Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYes, it's a disappointing surprise, especially to fans of his wife Elizabeth, that John Edwards has admitted that the National Enquirer got it right when it reported he'd been having an affair, and that his denials have been lies. But the important thing to remember, in my view, is that his sex life is none of our business. We're interested in him because of his public life. Yes, he lied but, to me, that's a part of who he is that has nothing to do with his policy work -- the aspect of his life that we should care about.
If we limit political office to only those few of us who have lead pure personal lives, we're going to limit the pool considerably. I think FDR was a pretty good president but he had multiple affairs. So did Martin Luther King, Jr and I think he would've made a great president.
As Kay Steiger of Campus Progress blogs, "He's a politician and his life is public, but his sex life is none of my concern. Making this public certainly doesn't help his family, which is already dealing with a difficult situation. Millions and millions of people have affairs every year. Why do we care about Edwards? Him cheating on his wife doesn't diminish the work he has done on poverty and health care." I agree.
What do you think?
I think the majority of politicians are self serving elitists who have no problem lying if they think they can get away with it.
So....there!
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 4:42pm
I wdn't disagree.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/08/2008 @ 4:44pm
This is pure and utter nonsense. Maybe his sex life has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to intellectually grasp policies and ascertain correct ones from incorrect ones. If that were all political leadership were about, then maybe one could indeed say this wasn't relevant. However, when we're asking about leadership, we're interested not just in one's ability to analyze policy, but also about the character of a person. Someone who wants a leadership position should be honorable and trustworthy, even if that isn't always exemplified by Republican or Democratic representatives. Senator Edwards' affair undercuts that honor in two ways. The affair itself is somewhat problematic; contrary to your implicit claim here, it's not just "another private choice that everyone does anyway and so shouldn't matter," especially not when the current wife has suffered through breast cancer. The second problem, though, comes from the fact that he lied about it, smearing the sources of the reports against him. In other words, he deliberately chose to lie to the American people about this, something which directly speaks not only to his general trustworthiness but also to his honesty towards the American people. After all of the attacks the Bush administration has gotten based on claims that they've lied to the American people, it's curious that this doesn't seem to carry over. The fact that one's sex life isn't a national security subject doesn't make those lies to the American people less problematic. Do they mean Edwards hasn't worked against poverty? Of course not; he should still be praised for whatever he's done in that capacity. It DOES implicate his broader claim to leadership. Leadership cannot be neatly separated from character, and certainly not from basic honesty.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 4:46pm
Let's see.
Recently Stevens, Edwards, Craig, etc., etc., etc., etc.,..........
Not encouraging.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 4:47pm
If you don't want your private affairs revealed then don't run for public office.That would be particularly true of the position of POTUS where candidates are put under a microscope,as they should be.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/08/2008 @ 4:50pm
Rothberg may not care about the affair, but most voters do- had Edwards won the Democratic primary, this news would have all but guaranteed a McCain victory in November. That should make progressives care as well. Edwards endangered his party, and with it all the causes he claims to be fighting for.
Also, I hope you'll allow that cheating on your cancer-stricken wife might, just might, reflect poorly on your character.
Posted by LaurencePassmore at 08/08/2008 @ 4:50pm
LP -- I'd allow that it does reflect on character but not on his ability/worth as a politician.
NOBODY -- I take this pt and I do agree he had to have seen this coming.
THRAWN -- I see some of your points but this is my problem with your conclusion: You say that his affair undercuts his ability to lead but if we limit political office to only those few of us who have lead pure personal lives, we're going to limit the pool considerably. I think FDR was a pretty good president but he had multiple affairs. So did Martin Luther King, Jr but I think he wd've made a great president.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/08/2008 @ 4:55pm
'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.' -- Henry Kissinger
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/08/2008 @ 4:57pm
Say what you will about personal sex lives, Edwards' apparent belief that he could "get away" with this while under the microscope of a national campaign speaks volumes about his judgment (not to mention personal honor and character).
Posted by Be Good at 08/08/2008 @ 4:59pm
>>>Him cheating on his wife doesn't diminish the work he has done on poverty and health care." I agree.
What do you think?<<<
While his work on poverty issues may not be diminished, his legitimacy as a candidate is badly damaged by this revelation.
What is says is that:
1) Serious commitments mean nothing to him;
2) The truth means nothing to him;
3) He has a reckless and self-destructive streak;
4) Has no respect for women or the emotional state of those suffering with cancer;
5) He is only interested in satisfying his own selfish desires; and,
6) When cornered, he makes shit up to the extreme of blaming someone else or having someone else take the fall for his own actions.
These are SERIOUS character flaws, and character IS an issue for anyone who wants to be president.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
If it was in the cards for Edwards to run for vice president, it isn't now. This country is so hypocritical it blows me away. Everone gets pissed at a guy for screwing around on his wife, but in the meantime give a pass to a guy who drags his country into a war on falsified evidence, lies to us approaching treason, and that's allright as long as he "claims" to be a good Christian? What a bunch of crap. Edward's screwing around on his wife is a personnal issue between his wife, him, his family etc. Dragging your country into a war is a far bigger crime. That should be on the news, internet, plastered all over the televisions etc. and be on commercials between shows to make sure everyone knows what Bush has done, but we'll certainly hear about Edwards' indiscretions for the next week on all channels to be sure.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
I wanted to kick each and every Edwards supporter in the butt during the primary because they, suddenly liking the new pose of "progressive" would not even bother to consider what one of the most respected senators on the floor, Russ Feingold, said about Edwards' actual voting record and why he would not support him. It looks like I won't have to do any kicking. Edwards has done that for me. And for those of you who are smarting from this, may I remind you ..again..who backed the proposed draconian credit card industry-backed bill twice in 2000 and 2001, even when Hillary herself voted against it. And who voted for the Iraq war. I hope the "little guy" gets a lot wiser now with the realization that yes, he wasted his time on Edwards but it's not too late. In case you hadn't noticed Democrats everywhere though you don't deserve it, nevertheless have stumbled upon a genuine grassroots movement in Obama. And it always was from its beginning, a real attempt to elect an American president in the best tradition of the office.
Posted by hrayovac at 08/08/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
Don't have to worry about Obama. He KNOWS better than to piss Michele off to that degree.
It scares me and I don't even know her.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 5:04pm
I hate to point out the obvious (again), but to reiterate my first point: we do not live in a nation of Peter Rothbergs. We live in a relatively puritanical society that believes having an affair is worse than, say, torture. Given that reality, having your character so clearly undermined very much limits your ability/worth as a politician - witness Bill Clinton's Monica period. The other part of this reality is Edwards' affair makes him unelectable- Edwards knew this, and was still willing to gamble Democratic leadership in the White House just so he could have it all: the presidency, the affair, and the sanctimonious talk about fighting for those less fortunate. Apparently, "fighting" doesn't involve any real sacrifice for Senator Edwards.
Posted by LaurencePassmore at 08/08/2008 @ 5:08pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
WOLF,
If you look at the 6 character issues in my post above, these are the same flaws that would lead a president to lie about his motivation to go to war, blame others or have others take the fall for bad policy decisions he makes, and engage in reckless and destructive actions as president to satisfy some selfish desire of his own.
In fact, these character flaws are EXACTLY the same as what we experienced with Nixon and are experiencing now with Bush and Cheney.
Think about it!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:10pm
Think about it!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:10pm
That is quite a stretch Metteyya. So, you are now going to tell me that every woman or man who has screwed around on their spouse would do what George W Bush has done?
One is an act of passion or perhaps a lack of self control or who knows what. The other was a premeditated calculated move which has caused the deaths of thousands of people and the suffering of thousands more possibly millions.
I do not condone what Edwards did, but I am also not going to condemn everything the guy stands for because of a personal mistake he made. He may well deserve to lose his wife and the respect of his family and possibly even voters, but don't even try to compare his doings with what the Bush administration has done. Yes, both lied and cheated, but the severity between the two is beyond calculation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
>>>One is an act of passion or perhaps a lack of self control or who knows what. The other was a premeditated calculated move which has caused the deaths of thousands of people and the suffering of thousands more possibly millions.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:21pm<<<
It was more than just screwing around, it was his actions he took when confronted with the truth.
He did a Nixon with a convoluted "cover-up" in which one of his aides was forced to admit that he fathered the child to try to mislead the public.
This is OUTRAGEOUS conduct, and shows that he is not capable of owning up to his mistakes. We all make mistakes, but not admitting to them is a SERIOUS character flaw that could lead to disastrous consequences if this is played out as president.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 5:36pm
You mean like Travelgate?
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 5:50pm
<i>Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/08/2008 @ 4:55pm </i>
This seems to rely upon a false dichotomy. It's not as though the only options for a politician are to be completely and utterly spotless morally or to have an affair while your wife has cancer. I'm not asking for complete perfection, because no human being comes even close. What happened here, though, clearly goes beyond "not quite perfect." What I'm curious to know is, what do you think matters for a President exactly? What do you believe that a political official should be?
Would I regard FDR as a worse president because of this? Absolutely. If he had denied this in front of the American public? Doubly so (which, by the way, still distinguishes Edwards from FDR as far as I know). And MLK...did he actually? I didn't know, but if he did, the same would apply. These things can't just be treated as a separate sphere of someone's life that has no bearing on their leadership character, because leadership I don't think leadership is just about policy acumen.
I think Metteya has hit the nail on the head here. Things like affairs call into question your willingness to take committments seriously, and lying about it by smearing those who pointed out what happened seriously calls into question his respect for the truth and willingness to take responsibility for the actions he's undertaken.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 5:53pm
I think a politician willing and able to cheat on the trust and committment of his spouse, is easily convinced to cheat the people he represents in his elected office.
That is why this immorality matters, regardless of which party.
Being a cheat and a liar in your private life makes it pretty safe to assume you are a cheat and a liar in your public life too. In Edwards case, I see this certainly being true.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 5:53pm
I think Metteya has hit the nail on the head here. Things like affairs call into question your willingness to take committments seriously, and lying about it by smearing those who pointed out what happened seriously calls into question his respect for the truth and willingness to take responsibility for the actions he's undertaken.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 5:53pm
Not to mention the threat of blackmail.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 5:55pm
The hypocrisy in this seems to be that it is easy to ignore politician's failings when we agree with them ideologically. For instance, I'll admit being less bothered by a certain ex-NYC mayors failings than Edwards...
And I wonder if Peter would be so forgiving and quick to say, "who cares" if it were, say, Dick Cheney caught cheating on Lynne...
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:00pm
"...After all of the attacks the Bush administration has gotten based on claims that they've lied to the American people, it's curious that this doesn't seem to carry over." Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 4:46pm
The Bush administration has taken a lot of crap and you're apparently sick and tired of it. Why shouldn't you be? I mean, George Bush sent thousands of American troops to their deaths, and put hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the chopping block based on a pack of lies (I mean alleged lies, sorry that slipped out). And now the leftist Mainstream Media (who compliantly banged the war drum as we marched into Iraq, btw) will probably give Edwards a free pass for HIS terrible lies, just as they did Bill Clinton.
This makes me just as sick as it makes you. I don't even want to think about all the misery, pain, and suffering that John Edwards and his despicable lies have caused throughout the world. He should be placed on trial for war crimes on account of his wife's cancer...
Posted by ADHD at 08/08/2008 @ 6:03pm
How come we never see any scandals by women politicians? How come it's always men? Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 5:36pm
One answer: Different reproductive strategies; Men's brains being convinced that they're enhancing their reproductive fitness, even though most of their extra-marital "matings" do not actually result in offspring.
Posted by Be Good at 08/08/2008 @ 6:05pm
Um, have you taken a good look at women politicians lately? Helen Thomas even looks sexy in that crowd.
Aw, go on, I'm just kidding!
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:11pm
Wow, Rese's shortest post ever!
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:20pm
"Who cares about a person's private life?"
AMEN brother!!!
Now can we legalize drugs up in here??!!!
D Y A M !!!
Roll me a joint HO! My wife will be home soon.
S H E E AT !!!
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/08/2008 @ 6:22pm
I for one am thrilled that this might signal the end of John Edward's public life. He is a most contemptable politician, playing one card; Class envy. I am pleased to see his hypocrisy lit up like a marquee. Good bye John. The Democrats won't have any issue chucking your sorry ass under the bus. Barely a speed bump in Obama's quest for power.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:25pm
I don't care about his personal life, but I'm pissed off for this reason: Edwards ran for President knowing his affair could be exposed. He put the Democratic Party and the country at risk of four more years of a Republican in the White House. He should be smacked.
Posted by connieboyd at 08/08/2008 @ 6:29pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 6:39pm
easy Frank. It was a joke. She wasn't even a politician then. Just pulling your leg.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 6:42pm
Thank Gosh he didnt win the nomination.
Right, B-KOOL?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 6:45pm
It scares me and I don't even know her. Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 5:04pm
She would beat the hell out of him if he ever treated her that way. I recognize Michelle Obama too well. She reminds me a lot of my mother. Strong, intelligent and doesn't take crap from any one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:58pm
travelgate? What the hell was that? Did anything ever come of it? I was referring to sexual scandals anyway. Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 6:39pm
I think it's the same reason you say it very rarely in married women who aren't politicians. Some men are like dogs when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's less prevalent in women. Plus as a female politician you have to work so hard to get where you are is it ok to throw it away on an affair?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 7:00pm
I was more inclined to agree with Peter but after reading some of the points made by the posters I have to agree that being a politician means that you no longer have a personal life. You are under scrutiny based no only on your politics but on your character. True this will not affect his political choices, but if he is so willing to lie how do you know the choice he says he upholds are actually true?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 7:02pm
It is amazing that anytime a Democrat is in a situation like this we are told the sex life is none of our business, but when this happens to a Republican, the left chortles with glee and makes as much hay out of it as they can.
And, of course, a topic like this immediately draws comments that are totally irrelevant to the situation. This thread is about "Edwards" and "lies"... thus the name George W. Bush has no relevance on this thread. The last I knew, George W. Bush is not related to John Edwards and George W. Bush did not lie about Iraq.
But beyond that, and separate from any partisan considerations, in addition to being a politician John Edwards is a public figure, and this kind of attention happens to any public figure, whether they be a politician, athlete, entertainer on television or the movies or theater, or musician, etc.
All these public figures get this scrutiny, not just politicians, especially the minute there is a sexual aspect to it.
As shown above, people can and have debated whether this is right or wrong, but whether it is right or wrong it is reality that a public figure is going to receive this treatment.
As such, since Edwards is a public figure, I can not fathom why Peter Rothberg would waste time getting all lathered up about something that is going to happen, whether Peter likes it or not, because this is the treatment public figures get in this country, politician or not.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:18pm
She would beat the hell out of him if he ever treated her that way. I recognize Michelle Obama too well. She reminds me a lot of my mother. Strong, intelligent and doesn't take crap from any one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:58pm
Even the Secret Service couldn't save his ass then.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/08/2008 @ 7:19pm
Hello frankgrits,
Since you asked up above "travelgate? What the hell was that? Did anything ever come of it?" -- I will tell you.
Travelgate was when the Clintons falsely accused those in the White House travel office of wrongdoing, as a mechanism to get rid of them and get their own people in the office.
You ask if anything ever came of it. Yes. People's lives were ruined as a result of what Bill and Hill did.
As far as Bill and Hill, they, as always, skated by without ever being held accountable for that.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:18pm
SJCHER, lately when it's been a Republican...
it's him being caught in a bathroom soliciting gay sex, while voting against gay rights to satisfy his Religious Right base.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 7:31pm
Oh oh, sjchermak, prepare yourself for the dozens of comparisons of lives ruined by travelgate to the thousands of dead american troops in Bush's war for the spread of democracy.
I think they all might have a point.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 7:34pm
Hello freiheit1,
Actually, they all would have no point at all. American troops have died stopping evil, and if evil had not been stopped and the evil we are fighting now is not stopped, then the death toll would have been catastrophic down the road.
People die in a war, this is not good of course but not going to war would have resulted in much greater death later on.
There is no justification for ruining somebody's life on purpose just to get some of your own people into White House positions. The Travel Office positions were not "political appointee" positions that change with each administration but "career" permanent positions that don't change from administration to administration normally.
But Bill and Hill wanted their own people in that office so Bill and Hill did what comes naturally to them. Earth to freiheit1 -- this is NOT OK.
You are comparing "Apples" and "Oranges" here - the two situations you bring up are in no way related to each other at all.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:46pm
Well, as the saying goes, the personal is political. And particularly in a nation whose electorate takes the personal so seriously when casting a vote. All moral judgments aside--Edwards should have known better than to put not only his own political aspirations in jeopardy, but the Democratic party's as well.
Posted by azure at 08/08/2008 @ 7:53pm
He has disappointed me, however, his sex life has no bearing on his political life. I still feel he would have made a great progressive president.
What we can't lose track of here is the impact this ordeal has had and will have on his wife. She is a courageous woman and needs all of our prayers at this time.
Posted by RJ. Agen at 08/08/2008 @ 7:54pm
This is simply amazing... and to think he ran for president after all this country has been through...
...which we have had to endure in part because of Clinton's indiscretions...
Appalling, really...
Posted by ttr at 08/08/2008 @ 8:45pm
Yes I do care, not about his affair, mind you, but that he would think, he would get away with it. And what was he running for, remind me again. Too stupid for words , the golden boy
Posted by pachonegro at 08/08/2008 @ 8:53pm
Yes I do care, not about his affair, mind you, but that he would think, he would get away with it. And what was he running for, remind me again. Too stupid for words , the golden boy
Posted by pachonegro at 08/08/2008 @ 8:53pm
I care. I have a big problem with hypocrites. Edwards has been a big advocate for the poor. One of the biggest predictors of poverty is single motherhood. What a great example he is setting for all those absentee fathers in poor, dysfunctional communities.
And I have a big problem with fathers who cheat on their wives. You think those kids of his, especially his daughters, aren't internalizing their father's behavior?
Six months ago I was hoping John Edwards would be our nominee. I am so mad at him now I could just spit.
He and Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer and all those other randy dogs should just get lost. Selfish, self-centered creeps all.
Posted by kkuchenb at 08/08/2008 @ 9:37pm
Most Canadians and Europeans are frustrated by the puritanical obsession of Americans with matters sexual. The personal relationships of our leaders, as long as they are discreet, are a matter of total indifference to us. Your leaders can cause the cause the death of hundreds of thousands with impunity as long as they uphold James Dobson's family values.
Posted by Rick Taves at 08/08/2008 @ 9:43pm
Before the right-wingers get TOO righteous about adultery again...
please tell us the circumstances surrounding the start of the relationship between JOHN MCCAIN and the future Cindy McCain?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 9:45pm
Nothing special here. Edwards and his wife are both products of the same kind of self-importance that typically motivates people to seek political office. They are all - all - simply the most squalid sort of scum. If there is anything important to take away from these disclosures it is that this is case #564 this year offering evidence of the reptilian character required for membership in our system's leadership class. American culture is a moral sewer, the American people themselves its source and their politicians the outcome. John and Elizabeth Edwards didn't just learn to lie. Like all of these paramecia and the public environments they populate, they've forever been a lie.
Posted by john lowell at 08/08/2008 @ 10:09pm
"...of the same kind of self-importance that typically motivates people to seek political office. They are all - all - simply the most squalid sort of scum."------Posted by john lowell at 08/08/2008 @ 10:09pm
Aren't Chuck Baldwin and RALPH NADER "seeking political office"?
(Back-pedal in 5...4...3...2....1....)
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 10:51pm
"that's a part of who he is that has nothing to do with his policy work"
Exactly it's part of who he is., a bit of a fraud.
I never understood the progressive blogesphere's fascination with him anyway.
I could care less, and wish the media would cover the situation in Georgia with as much vigor. I have been trying to find a decent take on it all night and it's either Edwards had an affair or The Genocide Olympics.
Posted by nowickedwitch at 08/08/2008 @ 11:23pm
So did Martin Luther King, Jr but I think he wd've made a great president.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/08/2008
alas...
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 11:44pm
'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.' -- Henry Kissinger
HonestLiberal
no wonder kissinger's so whatever it is that he is....
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 11:47pm
"We live in a relatively puritanical society that believes having an affair is worse than, say, torture. "
LP
ouch!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 11:49pm
How come we never see any scandals by women politicians? How come it's always men?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/08/2008 @ 5:36pm
13% of the u.s. congress is female.
13% x .83glassceiling power reduction ≈ fewer chances.
their time will come.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 11:54pm
She would beat the hell out of him if he ever treated her that way. I recognize Michelle Obama too well. She reminds me a lot of my mother. Strong, intelligent and doesn't take crap from any one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:58pm
all right. i wasn't gonna post this out of respect for someone i don't know but,
i bet the gop has a conspiracy to catch madame obama ensacked with an under-cover(s) young republican't plant.
SATINGATE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 11:59pm
It is amazing that anytime a Democrat is in a situation like this we are told the sex life is none of our business, but when this happens to a Republican, the left chortles with glee and makes as much hay out of it as they can.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:18pm
it is hypocritical, yes. and cruel.
however, it seems that demicrats have made fewer attempts lately to legislate mores than have their republican't counterparts.
and so the karmic anti-hypocrisy force is unleashed.
personally, me and the missis is real happy. i would never stomp on her heart for a little extra flesh. and those who do have their karma to deal with. a politician wants to rise to the top of the henhouse, most often relying on the silent fortitude of their spouse. the sheer act of disrupting that trust is usually enough to trash the trajectory of any public official.
the scandal is the symptom, not the illness.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:07am
I think they all might have a point. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 7:34pm
hey, frei:
once again, thank you for rattling on about the fed. thank you. i'm still not an austrian. let's say i'm a compassionate niceoliberal. gotta keep those trees healthy and help thy infirmed brother, you know.
Hello freiheit1,
Actually, they all would have no point at all. American troops have died stopping evil, and if evil had not been stopped and the evil
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 7:46pm
damn! do i have to bring up reagan again?!?!?!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:15am
hey frei,
ever study ol' ronnie's balance sheet?
sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:16am
And I wonder if Peter would be so forgiving and quick to say, "who cares" if it were, say, Dick Cheney caught cheating on Lynne...
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/08/2008 @ 6:00pm
since the chinese government is listening to this,
i am in the unfortunate position of not being able to comment humorously at this time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:19am
Like all of these paramecia and the public environments they populate, they've forever been a lie and progressives need to vote for Ralph Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 08/08/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:21am
Posted by nowickedwitch at 08/08/2008
No peace, no peace I find
Just this old, sweet song
Keeps Georgia forever on my mind.....
on my mind....
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:23am
As a NYer who's lived in 6 Western European democracies, I find US self-righteousness & prurience regarding pols' sex lives pathetic & self-injurious.
Their private sex lives have only the public meaning that the public wishes to ascribe.
It's a scam, both self-inflicted & pumped by the usual suspects eager to distract from issues of substance.
Posted by sloper at 08/09/2008 @ 01:08am
Spitzer at least went out and paid for it, no strings!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 12:26am
i heard there were cords......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:10am
uh oh,
looks like the kurds have made a move for kirkuk.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 02:01am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/08/2008 @ 10:51pm
Aw, have we been incautious about your exquisitely delicate feelings yet again, Maskca-ca? I mean how else to explain why you'd want to separate the first part of my statement from its context in the second. Here, we'll fix that for you:
"If there is anything important to take away from these disclosures it is that this is case #564 this year offering evidence of the reptilian character required for membership in our system's leadership class."
Now, can we be sure you have the capacity to understand what we mean by context? Knowing you, I'd wonder about that, truthfully.
Posted by john lowell at 08/09/2008 @ 02:05am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 12:21am
That's right, zoomer, progressives should vote for Nader! Some polls have him at 6% now, maybe enough to damage Obama badly in closely contested states. Can we hope? Certainly as much as we can hope Baldwin will damage McCain, eh? You're doing the right thing there, zoomer-guy. Just keep that focus on Nader for progressives, leaving Obama for Democrats.
Posted by john lowell at 08/09/2008 @ 02:16am
I don't think you can reasonably draw a direct line between a person's private transgressions and their public trustworthiness. Such an attitude is just an excuse for cynicism, as some of the comments above have demonstrated.
Let he who is without sin thrown the first stone...
I agree with the Canadians and Europeans--too much media emphasis on the sex lives of politicians. Yet as long as voters make simplistic judgments, such behavior here poses a risk to any politician's career, causes, and party.
However, Edwards should have known the affair would be exposed, and therefore he did pose a risk to the Democratic Party by taking these risks while running for high office. Has everyone already forgotten Gary Hart?
Posted by redemma at 08/09/2008 @ 02:26am
When a Republican screws around, it's hypocrisy. When a Democrat does, who cares? And that's EXACTLY as it should be! The Repubs are the party of family values. We're not. Family values, shamily values, whatever. If Mitt Romney were caught in an affair, the laughter would be palpable on this site. Again, EXACTLY as it should be. We ALWAYS are on the right side of things, no matter what our side might do!
Posted by hepstein at 08/09/2008 @ 03:22am
Hello Rick Taves,
You said above "Your leaders can cause the cause the death of hundreds of thousands with impunity as long as they uphold James Dobson's family values."
You know full well our leaders have not done that. I assume you are referring to Iraq, and that subject has been rehashed over and over again, including on this website.
On this website, the editorial writers and most of the liberal bloggers have posted comments in line with what you said. They can not and have not defended or supported that line of thought, nor can you. The actual facts and logic prove otherwise.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 06:07am
Hello frosty zoom,
Up above you said "damn! do i have to bring up reagan again?!?!?!?".
Frosty, if you want to bring up President Reagan (the guy who defeated the Soviet Union), that is OK with me. Mention President Reagan (the guy who defeated the Soviet Union) as often as you want!
If you want to talk about Governor Reagan (the guy who ended discrimination against minorities in California State Government), far be it from me to stop you.
If it means a lot to you to talk about Governor Reagan (the guy who ended discrimination against minorities in California State Government) I do not want to be the one to stand in your way.
If you have to bring up President Reagan again (the guy who defeated the Soviet Union), then by all means do what you have to do!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 06:14am
Posted by john lowell at 08/09/2008 @ 02:05am
No, here's the joke, lowell.
You went into a rant about those "seeking political office" calling them "scum"....no qualifiers, no exceptions noted. Just a loathing of Edwards that you let get out of control.
Problem is RALPH NADER, your perennial push for "progressies to vote for"...ALSO is "seeking political office" so by YOUR definition is "the most squalid sort of scum"
So...according to YOUR words, you are pushing for progressives to vote for scum.
((BTW, given your really just another right-winger, I doubt you'd have gotten so ahead-of-yourself if it had been a conservative and not Edwards! But...you're just too hyper-partisan to have controlled yourself!))
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 07:16am
Hello hepstein,
You said above "The Repubs are the party of family values. We're not."
You have hit the nail right on the head there! I would say NO KIDDING, and I GUESS SO!
Your statement is true in so many ways beyond the topic of sex on this thread.
Here's 2:
1. Liberal policies during the "Great Society" did big damage to African-American families. The fact that there are so many single African-American mothers can be blamed on liberalism.
2. In our public schools, parents are told when issues come up where they oppose what is happening to their kids in school, that they have no say! In times where they have taken these issues to court, "independent" judges have ruled they have no say. So families now have no say in their kid's education --- lib "educators" are in control instead.
Hepstein, your comment was truly the mother of all understatements!!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 09:11am
Posted by john lowell at 08/09/2008 @ 02:16am
ha ha
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 09:17am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 06:14am
ronald reagan,
the guy who delivered anthrax to saddam,
the guy who supplied saddam with chemical weapons,
the guy who supplied computers and helicopters,
cluster bombs and cash to saddam.
evil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 09:22am
These are SERIOUS character flaws, and character IS an issue for anyone who wants to be president.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/08/2008 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Please, if it had been Obama, you'd be taking the exact opposite position.
"Mention President Reagan (the guy who defeated the Soviet Union) as often as you want!"
Right, because we all know the Soviet Union had been in such great shape already.
"This thread is about "Edwards" and "lies"... thus the name George W. Bush has no relevance on this thread. The last I knew, George W. Bush is not related to John Edwards and George W. Bush did not lie about Iraq."
Wrong again. It is relevant to the question of what lies told by a politician are relevant. As to Bush the Lesser not lying about Iraq, just off the top of my head
""The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
"American troops have died stopping evil, and if evil had not been stopped and the evil we are fighting now is not stopped, then the death toll would have been catastrophic down the road."
Rubbish. Hussein had no WMD.
Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 09:59am
2. In our public schools, parents are told when issues come up where they oppose what is happening to their kids in school, that they have no say! In times where they have taken these issues to court, "independent" judges have ruled they have no say. So families now have no say in their kid's education --- lib "educators" are in control instead.----Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 09:11am
Can you name a SPECIFIC instance of that and on what issue?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 10:03am
While I am disappointed that another man who seemed like a good guy turned out to be a cheat, and I empathize with his wife, I can't help but wonder why no one has said what I always thought of as sort of common understanding: 'With a few exceptions, THEY ALL DO IT, we just talk about the ones who get caught!' Maybe that is just the 'message society ingrains in young women' talking, but I do not assume fidelity in politicians just because none has been discovered, especially considering the impetus and means available to conceal any wanderings. So I'm not exactly surprised, just disappointed in the character of someone I respected (which is my problem), and that the potential for someone who supports progressive causes to achieve change in that direction has been hampered. Basically, I would prefer someone who did not cause such pain to their loved ones and potential harm to the party, if I could choose. But we are not offered the luxury of such precision. If the guy who -offers me affordable health care, a chance to get an education, affordable child care and maternity benefits for the future, and to mandate standards for the quality of the air and water I depend upon to exist- if this guy has cheated on his wife, then, when it comes down to it, I must reach the same ultimate conclusion as Rothberg, "Who cares" *I am certainly not voting for the 'trustworthy' candidate because he comes right out and tells me upfront that he is going to screw me!
Posted by truthNjoyr at 08/09/2008 @ 10:10am
Hello Maskdelta,
The was a school in California which had kids fill out a survey about their sexual behavior (hate to bring that subject up because it is irrelevant to the point). Parents objected to the questions on the survey - they took it to court and the court responded as I said above. I do not have the specific school at the moment because I am responding to your question immediately as I first saw it.
Sex was not the point here, it was the school deciding what the kids encountered in school, despite the parents' objections.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:36am
Hello brunowe,
The activities of Iraq and connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been document. No link has been found to establish Saddam with 9/11, but Saddam and al-Qaeda did cross paths over the recent years. Democrats are on the public record, even prior to the Bush Administration, as saying Saddam was a threat.
The "Pentagon Report" that came out a few months ago showed Saddam getting more and more involved with terror organizations, of all kinds.
No WMD? What was that yellowcake that what removed from Iraq recently?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:40am
Good Morning SJ, many have addressed your "points" but allow me to pile on:
1: Republicans run under the Family Values banner, they helped create and garnered support from the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. They are the ones that think sex is a morality issue. Therefore when they get caught with their penis' in the wrong place they deserve public ridicule more than a dem that has not run on a similar platform. It is called hypocrisy and the repubs sure do seem to have that term cornered.
2: George W. Bush lies, has lied and will probably continue to lie. He lied about his arrest record, his service in TANG, connections between AQ and Saddam and Saddams wmd', wiretapping Americans in violation of the law.
--"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)
-There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)
His spokesmen:
In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests"; he replied "Well, of course he is."
In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "[t]his is about [an] imminent threat."
In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD's were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?" He responded, "Absolutely."
On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. In a February 2004 speech at Georgetown University, CIA Director Tenet revealed that CIA "analysts never said there was an imminent threat"
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 10:44am
Hello frosty zoom,
Frosty, back in the 1980's we had just lost Iran as a major ally due to the incompetence and sanctimony of Jimmy Carter. Iran had been an important ally because of it's close proximity to the Soviet Union. That was important because we were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, a war we did not start and did not end until Ronald Reagan ended it.
Saddam was evil back then, but the extent of it was not yet apparent, nor was the threat posed to us and others by his continued existence apparent.
We wound up supplying a bad person because of circumstances we did not create in the first place, created and driven by other bad people (the Soviets and radical Iran).
In modern times things change fairly quickly, unfortunately.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:47am
BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]
RICE: But let's remember what we've already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that–dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described. … This was a program that was built for deceit and concealment. [CNBC, 6/3/03]
JOHN BOLTON: And I think the presentation that Secretary Powell made to the Security Council some months ago, which he worked on day and night for four or five days before going up to New York, is actually standing up very well to the test of reality as we learn more about what was going on inside Iraq. He explained to the Security Council and, indeed, showed diagrams of mobile biological weapons production facilities. We have already found two such laboratories. [Testimony before House International Relations Committee, 6/4/03]
BUSH: We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. [Bush, 6/5/03]
-- During his Veteran's Day 2005 address, Bush charged that " . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "
The Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the Nati
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 10:49am
President determined it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system." Department of Justice 12/22/05 letter to House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The program was not established on or after 9/11 but rather on Day 11 of the Bush Administration - 7 months before 9/11.
---
During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Once the story broke, however, the administration then claimed that it could not wait to get a warrant because it needed "to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad. (President Bush 12/19/05)
--"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a 2006 fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.)
Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties. (Washington Post)
Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a s
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 10:54am
Hello crabwalk,
George W. Bush did not lie about his "arrest record". When asked about his past one time he said there were things he did in the past he wasn't proud of. He did not state he was not arrested. I thought it was you libs that say those things don't matter.
You are parsing words using imminent. Threats need to be dealt with, and they should be dealt with before they become imminent. Sometimes, by the time they are imminent, it is either too late or even if it is not the threat is then much more difficult to deal with.
Your quotes from President Bush (9/26/02 and 10/7/02) were absolutely true, and as I mentioned a few minutes ago in a post to somebody else, many Democrats were saying the same things.
How come you are posting quotes that support my opinions? I don't mind that, of course, just wondering why you are doing that.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:55am
Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater writes that Bush replied "no" when asked in 1998 if, beyond some acknowledged run-ins with the law as a college student in 1968, he had ever been arrested.
Karen Hughes acknowledges stating in the past that the Texas governor had never been arrested. Hughes insists that "she was respecting his wishes to keep the arrest from his daughters."
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:01am
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)
Really? What graver threat did he pose? He was a paper tiger, he had no wmd's, he had a 4th rate army, no airforce, no navy. I can imagine much greater threats. Can't you?
There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)
What "most serious dangers" ? See above.
{"You are parsing words using imminent. Threats need to be dealt with, and they should be dealt with before they become imminent. Sometimes, by the time they are imminent, it is either too late or even if it is not the threat is then much more difficult to deal with"]-SJ
No, "imminent" is a legal term in this case. It applies to our obligations under our UN treaty, which according to the constitution is US law. Under the law, in order to attack another nation we had to have been "under attack or under imminent threat of attack". If you are going to go to war, in part, because Saddam violated UN resolutions, then maybe we should abide by UN treaties that are Law under our system.
But, what is in question here is whether anybody in the ChimpCo Admin ever used the term. They claim they did not, but they did.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:09am
Too bad you didn't think to write this during the Larry Craig scandal...
Posted by woodyee at 08/09/2008 @ 11:13am
No WMD? What was that yellowcake that what removed from Iraq recently?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:40am
stay tuned.
this evening i will post you some fascinating info about saddam's plans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:15am
Reagan:
Reagan knew Saddam had gassed his own people, but tried to blame it on Iran. Reagan knew Saddam had used chemical weapons, but his state dept said;
""While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:15am
saddam was o.k. 'cause of iran etc.,
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:47am
no. saddam was evil. and your iran-deal making hero, mr. reagan helped him.
evil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:17am
saddam was o.k. 'cause of iran etc.,
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:47am
jimmy carter? iran? ally?
the shah?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
evil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:18am
not you, jimmy.
if people had only listened about the sweaters.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:19am
No WMD? What was that yellowcake that what removed from Iraq recently? Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:40am
Well, this undercuts one of the prime "reasons" you have used in the past for going to war, the idea that Saddam had attempted to acquire yellowcake from Niger. Why get it there if he had it?
Also, this yellowcake was locked up, accounted for to the ounce and under UN control. In order to turn it into weapons grade material Saddam would have had to actually have a "reconstituted nookyular program", which he did not, nor could he have rebuilt in within YEARS, if not a decade.
Uranium is not a wmd.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:19am
Too bad you didn't think to write this during the Larry Craig scandal... Posted by woodyee at 08/09/2008 @ 11:13am |
Did Edwards ever fight for laws against adulterers?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:21am
end reliance on foreign oil! use nuclear power!
"the u.s. imports 85% of its uranium, much from that paragon of human rights, kazakhstan."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:21am
"Threats need to be dealt with, and they should be dealt with before they become imminent."
<<<<<<>>>>>>
The murder rate in America is the highest it's been since the 70's. The most current stats that I could find on murder rates was from the year 2005. In that year there where 16,692 people murdered in the United States and it appears the murder rate is on an upswing. Between the years 2001 and 2005 (81,634) people where murdered on the streets of America. Some evidence suggests that the two years following 2005 will place the murder rate in America well above 100,000 since the year 2001.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
yes, deal with the REAL threats, first.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 11:25am
Following SJ's logic stream, maybe we should have tag-teamed with Achinijaed against Iraq, after Saddam invaded Kuwait and "allowed" AQ to wander around northern Iraq.
----
Edwards:
Good thing he did not get the nomination, those that commented on this are spot on!
He lied. To his wife, to the press and to his supporters. This reflects on his character. But, I still say lying about war is worse than lying about his penis and where it has been. I still think keeping a gulag in Cuba, kidnapping innocent people and torturing them, and bombing a civilian population out of misplaced fear is worse than sticking his penis in a woman other than his wife.
but, that's just me.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:27am
BTW. for those that don't know it yet....
Men are pigs.
Yes, we are.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 11:31am
"If we limit political office to only those few of us who have lead pure personal lives, we're going to limit the pool considerably."
That should be <led> not <lead>. The latter is a metal.
Posted by oqureshi at 08/09/2008 @ 12:09pm
[Frosty, back in the 1980's we had just lost Iran as a major ally due to the incompetence and sanctimony of Jimmy Carter. ]-SJ
Really? It had NOTHING to do with our support of a despot installed by a previous UU administration?
As far as I know, Jimmy never cheated on his wife, he is a faithful christian. So, according to some folks he should be a good president. Of course, it was all his fault, what Nixon/Ford left him was a pristine country.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:19pm
previous "US" administration.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:23pm
I agree...are we talking about Castro? Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/09/2008 @ 12:20pm
Look in the mirror.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:25pm
"Frosty, back in the 1980's we had just lost Iran as a major ally due to the incompetence and sanctimony of Jimmy Carter. "
Iran fell because of the incompetence of the Shah. Please indicate how Carter could possibly have kept him in power.
"are both products of the same kind of self-importance that typically motivates people to seek political office."
Or that motivates Ralph Nader to run again and again?
"The "Pentagon Report" that came out a few months ago showed Saddam getting more and more involved with terror organizations, of all kinds.
No WMD? What was that yellowcake that what removed from Iraq recently?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person "
As has been said, yellowcake isn't a weapon. It isn't even directly weaponizable.
The Pentagon report showed him sending money to families of suicide bombers and targeting Iraqi exiles. Do you honestly think there would have been any kind of support for the war if that is what the administration had said in 2003?
Further, the administration didn't just say that they crossed paths. Among other things, it floated the Atta in Prague lie. The point is that there was no direct connection between Hussein and al-Qaida.
Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 12:26pm
Castro has kept the population of Cuba relatively free from non-government terrorism. Which is more than can be said of the president you voted for, John. Therefore, I could use the theory of "unitary executive" to justify his hold on power, and his use of that power to safeguard the people of Cuba.
If I were a neo-con.
But, the ends do not always justify the means. Or do they?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:29pm
did Uncle Ralph vote to grant immunity to companies that violated US law?
no.
that is what motivates him to run. The dems have had 12 years to take Naders motivation.
They voted for war
voted to fund the war
voted to give Chimpy powers he does not deserve.
voted to keep the war "off budget"
voted to violated the 4th amendment
stood by while the neo-cons trampled on the Constitution
Don't even try to blame "ego" for Naders attempt to hold the dems to the title "opposition party".
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:35pm
ergh. typos abound.
sorry.
multi-tasking
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:37pm
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."-George W. Bush
[33 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert Mueller has apologized to the editors of The Washington Post and The New York Times for improperly obtaining phone records of the newspapers' reporters while investigating terrorism four years ago.
Mueller called Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on Friday to express regret that agents did not follow proper procedures in 2004 when they obtained the phone records of a Post reporter and a researcher and two Times reporters. All four were working in Indonesia and writing about Islamic terrorism at the time.
Mueller and other FBI officials told the newspapers that agents obtained the records under a process that allowed them to bypass a grand jury review in emergency cases. The incident came to light through a review by the Justice Department's inspector general of bureau procedures that enabled the FBI to obtain thousands of records from phone companies after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last year, the inspector general uncovered 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters," which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data when in fact such subpoenas never had been sought. The FBI eliminated use of the letters in 2007...
Because of possible First Amendment violations, requests for reporters' phone records are supposed to receive an even higher level scrutiny before they can be approved -- usually requiring the approval of the at
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 2:57pm
Don't even try to blame "ego" for Naders attempt to hold the dems to the title "opposition party".
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Except where was he when he wasn't running for President. Why run when McKinney is already running?
Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 3:48pm
This is great! Netflix didn't get here yet, the Olympics are. ...well. ...volleyball? Eyeh. Reading the comments is much more entertaining. Think I'll pull up a bottle of wine, some chips, and have some laughs.
I can't believe anyone really cares about Edwards fidelity given McCain's one-upsmanship with Gingrich's diabolical behavior. Maybe the subtle combination of women, cancer, hospital beds, and the like makes politicos horny.
FrostyZ and Masked Dman . ...keep those comments rolling. Heh ...'must I bring up Reagan again?'
I just love the way we've segued from marital sex to Carter's desert raid. This beats reading the comments on Wonkette during a live blog!
Posted by alaskadiva at 08/09/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 07:16am
Not only did I provide the context for the remark of mine you quoted, I think I also suggested above that you might not have the capacity to grasp what is meant by the word, "context", and here, with this your latest, we have proof positive, eh? Since you would not seem to know, Maskca-ca, let me explain to you that it's not entirely honest to take someone's words out of context. But, given the dullness you so frequently exhibit, one is inclined to a certain pity. Now, stop scrapping your knuckles on the ground and scratching your head, and go back and read the exchange over again. Atta guy.
Posted by john lowell at 08/09/2008 @ 5:35pm
[This is great! Netflix didn't get here yet, the Olympics are. ...well. ...volleyball? ]
YEP!!
BEACH VOLLEYBALL!!!!! {with ping-pong rules :( }
Great sport. 1/2 nekked folk running around on the beach!! It is a tough sport too. Try it once, then you will understand that what you are seeing them do is incredible!!
Dollhauser/Rogers sucked up the court. The Latvians had a good game plan (serve the guy that isn't used to receiving serve constantly, get in his head)and played out of their minds. Look for the Americans next opponents do the same thing.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 5:59pm
Except where was he when he wasn't running for President. Why run when McKinney is already running? Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 3:48pm
Doing good.
what has McKinney been up to? Swatting security guards?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2008 @ 6:01pm
Since this thread was originally not about Iraq, let us summarize Iraq.
Before the war, most people including Democrats and others in the world believed Saddam to be a threat.
Saddam did at one time possess WMD and we did not know the exact status prior to the war. He was believed by most including Democrats and even countries like France and even his own generals to have WMD.
He was not doing what he was required to do, completely coming clean about the status of his WMD. Letting Hans Blix wander around Iraq fell way short of what he was required.
From what we know after the war Saddam intended to start his WMD programs again, had he been let off of the hook, which is where things would headed had George W. Bush and Tony Blair not intervened.
Saddam was developing more and more ties to terror.
We do not know for sure what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq. But it is more likely that Saddams actions would have resulted in mayhem that would have made 9/11 look like childs play, than not.
Our leaders felt they could not take the chance. If we had done nothing, and then a catastrophe occurred, what would people like crabwalk have said then?
You take the action, like President Bush did, and then you get crucificaton by libs. You don't take the action, and maybe millions would have died.
All that was said in public has been read 2 ways, even though they heard the same things. People that support what we did knew what it meant when it was said and supported it. People like crabwalk and others try to construct they were lied to, because they opposed it to begin with.
It seems like crucificaton by libs is a small price to play for saving perhaps a million lives.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 6:48pm
I just read Senator McCain's bio about his first marriage. WOW! Love that Google. He isn't going to have much to comment on about John Edward the blow back is going to be horrific.
Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2008 @ 8:17pm
"Before the war, most people including Democrats and others in the world believed Saddam to be a threat."
Most people did not believe him to be the sort of threat that justified an invasion and an occupation that has run five years and counting.
"Saddam did at one time possess WMD and we did not know the exact status prior to the war. He was believed by most including Democrats and even countries like France and even his own generals to have WMD."
"Letting Hans Blix wander around Iraq fell way short of what he was required."
He wasn't believed to have that in 2003, largely because the inspections weren't finding anything. Blix wasn't just wandering around, he was conducting the inspections.
"From what we know after the war Saddam intended to start his WMD programs again, had he been let off of the hook, which is where things would headed had George W. Bush and Tony Blair not intervened."
You're presupposing that whatever was going to replace the sanctions regime wouldn't be targeting that and you certainly don't know that he would have been "let off the hook".
"Saddam was developing more and more ties to terror."
Wrong, he had the same ties he always had. Contacts with Hamas, etc. None of that was new.
"You take the action, like President Bush did, and then you get crucificaton by libs. You don't take the action, and maybe millions would have died."
As opposed to the number of people who died anyway? What you have is a deliberate plan of exaggeration of what Hussein had The hysterics of your statement "maybe millions would've died" betray the lengths you have to go to.
To deal with a situation that wasn't even close to dangerous. Bush created a situation that DID lead to the deaths of 100,000 to 1,000,000 violent deaths and the fleeing of millions more
Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 11:25pm
"People that support what we did knew what it meant when it was said and supported it. People like crabwalk and others try to construct they were lied to, because they opposed it to begin with.
It seems like crucificaton by libs is a small price to play for saving perhaps a million lives."
Again, you create an exaggerated threat, just as Bush did, to justify actions that in fact led to a considerable death toll. There's no construction of having been lied to, representing a dubious possibility as a certainty is a lie.
Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2008 @ 11:27pm
<i>The McCains no longer loved each other and that's why they decided to divorce. Carol was well taken care of in the settlement and to this day holds no grudge against John or Cindy.<i/>
So because the First Mrs. McCain "holds no grudge" we should all feel so magnanimous? He dogged his wife as badly as Giuliani and Gingrich dogged theirs.
She married a dashing aviator, bore him three kids, was nearly killed in a car accident but kept that info from him so as to keep his morale up while he was imprisoned. He comes back from the war, sees his pretty young wife ain't the babe he married, so he kicks her to the curb and basically campaigns to woo a young millionaire (17 years his junior) AND gets launched into politics by his new father-in-law. His ex-wife said,
"The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. <b>I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. <b/>I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."
He claimed in his book that his marriage broke up not because of his incarceration but because of his "selfishness and immaturity." That explains the swath of flesh he cut through in Florida while still married to carol.
McCain is no less a dog than John Edwards, except he is an Old Dawg... and for all his yapping about being the "change candidate" remember you can't teach an Old dawg new tricks.
Posted by nyknicks12 at 08/10/2008 @ 12:54am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2008 @ 10:36am
Please cite the specific case as soon as possible. I have a feeling it is not as you portray it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/10/2008 @ 07:42am
Posted by frankgrits at 08/09/2008 @ 8:29pm |
FRANK, if it was Hillary vs. McCain this November...
you'd be all over McCain for his treatment of Carol Shapp.
And everybody knows it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/10/2008 @ 07:43am
Good morning SJ, hope you are well on this fine Sunday morning!
What you did, via your president, was go to war based on "mights, maybes and coulda's". War should be an absolute last resort to counter a direct, and yes, imminent threat. Not because you want revenge against a third party, not because that 3rd party might, sometime in the future, maybe do something bad. As Brunowe pointed out, hundreds of thousands maybe a million people have died as a DIRECT RESULT of your fear of what might have happened a decade on, assuming the worst. Iraq has been ethnically partitioned by brutal force, as a result of policies you advocate.
That is sad and a horrible way to rule. It is the way the soviets, Cubans and Chinese rule
Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2008 @ 10:29am
Want to know what REALLY happened to the USA mens beach volleyball team?
They met with Chimpy in July. They were 8/10 in tournaments till that point. Then they got thumped(!) in the finals in Long Beach. Chimpy met with them in Beijing, then they lost to the 23rd seed out of 24 teams.
What they need is to get that failure funk washed off.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2008 @ 10:36am
thank god edwards got no further. thank god obama avoided courting him for veep. not meaning to pile on john, but that was a huge irresponsible gamble he was taking and as circumsatances turn out...one that WON'T hurt the dems in november.
WHEW!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/10/2008 @ 1:49pm
BOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 1:57pm
Happy, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
See, that is the problem, you war mongers want to draw a link where none exists, and Chimpy and VP Howler Monkey lied to you about the link between Hussein and AQ.
Cheney: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that–it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Dec 9, 2001
But, later he did this
Borger: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Cheney: No, I never said that.
Borger: OK.
Cheney: I never said that.
--
He lies about his lies.
If you think, or thought, that there was any connection between AQ and Iraq, Saddam Hussein and 9/11, then you were a victim of government propaganda and coordinated lies.
--
Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2008 @ 2:17pm
BOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
WHEW! edwards was sufficientlt out of the power spotlight for this to not affect anything. as it is - a sleezy sideshow.
much nicer result in "oh no he didn't!" nation.
perhaps edwards can host a talkshow one day...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/10/2008 @ 2:23pm
not lies.
reformulations.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 2:28pm
New(s)speak.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/10/2008 @ 2:32pm
I don't believe that a public figure should be held to higher standards of personal behavior than the rest of society. A leader's messy personal life doens't necessarily have a relationship to his ability to do a job well. Constant scrutiny can actually prevent good candidates from applying their talents to the public good, because very few candidates have entirely spotless private lives. Europe seems to handle this discrepancy better than the States. Mitterand and his illegitimate daughter, Berlusconi and his affairs, are just a few examples of European leaders'not-so-private lives kept separated from their role as public figure. We would serve democracy better, if we started focusing on the policy and the public work of politicians. Public stature does not equate with private virtue. We are all human, after all.
Posted by Sarasvati at 08/10/2008 @ 2:54pm
It isn't cheating that offends us, it isn't lying that offends us. It's the getting caught cheating and lying because we all know many powerful men cheat on their wives or dump their wives for younger women.
What impressed me as a young woman (and no longer surprises me as a woman of a certain age) is that if the divorce settlement was equitable and the children were cared for a lot of first wives were all but throwing bridal showers for wife number two. Good bye, good riddance and thank God for community property.
Posted by Pogge at 08/10/2008 @ 3:23pm
2happy. My apologies. When I said WE I meant Americans in general, who seem to be very tolerant of adultery in high places, not me in particular. My former husband was a serial adulterer and my father's infidelity destroyed my parents' marriage. I have been happily married for 22 years. As far as I know my husband hasn't been unfaithful and given the quality of his character I doubt he ever will be.
BTW my "settlement " from my first husband consisted of $22,000 in unpaid credit card bills and a 4 1/2 month old baby. I lost everything, house, car, clothes. The women I referred to married well, were treated badly and didn't shed a lot of tears over not being left in poverty. Good for them.
You, as a man, would not love a woman like me and I could not be more grateful.
Posted by Pogge at 08/10/2008 @ 5:02pm
its ugly ugly ugly. the only silver lining is that edwards was not an official anything...
best wishes to the family.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/10/2008 @ 5:50pm
crabwalk and brunowe,
Crabwalk asked the question above "Happy, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? "
Answer: Going into Iraq prevented the next 9/11 from occurring.
You declare no. You say it was propaganda and exaggeration. The problem is, just because libs declare something so doesn't make it so.
In the 1930's, people who believed then as you believe now said discussion of a German threat was an "exaggeration".
A Holocaust and millions of deaths later we found out the German threat was not an exaggeration.
People who believed then as you believe now were wrong then, just as you are wrong now.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2008 @ 6:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2008 @ 6:29pm
How did Iraq prevent another attack on us? Explain it. I want some details. I hear that from the GOPPERS all the time, but none of you ever explain just how blowing all our money, military talent and the world's good will affected Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of head cases one way or the other.
We spend @$623 billion a year on defense. The REST OF THE WORLD spends $500 billion, Iran a puny $4.3 billion and pre-war Iraq was in such desperate financial straits that it was hobbling along with no military funds except the ones they stole from the none too robust "Food for Oil" program. Pardon we Liberals if we weren't wetting our pants in fear. Cripes, I thought you weenies were the tough guys.
Bin Laden got lucky, in part because in August of 2001 GWB had more important things to do than study his security briefings. Stop dumping this on us. 9/11 happened on your watch, not ours!
Posted by Pogge at 08/10/2008 @ 7:35pm
Answer: Going into Iraq prevented the next 9/11 from occurring.
Oh Prunella!
Posted by nyknicks12 at 08/10/2008 @ 7:39pm
"just what I thought, the Left's treating 9/11 as no more than an unfortunate criminal action and you're just so tolerant of the next "unfortunate criminal action" that may seek to outdo 9/11."
Problem with reading comprehension Happy? I never said it was just an unfortunate criminal action. I recently did posts in Alternet defending the invasion of Afghanistan for that reason. However, Afghanistan is an exception and, for the most part, anti-terror actions will require a mix of police and intelligence work...or would you have proposed invading Hamburg to get the al-Qaida cell that had been there.
"Answer: Going into Iraq prevented the next 9/11 from occurring.
You declare no. You say it was propaganda and exaggeration. The problem is, just because libs declare something so doesn't make it so. "
Crabwalk and I have both provided proof. You have shown no Iraq-alQaida link, no Iraqi WMDs, no prospect of either on the horizon. When you're going to shoot up a country, you bear the burden of proof. Trying to compare this to Munich only shows how fact-challenged your position is. Really, your logic consists of:
People underestimated the Nazi threat, therefore an entirely different set of people underestimated the threat from Hussein.
I can't believe you type that with a straight face.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 7:51pm
When you're going to shoot up a country, you bear the burden of proof.
Posted by brunowe at 08/10/2008 @ 7:51pm
Hear, hear. My thought exactly. Where's the beef, figuratively speaking.
Posted by