Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditFormer White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Congress Friday that the Bush-Cheney Administration continues to conceal information about abuses of power committed to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for challenging the President's storyline with regard to the "need" to invade and occupy Iraq.
"This matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what the White House has chosen to conceal from the public," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "Despite assurances that the administration would discuss the matter once the special counsel had completed his work, the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability."
Speaking under oath, the longtime aide to President Bush seemed at times to dumb down his testimony, softening points made in his explosive book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.
In the book and in interviews promoting it, McClellan suggested that key players in the White House -- including political czar Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney -- had at critical points in 2003 lied to him (or, at the least, conspired to keep him in the dark) about their involvement in the leaking information about the fact that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA covert operative.
Before the committee, the former spokesman was more cautious.
"I do not know whether a crime was committed by any of the administration officials who revealed (Wilson's wife) Valerie Plame's identity to reporters. Nor do I know if there was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during the investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons."
McClellan specifically attempted to absolve President Bush, while keeping open the prospect that Cheney was an active conspirator. "I do not think the president had any knowledge (of the efforts to harm Wilson by leaking his wife's identity)," the former spokesman said. "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."
McClellan's testimony confirmed Libby's role in the campaign to discredit Wilson. And he raised new questions about former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card's involvement in the wrongdoing.
Speaking of Libby, who in 2007 was convicted of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice with regard to his involvement with the plot to out Plame Wilson, McClellan said: "He assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not (involved), meaning the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to any reporters, and then I contacted reporters to let them know about that information."
"But," the former spokesman continued, "it was Andy Card that had directed me to do that, at the request of the president and vice president."
If that sounds like a contradiction -- McClellan first suggests Bush had no knowledge of the initiative and then says that he peddled false information at the behest of the President -- it may be. Then again, it is possible that Bush was lied to, as well.
What is clear, however, is that McClellan has provided a baseline of information upon which the Judiciary Committee can and should build a more serious investigation into White House wrongdoing.
Andy Card should be called to testify.
The White House did not invoke a dubious claim to executive privilege to block McClellan's testimony because, Administration aides told CNN, the president and his team determined that "there's nothing new" in their former colleague's testimony.
Fair enough.
Then Card should testify, under oath, about the same matters that McClellan discussed. And if clarity is not achieved, then more members of the Administration should be called.
The committee should get clear about the fact that the founders intended Congress to have the authority to compel testimony by all members of the executive branch, including presidents and vice presidents, when Constitutional questions are in play.
The committee should, as well, get clear on its focus and responsibility.
The job of the House Judiciary Committee when conducting an inquiry of this sort is not to look for specific violations of statutes or the Common Law. The committee is not a congressional version of a criminal investigator.
The job of the committee is to examine whether high crimes and misdemeanors -- the term of art for assaults on the Constitution and the rule of law -- have been committed. The use of an executive position to punish a critic of a monarch or a president is a classic example of a high crime in the traditional sense. And that reading of the language of the Constitution was reaffirmed by the bipartisan House Judiciary Committee votes of 1974 to impeach Richard Nixon for using his office to achieve similar political ends.
The Constitutionally-dictated system of checks and balances requires that Congress hold the executive branch to a higher standard than merely not getting caught committing petty or even serious crimes. The job of the Judiciary Committee is to determine whether the president, the vice president and their aides are operating in a manner that upsets the separation of powers and undermines the functioning of the federal government according to the plan established by the founders in the Constitution and its supporting documents.
McClellan tells Congress that the Bush-Cheney White House "has chosen to conceal (information about abuses of power) from the public."
McClellan tells Congress that "the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability."
It is the responsibility of the Judiciary Committee to apply scrutiny and to demand accountability -- and to recognize that, if the current president and vice president continue to stonewall Congress, then they should face the same sanctions as were applied to Nixon.
Step one is to call Andy Card to testify. That's a natural progression from today's session, and the only way to answer compelling questions raised by McClellan's testimony.
From there, the committee should follow the trail, without apology or compromise, wherever it leads.
While they are at it, Judiciary Committee members ought to acknowledge the obvious: When the former spokesman for the president and the vice president says "the White House has chosen to conceal (information about abuses of power) from the public," this is no longer an inquiry into leaks about the identity of a CIA operative.
This is an investigation of abuses of power at the highest levels of the executive branch. It is, as such, an examination of the sort of high crimes and misdemeanors for which previous presidents have faced the live threat of impeachment.
To sugarcoat that fact is to insult not just the intents of the founders but the American people, who still believe that an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution should amount to more than just a mumbled phrase on inauguration day.
Convention News & Analysis »
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
Covert.
Yes, she was.
thanks Scotty, late to the party.
Now come the attacks on you, not defense of the substance of your allegations.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 3:41pm
I believe I detect the fragrant notes of impeachment in the........
NOT.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/20/2008 @ 3:55pm
Oh boy! Impeachment! Again!
And here's one even YOU whackos haven't thought of yet!
"Lou Dobbs: Bush Should Be Impeached for Salmonella Outbreak CNN host says leadership in 'sorry condition' and inability to 'protect the American consumer' is 'sufficient reason to impeach a president.'
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 6/20/2008 12:47:50 PM
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
CNN's Lou Dobbs has been on a tear about the recent tainted-tomato salmonella outbreak, but this time he's taken it a step further and is calling for the ultimate political punishment.
The "Lou Dobbs Tonight" host placed the blame for the recent salmonella outbreak squarely on President George W. Bush, calling for his impeachment on the June 19 broadcast. Contaminated tomatoes from an unknown source or sources have sickened 383 people since April, according to the Associated Press."
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:03pm
I just hope its not to little to late,and the dems seem to be spineless now,going along with the telecom industry,pelosi still not budgeing on impeachment.I see little hope,maybe they will prove me wrong.
Posted by eniobob at 06/20/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
"Covert. Yes, she was. thanks Scotty, late to the party. Now come the attacks on you, not defense of the substance of your allegations."
Hey CRABBIE, you forgot to reference all those anonymous posters on HuffPost who said Plame was covert too! And if that's not enough to PROVE she was covert, what is?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:04pm
The real embarrassing thing for the administration is hiring Scott in the first place. Ari was annoying to most of us, but much more calculating and seemingly smart. Sorry Scott- you're the chubby kid crying on the school bus. Hmm, maybe that's why they hired him.
Posted by phillymark at 06/20/2008 @ 4:06pm
Hmm. So far, we've got SOOO many reasons to impeach the President! Salmonella outbreaks, hurricanes, political disagreements of ALL KINDS...if that's not enough, what is?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:06pm
PONTI,
First, nobody but Mr Nichols and HSUBFOOLS still thinks impeachment is possible...and even HSUB has gotten antsy lately about it still being possible.
Second, the "Blame Bush for Everything" contingent is easily matched by the "Hold Bush BLAMELESS for ANYTHING" contingent like you.
Third, love to see how lackadaisical you're going to be about possible wrong-doing in the White House when...
it's an OBAMA Administration!
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 4:15pm
Hey CRABBIE, you forgot to reference all those anonymous posters on HuffPost who said Plame was covert too! And if that's not enough to PROVE she was covert, what is?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 |
Hey dipshit, do you mean such anonymous posters as:
the CIA
The Justice Dept
The Press Secretary of the President of the United States
??
Or do you mean the anonymous poster that claimed I was a financial planner?
Or those that claimed there was a democratic witch hunt with no dems?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
Until Scott McClellan passes down an indictment, we know who the dipshit is! Now don't we!
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:31pm
Or maybe it was the leftist posters that claimed those wmd's have been moved to Syria?
Or the anonymous guy that claimed "We found the wmd's"?
Or those that claimed Libby simply "misspoke" to the FBI, Grand Jury and McCLellan?
Or maybe it was those "independent military analysts" you listened to?
Or was it Armstrong Williams?
Or maybe what it is is that McClellan has been mindwiped by the lefty borg and is lying now, but was not a part of the "culture of deception" in the White House?
Or, could it be the guy that said on these pages that Bush has NEVER lost a court case?
Or was it that fellow that claimed Muhammad Atta met Iraq agents in Prague?
Maybe you could explain to us morons why it is off shore drilling is the talk du-jour, when the oil industry has about 68,000,000 acres of federal land on lease that it is not drilling? Or maybe you could spread the lie that China is drilling off the coast of Florida, why can't we? Or that Jeb Bush is part of the NIMBY LEFT!!!
Yea, bring it on PONTI, your history with facts leaves more to be desired than Chimpies.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:37pm
Until Scott McClellan passes down an indictment, we know who the dipshit is! Now don't we!
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
The person who believes that abuse of executive power is not a reason to impeach someone? Or is it the person who places more weight on a President getting a blowjob than a President using provenly falsified evidence to justify a war?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
Wow, three canards in one post! Can anyone else top that?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:41pm
Hmm. So far, we've got SOOO many reasons to impeach the President! Salmonella outbreaks, hurricanes, political disagreements of ALL KINDS...if that's not enough, what is?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
How about the illegal wiretapping of US citizens (US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sec 1805 ), torture (violation US Anti-torture law-Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C), turning the Justice Department into a political machine, suspending Habea Corpus, violated Posse Comitatus (U.S.C. Title 18, Section 1385), dereliction of duty by ignoring repeated intelligence warnings og high level terrorist attack prior to 9/11 (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution)?
Is that enough for you, or should I go on?
Posted by BizarroRio at 06/20/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
"Maybe you could explain to us morons why it is off shore drilling is the talk du-jour, when the oil industry has about 68,000,000 acres of federal land on lease that it is not drilling?"
Maybe because there's no oil there?
"Or maybe you could spread the lie that China is drilling off the coast of Florida, why can't we?"
Who would stop them if they wanted to? You?
"Or that Jeb Bush is part of the NIMBY LEFT!!!"
NIMBY right, more like it.
And how's that impeachment workin' out for ya!
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
Until Scott McClellan passes down an indictment, we know who the dipshit is! Now don't we!
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
George Bush's very own Justice Dept? Or the CIA? Or you?
tough call. eenie miney moe.
oohh, moe! It's you!
C'mon Ponti, lets hear some more "facts" from your list of paid propagandists.
Look! Here is one of the ones you bought:
[ Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Q Can I follow up on that?
Q They were not involved in what?
MR. McCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.
Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these --
MR. McCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.]
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 06/20/2008
"Is that enough for you, or should I go on?"
Gee, you must be some kind of legal genius. You seem to be the only one aware that all those laws may have been broken? Well, either a genius, or out of touch with reality.
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
Well, gee CRABBIE. How many Congressmen have voted for impeachment? That's kind of important, you know, because they're the only ones that matter. So tell me, how many votes for impeachment you got?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:49pm
ahh, I see, PONTI. Oil companies have leased 68,000,000 acres for the express purpose of drilling for oil and natural gas, but in fact there is nothing there?
fascinating.
So, they are just wasting money?
Is this the same line of arguments that says no refineries have been built because someone MIGHT bring an environmental suit against a company that has a seat on the regulatory body and has extensive knowledge of how to work within existing regulation? Meanwhile they buy up and close independent refineries because....?
And, I suppose the latest FISA talk in the House is there because nobody broke any laws, they just want immunity because...?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
"Or is it the person who places more weight on a President getting a blowjob than a President using provenly falsified evidence to justify a war?"
Okay, folks! How many of you geniuses think hundreds of Congressmen voted to impeach Clinton for a blow job? And how many of you fever swampers actually read the news, and discovered that Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the American people?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:52pm
Ponti says:
"detainees at Gitmo are terrorists captured on the battlefield and it would be harmful to me if they are given trials or told what the charges are".
But, only 4% of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan or Iraq. The rest were found elsewhere and several hundred were sold to the US as bounty.
almost 800 have been held at GITMO, less than 250 remain, yet the other 500 + have not reappeared in "the battlefield" to attack US troops.
More propaganda eaten by Pontificus.
Don't get caught in that paper bag of logic PONTI. Or in Iraq fighting for your "freedoms"
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:54pm
"The person who believes that abuse of executive power is not a reason to impeach someone? Or is it the person who places more weight on a President getting a blowjob than a President using provenly falsified evidence to justify a war?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
C3, beliveing someone did something is not grounds for an indictment. Unless Scott McCellon actually witnessed the whole thing, the judiciary committee has nothing to go on.
And yes, "lying" to a federal grand jury under oath bears more weight than lying not under oath.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 4:55pm
Ponti, Clinton "misspoke".
buwahahaha.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:56pm
What did the Senate say to those charges of misspeaking?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
"ahh, I see, PONTI. Oil companies have leased 68,000,000 acres for the express purpose of drilling for oil and natural gas, but in fact there is nothing there?fascinating.So, they are just wasting money?"
Uh, yes, CRABBIE. Believe it or not, that's the way the oil companies often work. Land is, quite frequently, leased at a cost, and no drilling is ever done because it's determined to be unfeasible. But I realize I waste my time explaining the workings of the real world to you, so feel free to rant on, my friend.
"Is this the same line of arguments that says no refineries have been built because someone MIGHT bring an environmental suit against a company that has a seat on the regulatory body and has extensive knowledge of how to work within existing regulation? Meanwhile they buy up and close independent refineries because....?"
No refineries have been built because they won't get permitted, and even if they were permitted, they'd be uneconomical to run. This is courtesy of you and your moronic ilk, who think that pristine environments are free for the asking. Thus, the oil companies shift operations overseas, thus limiting domestic capacity, and driving up the price of propane for your double-wide. Leaving you to bitch and moan and wonder why propane is so expensive, when it's really a result of your own stupidity and that of others like you. No doubt you kick yourself in the ass and blame it on the right, too.
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 4:57pm
BOO!
Careful of your shadow, and that devil dirty bomber!
outa here!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
Oh, those poor, poor terrorists! They're all innocent, right? You've got such a big bleeding liberal heart CRABBIE!
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 5:00pm
No refineries have been built because they won't get permitted, and even if they were permitted, they'd be uneconomical to run. This is courtesy of you and your moronic ilk, who think that pristine environments are free for the asking. Thus, the oil companies shift operations overseas, thus limiting domestic capacity, and driving up the price of propane for your double-wide. Leaving you to bitch and moan and wonder why propane is so expensive, when it's really a result of your own stupidity and that of others like you. No doubt you kick yourself in the ass and blame it on the right, too.
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
Yep, that's right PONTi. That is why I received a letter of apology from from an Inergy subsidiary along with a refund for "overcharging". That is why the republican AG threatened a class action suit.
It is also why the FERC found ENRON guilty of manipulating markets in California in 200,2001. And the SEC found them guilty of lying about their underlying economic stability.
It was all the environmentalists fault.
Yep, no question about it.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 5:02pm
770-250= 520 people not guilty of scaring you.
As for the rest, who proved them guilty of being terrorists? I have no doubt some of them are, but which ones?
i know, I know. Chimpy said they are, so in your mind all detainees ever held are guilty until proven innocent in a military tribunal using evidence gained by torture, no right to review certain evidence, no right to meet with counsel outside of the hearing of guards and possibly no right to read any charges until the day of the tribunal.
these are the freedoms you are so unwilling to fight for?
Now I have to get back to work. Maybe someone else will help you peddle your propaganda.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 5:07pm
"How about the illegal wiretapping of US citizens (US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sec 1805 ), torture (violation US Anti-torture law-Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C), turning the Justice Department into a political machine, suspending Habea Corpus, violated Posse Comitatus (U.S.C. Title 18, Section 1385), dereliction of duty by ignoring repeated intelligence warnings og high level terrorist attack prior to 9/11 (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution)?
Is that enough for you, or should I go on?
Posted by BizarroRio at 06/20/2008
Bizarro, what proof do you have that such laws were broken?
Illegal Wiretapping - Telecom was given immunity, so no prosecution there.
Torture - Who in America was tortured by the current administration?
Turning the Justice Department into a political machine - What proof do you have?
Suspending Habeas Corpus - Was never "suspended" for American citizens. Nor is it a right for foreign nationals who are not citizens of this country.
Violating Posse Comitatus - The Bush adminsitration has never used the military as law enforcement in this country.
And the last one is so over the top. Also, please do us a big favor and stop while you're ahead, OK?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 5:08pm
"Choosing to conceal," the crimes of willfully misleading the people and congress to vote for the authorization of force when substanitial evidence existed that the threats alleged were known by the President, Vice President and their chief staff to be very doubtful.
For the love of the Constitution and the restitution of the rule of law in our republic, investigate and reinstate the special prosecutor postition.
The Department of Justice has failed to funtion effectively in its essential tasks due to political influence. The Judiciary Committee is the final fire-wall to the utter damage from failure to account for abuse of power.
Posted by puravidavid at 06/20/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
CRABBIE, if you actually asked someone who worked in the refinery industry, you might actually learn something about it. Yes, of course, I know you won't actually do that, because the world, without your paranoid fantasies, would then become infinitely more complex for you, and thus far less bearable.
One other question. How many votes does Scott McClellan have in the House? How many anonymous posters here and at other locales in the fever swamps? How IS your vote count going in Congress? Taken any polls lately?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 5:09pm
The problem for you, CRABBIE, is if you don't have the system to blame for the fact that you are loser, then you might have to look in the mirror.
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 5:11pm
"almost 800 have been held at GITMO, less than 250 remain, yet the other 500 + have not reappeared in "the battlefield" to attack US troops."
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008
Crabbie what proof do you have that those "500+" former detainees have not reappeared in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 5:12pm
Face it "Ficus", you've been outclassed.
And out "phylum"-ed for that matter.
Of course, nothing new on these threads, but nice job Crab dude.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/20/2008 @ 5:13pm
"For the love of the Constitution and the restitution of the rule of law in our republic, investigate and reinstate the special prosecutor postition."
Posted by puravidavid at 06/20/2008
Sorry, PD, but investigate what? There is no hard binding evidence. Everyone loves to talk, but they have nothing to back it up with.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 5:19pm
they have nothing to back it up with.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
Thanks to "executive privilege"
Posted by Balrog at 06/20/2008 @ 5:29pm
Thanks to "executive privilege"
Posted by Balrog at 06/20/2008
Sorry, Balrog, can't lay this one at Bush's feet either. His predecessors were doing calling executive privilege well before he got in office.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 5:40pm
Posted by Balrog at 06/20/2008
"Thanks to "executive privilege""
So, in other words, you know they're all guilty as sin, you just don't have any proof?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 @ 5:41pm
Yeah...kinda like you and the "terrorists".
Posted by Balrog at 06/20/2008 @ 5:42pm
If the serial crimes committed by this White House do not deserve impeachment we might as well throw it out as a check against executive abuses. No President in history even comes close to the level of criminality of Bush, yet the spineless Democrats don't want to be troubled to uphold their Constitutional obligation. Witness Steny Hoyer, spineless representative from my state, who capitulates to telecom immunity, absolving telecoms of actions that only Qwest had the common sense to reject. Their reward for following the law? Loss of government contracts. What a parable for times that Orwell could only dream of.
Posted by waters at 06/20/2008 @ 6:07pm
Posted by waters at 06/20/2008
Actually Waters, Qwest is a little fish in a very big ocean. Congress could care less about those guys. It's Ma Bell they need to keep happy.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 6:18pm
Once again I see the blind sheep of the conservative ilk, finger pointing at clinton again... lol... really ..?? you guys see nothing wrong with anything YOUR president or his administration has done..?? The quagmire in Iraq is worth it..?? Is your common sense suspended when you become a hard core republican..?? All your radios in your home superglued to AM..?? Every tv tuned to FOX..?? SAD....
This thread was about mcclellan.. an insider in the administration... somehow he's full of shit now, but wasnt full of shit then...
All I keep reading from the ditto-heads on here is (in best parrot impression) is "prove it...Brattt! Prove it..(whistle)".... really?? the lies and deliberate deceit are so abundant, where would a commitee start ..??
Bratt... Polly want a special prosecutor !! bratt !!
Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:33pm
Nice post, Waters.
I completely empathize, and I wish to hell that the damn Dems would grow a spine --although they increasingly do appear to possess tails as well as perhaps horns.
Obsequious, groveling, pathetic creatures by and large.
By the way, Waters of Maryland, you wouldn't happen to be John would you?
Just a toss in the darkness.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:35pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
"Or is it the person who places more weight on a President getting a blowjob than a President using provenly falsified evidence to justify a war?"
Okay, folks! How many of you geniuses think hundreds of Congressmen voted to impeach Clinton for a blow job? And how many of you fever swampers actually read the news, and discovered that Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the American people?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
I didn't say he got impeached for that. The reason he was at trial in the first place was about a blowjob. He then lied because it's none of congresses damn business about his personal life. That is why I say that. The Republican Congress was willing to spend millions to try Clinton and then he lied and they got their bait. Yet a President who is a chronic liar doesn't get tried. Nice try ponti. Go read some more propaganda.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:44pm
Ponti says:
"detainees at Gitmo are terrorists captured on the battlefield and it would be harmful to me if they are given trials or told what the charges are".
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Of course, Crab, Ponti's scared shitless of Gitmo detainees. It's the same cowardice that keeps him safe and sound behind his keyboard (and probably cowering under his blankee at night), rather than fighting his right-wing illegal war of land grab/oil theft in Iraq. Ponti is a typical right-wing America-hater, a blame-American-ideals first kind of a jellyfish who, no doubt, once feared the commies under every bed, but now fears the "terrorists" under every bed, along with whatever other paranoid delusions he harbors. Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you say?
Posted by jmusolino at 06/20/2008 @ 6:46pm
Okay, folks! How many of you geniuses think hundreds of Congressmen voted to impeach Clinton for a blow job? And how many of you fever swampers actually read the news, and discovered that Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the American people?
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Hey, dumbass, are you going to maintain that Bush didn't lie to the American people? There is more than sufficient evidence to pursue an indictment in Congress (you know, genius, an impeachment). You remember the yellowcake business, don't you? The shifting rationale? The fact that you can tell he's lying simply because his lips are moving. Yeah, bright light, he lied. To Congress. To you. To real Americans. And 4,100 real Americans are dead because of your Dear Leader's lies. Thousands more real Americans are severely wounded, again because of your Dear Leader's lies. Not to mention as many as 1.2 million Iraqi civilians. All of them dead because of your Dear Leader's lies. By the way, lying to Congress is a criminal offense. In case you were wondering.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/20/2008 @ 6:59pm
Speaking of concealing the truth, it would appear that Obama just backed the domestic spying initiative that the (whore) Democrats in the House just passed.
He's almost to the Clinton level of whorish-ness himself, with the way he kissed the AIPAC kiesters and is now kow-towing in front of the telco lobby.
Not that I know what anyone else would expect from an American politician ...
Still, he is infinitely preferable to Clinton-McCain.
Posted by Zero at 06/20/2008 @ 7:29pm
"I didn't say he got impeached for that. The reason he was at trial in the first place was about a blowjob. He then lied because it's none of congresses damn business about his personal life. That is why I say that."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
C3, you got it wrong again. Not only did Clinton deliberately lie under oath to a federal grand jury, he also obstructed a federal investigation. You can't do that even if you are the President.
The main reason he was on trial was because of Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment (she accused him of groping and fondling her, which is a very serious offense.) He did everything he could to dodge that bullet.
Now mind you, this case would not have grew legs had Monica Lewinsky not opened her big mouth to Linda Tripp and her mother saving that blue dress.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 8:45pm
C3, you got it wrong again. Not only did Clinton deliberately lie under oath to a federal grand jury, he also obstructed a federal investigation. You can't do that even if you are the President.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
Kind of like Bush getting legislation passed to say he couldn't be investigated?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 8:52pm
"There is more than sufficient evidence to pursue an indictment in Congress."
Posted by jmusolino at 06/20/2008
Question JS, if there was sufficient evidence to pursue articles of impeachment in the House, then why was it kept off the table? Nancy Pelosi had the ball in her court.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 8:56pm
Violating Posse Comitatus - The Bush adminsitration has never used the military as law enforcement in this country.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
Actually, himself did worse than that.
In his apathetic, inept and churlish response to Katrina, Boosh sent in the thugs from Blackwater, the goons that seem more and more to be his Immortal Incompetence's private army.
Why would he have to resort to such measures?
Among other things, the National Guard is occupied occupying another country.
So quintessentially Boosh - sending in privately hired thugs - accountable to no one - to provide what should have been provided by the government, unavailable because of a monumental screw up of his own making.
It would be a comedy of errors, except that there is nothing funny about any of it.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 8:59pm
"Kind of like Bush getting legislation passed to say he couldn't be investigated?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
Wha?!?! What legislation are you talking about?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 9:00pm
"Thanks to "executive privilege""
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
'Executive Privilege' is neoconista for 'Obstruction of Justice'
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:02pm
"Kind of like Bush getting legislation passed to say he couldn't be investigated?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
Wha?!?! What legislation are you talking about?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
No idea, but let's not forget that among the first acts of the Cheney administration was to extend the time that administration records are sealed.
At the time, I thought it was to protect Poppy from prosecution over Iran-Contra.
Now it sure looks as though these nefarious bastards did it to indemnify themselves.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:05pm
In his apathetic, inept and churlish response to Katrina, Boosh sent in the thugs from Blackwater, the goons that seem more and more to be his Immortal Incompetence's private army.
Among other things, the National Guard is occupied occupying another country.
So quintessentially Boosh - sending in privately hired thugs - accountable to no one - to provide what should have been provided by the government, unavailable because of a monumental screw up of his own making.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008
You're kidding right!? There were no reports of Blackwater in LA at the time. Get your fact straight. Less you forget, it was General Russell Honoree (from the LA National Guard) who took over command operations around the third day. Only the guard units in NO was washed out, not the rest of the state.
Lastly, the US has roughly 900K National Guardsmen. Only 150K are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 9:10pm
C3, you got it wrong again. Not only did Clinton deliberately lie under oath to a federal grand jury, he also obstructed a federal investigation. You can't do that even if you are the President.
The main reason he was on trial was because of Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment (she accused him of groping and fondling her, which is a very serious offense.) He did everything he could to dodge that bullet.
Now mind you, this case would not have grew legs had Monica Lewinsky not opened her big mouth to Linda Tripp and her mother saving that blue dress.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
But you are forgetting Cookster, that it was the douche nugget Ken Starr's fishing expedition (the Whitewater 'investigation') that was turned into a farce by the republicker Congress that led to P. Jones in the first place.
Tell me again how many sacred souls were lost over lying about a hummer?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:12pm
Lastly, the US has roughly 900K National Guardsmen. Only 150K are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
But it's not just boots on the ground. It's equipment and logistical support that is lacking because of your hero.
Do a little research and I think that you will find that Blackwater presented themselves early on and without invitation (at least from those in NOLA)
Here's a link from blackwater's own website:
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2005/archive/090505btw.html
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:16pm
You're kidding right!? There were no reports of Blackwater in LA at the time.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
You wanna recant your previous statement?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:19pm
You wanna recant your previous statement?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008
Or do you want to be a typical new con and pretend you've never been demonstrably wrong about anything?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 9:23pm
"But you are forgetting Cookster, that it was the douche nugget Ken Starr's fishing expedition (the Whitewater 'investigation') that was turned into a farce by the republicker Congress that led to P. Jones in the first place.
Tell me again how many sacred souls were lost over lying about a hummer?"
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008
No, you're the one that's forgetting. Paul Jones was pursuing her own case. Her case has nothing to do with Whitewater.
A hummer!?!?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 9:49pm
Acook... are you playing coy ..?? or just plain ignorant of facts..?? I mean, you cant believe your own bullshit can you ..??
once again the Clintons dominate your thoughts... Stay on topic ... jesus christ... Mclellan... The point man who lied then or now..?? Then or now..?? which is worse..??
BTW.. Did you realize what a magical penis Bill Clinton had..?? Just a peek at his pecker gets you hundreds of thousands of dollars... Paula Jones, so offended that Clinton 'put the moves' on her... She was so devastated that she posed for playboy and wrote a book... Flowers.. book deal, tabloid deal... Mizzz Lewinsky... cosmetics, fashion ... tabloid deal, Book... That is the unsavory part..... Hummer=Blowjob.... not so hip, r u..??
Blackwater.... All over NOLA after Katrina... PS.. your boy did a wonderful job of Katrina BTW... Bravo Zulu Bush... (too busy 'clearin brush')..
PRESIDENTIN' IS HARD !!
Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/20/2008 @ 10:08pm
Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/20/2008
You really need to get over yourself. I didn't bring the topic up on BC first.
As for the Blackwater angle, I've not read anywhere that they were in NOLA at the time.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 10:55pm
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
Ponti, If you watch Lou Dobbs enough, you'll notice that he's pretty much backing your boy McIdiot so I wouldn't be casting too many stones at Lou if I were you.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 11:01pm
Or is it the person who places more weight on a President getting a blowjob than a President using provenly falsified evidence to justify a war?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
CC, Don't you know that rethugs only have sex to reproduce... you know, be fruitful and multiply.
A blowjob is a cardinal sin. Why, all of those sperm going to waste. Who knows how many little Bill Clintons are on that dress.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 11:03pm
Bizarro, what proof do you have that such laws were broken?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Do you even pay attention to the world around you? Did you actually take the time to research the laws that were broken? I am not a prosecuter, I do not collect evidence. If you took the time to read the laws, and paid attention to public affairs- the President has flat out publicly admitted that he has committed many of the crimes I have listed.
I referenced the laws and news articles are avialable that are easily verifiable. So, Why don't you go and do some reading kiddo?
Posted by BizarroRio at 06/20/2008 @ 11:04pm
Did any of you read the Bugliosi Versus Bush article? Now that would be interesting to say the least. I'd love to see W on the witness chair with this guy as the prosecuting attorney. W would crap his ivy league pants.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 11:07pm
"Do a little research and I think that you will find that Blackwater presented themselves early on and without invitation (at least from those in NOLA)
Here's a link from blackwater's own website:
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2005/archive/090505btw.html
You wanna recant your previous statement?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008
No, why should I recant when you can't keep the story straight? First you say Bush brought in Blackwater, then you recant and say Blackwater invited themselves. Which is it?...
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 11:07pm
Well, either a genius, or out of touch with reality.
Posted by pontificus at 06/20/2008
No Ponti, the Crabster is correct. The rest of us have pretty much given up on trying to reason with a rock.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 11:12pm
"Do you even pay attention to the world around you? Did you actually take the time to research the laws that were broken? I am not a prosecuter, I do not collect evidence. If you took the time to read the laws, and paid attention to public affairs- the President has flat out publicly admitted that he has committed many of the crimes I have listed.
I referenced the laws and news articles are avialable that are easily verifiable. So, Why don't you go and do some reading kiddo?"
Posted by BizarroRio at 06/20/2008
I pay attention only to the laws of the US, not the world. The "laws" you cite have not been used against any American citizens within it's borders. And yes, I will grant you the telecom company and the WH got around the FISA law. But they were granted immunity, so Congress has no case. Neither does the people.
So, from where I sit, you can't name one case against the government in which her citizens were tortured, had habeaus corpus suspended, or had the military taking over police duties within her borders.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 11:24pm
FOX News interview with John McCain on March 13, 2008, in which McCain said, "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."
Must be a fair n' balanced comment.
Less known comment, "I didn't really love America until I scored the beer heir blonde"
Posted by winyahn at 06/20/2008 @ 11:33pm
Question JS, if there was sufficient evidence to pursue articles of impeachment in the House, then why was it kept off the table? Nancy Pelosi had the ball in her court.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Because, sadly, the Democrats continue to lack the spine for such an undertaking. It's not that impeachment is wrong, or constitutionally incorrect - the concept of a free society demands the impeachment of leaders who abuse power and act as a criminal enterprise, as these thugs have done for the past 7+ years. No, the problem is that impeachment is hard work, and it requires the courage to defend the Constitution. The Republicans have made it more than clear that they utterly loathe the Constitution, and too many Democrats in Congress have made it equally clear that they could care less.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/21/2008 @ 12:20am
jmusolino: Alas, you're right. The Dems for the most don't care, they just want their turn at the trough.
"It is the responsibility of the Judiciary Committee to apply scrutiny and to demand accountability." JN
And so far they haven't. They don't seem to have prepared properly, if they're not following up McClellan's testimony with contradictory material taken directly from his book & TV appearances. The Committee should be pinning him down, to build a record for a case. But it appears otherwise. It appears as if they are (un)wittingly providing him with a marketing platform, while undermining the case for impeachment &/or criminal prosecution.
The whiny fat kid on the bus may go sniffling all the way to the bank.
BTW: in the unlikely event that W is ever prosecuted, he won't be wiggling in the courtroom witness chair, unless he voluntarily waives his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. The burden of proof will lie entirely with the prosecution. He does not have to incriminate himself.
Posted by sloper at 06/21/2008 @ 12:37am
Illegal Wiretapping - Telecom was given immunity, so no prosecution there.
Torture - Who in America was tortured by the current administration?
Turning the Justice Department into a political machine - What proof do you have?
Suspending Habeas Corpus - Was never "suspended" for American citizens. Nor is it a right for foreign nationals who are not citizens of this country.
That immunity hasn't passed the Senate...yet. Further it doesn't change the fact that the administration violated the law.
So if we torture people in Afghanistan and Gitmo and whatever other "black" detention sites we have worldwide, then it doesn't count?
The entire attorney-firing scandal that Gonzalez ultimately had to resign over.
But it is a right applicable to persons under US jurisdiction.
Posted by brunowe at 06/21/2008 @ 01:49am
No, you're the one that's forgetting. Paul Jones was pursuing her own case. Her case has nothing to do with Whitewater.
A hummer!?!?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
"Hummer" is common parlance for fellatio, as in a 'road hummer.' You figure it out.
Hint: it ain't an SUV.
The Paula Jones BS got dragged into Whitewater by Ken Starr; Starr went on a fishing expedition for which there was no indication.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2008 @ 07:00am
No, why should I recant ...?
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
As for the Blackwater angle, I've not read anywhere that they were in NOLA at the time.
Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008
Sure looks as though your original statement is proven wrong.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2008 @ 07:11am
ACOOK
Jose Padilla was held without charges for 3 1/2 years. He was subject to "harsh interrogation". The US guvt would not allow Padillas attorneys to communicate with him for months.
[José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists. Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts. Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court after pressure from civil liberties groups. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. José Padilla was found guilty of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He was widely described in media as a suspect of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, but he was not convicted on this charge.]
Do you remember Cheney talking about how dangerous it would be for Padilla to explode a dirty bomb? He went on about it for weeks. If the case was so strong, why was he not charged with being a "dirty bomber"?
Maher Hawash was held for weeks without charges being filed.
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was kidnapped on US soil, sent to Syria, where he was tortured.
At least 520 men were taken from their homes in the ME, bagged and dragged to Cuba, where they were held for up to 2 years without charges being filed, then released because THEY WERE NO THREAT TO YOU. Some have been there for 6 years, no charges have been filed.
Sounds more like Castro or Pinochet than the "...home of the brave."
All of this is because you and PONTIFICUS are scared and unwilling to go fight or even go talk to people that you are afraid of.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2008 @ 08:54am
The main gist of this blog today is the former Press Secretary of the President of the United States, speaking under oath, telling the United States that the administration he worked for was
untruthful, deceptive and continues to hide the truth form the people that pay their wages.
We can see by the falsities that ACOOK and PONTI still cling to that McCllelan is right on the money. He is not the first person to say these things, he is not part of the "left", he was THERE! He is saying that YES! the Presidents advisors LIED to him, then he carried those lies to the public.
But, the sheep are so convinced that it is "the left" that is "out to get" Bush that they gloss over the dozens of false statements made by the admin, gloss over the fact that Bush admitted breaking the FISA laws, gloss over the fact that the civil libertarians on the right have been outraged for years, gloss over the fact that Iraq was no threat to them.
Look at ACOOK. She says that Blackwater was not in La. It is simply an untrue statement. It is shown that she is wrong, so she makes a modifying clause to her statement, attempting to make some kind of argument that even though the federal guvt paid Blackwater, they were acting on there own. ????
PonitFlogic continues to attempt to mock me and a non-existent "trailer" (1st a single wide, now double, which is it ponti? ) over propane prices. I have shown him where the republican attorney general says the propane supplier manipulated prices, breaking the laws of MI, they broke written contracts , they are paying out refunds and offering apologies, but Ponti insists that it is simply "supply and demand".
Arguing with rocks is about right.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2008 @ 09:07am
Just a toss in the darkness.
Posted by b_kool_66
that John no longer lives in Maryland, it has been reported.
besides he is a big star, and surely too busy to post on this backwater site.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 09:21am
I mean it's not exactly the best and the brightest here. Pontz? Liverty? ACook? Frank?
I admire the ones with the fortitude to take them on, an activity I compare to cleaning out the Augurian stables.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 09:28am
I admire the ones with the fortitude to take them on, an activity I compare to cleaning out the Augurian stables.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008
The experience of it is really more like Prometheus, the Titan whose liver was eaten daily by a vulture, only to regenerate the next day.
Interestingly, the liver is the only organ in adult humans with any significant regenerative capacity (at least until shit-for-brains is gone from the WH and we can do more in the way of full spectrum stem cell research).
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2008 @ 11:04am
Didn't think Scotty would be as spineless before the committee, but, overall, I'm entitled to an "I told you so." By next wednesday, the MSM will be babbling about something else.
Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/21/2008 @ 11:05am
the analogy breaks down when we consider Prometheus' other claim to fame. enlightenment.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 11:29am
"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Hey, we 'are' living in a petty dic'tatorship. They have trashed our constitution. Our congress no longer has its constitutional power. Our DoJ is compromised and corrupted. Our SCOTUS is weak and partisan... There is no rule of law, it's rule by petty dic'tatorship.
In order for our congress to impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin for their crimes, they'd have to revolt against the MIC MAD GOP that is aligned with the petty dic'tatorship which has most of them by their financial balls. Corporations would have to be legally de-personified as far as petitioning/lobbying our congress which is in itself a constitutional contortion at best, and at its shear basis-- corrupt.
But as they say, "Better too late than never...."
Man are we fucked.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2008 @ 12:02pm
Bush won't be impeached. Cheney won't be impeached. The next president (Obama or McCain, whoever) will use the draconian powers that Bush has created for the office. The President is the IMPERATOR, the chief executive boss, beyond legal recourse, beyond impeachment. Imperator segues into Emperor...
Posted by mikecope at 06/21/2008 @ 12:04pm
mikecope
take off those rose colored glasses at once.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 1:20pm
the analogy breaks down when we consider Prometheus' other claim to fame. enlightenment.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008
Does it?
I'm not sure that I would consider myself enlightened, but if any side in these mutterings can claim to be enlightened, it would be our side.
Dealing with the nitwits is very much like having an internal organ pecked out, only to have to do it all over again the next day.
I'd argue that the analogy holds up.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2008 @ 1:36pm
if enlightenment came, and for many it obviously has come, it wasn't in these pages. we have no Prometheus here.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 2:10pm
Prometheus, against orders from the home office, brought fire and light, enlightenment.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 2:11pm
One could say that we were all once Prometheus. That our fires have been bought and sold; we have been diminished but are not quite yet squelched. We see through mirrored sun-glasses covered with too many unimportant things we fear losing. And at once also being our own created gods, we're paralyzed in the process of savaging ourselves with this truth of losing, being lost.
And what is the a greater truth?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2008 @ 3:27pm
hsuBfools
you really had me going there.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 5:22pm
acook... you really need to stop telling people they really need to (fill in blank) ... and while your at it .. get your right wing head out of your right wing ass and read... Dont let the facts get in the way !!
Wash your no spin zone tee today ... Its starting to smell...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/21/2008 @ 6:28pm
Vvf1969
you have clocked her/his scene perfectly.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 10:05pm
Well it seems that Blatherificus and AKook are still vomitting up their drivel while typing with their eyes closed, along with their minds.
Some things never change. The fact remain that this Bush White House has outted a CIA agent. None of the blather and drivel will ever change that.
Blatherificus and AKook would not know the truth if it hit them between the eyes with a 2X4. Any attempt to dissuade them is a fools mission. let them live in their bubble where up is down and right is wrong and everything that BushCo does, well Clinton did it first. Too bad for them, the "real" world is so much better then life down the rabbit hole. Sucks to be them....
"We (the R's and C's) are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right." - George Orwell
Posted by COProgressive at 06/22/2008 @ 01:59am
This all seems like some kabuki dance. Like some bizarre soap opera for the masses meaning nothing except to increase the power of the executive and the legislative over people not belonging to the privileged few. Power over, In the words of one Norman Ravitch in one of his letters in "The Nation" "the rabble".Granted Norman was referring to the masses being excluded from some of the nicer places in the country by price.
Posted by julien38 at 06/22/2008 @ 06:34am
ACOOK, I, and you, forgot Yaser Hamdi, a US citizen that Chimpy tried to hold without charge. That was the first court case Chimpy lost in the GITMO/Stalinist fiasco.
------
Remember when Chimpy told us that "the lawyers approved" his schemes? Turns out, as usual, Chimpy was holding the truth under his butt cheeks.
[By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2008; Page A01
Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court. But such advice, issued periodically over the past six years, was ignored or discounted, according to current and former administration officials familiar with the debates.
In August 2006, for example, the top lawyer at the State Department told senior officials at the White House that unless they won a congressional mandate that broadly supported their system of detaining terrorism suspects, their goal of keeping the detainees locked up was in jeopardy. "I can virtually guarantee you, without a legislative basis, federal courts are not going to be willing to uphold the indefinite detention of unlawful combatants," John B. Bellinger III warned in an e-mail.]
This goes along with Chimpies torture policies, he claims "the lawyers approve it", leaving out the fact that most of the lawyers did not approve, including the military lawyers, interrogation experts and the FBI.
[By Josh White Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A01
Three top military lawyers said yesterday that they lodged complaints about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces, the first time they have publicly acknowledged that they objected to the policy as it was being developed in early 2003.
At a Senate hearing yesterday, the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns as the policy was being hashed out at the Pentagon in March and April 2003. Though their letters to the Defense Department's general counsel are classified, sources familiar with them said the lawyers worried that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine -- leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators -- but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known.]
Good Christians like ACOOK and Ponti will continue to hide behind Castro-like policies while attempting to make themselves out to be better 'Mer'Cans. We know the truth, though don't we? It is because they are terrified and willing to break the very freedoms they claim to support so they can FEEL safe.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2008 @ 09:01am
Crabster and COProg,
Here's an insightful and, I think, fascinating piece on moral hypocrisy from Newsweek science writer, Sharon Begley, in last week's issue:
Finding examples of moral hypocrisy is just too easy, what with Eliot Spitzer (former New York governor, moralizing proponent of laws against sex tourism and prostitution; named in "escort service" sting in March) coming along just when memories of Mark Foley (ex-congressman; crusader against child exploitation; caught in 2006 sending sexually explicit messages to congressional pages) and Sen. Larry (family values; "wide stance") Craig were, mercifully, fading. But while the ubiquity of hypocrisy can sour you on human nature, there's a bright side: scientists have lots of examples to study as they look for ways to make hypocrisy a little less common than breathing.
Scientists have long bickered over whether hypocrisy is driven by emotion or by reason--that is, by our gut instinct to cast a halo over ourselves, or by efforts to rationalize and justify our own transgressions. In other moral judgments, brain imaging shows, regions involved in feeling, not thinking, rule. In "the train dilemma," for instance, people are asked whether they would throw a switch to send an out-of-control train off a track where it would kill 10 people and onto one where it would kill one. Most of us say we would. But would we heave a large man onto the track to derail the train and save the 10? Most of us say no: although the save-10-lose-one calculus is identical, the emotional component--heaving someone to his death rather than throwing an impersonal switch--is repugnant, and the brain's emotion regions scream "Don't!"
The role of emotion in moral judgments has upended the Enlightenment notion that our ethical sense is based on high-minded philosophy and cognition. That brings us to hypocrisy, which is almost ridiculously easy to bring out in people. In a new study that will not exactly restore your faith in human nature, psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo of Northeastern University instructed 94 people to assign themselves and a stranger one of two tasks: an easy one, looking for hidden images in a photo, or a hard one, solving math and logic problems. The participants could make the assignments themselves, or have a computer do it randomly. Then everyone was asked, how fairly did you act?, from "extremely unfairly" (1) to "extremely fairly" (7). Next they watched someone else make the assignments, and judged that person's ethics. Selflessness was a virtual no-show: 87 out of 94 people opted for the easy task and gave the next guy the onerous one. Hypocrisy, however, showed up with bells on: every single person who made the selfish choice judged his own behavior more leniently--on average, 4.5 vs. 3.1--than that of someone else who grabbed the easy task for himself, the scientists will report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
The gap might not have been on a par with delivering homophobic sermons while having a gay affair, but it suggests how that kind of hypocrisy is possible. For one thing, people's emotions might have gotten the better of them, just as emotions drive the runaway-train dilemma. When we judge our own transgressions less harshly than we judge the same transgressions in others, DeSteno said, it may be because "we have this automatic, gut-level instinct to preserve our self-image. In our heart, maybe we're just not as sensitive to our own transgressions." Adds Dan Batson of the University of Kansas, a pioneer in hypocrisy studies, "people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral"--such as assigning yourself the tough job.
To test the role of cognition in hypocrisy, DeSteno had volunteers again assign themselves an easy task and a stranger an onerous one. But before judging the fairness of their actions, they had to memorize seven numbers. This ploy keeps the brain's thinking regions too tied up to think much about anything else, and it worked: hypocrisy vanished. People judged their own (selfish) behavior as harshly as they did others', strong evidence that moral hypocrisy requires a high-order cognitive process. When the thinking part of the brain is otherwise engaged, we're left with gut-level reactions, and we intuitively and equally condemn bad behavior by ourselves as well as others.
If our gut knows when we have erred and judges our transgressions harshly, moral hypocrisy might not be as inevitable as if it were the child of emotions and instincts, which are tougher to change than thinking. "Since it's a cognitive process, we have volitional control over it," argues DeSteno. That matters because of another nasty aspect of hypocrisy: we apply the same moral relativism when judging the actions of people like ourselves. When "people like us" torture, it's justified; when people unlike us do, it's an atrocity. When we make that judgment, the brain's cognitive regions are the hypocrites; emotional regions make honest judgments and see the heinous behavior for what it is. As with other forms of judgment, the way to change hearts and minds is to focus on the former: appeal to our better angels in the brain's emotion areas, and tell circuits that are going through cognitive contortions to excuse in ourselves what we condemn in others to just shut up.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/22/2008 @ 12:20pm
There is more than enough proof that the hsuB/cHeney admin has acted criminally and that there are enough MIC MAD GOP supporters, servicers to dic'tator philosophy, in collusion with the hsuB/cHeney admin in our congress-- ultimately to mean that 'all' new con repubs, trashers of our constitution, must be defeated this November and in the next several elections to come. Yes, definitely expose the criminality and bring the hsuB/cHeney admin to trial, but lets do it with a real DoJ. The current petty dic'tatorship, the currupt hsuB/cHeney admin, will not currently allow that justice take place. Other than storming the bastille, this is the next best recourse. If this does not work-- yes, by all means-- lets storm the bastille by the 10's of millions.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2008 @ 1:20pm
"Yes, definitely expose the criminality and bring the hsuB/cHeney admin to trial, but lets do it with a real DoJ. " Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2008
Obama's AG will be his single most important appointment. That choice will send a powerful signal.
If W&Co don't run for for their defense attorneys immediately thereafter, the presidential signal will be: "Hey, relax. We understand. No hard feelings. It's just our turn at the trough now."
Posted by sloper at 06/22/2008 @ 2:37pm
the Rummy alone, his actions for the last 4 decades are proof there is a drastic shortage of police in the police state. now our country is ruined and israel is running america from afar. (and near, Skeletor Chertoff, Muckracy, & Co. etc. etc). anyone standing in front of an AIPAC crowd and promising $4bill in guns & bombs to Terrorist Foreigners while america is already broke needs a Treason Trial.
Posted by dowkiller at 06/22/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/22/2008
"people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral"
Well that appears to sum up Blatherificus and AKook pretty well, especially the guilt part. They know, deep down in what's left of their hearts, they are wrong, but can not come face to face with their errored logic because it would bring down their house of cards which is their lives.
So, if they can only keep on deceiving themselves and keep attempting to prove others wrong, their lives can go on with the peverted "normalicy" that they know.
Sucks to be them.
"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain- "Chronicle of Young Satan"
Posted by COProgressive at 06/22/2008 @ 11:22pm
b-kool
I AM a hypocrite. I have never shied from that label. I recognize this failing in myself.
Does it make me a better person to know this but not correct the failure? Not really.
Does it make me better than Ponti because I at least admit this failure of self? Well, let's just say that I have found little about young Ponti-Flogic to make me think anything of it, yet alone compare myself to it. I normally do not reference myself to dolomite when considering ethics or morality.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 06:54am
A PROPOSAL
Suppose some person or group organize a
National BOYCOTT OF CONGRESSMEN IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION??
Urge Voters to vote for the Presidential Candidate of their choice, BUT
ASK VOTERS TO NOT VOTE FOR ANY CONGRESSMAN FOR ANY OFFICE FROM ANY PARTY ------------------- You'll get the President You Want But the BOYCOTT of Congressmen might Upset the Vote Totals enough To Send A Message To ALL Congressmen to TAKE THEIR OATH OF OFFICE SERIOUSLY To Protect Our Constitution, ------------------------– AND TO IMPEACH When It Is Obvious To ALL that Crimes have been committed By The Executive Branch. -------------------------- They have ignored everything we have said or done to get them to obey the Constitution and at least hold impeachment hearings.
..
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 06/23/2008 @ 11:05am
Yea! vote for more dems!!
Posted by crabwalk
just vote for the right ones.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 06/23/2008
find a "third party" candidate that holds views similar to yours and vote for them.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 3:33pm
find a "third party" candidate that holds views similar to yours and throw your vote away.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
find a "third party" candidate that holds views similar to yours and throw Emile vote away.
So there! Nyah.
what do you think sends a better "message", not voting or showing who will get your vote when the dems don't do right? (which has been way often!!!)
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:26pm
["After the House voted 268-155 to provide $162 billion in additional "emergency" funding for the Iraq war last week, Bush was effectively assured that he will be able to finish his presidency next January 20 and head back to Texas without taking any steps to conclude a conflict that has killed and permanently disabled tens of thousands of Americans, killed and dislocated millions of Iraqis and destabilized one of the most complex and dangerous regions in the world."]-this site, another page.
Yea! vote for more dems!!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
Don't you ever get tired of being on the wrong side of everything?
Posted by pontificus at 06/25/2008 @ 1:28pm