| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 05:09:14 PM |
| Object: |
Bush would lose for the third time. |
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 12:15:17 PM |
|
|
Hey Dirty Uncle Jafo - Do the words "You're Either For Us, Or Against
Us" ring a bell ?
There seems to be no record of you asking too many probing questions
during its heyday. Like maybe what it really meant. Or anything else
that ever came out of either side of that ...guy's face.
Try and not get any worse, say, more groveling to fascism than you've
already been for a change.
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 01:41:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hey Dirty Uncle Jafo - Do the words "You're Either For Us, Or Against
Us" ring a bell ?
There seems to be no record of you asking too many probing questions
during its heyday. Like maybe what it really meant. Or anything else
that ever came out of either side of that ...guy's face.
Try and not get any worse, say, more groveling to fascism than you've
already been for a change.
You believe in miracles don't you? :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:17:07 AM |
|
|
Jafo wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, wrote:
Jafo wrote:
John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
Being *for* anything isn't an actual requirement for political success.
The Republicans are *for* 'democracy'. So what? Meaningless
boilerplate. Likewise they are *pro life*. Equally meaningless.
The Demos failure is not in actually taking a stand but in not being
able to distill (and peddle) their platform to such witless simplicity
as the Repubs.
So you acknowledge that the Democrats have nothing to say and nothing
to offer, aside from the fact that they aren't George Bush?
What's a Little Lying Between Friends?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM
"Some perjury technicality"?
Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."
Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments?
Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury?
Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?
I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've
never met Pat Fitzgerald, and I had problems with the way he threatened
reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after
some
Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.
It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often
wind up
bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to
a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process.
This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when
Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is
that
only when a Democrat is president?
Hutchison likened the senior administration officials who might or might
not
be indicted to Martha Stewart, who was only charged with a cover-up (lying
about insider trading is okay as long as you're not convicted of insider
trading? Well, Martha did get two TV shows, even though one is tanking).
The
Texas senator also complained about "sort of a gotcha mentality in this
country," which again, try as I might, I can't remember being a significant
Republican complaint during the prosecutions of the Clinton years.
It instantly occurred to me that I might check what Sen. Hutchison had to
say during the Lewinsky scandal. But in the blog world, somebody's already
thought of your best idea five minutes ago. So before I could type in the
Nexis search, I saw that Michael Crowley , on the New Republic's new group
grope "The Plank," has this:
"Hmm . . . That's not the tune Hutchison was singing back when Bill Clinton
was caught with his hands in the intern jar. Here's the February 13, 1999
Dallas Morning News:
" 'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear
standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue
in this impeachment,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who also
voted 'guilty' on both counts."
HuffPost blogger Trey Ellis pounces on Kay Bailey:
"Senator Hutchinson's absurd utterance was another GOP trial balloon intent
on trying to mute public outrage. Fox and the rest of the right-wing echo
chamber has been beating this drum ever since 'lawyers close to the case,'
(probably Rove and Libby's), leaked that indictments were coming not for
the
felony charge of outing an undercover agent but for lying about it to
federal investigators. You have to at least hand it to these guys, when
they're handed lemons, they try their damndest to make lemonade. 'Gee,
there's not enough evidence to actually convict the highest-ranking members
of the White House and the office of the Vice President of treason, just
perjury and conspiracy. Is that so wrong?'
"The party that said they won the last election because of their stand on
moral issues doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing shows how out of touch
Republicans now are with the values of the American people."
Michelle Malkin takes exception to Hutchison's remarks:
"Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a
'gotcha' kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing
'technicalities' instead of 'real' crimes? I haven't heard anyone on our
side suggest anything of the kind."
And yes, this must be an official strategy, as the New York Times reports
that "allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to
pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over
legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor."
Pat Fitzgerald, menace to society?
Wasn't this guy appointed by the Bush Justice Department after Ashcroft
realized he was too conflicted to investigate Plamegate?
So the vice president of the United States did have some involvement:
"I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President ***** Cheney's chief of staff, first
learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation
in a
conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in
2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday," according to the NYT .
"Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr.
Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer,
Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
Nothing like preemptive leaking-- one of the great spectator sports.
Bill Kristol tries to elevate the argument against White House indictments
(and anticipates the Clinton-comparison argument):
"Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction of justice willful and
determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the
inquiry without bringing indictments. It is fundamentally inappropriate to
allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and
political dispute within the administration, or between the administration
and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage
after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate
criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them, no matter how
much criticism he might then get from the liberal establishment that yearns
to damage the Bush administration through the use of the criminal law.
"And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited
information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite
possible-- dare I say probable?-- that no indictments would be the just and
appropriate resolution to this inquiry.
"I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in
behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions
of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support
the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My
response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way
Bill
Clinton did-- knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate
legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way
Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the
Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary-- and successful-- political
campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of
Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been
fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation."
Except if a senior official doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to a grand jury-- and is charged with perjury-- that,
by definition, is less than "fully cooperative."
I found this John Dickerson piece in Slate to be one of the most revealing
about Scooter:
"It's surprising . . . to find Libby is at the center of a press scandal.
The daily communications operation is not something he cares much about.
Rove, by contrast, spends a portion of every day running his own press
operation. He sends BlackBerry messages, forwards polling data, and argues
his case to influential journalists. Libby flies at a higher altitude,
talking mostly to marquee columnists and preferring longer and more
in-depth
conversations to the rat-a-tat-tat required by reporters on deadline.
"Libby does enjoy the intellectual cat-and-mouse game of longer form
interviews, those who have worked with him say. He challenges basic
assumptions and presses on a reporter's sloppy definitions. In my
experience
interviewing him, if a line of reasoning was in any way harmful to the
administration or the vice president, it was sometimes impossible to get
past the gorilla dust. His shimmy and shake sometimes got so bad, I
wondered
if he would even admit to working for the vice president. 'It's very
lawyerly kind of amusement,' says a former aide.
"When the Cheneys hosted a party in February 2002 for the paperback
publication of Libby's book, the guest list was not filled with workaday
journalists, but with the elite from New York and Washington: Sally Quinn
and Ben Bradlee, Leon Wieseltier and Maureen Dowd. In those early days
after
9/11, it seemed like the relationship between the press and the media elite
might turn out to be a fairly cozy one. The Bushies hated 'old Washington,'
but as Libby and the vice president spoke from the landing at the bottom of
the stairs, it seemed as if their half of the administration understood the
quiet commerce between the ruling elite and the more permanent Washington
establishment . . .
"Libby is fussy and precise with reporters, which is why friends and
colleagues find it so hard to believe that he would have been involved in
leaking Plame's identity, obstructing justice, or committing perjury.
"Libby was an exacting source for anyone who talked to him. After using a
Libby quote, it was not unusual for reporters to receive a call from the
vice president's press shop. Mr. Libby wanted to know why only a portion of
his comment was used. 'He would prefer that if a reporter was going to
quote
him that it be an unedited transcript,' says one who worked closely with
him. Other reporters were scolded if a Libby quote hidden under the
attribution of 'senior administration official' was placed near sentences
that he thought might identify him, even if no reasonable reader could come
to such a conclusion. In other words, he's as careful as they come in
Washington."
On the Miers front, Ryan Lizza marvels in the New Republic at how quickly
the right has turned:
'That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the
conservative movement. This month, he's a traitor . . .
"To be sure, the conservative abandonment of Bush isn't total. The right is
divided. Some see the split as one of Washington eggheads versus the
red-state masses. Others, noting that the debate over Miers is, at its
core,
about abortion, interpret the current anger as a revolt by social
conservatives. But neither of these explanations quite captures what is
going on. The conservative war over Miers is being fought by elites on both
sides. The pro-Miers elites are just doing a better job of wrapping their
cause in populism."
The WSJ's John Fund is feeling the heat for his Harriet reporting:
"In desperation, I took to going on radio talk shows in Texas and
tongue-in-cheek offered to practice 'checkbook journalism' for the first
time in my career. I said I would write a small check to the favorite
charity of anyone who contacted me and could plausibly say that he has
had a
serious discussion about politics or judicial philosophy with Ms. Miers. So
far it hasn't cost me a dime.
"For my trouble, I have been incorrectly attacked by allies of Ms. Miers,
including some in the White House, for supposedly waving a checkbook
seeking
negative information about her. For the record, I made my offer in a
jocular
fashion, but to make a serious point. With the exception of President Bush,
no one appears to know the nominee's judicial philosophy."
By the way, says Fund, "I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers
will withdraw or be defeated."
In National Review, Danielle Crittenden offers a woman's perspective I
haven't seen before:
"It doesn't involve cigars or a stained dress. But the nomination of
Harriet
Miers has created a woman problem on the Right every bit as big as that
which faced feminists during Bill Clinton's presidency.
"For years, conservative women's groups such as the Independent Women's
Forum have opposed feminist visions of female equality. We opposed
affirmative action in the workplace, believing women had to be held to the
same standards as men. We rallied against quotas, with the reasoning
that if
there were fewer female firefighters than male, this was because women
didn't wish to take these jobs, and not because of discriminatory hiring
practices by the fire department . . .
"We were disgusted with feminist groups when they stood by Bill Clinton
through all his women troubles--when the National Organization for Women,
for example, jettisoned all its previously stated principles on sexual
harassment in order to retain political power.
"Now conservative women face a similar dilemma with Harriet: President Bush
has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court
because he
knows what's in her 'heart'-- not in her head.
"We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman-- a
'pioneer,'
a 'glass-ceiling breaker' -- even while other more qualified women were
rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself,
who headed the 'search' committee).
"That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in
constitutional law -- well, no biggie. We must swallow the idea that quotas
and affirmative action are justifiable policies for the highest Court in
the
land.
"We are asked, further, to stand hypocritically by this decision as
Patricia
Ireland did when she stood by Bill Clinton--going so far as to sign letters
with other 'accomplished' women saying we believe Harriet Miers is
qualified
for the Court. Whatever our principles, we must jettison them in order to
retain political power."
Meanwhile, the Senate will not get a key part of the paper trail, as the
Boston Globe reports:
"President Bush vowed yesterday not to release any White House memos by his
Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, provoking a standoff with senators
from both parties who have demanded more information about her work in the
White House.
"Senate leaders, who have asked that they be given a complete list of
Miers's memos by tomorrow, vowed to continue their efforts to obtain at
least some of Miers's White House work, arguing that such documents are
especially important because Miers lacks a record as a judge or law
professor.
"The emerging confrontation developed as criticism of the Miers nomination
expanded with the launching of two new conservative websites aimed at
forcing her withdrawal and raising money for ads against her."
The other woman under fire, Judy Miller, gives an interview to New York
Post
columnist Andrea Peyser :
" 'I'm not mad, I'm sad,' Judy told me from her home on Long Island. 'Isn't
it sad that, after going to jail for 85 days for a principle, it's come to
this?' . . .
"Judy will not take on her colleagues as personally as they've maligned
her.
'Believe it or not, I can be pretty mild. I'm not going to sink to that
level,' she said. 'But if someone says I'm a liar, I'm going to say I'm not
a liar.'"
Of course, those "colleagues" include her boss, Bill Keller.
American Journalism Review Editor Rem Rieder says Keller's mea culpa "was
both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Admitting that you've
screwed up is never easy. It's exponentially harder when you're the boss at
a revered (if flawed) American institution, and your mistakes have
compounded that institution's problems.
"The Times has never been what you would call a particularly transparent
newspaper. Its From the Editors note about the misguided Wen Ho Lee
coverage
was tortured, grudging. Its awfully late guilty plea about the paper's WMD
fiasco didn't even mention Miller.
"But this time Keller was forthright, to the point. And there was none of
the accepting-responsibility-but-not-blame that is so popular these
days. No
'mistakes were made.' These, Keller said, were on me. That's the way a true
leader acts."
Among the unhappy ex-Timesmen is David Halberstam :
" 'I think the paper has taken a terrible hit,' said David Halberstam, one
of the Times' most respected alums, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning
writer. 'I think it is shocking that this young woman who has been a known
identified land mine for a long time seems to have guaranteed loyalty to
the
office of the Vice President of the United States more than to The New York
Times.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/25/BL2005102500520.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:33:03 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
Jafo wrote:
arthurstone309@hotmail.com wrote:
Jafo wrote:
John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that
votes mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an
alternative. You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a
pile of maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you,
Democrats are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody
knows, not even themselves.
Being *for* anything isn't an actual requirement for political
success. The Republicans are *for* 'democracy'. So what?
Meaningless boilerplate. Likewise they are *pro life*. Equally
meaningless.
The Demos failure is not in actually taking a stand but in not
being able to distill (and peddle) their platform to such witless
simplicity as the Repubs.
So you acknowledge that the Democrats have nothing to say and
nothing to offer, aside from the fact that they aren't George Bush?
What's a Little Lying Between Friends?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM
"Some perjury technicality"?
Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."
Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak
indictments? ...
Just as I said; Democrats have nothing to say and nothing to offer,
aside from the fact that they aren't George Bush. Thanks for the
evidence, Mimi.
Filled with hate as you are, you just don't get it, do you?
*This* attitude is why the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994
and every election since, and it's why their candidates lost their
Presidential bids in 2000 and 2004. And, like Mimi, they still don't
get it.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 09:59:19 AM |
|
|
Jafo wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, wrote:
Jafo wrote:
John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
Being *for* anything isn't an actual requirement for political success.
The Republicans are *for* 'democracy'. So what? Meaningless
boilerplate. Likewise they are *pro life*. Equally meaningless.
The Demos failure is not in actually taking a stand but in not being
able to distill (and peddle) their platform to such witless simplicity
as the Repubs.
So you acknowledge that the Democrats have nothing to say and nothing
to offer, aside from the fact that they aren't George Bush?
Yes, Art, the Demos failure *is* in not actually taking a stand. Had
they done so they'd have easily won the elections of 2000 and 2004,
because Bush was quite beatable both times. Like the Seinfeld show,
they're a party about Nothing.
--
Jafo
I didn't say the Demos had nothing to say. Rather, they displayed then
(and now for that matter) an inability to focus on issues which
distinguish themselves from the Bush kleptocracy and to articulate
those issues. An inability to demonstrate a vote for Bush is
counterproductive for almost any American (save the top 2 or 3%
wealthiest) which should have been possible to show.
I disagree it would have been easy to win either election. Americans
are frightened (the ones who aren't merely complacent) and the Repubs
plays to that.
And race matters in a big way. That is a big reason why the Republicans
are so strong these days. The *Southern Strategy* has been successful.
Southern Democrats have left the party and moved to the Republicans.
Payback for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still is a *****.
The Seinfeld analogy is kind of a painful truth for the present time.
But politics is cyclical.
Face it. Vot
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:21:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I disagree it would have been easy to win either election. Americans
are frightened (the ones who aren't merely complacent) and the Repubs
plays to that.
the BBC had a series of documentary films called The Power of Nightmares
that documented back to Nixon how the ERWBDC faction of the GOP
fabricated "terror" and sold it to the masses, you should check it out,
your library may have a copy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:26:20 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
arthurstone309@hotmail.com wrote:
I disagree it would have been easy to win either election. Americans
are frightened (the ones who aren't merely complacent) and the Repubs
plays to that.
the BBC had a series of documentary films called The Power of Nightmares
that documented back to Nixon how the ERWBDC faction of the GOP
fabricated "terror" and sold it to the masses, you should check it out,
your library may have a copy.
You prove my point with every post, Mimi. We all know what you're
against. So what are you *for*? Why should we vote for a Democratic
Presidential candidate in 2008 instead of George Allen, Bill Frist, or
whomever else the Republicans might nominate?
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 01:26:08 PM |
|
|
Jafo wrote:
You prove my point
Jafo, you know the only point you've *EVER* had is the one atop your
head. Your party is imploding and all you can do is call the Democrats
names. At this moment in time all the Democrats *HAVE* to be is "not
Bush" Your boys are heading off the prisons everywhere and you whine
about "but you don't stand for anything".
DeLay - going to jail.
Libby & Rove - probably going too.
Cunningham - going to jail
Frist - in deep doodoo with the SEC if Martha Stewart can go to jail for
it so can he.
Cheney possibly to be indicted over leak-gate, Bush will pardon him
hoping that Cheney will return the favor by pulling a Ford.
Bush can't get his nominees past GOP senators.
Why don't you list what REPUGNANTcons *ARE* for, aside from greed and
prison that is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:01:14 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
Jafo, you know the only point you've *EVER* had is the one atop your
head. Your party is imploding and all you can do is call the Democrats
names.
Feel free to point out where I've called them names, Mimi.
At this moment in time all the Democrats *HAVE* to be is "not Bush"
*****. That's not nearly enough to convince anyone with a
functioning brain to vote Democratic. Frist, Brownback and Allen
are "not Bush" either.
You're so brainwashed that you can't think of anyone but Bush, but in
three years Bush will be just a memory. Who are you going to offer
up, and why should we vote for him/her?
If you can't understand this simple question, then you've no business
casting a vote.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 05:23:04 PM |
|
|
On 26-Oct-2005, "arthurstone309@hotmail.com" <arthurstone309@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Being *for* anything isn't an actual requirement for political success.
The Republicans are *for* 'democracy'. So what? Meaningless
boilerplate. Likewise they are *pro life*. Equally meaningless.
Er, actually, *that*'s not meaningless - it's a spoken threat to religious
freedom, dressed up as an attack on women's rights which few people
care as much about.
The Demos failure is not in actually taking a stand but in not being
able to distill (and peddle) their platform to such witless simplicity
as the Repubs.
We Democrats fail by being so varied.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 05:34:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 26-Oct-2005, "arthurstone309@hotmail.com" <arthurstone309@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Being *for* anything isn't an actual requirement for political success.
The Republicans are *for* 'democracy'. So what? Meaningless
boilerplate. Likewise they are *pro life*. Equally meaningless.
Er, actually, *that*'s not meaningless - it's a spoken threat to religious
freedom, dressed up as an attack on women's rights which few people
care as much about.
The Demos failure is not in actually taking a stand but in not being
able to distill (and peddle) their platform to such witless simplicity
as the Repubs.
We Democrats fail by being so varied.
Susan
You're right about *pro life*. Not a good example for me to have used.
It does have a distinct meaning. On the other hand it illustrates the
rights willingness to debase and twist the language.
*Pro life* doesn't include opposition to the death penalty or
opposition to killing of innocents abroad spreading 'democracy'. Merely
applies to the fetus who then is on his/her own after birth.
Your're right about the varied part though. Everybody provides input.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 05:42:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:08:13 -0700, Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush.
You're damned right I'm anti-Bush. I tend to get annoyed with people
who lie to the entire world and start wars for no good reason.
What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
So what are you "for", then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 06:47:45 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
You're damned right I'm anti-Bush. I tend to get annoyed with people
who lie to the entire world and start wars for no good reason.
The military agrees with you:
--------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thomas D. Segel
tomsegel@joim
956 423
Warning! Republicans Are Losing Veteran Support Over Failed Promises!
969 words
Harlingen, Texas, October 24, 2005: The emails are flying across
cyber space. The blogs are filled with rage. Letters to the editor
abound. All of them have the same tone of anger. Retired military
veterans, in huge numbers, are calling for others in their ranks to
answer the failed promises of Congress by voting against all
Republican incumbents in the 2006 general election.
Though the retired military community, which has historically
supported Republican candidates, is angered about a number of issues,
the heart of their discontent seems to be centered on health care
issues.
Thousands upon thousands of World War II and Korean War military
retirees were promised government provided health care as a benefit
for their many years of service to the nation in both peace and war.
Those who served in uniform for twenty or more years were told they
and their dependents would always be medically cared for by a
grateful nation. For more than 50 years Congress did fund that
medical care. Then it decided to change the rules and the promise
was broken. Guaranteed lifetime medical care proved to be another of
many congressional lies.
Year after year the veterans pleaded to have their promised health
care restored. All the cries fell on deaf ears. Finally, attorney
and Medal of Honor recipient Colonel “Bud” Day filed a Class Action
Suit on the behalf of all retired military. The legal battle went
back and forth for years, ending up in the Supreme Court.
Once again the veterans lost. Though the court agreed the promises
of care had been made, it also stated there was no legislation to
give authority to the promise. It said that Congress would need to
resolve the issue.
There have been attempts to correct the wrongdoing of Congress. Bills
have been filed and have also died. Currently the “Keep Our Promise”
Bill or HR-602 is floating around the House of Representatives. A
total of 158 Democrats and 68 Republicans have cosponsored this
legislation to provide long promised medical care to retirees. More
than half of the House members also indicate they support restoration
of earned medical care. This same dialog and false promise chant has
been taking place for more years than veterans can count.
Today, the retirees feel Democrats support this legislation because
Republicans don’t really want it to pass. They also think those few
Republicans who have cosponsored the legislation are just putting up
a smokescreen and are really trying to cover their backsides. This
feeling is amplified for them when it is noted that HR-602 is wasting
away in committee with no sign of it ever reaching the floor for a
vote, the same tactic Republicans used in the past.
Veterans also notice they cannot identify a single member of their
“so-called” cosponsors who has gone to the Republican leadership and
demanded action on the legislation.
It is true that one representative would have little impact on the
congressional leadership. However, 68 cosponsors demanding
legislative action would get attention at once, particularly if that
demand was made a condition of their support for future leadership
generated actions. Since none of this insistence on HR-602 action
has taken place, veterans see the Republican cosponsors as insincere
in their professed support.
Should the general public think this discontent with the Republican
Party is linked to just one group of military retirees, it should
also be noted that for more than four decades veterans who were
volunteers or were ordered to participate in America’s atomic testing
program have been fighting for promised medical care.
More than 300,000 American service personnel were subjected to the
life threatening effects of radiation poisoning during the test
programs of the 40s and 50s. In open trenches and on the exposed
decks of ships, with no protective clothing, they were placed in
close proximity to atomic blasts.
Since that time thousands have died and thousands more have fallen
seriously ill. The VA and our Congress ignore their pleas for help.
A Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush told American
veterans that “Promises made would be promises kept.” He repeated
that pledge as president. Ask any of the multitudes of Atomic
Veterans what they think of his word. When they wrote him about
their plight, the president forwarded their letters to the VA, which
in turn denied the veteran claims. These same veterans wrote to the
members of Congress. Most often there was no reply, but when there
was an answer, it was a form letter, which really said nothing.
We can’t forget to include more than 7,000 servicemen who were used
as “test subjects” or human guinea pigs in chemical, drug and other
substance tests at Edgewood Arsenal. Today almost 75% of those
military personnel who participated in the Edgewood tests are either
dead or disabled. They cannot even receive medical attention from
the VA because there are no records of their participation in the
Edgewood program available. The Department of Defense refuses to
release the names of those who participated.
Letters to the Department of Defense, including Secretary Rumsfeld
have gone unanswered. Letters to Congress have gained very little
attention and when congressional members to respond, it is with a
request to the VA to look into the veteran’s claim. As in the past,
those requests continue to be ignored.
Now the Internet buzz is becoming Anti-Republican from almost every
quarter. Though most of the career veterans have little confidence
in the Democrats, they are talking about moving the vote in that
direction as a protest. They have reached the limit of their
patience with false promises and the Republicans could very well pay
for political lies with a battle at the ballot box.
Thanks for joining our list. For more information please check out our
website at http://acaby.tripod.com/cpo.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 08:49:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:08:13 -0700, Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 09:16:23 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Jafo wrote:
John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
Uh huh. So what are they *for*?
Can you give us any reason to vote Democratic aside from "well...
we're not George Bush!"?
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:13:28 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:08:13 -0700, Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, John Baker wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
If the Republican candidate in 2008 is no better than Bush, a pile of
maggot-infested feces would be a better alternative.
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
----------------------------
What's a Little Lying Between Friends?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM
"Some perjury technicality"?
Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."
Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments?
Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury?
Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?
I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've
never met Pat Fitzgerald, and I had problems with the way he threatened
reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after
some
Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.
It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often
wind up
bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to
a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process.
This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when
Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is
that
only when a Democrat is president?
Hutchison likened the senior administration officials who might or might
not
be indicted to Martha Stewart, who was only charged with a cover-up (lying
about insider trading is okay as long as you're not convicted of insider
trading? Well, Martha did get two TV shows, even though one is tanking).
The
Texas senator also complained about "sort of a gotcha mentality in this
country," which again, try as I might, I can't remember being a significant
Republican complaint during the prosecutions of the Clinton years.
It instantly occurred to me that I might check what Sen. Hutchison had to
say during the Lewinsky scandal. But in the blog world, somebody's already
thought of your best idea five minutes ago. So before I could type in the
Nexis search, I saw that Michael Crowley , on the New Republic's new group
grope "The Plank," has this:
"Hmm . . . That's not the tune Hutchison was singing back when Bill Clinton
was caught with his hands in the intern jar. Here's the February 13, 1999
Dallas Morning News:
" 'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear
standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue
in this impeachment,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who also
voted 'guilty' on both counts."
HuffPost blogger Trey Ellis pounces on Kay Bailey:
"Senator Hutchinson's absurd utterance was another GOP trial balloon intent
on trying to mute public outrage. Fox and the rest of the right-wing echo
chamber has been beating this drum ever since 'lawyers close to the case,'
(probably Rove and Libby's), leaked that indictments were coming not for
the
felony charge of outing an undercover agent but for lying about it to
federal investigators. You have to at least hand it to these guys, when
they're handed lemons, they try their damndest to make lemonade. 'Gee,
there's not enough evidence to actually convict the highest-ranking members
of the White House and the office of the Vice President of treason, just
perjury and conspiracy. Is that so wrong?'
"The party that said they won the last election because of their stand on
moral issues doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing shows how out of touch
Republicans now are with the values of the American people."
Michelle Malkin takes exception to Hutchison's remarks:
"Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a
'gotcha' kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing
'technicalities' instead of 'real' crimes? I haven't heard anyone on our
side suggest anything of the kind."
And yes, this must be an official strategy, as the New York Times reports
that "allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to
pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over
legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor."
Pat Fitzgerald, menace to society?
Wasn't this guy appointed by the Bush Justice Department after Ashcroft
realized he was too conflicted to investigate Plamegate?
So the vice president of the United States did have some involvement:
"I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President ***** Cheney's chief of staff, first
learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation
in a
conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in
2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday," according to the NYT .
"Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr.
Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer,
Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
Nothing like preemptive leaking-- one of the great spectator sports.
Bill Kristol tries to elevate the argument against White House indictments
(and anticipates the Clinton-comparison argument):
"Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction of justice willful and
determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the
inquiry without bringing indictments. It is fundamentally inappropriate to
allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and
political dispute within the administration, or between the administration
and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage
after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate
criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them, no matter how
much criticism he might then get from the liberal establishment that yearns
to damage the Bush administration through the use of the criminal law.
"And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited
information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite
possible-- dare I say probable?-- that no indictments would be the just and
appropriate resolution to this inquiry.
"I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in
behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions
of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support
the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My
response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way
Bill
Clinton did-- knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate
legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way
Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the
Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary-- and successful-- political
campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of
Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been
fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation."
Except if a senior official doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to a grand jury-- and is charged with perjury-- that,
by definition, is less than "fully cooperative."
I found this John Dickerson piece in Slate to be one of the most revealing
about Scooter:
"It's surprising . . . to find Libby is at the center of a press scandal.
The daily communications operation is not something he cares much about.
Rove, by contrast, spends a portion of every day running his own press
operation. He sends BlackBerry messages, forwards polling data, and argues
his case to influential journalists. Libby flies at a higher altitude,
talking mostly to marquee columnists and preferring longer and more
in-depth
conversations to the rat-a-tat-tat required by reporters on deadline.
"Libby does enjoy the intellectual cat-and-mouse game of longer form
interviews, those who have worked with him say. He challenges basic
assumptions and presses on a reporter's sloppy definitions. In my
experience
interviewing him, if a line of reasoning was in any way harmful to the
administration or the vice president, it was sometimes impossible to get
past the gorilla dust. His shimmy and shake sometimes got so bad, I
wondered
if he would even admit to working for the vice president. 'It's very
lawyerly kind of amusement,' says a former aide.
"When the Cheneys hosted a party in February 2002 for the paperback
publication of Libby's book, the guest list was not filled with workaday
journalists, but with the elite from New York and Washington: Sally Quinn
and Ben Bradlee, Leon Wieseltier and Maureen Dowd. In those early days
after
9/11, it seemed like the relationship between the press and the media elite
might turn out to be a fairly cozy one. The Bushies hated 'old Washington,'
but as Libby and the vice president spoke from the landing at the bottom of
the stairs, it seemed as if their half of the administration understood the
quiet commerce between the ruling elite and the more permanent Washington
establishment . . .
"Libby is fussy and precise with reporters, which is why friends and
colleagues find it so hard to believe that he would have been involved in
leaking Plame's identity, obstructing justice, or committing perjury.
"Libby was an exacting source for anyone who talked to him. After using a
Libby quote, it was not unusual for reporters to receive a call from the
vice president's press shop. Mr. Libby wanted to know why only a portion of
his comment was used. 'He would prefer that if a reporter was going to
quote
him that it be an unedited transcript,' says one who worked closely with
him. Other reporters were scolded if a Libby quote hidden under the
attribution of 'senior administration official' was placed near sentences
that he thought might identify him, even if no reasonable reader could come
to such a conclusion. In other words, he's as careful as they come in
Washington."
On the Miers front, Ryan Lizza marvels in the New Republic at how quickly
the right has turned:
'That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the
conservative movement. This month, he's a traitor . . .
"To be sure, the conservative abandonment of Bush isn't total. The right is
divided. Some see the split as one of Washington eggheads versus the
red-state masses. Others, noting that the debate over Miers is, at its
core,
about abortion, interpret the current anger as a revolt by social
conservatives. But neither of these explanations quite captures what is
going on. The conservative war over Miers is being fought by elites on both
sides. The pro-Miers elites are just doing a better job of wrapping their
cause in populism."
The WSJ's John Fund is feeling the heat for his Harriet reporting:
"In desperation, I took to going on radio talk shows in Texas and
tongue-in-cheek offered to practice 'checkbook journalism' for the first
time in my career. I said I would write a small check to the favorite
charity of anyone who contacted me and could plausibly say that he has
had a
serious discussion about politics or judicial philosophy with Ms. Miers. So
far it hasn't cost me a dime.
"For my trouble, I have been incorrectly attacked by allies of Ms. Miers,
including some in the White House, for supposedly waving a checkbook
seeking
negative information about her. For the record, I made my offer in a
jocular
fashion, but to make a serious point. With the exception of President Bush,
no one appears to know the nominee's judicial philosophy."
By the way, says Fund, "I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers
will withdraw or be defeated."
In National Review, Danielle Crittenden offers a woman's perspective I
haven't seen before:
"It doesn't involve cigars or a stained dress. But the nomination of
Harriet
Miers has created a woman problem on the Right every bit as big as that
which faced feminists during Bill Clinton's presidency.
"For years, conservative women's groups such as the Independent Women's
Forum have opposed feminist visions of female equality. We opposed
affirmative action in the workplace, believing women had to be held to the
same standards as men. We rallied against quotas, with the reasoning
that if
there were fewer female firefighters than male, this was because women
didn't wish to take these jobs, and not because of discriminatory hiring
practices by the fire department . . .
"We were disgusted with feminist groups when they stood by Bill Clinton
through all his women troubles--when the National Organization for Women,
for example, jettisoned all its previously stated principles on sexual
harassment in order to retain political power.
"Now conservative women face a similar dilemma with Harriet: President Bush
has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court
because he
knows what's in her 'heart'-- not in her head.
"We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman-- a
'pioneer,'
a 'glass-ceiling breaker' -- even while other more qualified women were
rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself,
who headed the 'search' committee).
"That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in
constitutional law -- well, no biggie. We must swallow the idea that quotas
and affirmative action are justifiable policies for the highest Court in
the
land.
"We are asked, further, to stand hypocritically by this decision as
Patricia
Ireland did when she stood by Bill Clinton--going so far as to sign letters
with other 'accomplished' women saying we believe Harriet Miers is
qualified
for the Court. Whatever our principles, we must jettison them in order to
retain political power."
Meanwhile, the Senate will not get a key part of the paper trail, as the
Boston Globe reports:
"President Bush vowed yesterday not to release any White House memos by his
Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, provoking a standoff with senators
from both parties who have demanded more information about her work in the
White House.
"Senate leaders, who have asked that they be given a complete list of
Miers's memos by tomorrow, vowed to continue their efforts to obtain at
least some of Miers's White House work, arguing that such documents are
especially important because Miers lacks a record as a judge or law
professor.
"The emerging confrontation developed as criticism of the Miers nomination
expanded with the launching of two new conservative websites aimed at
forcing her withdrawal and raising money for ads against her."
The other woman under fire, Judy Miller, gives an interview to New York
Post
columnist Andrea Peyser :
" 'I'm not mad, I'm sad,' Judy told me from her home on Long Island. 'Isn't
it sad that, after going to jail for 85 days for a principle, it's come to
this?' . . .
"Judy will not take on her colleagues as personally as they've maligned
her.
'Believe it or not, I can be pretty mild. I'm not going to sink to that
level,' she said. 'But if someone says I'm a liar, I'm going to say I'm not
a liar.'"
Of course, those "colleagues" include her boss, Bill Keller.
American Journalism Review Editor Rem Rieder says Keller's mea culpa "was
both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Admitting that you've
screwed up is never easy. It's exponentially harder when you're the boss at
a revered (if flawed) American institution, and your mistakes have
compounded that institution's problems.
"The Times has never been what you would call a particularly transparent
newspaper. Its From the Editors note about the misguided Wen Ho Lee
coverage
was tortured, grudging. Its awfully late guilty plea about the paper's WMD
fiasco didn't even mention Miller.
"But this time Keller was forthright, to the point. And there was none of
the accepting-responsibility-but-not-blame that is so popular these
days. No
'mistakes were made.' These, Keller said, were on me. That's the way a true
leader acts."
Among the unhappy ex-Timesmen is David Halberstam :
" 'I think the paper has taken a terrible hit,' said David Halberstam, one
of the Times' most respected alums, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning
writer. 'I think it is shocking that this young woman who has been a known
identified land mine for a long time seems to have guaranteed loyalty to
the
office of the Vice President of the United States more than to The New York
Times.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/25/BL2005102500520.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:24:22 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:31:53 AM |
|
|
"Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:eq7vl15sij0dp2mhs1m1ndqelfvp9mpglj@4ax.com...
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
--
Jafo
Decency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:38:52 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mr. Green offered a most generic and
carefully unspecific response:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
Decency.
*****, everybody's for "Decency®", as long as they don't have to define
it too closely.
Not one of you in this thread has offered a single reason why anyone
should vote Democratic in 2008. Not one of you gets it... which means
that you have a very good chance of losing the next time out, too, and
not understanding why then either.
So what the hell are you FOR?
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 02:29:38 PM |
|
|
"Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5f8vl191muu3thsqbqek9ibc13ahq9g6nh@4ax.com...
As viewed from alt.california, Mr. Green offered a most generic and
carefully unspecific response:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
Decency.
*****, everybody's for "Decency®", as long as they don't have to define
it too closely.
Not one of you in this thread has offered a single reason why anyone
should vote Democratic in 2008. Not one of you gets it... which means
that you have a very good chance of losing the next time out, too, and
not understanding why then either.
So what the hell are you FOR?
--
Jafo
For? Getting rid of the Repug Monsters is #1.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 06:15:12 PM |
|
|
Mr. Green wrote:
"Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5f8vl191muu3thsqbqek9ibc13ahq9g6nh@4ax.com...
As viewed from alt.california, Mr. Green offered a most generic and
carefully unspecific response:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
Decency.
*****, everybody's for "Decency®", as long as they don't have to define
it too closely.
Not one of you in this thread has offered a single reason why anyone
should vote Democratic in 2008. Not one of you gets it... which means
that you have a very good chance of losing the next time out, too, and
not understanding why then either.
So what the hell are you FOR?
--
Jafo
For? Getting rid of the Repug Monsters is #1.
Amen, brother!
-----------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thomas D. Segel
tomsegel@joim
956 423
Warning! Republicans Are Losing Veteran Support Over Failed Promises!
969 words
Harlingen, Texas, October 24, 2005: The emails are flying across
cyber space. The blogs are filled with rage. Letters to the editor
abound. All of them have the same tone of anger. Retired military
veterans, in huge numbers, are calling for others in their ranks to
answer the failed promises of Congress by voting against all
Republican incumbents in the 2006 general election.
Though the retired military community, which has historically
supported Republican candidates, is angered about a number of issues,
the heart of their discontent seems to be centered on health care
issues.
Thousands upon thousands of World War II and Korean War military
retirees were promised government provided health care as a benefit
for their many years of service to the nation in both peace and war.
Those who served in uniform for twenty or more years were told they
and their dependents would always be medically cared for by a
grateful nation. For more than 50 years Congress did fund that
medical care. Then it decided to change the rules and the promise
was broken. Guaranteed lifetime medical care proved to be another of
many congressional lies.
Year after year the veterans pleaded to have their promised health
care restored. All the cries fell on deaf ears. Finally, attorney
and Medal of Honor recipient Colonel “Bud” Day filed a Class Action
Suit on the behalf of all retired military. The legal battle went
back and forth for years, ending up in the Supreme Court.
Once again the veterans lost. Though the court agreed the promises
of care had been made, it also stated there was no legislation to
give authority to the promise. It said that Congress would need to
resolve the issue.
There have been attempts to correct the wrongdoing of Congress. Bills
have been filed and have also died. Currently the “Keep Our Promise”
Bill or HR-602 is floating around the House of Representatives. A
total of 158 Democrats and 68 Republicans have cosponsored this
legislation to provide long promised medical care to retirees. More
than half of the House members also indicate they support restoration
of earned medical care. This same dialog and false promise chant has
been taking place for more years than veterans can count.
Today, the retirees feel Democrats support this legislation because
Republicans don’t really want it to pass. They also think those few
Republicans who have cosponsored the legislation are just putting up
a smokescreen and are really trying to cover their backsides. This
feeling is amplified for them when it is noted that HR-602 is wasting
away in committee with no sign of it ever reaching the floor for a
vote, the same tactic Republicans used in the past.
Veterans also notice they cannot identify a single member of their
“so-called” cosponsors who has gone to the Republican leadership and
demanded action on the legislation.
It is true that one representative would have little impact on the
congressional leadership. However, 68 cosponsors demanding
legislative action would get attention at once, particularly if that
demand was made a condition of their support for future leadership
generated actions. Since none of this insistence on HR-602 action
has taken place, veterans see the Republican cosponsors as insincere
in their professed support.
Should the general public think this discontent with the Republican
Party is linked to just one group of military retirees, it should
also be noted that for more than four decades veterans who were
volunteers or were ordered to participate in America’s atomic testing
program have been fighting for promised medical care.
More than 300,000 American service personnel were subjected to the
life threatening effects of radiation poisoning during the test
programs of the 40s and 50s. In open trenches and on the exposed
decks of ships, with no protective clothing, they were placed in
close proximity to atomic blasts.
Since that time thousands have died and thousands more have fallen
seriously ill. The VA and our Congress ignore their pleas for help.
A Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush told American
veterans that “Promises made would be promises kept.” He repeated
that pledge as president. Ask any of the multitudes of Atomic
Veterans what they think of his word. When they wrote him about
their plight, the president forwarded their letters to the VA, which
in turn denied the veteran claims. These same veterans wrote to the
members of Congress. Most often there was no reply, but when there
was an answer, it was a form letter, which really said nothing.
We can’t forget to include more than 7,000 servicemen who were used
as “test subjects” or human guinea pigs in chemical, drug and other
substance tests at Edgewood Arsenal. Today almost 75% of those
military personnel who participated in the Edgewood tests are either
dead or disabled. They cannot even receive medical attention from
the VA because there are no records of their participation in the
Edgewood program available. The Department of Defense refuses to
release the names of those who participated.
Letters to the Department of Defense, including Secretary Rumsfeld
have gone unanswered. Letters to Congress have gained very little
attention and when congressional members to respond, it is with a
request to the VA to look into the veteran’s claim. As in the past,
those requests continue to be ignored.
Now the Internet buzz is becoming Anti-Republican from almost every
quarter. Though most of the career veterans have little confidence
in the Democrats, they are talking about moving the vote in that
direction as a protest. They have reached the limit of their
patience with false promises and the Republicans could very well pay
for political lies with a battle at the ballot box.
Thanks for joining our list. For more information please check out our
website at http://acaby.tripod.com/cpo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:01:13 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Mimi Cohen wrote:
Not one of you in this thread has offered a single reason why anyone
should vote Democratic in 2008. Not one of you gets it... which means
that you have a very good chance of losing the next time out, too, and
not understanding why then either.
So what the hell are you FOR?
For? Getting rid of the Repug Monsters is #1.
Amen, brother!
Uh huh. And then what?
Both of you are really too stupid to have opinions, aren't you?
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 01:29:30 PM |
|
|
Jafo wrote:
As viewed from alt.california, Mr. Green offered a most generic and
carefully unspecific response:
You've just confirmed Slick's <hc23hc> criticism. Like you, Democrats
are simply anti-Bush. What are they *for*? Nobody knows, not even
themselves.
They're not "anti-Bush" per se, liar. They are anti- the appalling
things he has done.
But then you know that so why be so dishonest?
That's simple, it's because he's a REPUGNANTcon, all REPUGNANTcons lie.
Yeah, yeah. So can you tell us what *you're* _FOR_... without
mentioning The Evil Bush?
Decency.
*****, everybody's for "Decency®", as long as they don't have to define
it too closely.
No, not "everybody" is:
What's a Little Lying Between Friends?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM
"Some perjury technicality"?
Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."
Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments?
Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury?
Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?
I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've
never met Pat Fitzgerald, and I had problems with the way he threatened
reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after
some
Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.
It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often
wind up
bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to
a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process.
This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when
Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is
that
only when a Democrat is president?
Hutchison likened the senior administration officials who might or might
not
be indicted to Martha Stewart, who was only charged with a cover-up (lying
about insider trading is okay as long as you're not convicted of insider
trading? Well, Martha did get two TV shows, even though one is tanking).
The
Texas senator also complained about "sort of a gotcha mentality in this
country," which again, try as I might, I can't remember being a significant
Republican complaint during the prosecutions of the Clinton years.
It instantly occurred to me that I might check what Sen. Hutchison had to
say during the Lewinsky scandal. But in the blog world, somebody's already
thought of your best idea five minutes ago. So before I could type in the
Nexis search, I saw that Michael Crowley , on the New Republic's new group
grope "The Plank," has this:
"Hmm . . . That's not the tune Hutchison was singing back when Bill Clinton
was caught with his hands in the intern jar. Here's the February 13, 1999
Dallas Morning News:
" 'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear
standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue
in this impeachment,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who also
voted 'guilty' on both counts."
HuffPost blogger Trey Ellis pounces on Kay Bailey:
"Senator Hutchinson's absurd utterance was another GOP trial balloon intent
on trying to mute public outrage. Fox and the rest of the right-wing echo
chamber has been beating this drum ever since 'lawyers close to the case,'
(probably Rove and Libby's), leaked that indictments were coming not for
the
felony charge of outing an undercover agent but for lying about it to
federal investigators. You have to at least hand it to these guys, when
they're handed lemons, they try their damndest to make lemonade. 'Gee,
there's not enough evidence to actually convict the highest-ranking members
of the White House and the office of the Vice President of treason, just
perjury and conspiracy. Is that so wrong?'
"The party that said they won the last election because of their stand on
moral issues doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing shows how out of touch
Republicans now are with the values of the American people."
Michelle Malkin takes exception to Hutchison's remarks:
"Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a
'gotcha' kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing
'technicalities' instead of 'real' crimes? I haven't heard anyone on our
side suggest anything of the kind."
And yes, this must be an official strategy, as the New York Times reports
that "allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to
pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over
legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor."
Pat Fitzgerald, menace to society?
Wasn't this guy appointed by the Bush Justice Department after Ashcroft
realized he was too conflicted to investigate Plamegate?
So the vice president of the United States did have some involvement:
"I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President ***** Cheney's chief of staff, first
learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation
in a
conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in
2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday," according to the NYT .
"Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr.
Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer,
Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
Nothing like preemptive leaking-- one of the great spectator sports.
Bill Kristol tries to elevate the argument against White House indictments
(and anticipates the Clinton-comparison argument):
"Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction of justice willful and
determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the
inquiry without bringing indictments. It is fundamentally inappropriate to
allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and
political dispute within the administration, or between the administration
and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage
after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate
criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them, no matter how
much criticism he might then get from the liberal establishment that yearns
to damage the Bush administration through the use of the criminal law.
"And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited
information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite
possible-- dare I say probable?-- that no indictments would be the just and
appropriate resolution to this inquiry.
"I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in
behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions
of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support
the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My
response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way
Bill
Clinton did-- knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate
legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way
Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the
Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary-- and successful-- political
campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of
Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been
fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation."
Except if a senior official doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to a grand jury-- and is charged with perjury-- that,
by definition, is less than "fully cooperative."
I found this John Dickerson piece in Slate to be one of the most revealing
about Scooter:
"It's surprising . . . to find Libby is at the center of a press scandal.
The daily communications operation is not something he cares much about.
Rove, by contrast, spends a portion of every day running his own press
operation. He sends BlackBerry messages, forwards polling data, and argues
his case to influential journalists. Libby flies at a higher altitude,
talking mostly to marquee columnists and preferring longer and more
in-depth
conversations to the rat-a-tat-tat required by reporters on deadline.
"Libby does enjoy the intellectual cat-and-mouse game of longer form
interviews, those who have worked with him say. He challenges basic
assumptions and presses on a reporter's sloppy definitions. In my
experience
interviewing him, if a line of reasoning was in any way harmful to the
administration or the vice president, it was sometimes impossible to get
past the gorilla dust. His shimmy and shake sometimes got so bad, I
wondered
if he would even admit to working for the vice president. 'It's very
lawyerly kind of amusement,' says a former aide.
"When the Cheneys hosted a party in February 2002 for the paperback
publication of Libby's book, the guest list was not filled with workaday
journalists, but with the elite from New York and Washington: Sally Quinn
and Ben Bradlee, Leon Wieseltier and Maureen Dowd. In those early days
after
9/11, it seemed like the relationship between the press and the media elite
might turn out to be a fairly cozy one. The Bushies hated 'old Washington,'
but as Libby and the vice president spoke from the landing at the bottom of
the stairs, it seemed as if their half of the administration understood the
quiet commerce between the ruling elite and the more permanent Washington
establishment . . .
"Libby is fussy and precise with reporters, which is why friends and
colleagues find it so hard to believe that he would have been involved in
leaking Plame's identity, obstructing justice, or committing perjury.
"Libby was an exacting source for anyone who talked to him. After using a
Libby quote, it was not unusual for reporters to receive a call from the
vice president's press shop. Mr. Libby wanted to know why only a portion of
his comment was used. 'He would prefer that if a reporter was going to
quote
him that it be an unedited transcript,' says one who worked closely with
him. Other reporters were scolded if a Libby quote hidden under the
attribution of 'senior administration official' was placed near sentences
that he thought might identify him, even if no reasonable reader could come
to such a conclusion. In other words, he's as careful as they come in
Washington."
On the Miers front, Ryan Lizza marvels in the New Republic at how quickly
the right has turned:
'That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the
conservative movement. This month, he's a traitor . . .
"To be sure, the conservative abandonment of Bush isn't total. The right is
divided. Some see the split as one of Washington eggheads versus the
red-state masses. Others, noting that the debate over Miers is, at its
core,
about | | | | | | |
