. LBJ was a Democrat. Liberals, as everyone here knows, protested vehemently against the Viet Nam war and against to our leadership for doing the WRONG thing!!
Conservatives, continue to support Bush and his administration despite the growing evidence that he lied us into an unnecessary war.
It is simply that cut and dry. Democrats put the nation and the rights of others above party politics, conservatives have a track record of putting partisan politics ahead of national interests.
Pls write the book, pls ..I want to learn. Not sure I don’t understand your last sentence..sure you meant more the diatribes by various other people who are truely angry…but if I throw dung…what do your fellow HA’s do…WMD maybe ? :-)
Back to the topic though:
Energy independence ? Great, all for it and I support it 100%. But, that means true independence, not some pipe dreams where people want it in 14 years (see Cantwell) or no oil, no nuclear, no wind, no hydrogen…but independent. If we change our usage by 80 %, independence is easy…..but who wants this or can do it.
Now, let’s assume for a moment that the US would not import a single drop of oil from the Middle east. What would happen ? Do you think that this would change the ruling structure ? Nope, while the US is using a large amount of the world oil, other coutries are using the rest. Would it change the price structure if we are no longer using oil ? You bet, but it would not change anything. The Saudis, the Libyans, Iranians, etc…still would sell oil to China, India, etc for half the price (assumption), and it still would go into the same coffers. No change in ruling …
However, I would suspect that the nutcases who currently us the involvement or US influence in the middle east due to “oil” would turn around and blame the US for their lower profits, economic status, whatever…because we no longer buy from them.
While the US is actually importing less oil from the middle east than Europe or the Far East, it is important to look at the world picture…if Europe falters due to high economic costs or no oil for them…we suffer too. If we are independent, but Europe or the Far East can’t get their energy due to unrest or other nutty things happening in the middle east, the world suffers. Not a simplistic view, but a world view.
Rabbitwho @ 38
When the US stops importing oil, it will mean we have the technology to export new energy sources around the world to places like Europe, Asia and other developing nations. We will be THE leaders in creating high paying, high tech jobs to export this new energy technology.
Like JFK in the 60’s, the Democrats are setting a course to develop new technologies that will bring tremendous change and benefit to the human experience. So whether it’s 10 years, 14, or 20 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we start now to develop new energy because oil, coal and nuclear energy have their limitations and will run their course to depletion. Now, is exactly the right time to begin anew.
GBS-37 ‘Because if President Clinton in White House, and it was HIS staff who outted a CIA NOC..’
In your dreams. Neither Clinton nor Bush would be found liable for something the staff does, unless they were complicit. And it is still premature as to who, or if a CIA NOC was even outed.
‘..the very fact they continue to defend the indefensible..’
Is the “indefensible” referred to the speculation? Are you saying that all the dems who knee-jerked for Clinton were defending the “indefensible”? I didn’t think so.
‘Conservatives, continue to support Bush and his administration despite the growing evidence that he lied us into an unnecessary war.’
The lefty talking points regarding “lies” does not make it true. I know the blinders are pretty tight, but I think the Bush wars will end up transforming the Middle East in a very positive way. History will be the judge, yet leaning on selective piece-meal quotes and non-original documents such as the Downing Street memos will get you right back where the left is now – on the decline.
@ 39
I agree with you that history will be the ultimate judge. But you’re only fooling yourself if you think history will be totally kind to George Bush and the Republicans in congress since 2000.
PS: Bush was complicit in the Plamegate which, like an octopus, has many tentacles besides outing a CIA operative, exposing a CIA front business, lying to go to war in Iraq, DeLay, Frist, Abramoff. . .
Geez, it looks like the God Father, his Captains and his Lieutenants are in the crosshairs of the LAW!. . .
You know what I can’t wait to see plastered on the internet this week?
Yep you guessed it. Tom DeLay’s MUG SHOT!!
Yeah! I’m talkin’ about running a DNC commercial with Tom’s criminal mug shot and in the background will be Tom’s voice going back to ’94 when he said of the Republicans take over in congress that they were going to rid Washington DC of the corruption. Great ad material. You just couldn’t hope for anything better going into ’06. And with Rove, Scooter and Frist on his heals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If the Dems don’t capture congress in ’06, by ’08 we will control all of congress again and the White House.
Good luck, boys. You’re gonna need it.
Rabbit whoey (sorry, I was just cleaning up cat whoey… really, it was just a silly joke).
Anyway, no books today…egad. Man has to eat. But you do bring up a point on energy independence and Europe. But I think that our tech advances would transfer quickly to first world countries and even eventually the middle east. Would that not potentially break the back of the class separation? Maybe. Hopefully. It is a time consuming goal but history is very patient. If Europe trails behind they still have more oil, and cheaper. In fact their economy would probably be better than ours to start.
I truly believe that not making a serious step toward this goal now is a big mistake.
Well… gotta go cook “Jimmy’s Chili” (no dung flinging involved) so no books. Sorry about the dung that gets flinged your way but sometimes it seems you have it coming. But I do my best not to play in this little sandbox that way (it is hard sometimes). After all, we just had better dialog than a whole shitload of other comments eh? Isn’t that what it is all about?
GBS @ 40: “If the Dems don’t capture congress in ‘06, by ‘08 we will control all of congress again and the White House.”
If the Dems make any significant gains in Congress and the GOP puts up a McCain or Giuliani in 2008, the White House will stay in GOP hands.
GBS, Jimmy and all lefty animal hind parts members: So Vlad Putin, Hosni Mubarak, King Hussein, Gerhard Schroeder, Jaques Chirac, & Vladimir Spidla say they were there people? So they all lied to Bush and Powell when we went to the UN in September 2002? Wake up you bakas!
GBS-41 ‘Great ad material.’
Speaking of great ads – did you hear the one about Delay’s prosecuter not really having any list to implicate the money transfer? Not to woory – he has a “similar” list, except no date or author.
‘If the Dems don’t capture congress in ‘06..’
Now you are backing off? If only half the bad things alleged by the HA “team” were even half true the dems should have roaring majorities in both the House and the Senate. 2006 will be the test, and do not look so nervous this early.
40
“I know the blinders are pretty tight, but I think the Bush wars will end up transforming the Middle East in a very positive way.”
I think this is an extraordinarily naive view. Twentieth century history is not filled with societal transformations in the Arab world at the hands of Westerners. All too often, those Westerners believe themselves to be enlightened in ways that the natives of these conuntries (in their view) aren’t. Unfortunately, this is often accompanied by an insensitivity to (if not disregard or even downright ignorance of) the cultures they seek to transform.
As regards the US occupation and would-be “transformation” of Iraq, this insensitivity/ignorance seems to me to be the chief problem: a nation of barely 200 years seeks to impose a method of governance upon a region that has seen continual civilization for millenia — and not just any civilization, mind you, but one that, among other things, produced one of the earliest known codes of laws. How do you think that flies on the Arab street — and not just any Arab street, but one with such a long cultural history?
I would argue that if American democracy is such a great and noble thing, does it need to be exported by force? Wouldn’t one expect to find other nations seeking to transform themselves in our image of their own accord? Empirical evidence suggests otherwise: given the opportunity, many emerging democracies (such as the former Warsaw Pact nations) are not choosing the American model, but rather a European parliamentary model instead.
42: Jimmy’s Chilli ?
Well, at least that explains the hot air :-)
I forgot the Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi. So Goldy, I suggest you change your title and link it to Daily Gross and say “Vladmir Putin, Hosni Mubarak, King Hussein, Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi’s & Vladimir Spidla, all lied to Bush and Powell; so people died!”
Curtis Love @ 34
“He knew nothing fo the sort. He knew, in fact, that we knew almost nothing of Iraqi programs since the inspectors were expelled in 1998.”
Other than your assertion that Bush knew that he wasn’t telling the truth, what proof do you have?
Sorry pal, no proof, no lie.
Puddybud @ 48
What are you saying? That the leaders of other nations share in the responsibility as Commander in Chief in the decision to send our troops to war?
That somehow Bush is not responsible for his decisions, that Hosni Mubarak and Putin have input in the use of American troops?
Your argument in incredibly weak. Even by your standards.
PS: I replied to you and your racist enabler friend, PacMan, on the open thread 10-7-05.
GBS, You are funny. My weak arguments. Ha ha ha. You and others just can’t accept that other nations said he had them. I use the Internet and post links to back up what I say. I don’t implement innuendo or subjective thought processes or project like most leftist animal hind parts members. Racist enabler friend? I will go back to open link on 10/07/05 and see the info you posted.
What I am saying is your side said “Go to the UN” we did. Those leaders including Great Britian said “Yep, Saddam has got them WMDs”. We said ok, he has them. Now your side says that stupid mantra again. We did as you lefties said do. Ask the UN. When seven major countries admit their intelligence says they have them, and your boy Clinton said in mid-year 2003 they were there on Larry King you still doubt? Shame on you GBS. I thought you had a brain! You are acting like you drank from the Cluelessness-JustDumbBozo kool-aid pitcher.
GBS: I responded to your post of 10/07/05. You have many facts WRONG!
@ 52
Ummm. . .no Puddybud, here’s what you get, but refuse to acknowledge honestly. Bush knew that much of the key pieces of information he presented to congress and the American people was suspect at best or unsubstantiated by the CIA.
You may really care what Mubarak has to say when it comes to putting US troops in harms way, but I don’t want my CiC making those types of commitments of lives and treasure based on what leaders of hostile regimes, dictatorships, communist states, or an Iraqi operative nick-named “Curve Ball” have to say.
And, our side wanted us to go the UN. We did and when the inspectors said there were NOT any weapons, Bush said no, no they are there. We’re going to war.
Wrong call, you dope.
Puddybud,
Besides having a brain I have courage, honor, and integrity. I’m not wrong about the evolution of racism and the Republican party.
This is the last time I’m wasting any pixels on this matter with you or your racists enabler, turncoat pal, PacMan.
Whoa, wait just one minute. I love how you selectively use Mubarak as your only argument point. So you fully ignore all the other NATO members, Russia and Czech Republic leaders? Hmmm… I would expect that of a lower life individual such as Clueless or JustDumbBozo.
Regarding go to the UN, He did. You love to discount that too. He received the same information which everyone including Clinton who still got the intell briefs (by law a past president can still get them if he/she wants) and he said I thought they had them too. So get off that high horse of Bush lied.
Can you point me to where Bush knew his documentation at the first part of the war was suspect? In hindsight all of these doomsayers now look back 2.75 years later and say the info was wrong. Colin Powell didn’t say that until 2004 over a year later. I love how you use time as you ally when you forget all the info that came in between Jan 2003 and July 2004.
Regarding PacMan, I know he is under some stress right now with his move and his family in a car wreck. He lost a vehicle. Cut him some slack. He was the one I mentioned with his family in an SUV being hit by a truck. I expect his answer will be a doozy.
@ 55
I don’t wish any ill will on PacMan or his family, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about his reply. In fact, I doubt I’ll take the time to even skim read it. This debate between PacMan and me goes back to last summer. He’s had ample time to post a link, troll around on SP blog, but not enough time to answer someone who defended his position.
Like I said; No thank you.
Does it matter who I picked out of the field of names you listed? Really? No, Puddybud it doesn’t. I could have said Tony Blair, you know what? Same result, some other world leader is influencing Bush’s decision to go to WAR?!?!?
Please. Use your common sense.
Regarding he UN, no he did not listen to Hans Blix and Scott Ritter when they said they were not finding any WMD’s. He insisted they were there? Why? Because Chirac, Putin, Blair, and the rest of the gang said so? C’mon, don’t waste my time.
What you hate is when someone uses your words, your argument, and your logic against you. When you speak the truth, Puddybud, you make it a difficult task to counter your arguments. When you try to spin the propaganda it doesn’t work.
“Can you point me to where Bush knew his documentation at the first part of the war was suspect?” Downing Street Memo.
The last lie I’ll dispel for you is the presidential privilege of continued intelligence briefings. Only George H.W. Bush ever exercised that privilege. Period. Bush said everyone looked at the same intell. Not true. This is not a matter of misinterpreted intell, but misrepresented intell. Bush did NOT share all the doubts on the intell with everyone. That’s the “lie” part of this equation.
There was no immediate threat to the US or it’s allies by Saddam Hussein. He was fully contained in his own country. He was not seeking yellow cake or the aluminum tubes Judy Miller wrote about that Dick Cheney cited. Hmmmm. . . can you spot the connection?
Bush lied. Get used to it. You voted for and continue to support someone who lied us into a war that killed and wounded nearly 20,000 US soldiers. Perpetrated lies about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman for their own propaganda ploys. That is sick and you’d be openly disgusted if it were a Democrat pulling that stunt on the service of our troops. You know it.
Question of the day: Got Osama?
Puddybud, read the following from your racists, Soldier hating Republican pals:
“Windie, Let ME answer your question by this comment: Blacks, for 3 generations, have been the Democrat’s “vote slave”. They are the bought and paid for racial group that votes Democrat 90% of the time. Today’s Democrat blacks are the backbone of the communist “tax and spend” “victim” “reidstribute the wealth or we’ll riot in Toledo” Democrat Party. They have been turned into “victim” Parasites by Democrats’ “voter slave” Party. Got it? Atlas has Shrugged.
Comment by JCH— 10/17/05 @ 12:42 pm”
here’s more. . .
“Do you INHERENTLY love them? Don’t you wish they could all come and be YOUR neighbors?? Please sent the black gang members your address so you can INHERENTLY love them!!!![hehe….Democrats: traitors and economic idiots]
Comment by JCH— 10/17/05 @ 5:53 pm
Windie, Atlas Shrugs EVERY time a private sector taxpayer moves away from parasitic Democrats. This is a free country. Normal people do not wish to live near your wonderful Democrat looters and rioters in Toledo.
Comment by JCH— 10/17/05 @ 5:55 pm”
Or this comment by prr:
You mean like all those women and little kids you killed back in ‘Nam tough guy?
How do you stand up when someone is your size and you don’t creep up on them in the middle of the night?
Comment by prr— 9/3/05 @ 2:19 pm”
Never mind the comments HowCanYouBeProudToBeAnAss made to me about the only flags I wave are the ones I stole off of graves.
Keep your self righteous, Christian right wing, holier than thou, only Republicans love America, bullshit accusations to yourself.
GBS: Regarding the looters/rioters in Toledo, 1000 out of 125,000 went beserk. But what do you hear on radio and tv talk shows? The left supporting the looters/rioters. Why were they not supporting the 124,000 good black people? What is funny is the Nazis are democrats too. While the blacks were in WA DC wanting segregation, the whites in Toledo wanted segregation. So why were the blacks so upset when someone else in the rainbow coalition takes to the streets?
I asked sometime ago how many lefties would invite a poor New Orleans family into their home or neighborhood? No one stepped up to the plate. I displayed a link to help poor NO families. Did any lefties step up? I doubt it.
I already addressed the ProudAss issue.
Prr was commenting on Rupert Wabbet.
Oh yes GBS: Bill Clinton still gets intel briefings. Source: CNN – Clinton News Network!
Was Farenheit 9/11 your source for the claim of GHW Bush getting his briefings? I only found it there when I searched the Internet.
Puddybud Hypocrite @ 58
Roger Rabbit is a combat veteran!! prr, is WAY THE FUCK out of line.
prr, is calling him a “baby killer.” That’s the same shit that you and your hypocrite racist enabler buddy PacMan claim that liberal anti-war protestors did in the ’60’s. And, both of you questioned my reasoning for being a Democrat and veteran because of what you claim liberals did 30+ years ago.
I show you it’s happening today by one of your own and you blow it off? Why the fuck would you want to be associated with a party that shits on veterans?
prr is the same as that mother fucker Larry Northern. Seems to be a rampant problem within the Republican party.