"Republicans are trying a new tactic: saying she shouldn't have been covert."

and thus she shouldn't have been a cia agent? thus karl couldn't have purposely leaked the info because he wasn't inside his white-house office on that particular day? i think i'm gettin' it...

Update on FixedIntelGate:

I saw Mr. McCain on BeachBall when he lost even the seed-corn of his soul. He parrots the RNC (Reptilian National Committee) Talking Points as if he had a key to turn in his yellow-striped back. He lived through prisoner of war camp hell to throw away his moral compass now? The bloodsplatter of corruption this White House has despoiled so many people with is boschian.

As Jay Inslee (D Washington) said about our going to Iraq under false pretences which is the hub of this wheel, “In Watergate, nobody died.”)

I vividly remember a candidates' panel that Larry King had on after South Carolina in the run-up to the 2000 coronation. John McCain was so angry at George Bush for the pushpolling character assassination orchestrated by the utterly ugly of souless Karl Rove and other vicious early proto-swiftboatian tactics that he was leaning white-faced and hissing across the anchor desk, "You should apologize, George. You know what I mean. You should apologize, George." etc. Then on BeachBall, he just shrugs it off!?

I terrified the cats so much rage did I hurl at the tv. I stamped around the living room slavering I gotta say. I thought maybe McCain or Hagel would have a vertebra if not a spine.

The two missing pieces I am crazed to know are who asked Marc Grossman to ask Carl Ford to do the State Department Memo? (I recall a long time ago that Joe Wilson said that he still had friends in the 'business' who told him that 'the White House had asked for a work-up on Wilson' -- I sort of recall the work-up being posited as being that March or April 2003, not the June 10 date?) My gloss on the idea of 'work-up' is that it sounded like some j:edgar:hoovery Get The Dirt or the Lever kind of thing. That's the piece I want to know about.

And who in the heck is Judy Miller protecting? Whoever it is is just letting her stew in jail. Could it be whoever foie-gras force-fed her that convincing villain Chalabi to whom we really owe all of this fantasy cum nightmare in the Cradle?

I heard as a total rumor that Fitzgerald knows who her source is but needs her to say it in order to prosecute?

In an article in the Atlantic Nov 2004, Josh Green talks about Karl Rove’s willingness, as a few examples among many, to start a whisper campaign in Texas to smear Ann Richards as being a lesbian and lesbian sympathizer, anathemas in the back country of the Lone Star State. A pushpolling in South Carolina calling Mrs. Cindy McCain a drug addict and Mr.McCain, the ‘father’ of a black baby. (They adopted a child from Bangladesh actually.) “‘What Rove does,’ says Joe Perkins, ‘is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take.’
“Rove seems to understand—indeed, to count on—the media's unwillingness or inability, whether from squeamishness, laziness, or professional caution, ever to give a full estimate of him or his work. It is ultimately not just Rove's skill but his character that allows him to perform on an entirely different plane. Along with remarkable strategic skills, he has both an understanding of the media's unstated self-limitations and a willingness to fight in territory where conscience forbids most others.”

“Where conscience forbids most others.”

Green's article
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

"He lived through prisoner of war camp hell to throw away his moral compass now?" Posted by pogblog on July 25, 2005 at 11:30 AM

pogblog,

white-house's (logic) response: attribute this anomaly to the known earth's magnetic flip-flop.

and i now add this statement to my earlier post...

no way could this white-house be blamed for the leak if no one was in the white-house at that exact time on that purported day!

now i'm really gettin' it...

John McCain was ruined during the 2000 primary in SC by Rove pandering to a racist southern undertone. He ran push polls on McCain insinuating that McCain's adopted Asian daughter was, in fact, half-black and born from infidelity. How can McCain side with this dirtbag? How can he bend over for this waddling litle chickenhawk?

If they don't like the definition of a word, they propose legislation to change it. Some Republicans in Kansas don't like the way Webster defines "science", so they are trying to change it with a new law. Now now this Roberts character wants to change the meaning of "covert".

I guess it's that "reality based" universe the rest of us live in where if we commit a crime, we have to pay the price. In the Republicans' brave new world all you have to do is "frame" the offense in a different way so you can evade prosectution, and the President gives you a medal instead.

Pogblog, I sure would like to know who wrote that memo, too. Maybe the grand jury has made some progress in finding out. The latest I heard from the political pundits was that Bolton was Miller's source for Plame's outing and also was hand-feeding her "fixed intel" for her series of articles leading up to the invasion.

Sorry to be redundant - just worked up.

The "desk job" defense is a talking point of the gop. As though this rationalization will make the law immaterial. When the republicans get caught they really have more moves than ex-lax.

George Bush do the right thing? Not going to happen...I read elsewhere that Miller's source might well be none other than John Bolton. The White House knows this, which is why they have let his nomination die. If he were to be moved forward, he would be forced to testify before Congress under oath...'what did you know and when did you know it?' and that would be the total unravelling of this corrupt administration.

'total unravelling of this corrupt administration" - I really like the sound of that. Emile Zola wrote : "When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers such explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up everything with it." Please. Pretty Please.

The Democrats can bring down Roberts if they ask the right questions. Here they are:

1.) Does the President have the right of executiive priviledge to do whatever it pleases with money?

Evidence has come to light that the President rechanneled approximately seven hundred million dollars into a bombing campaign of prewar Iraq. Does the President have the right to do this even though all acts of war must come from Congress?

2.) Does the President have the right of executive priviledge to do whatever it pleases with life?

Does the President have the rignt to designate anyone a terrorist and put them in prison without affording that person any kind of legal status and defense?

-

Roberts has already shown that he is of the opinion that in both situations, the President does have executive priviledge.

He is of the opinion that the President is in every sense of the word, a soverign entity, who can supercede the rule of law.

For these terrible opinions of his, he must and will be filibustered.

Larry Johnson already blew away the "desk job" defense which Pat Roberts keeps harping on. There are in many agents who are covert and yet work desk jobs. It simply don't matter. As Larry Johnson said - all this proves is that Roberts must be asleep during the Intelligence committee hearings.

Actually, I think Larry Johnson is being kind. All this really proves is that Pat Roberts is another Republican hack who cares more about RNC talking points than the nation's security.

This is just unbelievable. Senate Republicans aren't willing to spend their valuable time finding out who leaked the identity of a federal employee operating under cover, but they have plenty of time to discuss whether the CIA's definition of "covert" is a little too broad. Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, we're at war too.

This is just unbelievable. Senate Republicans aren't willing to spend their valuable time finding out who leaked the identity of a federal employee operating under cover, but they have plenty of time to discuss whether the CIA's definition of "covert" is a little too broad. Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, we're at war too.

As the facts are exposed the spins the GOP have spun will come back to haunt them. Perhaps the defiant ones will draw their own conclusions and realize what most of country believes; this administration distorts facts to serve their party not our country. Let us hope it opens their eyes.

It is pure genius how Republicans can lead the simple minded. What this decision to hold hearings reveals is that there was a crime if she was covert, so if they can just retroactively alter her status as covert, then there was no crime.

Either that, or the Republican strategies is so many years ahead of everyone in it's deceitful planning and manipulations that they believe the Demcrats had Ms. Plame go under cover solely to embarass the Republicans with her outing. It hurts to even try to understand this way of thinking, doesn't it?

God save us from the evil empire builders.

Here's a sorry fact as mentioned by "DavidNYC" today at DailyKos.com:

Minimum number of hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate accusations against President Clinton involving the Whitewater case: 20

Total hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate the leak of the covert identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife: 0

And here's a suggestion for the DNC...

Borrowing an idea from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, how about featuring a "clock" or "counter" on the DNC website that updates by the minute, keeping track of exactly how long congressional Republicans have gone without investigating the Plame leak. At a given moment in time it might look like this:

742 Days 14 Hours 24 Minutes

Tick...tick...tick. I can feel the GOP's credibility slipping away like a steady drip draining a water bucket. Tick...tick...tick. I can sense the malignant cancer that is Karl Rove's career steadily dissipating like a child's balloon slowly shrinking day-by-day.

For that matter, how about a permanent "GOP Hall of Shame" feature/link on the DNC homepage (the concept is fairly self-explanatory)?

RE: "desk job"

Larry Johnson & the other three who spoke to the Dem Committee (saw it on CSPAN):

Yes, a desk job the last 3 yrs. But, the Bush Admin has endangered everyone Plame had Any contact with throughout her Whole career. As Johnson iterated, the fact that the Admin has not released any information regarding the repercussion from the leak. Our intelligence agencies can't operate if they fear being outed. Bush really bungled this war -- how can he be effective, if he can't find out what he needs to know because of the lack of intelligence (sources)?

Clearly, if Alberto Gonzales did not feel sleighted by this White House, and passed over for a sure confirmation and promotion to a well-deserved seat on the Supreme Court bench, he would not have attested to the fact that he tried to hide and protect the president on this matter by delaying notification to the president (at the time, his sole client as White House Counsel) by at least 12 hours so he could cover his tracks before he notified White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, Jr. to the pending allegations. When his name was not the name for the next seat on the Supreme Court when it became available, and this president promising "loyalty to his friends" it is clear that Attorney General Gonzales, who appears to be the most adequate and qualified judge out there who could competently and accurately properly weigh the tough issues like abortion and freedom of choice for women (despite criticism, I feel that Judge Gonzales would have been a superior nominee, regardless of the criticism. I am convinced of his stature and integrity...) decided that he was unhappy being passed over as the "odds-on" favorite for the incumbent-caretaker of the vacancy on the Court.

Since he's upset at being passed over, despite Mr. Bush's promise that he represents the Hispanic vote, I tend to agree with him in that he is an astute and clever and very accurate defender and observer of the application of the law. Clearly, since he decided to wait 12 hours before notifying Mr. Card (White House Chief of Staff -- a position formerly held by a Mr. H.R. Haldemann) he intended to ensure that the White House was not only abiding by the "straight and narrow" path of justice, but also giving himself a sufficient "out" in so far as this CIA leak mess is concerned.

There is no certain resolution to this CIA leak mess other than that Judge Gonzales has proven more than exemplary in protecting the president and that the president still left leaks open and available for attack. It is clearly not because of a derilection of duty that Mr. Gonzales is currently retained in his current position as being most effective towards the US retention of political prisoners, such as Judith Miller (NY Times), but that Mr. Gonzales sought the best protection possible for our country by being loyal to the president first and foremost.

Clearly loyalty to a second-term president has little or no meaning, and certainly it is not going to dissuade the president from wavering on his present course of death, destruction, and paranoid forced capitulation induced from mostly innocent Americans.

We should all applaud Judge Gonzales for (finally!) coming through in the finish and doing what's right for American by denouncing this president and John Roberts, the president's nominee...

From DailyKos.Com, some great insight by former Clinton advisor Paul Begala:

"Follow the Organ Grinder, not the Monkeys."

(In other words, stop hunting staffers and focus on the big catch, W himself. And when you examine the facts as he did, this thing is already very bad for W no matter how you slice it.)

"The Question of what did the president know and when did he know it matters because either a) Karl Rove lied to his face, and the president is allowing someone who lied to him to continue working for him, or b) Karl Rove told W the truth and therefore the President has been aiding and abetting the cover-up all this time."

The following is more than disturbing:

GOP to investigate Fitzgerald

Mon Jul 25th, 2005 at 16:16:20 PDT
The story starts off promising enough:

Congress will conduct a series of hearings on national security and espionage issues raised by the CIA-leak controversy surrounding senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, officials said on Monday.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans hearings on potential national security threats posed by leaks, including leaks to the media, and will aim to toughen legislation barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
"It's time there's a comprehensive law that will make it easier for the government to prosecute wrongdoers and increase the penalties that hopefully will act as a deterrent," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the panel's Republican chairman.

But get to the last paragraph, and you see this:

[Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) spokeswoman Sarah] Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.

Now why would congressional Republicans want to review Fitzgerald's work?

"The play's the thing -- wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king..."

Shakespeare, Hamlet.

"Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name."

If Mr. Rove was somehow able to direct Mr. Cooper into believing that Mr. Rove was talking about Mr. Wilson's wife, an employee who is working at CIA, and yet, was unable to give Mr. Cooper the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, then Mr. Rove MUST have confirmed for Mr. Cooper the covert identity (or cover name) of a woman employee of the CIA, who was also Mr. Wilson's wife.

Since he did not find the distinction significant between Joe Wilson's wife -- though not named as Joe Wilson's wife -- who is a named employee at CIA, it is clear that he MUST have known that the name he was confirming was a cover name, and thus, Mr. Rove knowingly and willingly confirmed for Mr. Cooper the covert status, the employment in the CIA, the relation to Mr. Wilson as the wife of Mr. Wilson, and her name, which was not her married name, and thus, must have been her cover identity.

Mr. Rove knew her identity, her covert status with the agency and leaked her name anyway, purely out of malice, as he has said previously "I did it only to discredit Joe Wilson" and also that attacking someone's family is "fair game".

Is this the kind of man we want advising the president in matters of national security importance??

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050723/1063162.asp

Connect the dots.

Lesson about Democracy - Presidents lie

Bill Clinton lied to Americans when he said he did not have sexual relations.
He deserved to be impeached because he violated the trust between the President and citizens of America.

Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq because they wanted the oil. They never admitted it, they made up other stories, they lied.
Cheney's energy plan divided the Iraqi oil fields among the American Oil Companys while ensuring Haliburton's illegal investments in Iraq.
If it worked, it would've been great for Cheney's bank account.

Because it didn't work, they needed a scapegoat and some cover for
re-election.
Bush is very sensitive to bad news.
Wilson made up some of his story but it wasn't a personal attact against Bush, however the doubt he introduced had traction.
Rove and Libby (Cheney's Office) had the goods to snuff the traction and attack the opposition at the CIA to the fabricated reasons to attack Iraq.
Press secretary Scott M assured Americans that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with spreading the word that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Bush and Cheney were safe behind the scapegoat that the mistake of going to war was due to was faulty intelligence from a disfunctional CIA, that hires incompetent Democrats as operatives who waste taxpayer money on their spouses. Tenet gets a freedom medal for heading this organization.

Republican Haliburton gets to screw taxpayers big time.
Democrats screw things up by giving their spouses trips to Africa on taxpayer money.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats care about the life of our soldiers, the sorrow of the wounded and grief of the families of the killed. There is no concern for the 100,000 innocent Iraqi's killed by mistake, by being at the wrong place at the wrong time or mere misunderstanding by American troops.

I think Rove and Libby lied to Scott M when they said they had nothing to do with leaking Wilson's wife's position.

Bill Clinton's dirty lies victimized women, Ms S Mcdonnel who was sent to jail by the Special Prosecutor, Monica L, Jennifer F, Hilary among others.
The three cheats, Clinton, Bush and Cheney all dodged the draft in their way.
Liars and cheats as President of the United States.

Bush/Cheney lies profit rich Americans and victimize the troops (composed of lower class stock) and their families and Iraqi's and in the end Americans.
The dirtiest lie is that Bush and Cheney went to Iraq for the oil and never admitted it.

Cheney has been a cheat all his life, dodged the draft by staying in school (flunked at Yale) and getting married and having children. AT Haliburton, he fought the embargo against Iraq and worked in Iraq when it was against the law.

Bush's way to dodge the draft was a dubious history in the Air Force Reserves, and the way he avoids questions about it make him a cheat.

If you believe that Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq for the oil, then they have breached the trust of Americans.

If you want America to get out of Iraq, stop the American dependence on Middle East oil. This means every American should be prudent when consuming oil based products from gas to plastics. This message has never been emphasized.

I like the idea TC put forth. I am really just dying to make it stick, just how harmful the brand of corruption that America is dealing with here is. And just how deeply immoral and arrogant this sort of behavior is, also. Every single American should be totaly offended and outraged at this moment. What we are experiencing is utter disrespect.

I like the idea TC put forth. I am really just dying to make it stick, just how harmful the brand of corruption that America is dealing with here is. And just how deeply immoral and arrogant this sort of behavior is, also. Every single American should be totaly offended and outraged at this moment. What we are experiencing is utter disrespect.

The Republicans trying to cover up their folly by saying it doesn't matter if she wasn't suppose to be undercover doesn't hold. The fact remains Valerie Plame was undercover with a big "Superman-S" on her file. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to fail to notice the big "Superman S" on her file. Also, if Ms. Plame was not undercover the "Superman-S" would have been scratched off her file and her Valerie Plame file cancelled. Valerie Wilson would not be using her undercover Plame name on her file if she was not undercover; since her name is Wilson, she had to be still undercover.

With the whole Bush Administration, WE, the people, are dealing with a "sow's ear" and all the lies they tell and all the people's money they waste will not make the "sow's ear" into a "silk purse". Further lies will only make a dirtier and dirtier "sow's ear".

It is not honorable to be intelligent and use one's intelligence in dastardly ways; it is only honorable when one is intelligent and uses one's intelligence in honorable ways. Outing an undercover investigator who has her life on the line in the service of our nation is so dishonorable that it is unbelievable it could have happened in the United States. Too my knowledge this "Outing of a CIA Officer" incident with the Bush Administration is the first time anyone has ever been low enough; and cared so little about our country, that they would have the unmitigated gall to put an undercover representative of the CIA in danger by reporting their cover on the news, in the paper and on television. I think the death penalty is not too strong of a punishment for this type of crime as it is being a traitor to one's country, and; furthermore, Robert Novak should not escape as he knew it was a crime, also. Robert Novak is also a traitor to the United States and should not go unpunished.

I am so frustrated with you guys.

I am in early retirement from a successful advertising career, so I speak from experience.

The left stinks at getting their message out.

You all overestimate the intelligence of the American public — believe it or not — too many people still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, so they don't care what the administration did to go there.

Please consider the following as a tallking point:

Appeal to the most basic issue:

— "We were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda."

(can't get more base than that!)

— "These are the (X-amount) countries in 2002 known to allow AlQaeda activity"

"Iraq is not on this list, so why are we there?"

After you've got their interest, you can go into the details, illustrating how far they went to bend the intelligence: e.g. Mr. Roves actions.

Give the list of countries who have AlQaeda activity a easily-repeatable name. the "terror 20" or the "Al Quaeda 11" or something. (My background is in concept, not in copywriting, so you guys are on your own.)

If the left keeps repeating something like: "the AlQaeda 11", over and over again—asking the President why all our resources were sent to Iraq instead—I guarantee you will turn people you never even dreamed of reaching.

Thanks for reading.
L.

I am so frustrated with you guys.

I am in early retirement from a successful advertising career, so I speak from experience.

The left stinks at getting their message out.

You all overestimate the intelligence of the American public — believe it or not — too many people still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, so they don't care what the administration did to go there.

Please consider the following as a tallking point:

Appeal to the most basic issue:

— "We were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda."

(can't get more base than that!)

— "These are the (X-amount) countries in 2002 known to allow AlQaeda activity"

"Iraq is not on this list, so why are we there?"

After you've got their interest, you can go into the details, illustrating how far they went to bend the intelligence: e.g. Mr. Roves actions.

Give the list of countries who have AlQaeda activity a easily-repeatable name. the "terror 20" or the "Al Quaeda 11" or something. (My background is in concept, not in copywriting, so you guys are on your own.)

If the left keeps repeating something like: "the AlQaeda 11", over and over again—asking the President why all our resources were sent to Iraq instead—I guarantee you will turn people you never even dreamed of reaching.

Thanks for reading.
L.

Is it me or are the republican party's defenses of rove getting downright twilight-zonish?

BUSH YANKED SECURITY CLEARANCES TO 92 SENATORS IN OCT. '01

Wow, here's a enlightened observation from ThinkProgress.Org today, an illuminating refresher on an event that followed 9/11...

It was reported on 10/1/01 that Bush signed an executive order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress — the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

What precipitated this course of action?

"Gannett News Service reported on 10/1/01 that Bush was restricting information because, 'The Washington Post reported last week that various lawmakers had been told there would be more terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated.'"

"SO AT THIS SLIGHTEST WHIFF OF EVIDENCE THAT INFORMATION WAS BEING LEAKED (BY SENATORS), PRESIDENT BUSH PULLED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE ACCESS FOR 92 SENATORS. There was no ongoing criminal investigation nor was there evidence that all the members who had their access limited had leaked information. AND NOW HE REFUSES TO HOLD KARL ROVE AND SCOOTER LIBBY TO ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME STANDARD, despite confirmation of their involvement in the leak of an undercover CIA agent’s identity."

"Thanks for reading. L. Posted by FmAdWiz on July 26, 2005 at 02:38 PM"

fmadwiz,

thanks for posting your insight...

my comment... such direct questions would not be asked of bush who smirks w/embolden-arrogance at his orchestrated-invitational-only-friendly-supporter-rallies...

he's disappeared from open conferences where he would have to answer hard ("it's hard work") reporter questions, making him uneasy, thus grimace w/arrogance, then begin to divert, next spin...

please post any suggestions...of course please continue posting too...i like your insight!

BUSH YANKED SECURITY CLEARANCES TO 92 SENATORS IN OCT. '01
Wow, here's a enlightened observation from ThinkProgress.Org today
Posted by TC on July 26, 2005 at 06:28 PM

tc, thanks, very, very enlightening ...so those who should be in know are kept in the dark, and those who should not are given the light...who gave rove the light?

Conservatives Worst Nightmare and Ace 1,

There's no reason to push them further off the scale because you've already done a bang up job of that yourself.

The fact is, the war was illegal and it has been proven. Now more than half of America agrees and doesn't give a crap anymore about the neocons lies.

Of course in the U.K., its much different as its over 60% since they don't have a "censored" media. But its not much different on ethics.

Conservatives Worst Nightmare, you have already done your own arguments in.

You stated that the "revealing of classified information was probably illegal but unserious, may constitute as treason" but also that "Cheney can not be a war criminal because the war was not illegal". Well no, conserv you can't have both. You sound a little too much like our friend Tom DeLay.

Here let me dissassemble:

Number 1) The war was completely illegal. This is not debated. The justification of the war, was completely compromised. It was an excursion run by right-wing oil companies and corporate empires. They were intent, since before the year 2000 to take all its resources.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?%20context=viewArticle&code=MAN20050702&articleId=622

Its time for you to read PNAC, aka Project of New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org
Get well acquainted with them, as they are who has drawn all your base straight over a cliff.

Number 2) You said that these could not be war crimes, because the legal basis was not justified. Even though you repeated an earlier statement of leaking classified information not being legal. Well this argument is dead, there are war crimes. Britain is now trying at least 4 commanders and colonels for complete war crimes before the ICC.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050719/wl_mideast_afp/iraqbritainjustice

3) Now that actual crimes have been established, you repeat the usual off-topic distracting talking points about democrats offering therapy to Bin Laden along the way. No, that equals more GOP disinformation. Democrats of my level would not only try Bin Laden before the ICC, they would have him executed. Of course the same could also be true for Cheney and other criminals, all depending strictly on the rule of law.

But you will be pleased to know there is someone who agrees with you!

Yes the republican lites, the DLC agrees with you fully and they would love to share some tea and crumpets next saturday. I found it from when I had to educate Ace

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Oh, and as for the whole DLC put together they are becoming marginalized. Many people would settle just to have them kicked out period, since there are millions who simply haven't voted in years because of such corruption. But unlike the GOP, we accept everyone and hear their thoughts....Even disaffected republicans.

What we are going to get rid of is the corporate rhetoric politics....Or there will be no more hope for this government, ever. And that will be done by us piece by piece. Have you met Howard Dean or Charles Schumer yet? If you are afraid of them and still lashing out, you have every reason to be. They're going to fight until the end of corruption, and its going to be tooth and nail..

A clear message not only stands for defeating the GOP's rhetoric, but standing for the end of corporate welfare and domination. It stands for the eradication of tax cuts on the large corporate industries. It will stand for a legalized expansion of the spending cap threshold to preserve social security, the closing down of privatization, and the re-institution of civil rights and law. It will stand for the clinical services of health care for everyone by eradicating the special interest laws mandated by the neocons. It will stand for the dismantling of a government unit now failing and falling apart. That's what it will stand for, and what our message is.

OFF TOPIC: By the way sir, it seems Mrs. Jean Schmidt of the Ohio 2nd district is a huge anti-abortion off the wall scientology whacko. In fact, she is so closely affiliated with it I think someone here should start throwing it through the campaign.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start

Apparently schmidt is so close to this group she believes breast cancer is the fault of the actual victims! And they are attacking Paul Hackett, a daring and gracious member who has served in the military. Smearing his military service? But what does this woman do? She smears women for their health rights! Pound the message, someone get this into Ohio.
nick

Dems_Keep aka Ace 1:

I just had to chime in on one more point you made earlier. It was stated that "America doesn't really care about it anyway" and other repeated robotron lines that have been used the past 5 years.

I would see it different.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm

America is awake now and not only alarmed, but increasingly aware and disturbed. The cloak lifted and the sedatives didn't work. In fact well approaching 55% are seeing the Iraq war as an illegal lie. Will that number climb until it surpasses Europe's UK numbers?

nick

"Conservatives Worst Nightmare and Ace 1,
Posted by nick_t on July 27, 2005 at 02:38 AM

Dems_Keep aka Ace 1:
Posted by nick_t on July 27, 2005 at 03:06 AM"

morn' nick_t,

nice response... but i believe you meant to post your response to "ace 1" on another (the open?) strand... ace 1 (or ace 1...n keeps changing) did not post on this strand. and, is i assume a rove-troll in a rove-poker hand...makes me ponder who's rove's king, queen, joker, and 10...

I am becoming more and more convinced that the Republican Party truly believes that they are doing a mission for God! I only hope that we being to wake up and realize just how sad of a shape our country is in since the Repulicans bought their elections! This leak should be undergoing a thorough independant investigation, similar to what the Republicans did during the Clinton Administration. Rather, they (Republicans) are crying foul and trying desperately to minimize this disaster. How can someone working for the government, knowingly give out top secret information? Rove did this to get even and I will be my next paycheck that Bush knew what he did and approved it!!! The Repulican Party needs to wake up and realize that they could lose their control of the House and Senate next year. I hope so!! We need to get this country back on track and start working for the PEOPLE. I think we still have a say in who will represent us and I for one, am working my tail off here in the St. Louis area to get the vote out! God Save America

Palmer,

Umm, I hate to tell you, but the "People" voted George W. Bush in as President. A majority in fact.

Keep up the good work.

TC,

Here's an odd thought: Why don't you wait until the investigation is over?

Talk about double standard...Howard Dean says Osama is innocent until proven guilty, but you Democrats have declared Karl Rove and Tom Delay guilty...Imagine that...The Head of the DNC supporting the rights of a confessed murderer of Americans over 2 GOPers.

You guys crack me up.

FmAdWiz,

I don't get it: Why would John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton authorize force against Iraq if it was the wrong country? Did you know something they didn't? Edwards and Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to the same intelligence Bush did. And yet what's amazing, YOU had more intelligence information than they did...

Go figure.

Ace 1 aka Dems_Keep,

Howard Dean never said Osama was innocent until proven guilty either. That's the fiftieth time you've ignorantly said and taken statements out of context, how stupid are you?

Honestly, you've completely vaporized your credibility now. Taking quotes and twisting them to mean things they do not, and then linking them with other bullshit sites. That isn't how to get your message across. Oh what's that? You have no clear message. Go back to the cafeteria.

nick

So Ace, you've given up even trying to keep your jabs within, even some twisted republican take on reality. You've lost man. Get used to it.

Like I said before "Ace", you guys have to lie, because you don't really represent the people who vote Republican. What you claim to be and what you are = 180 degrees apart. Some of your most prominant "good ole' boys", are the most elitist swine to ever suck air. You guys even have your own bonehead take on science - not because it benefits your base ,(your elitism hurts your base, and alienates them), because it benefits the corperations that use your base like slaves, play off their fears of homosexuality, play off deep seeded racism and fear, then ship their jobs overseas. You suck and so does your beloved party.

But truly Ace, thanks for being here to keep us on point. Honestly, if I were you - I'd go somewhere where I was appreciated. Unless you really want to make a little switch. Its OK if you do. Otherwise, why would you spend so much time here?

(Inspired by “In Defense of Anarchism” – Robert Paul Wolff)

The conclusion that madmen are without reason, though they may be liberated from responsibility, and because of it, is not evident. If men are metaphysically free and thus responsible for their actions, then men can make choices. But choosing does not constitute “taking responsibility” for one’s actions, or so Wolff argues. Taking responsibility is dependent on reason. Of course, this argues against a certain type of freedom -- namely, the freedom to choose to proceed with reason or without it, assuming that reason is dependent on freedom of choice, which derives from a free will. Wolff is arguing thus that reason obliges men to be moral. It is not immediately clear that there exists a dialectical relationship between “free will” or “metaphysical freedom”, and “reason”, but assuming that this relationship exists, then the link must be “morality”. It thus becomes clear that “reason” itself must derive from “free will”, which means that men are capable of choosing to proceed with “reason”. But does this not presuppose “reason” as evidenced by the ability to make a choice? It seems thus, that “reason” is dependent, rather, upon an ability to choose – an ability to choose that is dependent upon free will. It thus becomes clear that “reason” only nominally exists, and that men are capable of making choices – independent of “reason” – to create “reason”. In so far as men make a choice to proceed with “reason” (which may as easily be defined as any self-consistent system of logic), they make the causal link of morality between “reason” and “free will”. Thus men who proceed in their actions by “reason” will automatically be “moral” and “just”.

In Wolff’s case, it appears that “morality” is redefined by labeling a person “madman” or “not-madman”, simply by making a judgment about the degree to which a person’s “reason” (or self-consistent system of logic) is decidedly good or bad. Which also presupposes “morality” exists before the link between “reason” and “free will” has been made. The only given is the postulated existence of “free will”. Wolff’s argument that morality derives necessarily from reason because “free will” exists, is circular; for it is just as correct to claim that reason must derive necessarily from morality because “free will” exists. But if we claim that free will exists, then our earlier argument stipulates that choice must follow – choice that proceeds from either a position of “reason” or “morality”. In so far as a person takes responsibility for his actions, he is labeled a “not-madman”, and the former must be true: Morality must derive from reason, or rather, a “reasonable” choice has been made. In so far as a person fails to take responsibility for his actions, he is labeled a “madman”, and the latter must be true: Reason must derive from morality, and a “moral” choice has been made. The circularity of the argument is evident when the consequence of responsibility is added with the label of sanity or insanity (both the “consequence” and the “label” are reciprocally and mutually-derived from one another. In as much as this dialectical relationship is justified, then there cannot possibly exist free will, or reason, or morality -- unless we make the argument that morality derives directly from free will, and reason does not exist.).

But, lacking this moral obligation that derives from a ‘slavery to reason’, is it not possible that men may still take responsibility? We have seen all too often presidents who take responsibility for each and every action they take, regardless of its moral value, thus making a claim on infallibility (George W Bush). Because there exists no moral standard, at least with the infallible president, then the choice must have been made by “reason”. But since there is no moral link that connects “reason” with “free will”, we cannot claim that a choice made by “reason” is a choice at all. If there is no choice, then there is no free will (Remember we are working with the assumption that morality derives necessarily from reason and we postulate free will.). Since there is no free will or morality with the infallible president, we cannot possibly say that the president proceeds by “reason” in the traditional sense (the traditional sense being Wolff’s sense in that moral obligation necessarily derives from reason, if humans have free will). In so far as “reason” can be defined as a self-consistent system of logic, no morality or freedom can be connected with it if men (or presidents) fail to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Thus, it would seem that the only way a moral link can be made between free will and reason is in the choice for men (or presidents) to take responsibility for their own system of logic by recognizing the areas where their system of logic is no longer self-consistent (Iraq/WMD/CIA leak), thereby creating a new system of logic, or a new “reason”, and further making its moral connection to free will by critical examination of “reason” and taking responsibility for inconsistencies.

In short, Mr. Bush has lied to us because his logic has failed. That he has failed to critically examine these policy failures, take responsibility for them, and change course as necessary can only mean that Mr. Bush is a "madman" and proceeding without either "free will", "morality", or "reason".

What has happened to the coverage of the Rove leak? It seems that suddenly it is gone from everyone's coverage. CNN, MSN, ABC, CBS ABC. No more questions from reporters. No more information dug up from various sources. All the media seems to be looking the other way. It seems the administration tried to push it off the front page with the nomination for the supreme court. That did not seem to work. But suddenly, it is gone. How does this happen?

Chicago,

Its not gone, but the people have to keep it on the front page. And that means constantly writing the media such as david.gregory@msnbc.com It is the corporate media, so you have to make them whore out to report the news. That's the way they are.

Groenhagen=Arnicus

Arnicus=Ace 1=Ace II

So lets get this straight, Groenhagen/Arnicus/AceII

You continue to peddle the lie that this is all Clinton's fault, yet we are 8 years past Clinton. No one gives a crap about it anymore. And frankly, no one here is interested in electing more Clintons....EVER!

So you refuse to awcknowledge the evidence, and instead bring up Clinton and SLANDER the CIA.

Are you an idiot?

Every one of your irrational talking points were disproved for good in just one link:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?%20context=viewArticle&code=MAN20050702&articleId=622

And instead of attacking any of the points, you continue to bring up Clinton and Hans Blix to the point of irrelevancy.

Is that all you have? I say again, are you an idiot?

nick

Click on my name so future NEO-CONSERVATIVES can support the war effort!

Here is the great democracy that has spread, meet the new Iraq!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050730/ap_on_re_mi_ea/islam_and_constitution_1&printer=1

An ISLAM nation invoked on Martial Law!
nick