| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 07:18:43 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the
most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted to
power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest --
including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with the
leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in
government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that existed
before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if the public
mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House and Senate
could be at risk.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
07 Nov 2005 03:16:42 PM |
|
|
For the Democrats to take control of the House would take a rather
sizeable tidal wave, similar to 1994. At this point, I doubt they'll
take it, though narrowing the (very slim) GOP margin of control seems
very likely.
The Senate is a different story. I'd say control at this point is a
toss-up. The Democrats will almost certainly gain seats; whether they
can flip it is the issue. GOP recruiting of Senate candidates has been
a serious disaster, and a seat-by-seat breakdown is increasingly
favoring the Democrats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 06:51:17 PM |
|
|
Andrew F. Heil wrote:
For the Democrats to take control of the House would take a rather
sizeable tidal wave, similar to 1994. At this point, I doubt they'll
take it, though narrowing the (very slim) GOP margin of control seems
very likely.
The Senate is a different story. I'd say control at this point is a
toss-up. The Democrats will almost certainly gain seats; whether they
can flip it is the issue. GOP recruiting of Senate candidates has been
a serious disaster, and a seat-by-seat breakdown is increasingly
favoring the Democrats.
I would just like to see the moderate elements of both parties get a
lot stronger and quit letting the nigh-lunatic fringes screw with the
country.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
07 Nov 2005 03:45:11 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the
most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted to
power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest --
including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with the
leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in
government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that existed
before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if the public
mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House and Senate
could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
Thus I predict that the 2006 elections will be very
hard fought, very dirty with Swift Boats darting here
and there, and suspicious voting in numerous places.
And in the end I will predict that the Republicans will
be victorious, even to the point of increasing their
hold on both houses.
I fervently hope that I am wrong. I fear that I am not.
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
07 Nov 2005 04:33:32 AM |
|
|
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dkmik6$471$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR20051
10501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the
most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted
to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest --
including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with
the leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in
government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that existed
before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if the
public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House and
Senate could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
I think you can count on the Democrats self-destructing before November
of 2006. Any further investigation into prewar intelligence will prove
to be nothing but a terrible embarrassment for the Democrats. The list
of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had WMD will be their downfall.
There have already been three separate investigative reports that
concluded that nobody "lied us into war".
Thus I predict that the 2006 elections will be very
hard fought, very dirty with Swift Boats darting here
and there, and suspicious voting in numerous places.
You can count on the Democrats to make those sorts of allegations, but
just like 2000 and 2004, they'll turn out to be unfounded.
And in the end I will predict that the Republicans will
be victorious, even to the point of increasing their
hold on both houses.
I fervently hope that I am wrong. I fear that I am not.
----- Paul J. Gans
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
08 Nov 2005 06:43:28 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The list
of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had WMD will be their downfall.
*sigh* the lie wasn't WMD, the lie was nukes, aluminum tubes, Al Qaeda
ties, and 45 minutes: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110605.shtml
If the democrats take one of the houses, here's how we do this:
Arrange for a fervent political enemy of Bush to be given unlimited
power, money, and time to investigate anything and everything, no
matter how ridiculous. Get Bush under oath, string together a bunch of
irrelevant embarrassing questions, and vote to impeach on party lines.
After that, we can call a truce and start over.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
07 Nov 2005 02:04:42 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dkmik6$471$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR20051
10501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the
most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted
to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest --
including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with
the leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in
government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that existed
before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if the
public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House and
Senate could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
I think you can count on the Democrats self-destructing before November
of 2006. Any further investigation into prewar intelligence will prove
to be nothing but a terrible embarrassment for the Democrats. The list
of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had WMD will be their downfall.
While Clinton was President NO democrat said that Saddam *had*
WMDs. A number, including Clinton, said that it was possible
that he either had them or was attempting to make them.
Clinton's response was to push for UN inspection, which, it
turns out, actually worked.
AFTER Bush was elected, Democrats as well as Republicans
relied on what the Government said. The Government claimed
that Saddam in fact HAD WMDs. Democrats believed the Government
just as you did. Both of you were lied to. The Government
did not KNOW that Saddam had WMDs, even though it said that
it DID know.
There have already been three separate investigative reports that
concluded that nobody "lied us into war".
None of which were independent of the Republican Party. There
is not doubt whatsoever that there was no sure knowlege that
Saddam had nuclear weapons. But nevertheless the Government
claimed that the did for a certainty.
That's called lying where I come from.
Thus I predict that the 2006 elections will be very
hard fought, very dirty with Swift Boats darting here
and there, and suspicious voting in numerous places.
You can count on the Democrats to make those sorts of allegations, but
just like 2000 and 2004, they'll turn out to be unfounded.
Did they now? It is certainly true that the current Administration
and the current Congress have not really investigated any of the
claims. Why would that be, I wonder?
And in the end I will predict that the Republicans will
be victorious, even to the point of increasing their
hold on both houses.
I fervently hope that I am wrong. I fear that I am not.
----- Paul J. Gans
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
Curious sig file since the majority of Congressmen are Republicans.
I expect that as a result you'll vote Democrat next time out, right?
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
07 Nov 2005 02:36:47 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dknmtq$gsf$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dkmik6$471$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR20051
10501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing
the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they
vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter
unrest -- including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and
dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush -- have
undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears among GOP
candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that
existed before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if
the public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House
and Senate could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
I think you can count on the Democrats self-destructing before
November of 2006. Any further investigation into prewar intelligence
will prove to be nothing but a terrible embarrassment for the
Democrats. The list of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had WMD will be
their downfall.
While Clinton was President NO democrat said that Saddam *had*
WMDs. A number, including Clinton, said that it was possible
that he either had them or was attempting to make them.
Which is close enough for government work, since Saddam was *forbidden*
to attempt to make them.
Clinton's response was to push for UN inspection, which, it
turns out, actually worked.
Actually, Clinton's response was to launch missiles. An act of war.
And the inspections *didn't* work. They *couldn't* work because, as it
turns out, Saddam was bribing the UN. The inspectors didn't have
unrestricted access to sites, they didn't have full cooperation from the
regime, they weren't even allowed to interview scientists without Iraqi
"minders" being present.
AFTER Bush was elected, Democrats as well as Republicans
relied on what the Government said.
On what the CIA said.
The Government claimed
that Saddam in fact HAD WMDs. Democrats believed the Government
just as you did. Both of you were lied to.
By the CIA. Which then tried to cover its ***** by pulling the
Wilson/Plame/Niger scam.
The Government
did not KNOW that Saddam had WMDs, even though it said that
it DID know.
It was a "slam dunk" according to the CIA.
There have already been three separate investigative reports that
concluded that nobody "lied us into war".
None of which were independent of the Republican Party. There
is not doubt whatsoever that there was no sure knowlege that
Saddam had nuclear weapons. But nevertheless the Government
claimed that the did for a certainty.
That's called lying where I come from.
There's still a difference between "being wrong" and "being a liar"
where *I* come from.
Thus I predict that the 2006 elections will be very
hard fought, very dirty with Swift Boats darting here
and there, and suspicious voting in numerous places.
You can count on the Democrats to make those sorts of allegations, but
just like 2000 and 2004, they'll turn out to be unfounded.
Did they now? It is certainly true that the current Administration
and the current Congress have not really investigated any of the
claims. Why would that be, I wonder?
Because they've already been investigated by the appropriate
authorities.
And in the end I will predict that the Republicans will
be victorious, even to the point of increasing their
hold on both houses.
I fervently hope that I am wrong. I fear that I am not.
<...>
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
Curious sig file since the majority of Congressmen are Republicans.
I expect that as a result you'll vote Democrat next time out, right?
Why would I do that? Democrats are bigger thieves than Republicans ever
dreamed of being. Not only do they steal money, they try to steal
elections. And then when they get called on it, they accuse the
Republicans.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
08 Nov 2005 03:09:31 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dknmtq$gsf$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dkmik6$471$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR20051
10501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing
the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they
vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter
unrest -- including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and
dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush -- have
undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears among GOP
candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC News
poll, found significant discontent with the performance of both
political parties. Frustration has not reached the level that
existed before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say that if
the public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in the House
and Senate could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
I think you can count on the Democrats self-destructing before
November of 2006. Any further investigation into prewar intelligence
will prove to be nothing but a terrible embarrassment for the
Democrats. The list of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had WMD will be
their downfall.
While Clinton was President NO democrat said that Saddam *had*
WMDs. A number, including Clinton, said that it was possible
that he either had them or was attempting to make them.
Which is close enough for government work, since Saddam was *forbidden*
to attempt to make them.
Clinton's response was to push for UN inspection, which, it
turns out, actually worked.
Actually, Clinton's response was to launch missiles. An act of war.
And the inspections *didn't* work. They *couldn't* work because, as it
turns out, Saddam was bribing the UN. The inspectors didn't have
unrestricted access to sites, they didn't have full cooperation from the
regime, they weren't even allowed to interview scientists without Iraqi
"minders" being present.
AFTER Bush was elected, Democrats as well as Republicans
relied on what the Government said.
On what the CIA said.
The Government claimed
that Saddam in fact HAD WMDs. Democrats believed the Government
just as you did. Both of you were lied to.
By the CIA. Which then tried to cover its ***** by pulling the
Wilson/Plame/Niger scam.
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up to
cynical, truth-hating politicians.
(snip)
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
08 Nov 2005 05:49:31 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1131462571.948870.162980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dknmtq$gsf$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dkmik6$471$2@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR20051
10501514_pf.html
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are
facing the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years
since they vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful
currents of voter unrest -- including unhappiness over the war in
Iraq and dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush --
have undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears
among GOP candidates of a backlash.
Interviews with voters, politicians and strategists in four
battleground states, supplemented by a new Washington Post-ABC
News poll, found significant discontent with the performance of
both political parties. Frustration has not reached the level
that existed before the 1994 earthquake, but many strategists say
that if the public mood further darkens, Republican majorities in
the House and Senate could be at risk.
Yes. I recall reading similar stories before the 2004
Presidential election got going.
The Republicans can not afford to lose the Congressional
Elections in 2006. If the Democrats take over even one
house of Congress we will have investigations of fraud
involving Halliburton and others, investigations into
how the war in Iraq began, investigations into FEMA,
etc., etc., etc.
This will cause the Republicans great difficulty.
I think you can count on the Democrats self-destructing before
November of 2006. Any further investigation into prewar
intelligence will prove to be nothing but a terrible embarrassment
for the Democrats. The list of DEMOCRATS who said that Saddam had
WMD will be their downfall.
While Clinton was President NO democrat said that Saddam *had*
WMDs. A number, including Clinton, said that it was possible
that he either had them or was attempting to make them.
Which is close enough for government work, since Saddam was
*forbidden* to attempt to make them.
Clinton's response was to push for UN inspection, which, it
turns out, actually worked.
Actually, Clinton's response was to launch missiles. An act of war.
And the inspections *didn't* work. They *couldn't* work because, as
it turns out, Saddam was bribing the UN. The inspectors didn't have
unrestricted access to sites, they didn't have full cooperation from
the regime, they weren't even allowed to interview scientists without
Iraqi "minders" being present.
AFTER Bush was elected, Democrats as well as Republicans
relied on what the Government said.
On what the CIA said.
The Government claimed
that Saddam in fact HAD WMDs. Democrats believed the Government
just as you did. Both of you were lied to.
By the CIA. Which then tried to cover its ***** by pulling the
Wilson/Plame/Niger scam.
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up to
cynical, truth-hating politicians.
When the "professional" intel people have already been exposed as having
made egregious errors in judgement and heavily politicized "leaks" of
covert operations and classified information, yes, they deserve the
blame.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
16 Nov 2005 04:50:27 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
(snip)
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up to
cynical, truth-hating politicians.
When the "professional" intel people have already been exposed as having
made egregious errors in judgement and heavily politicized "leaks" of
covert operations and classified information, yes, they deserve the
blame.
What errors in judgment, besides going along with the administration
against their own professional judgment? What politicized leaks that
weren't plots by the administration? I mean, intel people are
moderates or slightly right of center, as whole. What kind of twisted
"reasoning" turns resistance to politicization into politization? The
same kind that turns neutrality to religion into a religion itself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
This especially applies to the politicians Fred wants us to kiss up to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
16 Nov 2005 06:44:57 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132159827.784272.95280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
(snip)
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up to
cynical, truth-hating politicians.
When the "professional" intel people have already been exposed as
having made egregious errors in judgement and heavily politicized
"leaks" of covert operations and classified information, yes, they
deserve the blame.
What errors in judgment, besides going along with the administration
against their own professional judgment?
The Senate investigation already concluded that the intel community made
their mistakes about WMD in Iraq *without* any pressure to "go along
with the administration".
What politicized leaks that
weren't plots by the administration?
Joe Wilson's phony "revelations". "CIA Prisons".
I mean, intel people are
moderates or slightly right of center, as whole.
Where do you get *that* idea from?
What kind of twisted
"reasoning" turns resistance to politicization into politization? The
same kind that turns neutrality to religion into a religion itself.
It doesn't take twisted reasoning to recognize factionalism for what it
is.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 04:24:33 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132159827.784272.95280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
(snip)
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up to
cynical, truth-hating politicians.
When the "professional" intel people have already been exposed as
having made egregious errors in judgement and heavily politicized
"leaks" of covert operations and classified information, yes, they
deserve the blame.
What errors in judgment, besides going along with the administration
against their own professional judgment?
The Senate investigation already concluded that the intel community made
their mistakes about WMD in Iraq *without* any pressure to "go along
with the administration".
OK, when I get time, I will look into it and examine my own opinions.
What politicized leaks that
weren't plots by the administration?
Joe Wilson's phony "revelations". "CIA Prisons".
I mean, intel people are
moderates or slightly right of center, as whole.
Where do you get *that* idea from?
?? What do _you_ think, then?
What kind of twisted
"reasoning" turns resistance to politicization into politization? The
same kind that turns neutrality to religion into a religion itself.
It doesn't take twisted reasoning to recognize factionalism for what it
is.
OK, I will agree that it's factionalism, because you have two factions:
on the one side, the professional intelligence people, and on the
other, the people of the president's party, who fight just a little too
dirty against their fellow Americans, if you ask me.
I think, over all both sides think they are being loyal Americans, but
I think professionalism itself (which I hold to be an ideal) will tend
to make every effort to serve the country as a whole. Their mistakes
will be more honest. After all good intelligence work is not easy at
all; the victories are tiny and temporary except in a few rare
instances.
I think the current government thinks they are working to the benefit
of the country, but they are a lot more ideological, which makes them
much more loyal to some segments of the country than others. This is
because, in order to overthrow the liberals, conservatives adopted
fierce, dirty tactics, the kind of tactics that go too far, until they
lost perspective and started mistaking their own opinions for the
truth, and their purely selfish interests for what's good for the
country.
The pack of conservatives in charge now are a bunch of revolutionaries,
and now that they've taken over, they sit around the seats of power
with their feet on the furniture and getting cigar ashes on the rug,
but they can't run a country, let alone the world, to save their lives
(and, unfortunately, ours.) They sure are making money, though.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 01:10:54 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132287873.605475.100940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1132159827.784272.95280@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
(snip)
That's it, blame the professional intel people while kissing up
to cynical, truth-hating politicians.
When the "professional" intel people have already been exposed as
having made egregious errors in judgement and heavily politicized
"leaks" of covert operations and classified information, yes, they
deserve the blame.
What errors in judgment, besides going along with the
administration against their own professional judgment?
The Senate investigation already concluded that the intel community
made their mistakes about WMD in Iraq *without* any pressure to "go
along with the administration".
OK, when I get time, I will look into it and examine my own opinions.
What politicized leaks that
weren't plots by the administration?
Joe Wilson's phony "revelations". "CIA Prisons".
I mean, intel people are
moderates or slightly right of center, as whole.
Where do you get *that* idea from?
?? What do _you_ think, then?
I think there are some seriously leftist lefties in the intel services.
What kind of twisted
"reasoning" turns resistance to politicization into politization?
The same kind that turns neutrality to religion into a religion
itself.
It doesn't take twisted reasoning to recognize factionalism for what
it is.
OK, I will agree that it's factionalism, because you have two
factions:
on the one side, the professional intelligence people, and on the
other, the people of the president's party, who fight just a little
too dirty against their fellow Americans, if you ask me.
In my opinion some of those "professional" intel people are fighting
more than a little too dirty.
I think, over all both sides think they are being loyal Americans, but
I think professionalism itself (which I hold to be an ideal) will tend
to make every effort to serve the country as a whole. Their mistakes
will be more honest. After all good intelligence work is not easy at
all; the victories are tiny and temporary except in a few rare
instances.
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to resist
reform of their inept bureaucracy.
I think the current government thinks they are working to the benefit
of the country, but they are a lot more ideological, which makes them
much more loyal to some segments of the country than others.
And their opposition isn't even more ideological? Give me a break!
This is
because, in order to overthrow the liberals, conservatives adopted
fierce, dirty tactics, the kind of tactics that go too far, until they
lost perspective and started mistaking their own opinions for the
truth, and their purely selfish interests for what's good for the
country.
The liberals had used the same sort of fierce, dirty tactics for
*decades* but they get away with it with their pose of total self-
righteousness. Witness the arguments I've had about Democrats making
racist remarks against Black Republicans. Practically none of the
Democratic leadership will condemn anyone who called Michael Steele a
"Sambo" or an "Uncle Tom".
The pack of conservatives in charge now are a bunch of
revolutionaries, and now that they've taken over, they sit around the
seats of power with their feet on the furniture and getting cigar
ashes on the rug, but they can't run a country, let alone the world,
to save their lives (and, unfortunately, ours.) They sure are making
money, though.
Well now, that's one problem I have with your ideology: you think
they're supposed to run the country, let alone the world. I think
they're supposed to run the *government* and let the *country* run
itself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 03:29:30 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to resist
reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if* the
intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that *still* would
not have justified the invasion. Remember, the possession of WMDs was a
violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it was the *UN's* responsibility
to decide when to apply military force, not ours.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 04:38:58 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to
resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if* the
intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that *still*
would not have justified the invasion. Remember, the possession of
WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it was the *UN's*
responsibility to decide when to apply military force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners agreed
with our justification of the invasion.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 06:57:29 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to
resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if* the
intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that *still*
would not have justified the invasion. Remember, the possession of
WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it was the *UN's*
responsibility to decide when to apply military force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners agreed
with our justification of the invasion.
Our Congress voted to give the president authority to invade. They did
not instruct him to invade. That is a big difference, that you will
continue not to see.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 07:39:33 PM |
|
|
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132340249.804376.287950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And
now it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations
to resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if*
the intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that
*still* would not have justified the invasion. Remember, the
possession of WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it
was the *UN's* responsibility to decide when to apply military
force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners
agreed with our justification of the invasion.
Our Congress voted to give the president authority to invade. They did
not instruct him to invade. That is a big difference, that you will
continue not to see.
That is a silly quibble, which is plenty obvious to me.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 08:11:15 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132340249.804376.287950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And
now it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations
to resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if*
the intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that
*still* would not have justified the invasion. Remember, the
possession of WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it
was the *UN's* responsibility to decide when to apply military
force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners
agreed with our justification of the invasion.
Our Congress voted to give the president authority to invade. They did
not instruct him to invade. That is a big difference, that you will
continue not to see.
That is a silly quibble, which is plenty obvious to me.
Thanks for showing that I was right, in that you don't see the
difference. Or, is it that your all-encompassing love for Bush won't
let you see...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 08:54:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971295437176Cfstone69@213.155.197.138>:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132340249.804376.287950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And
now it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations
to resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush his
excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even *if*
the intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there, that
*still* would not have justified the invasion. Remember, the
possession of WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and thus it
was the *UN's* responsibility to decide when to apply military
force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners
agreed with our justification of the invasion.
Our Congress voted to give the president authority to invade. They did
not instruct him to invade. That is a big difference, that you will
continue not to see.
That is a silly quibble, which is plenty obvious to me.
I don't quite understand why Congress seems unwilling to declare war any
more. It seems quite like they are unwilling to take responsibility for
making a decision but feel that it's okay to complain after the
President makes a hash of it.
Whatever happened to Congressional oversight?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 09:36:40 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:chfsn150mseo4nkvnbo8fmr1iuij3valn0@4ax.com:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971295437176Cfstone69@213.155.197.138>:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132340249.804376.287950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in
news:9ksrn1t1lmn5akk77o7r28vem783n8rq4h@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong.
And now it's the "professionals" who are making desperate
allegations to resist reform of their inept bureaucracy.
It was more than that. The intel. mistake may have given Bush
his excuse to invade, but the decision was still his. And even
*if* the intel. had been correct and there *were* WMDs there,
that *still* would not have justified the invasion. Remember,
the possession of WMDs was a violation of a *UN* mandate, and
thus it was the *UN's* responsibility to decide when to apply
military force, not ours.
Our Congress voted differently on that, and our Coalition partners
agreed with our justification of the invasion.
Our Congress voted to give the president authority to invade. They
did not instruct him to invade. That is a big difference, that you
will continue not to see.
That is a silly quibble, which is plenty obvious to me.
I don't quite understand why Congress seems unwilling to declare war
any more. It seems quite like they are unwilling to take
responsibility for making a decision but feel that it's okay to
complain after the President makes a hash of it.
Whatever happened to Congressional oversight?
That's just the nature of politicians nowadays. If Iraq had fallen like
it did and then the elections had been held without all this messy
insurgency business, there'd be Congresscritters fighting over who got
to take credit for it all.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 01:27:54 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to resist
reform of their inept bureaucracy.
I'd say it's the people who don't want a full investigation who got
Iraq so wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 01:55:42 PM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1132320474.670308.157060
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
It was the "professionals" who got Iraq so (apparantly) wrong. And now
it's the "professionals" who are making desperate allegations to resist
reform of their inept bureaucracy.
I'd say it's the people who don't want a full investigation who got
Iraq so wrong.
Who would that be? Let me remind you that there has already been TWO full
investigations, and a third one is due to report its findings shortly.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 02:45:51 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
I'd say it's the people who don't want a full investigation who got
Iraq so wrong.
Who would that be? Let me remind you that there has already been TWO full
investigations, and a third one is due to report its findings shortly.
That would be the republicans who have been stonewalling Phase Two for
a year, to the extent that only a closed session could have any chance
of getting it moving.
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless partisan
trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor of any
investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how partisan it
is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 04:36:34 PM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1132325151.357528.15550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
I'd say it's the people who don't want a full investigation who got
Iraq so wrong.
Who would that be? Let me remind you that there has already been TWO
full investigations, and a third one is due to report its findings
shortly.
That would be the republicans who have been stonewalling Phase Two for
a year, to the extent that only a closed session could have any chance
of getting it moving.
Republicans? It's the DEMOCRATS who balked when Senator Roberts listed
all of *their* pre-war statements as well as those of the President and
administration people, *without* attribution. That way the DEMOCRATS
would have to defend or deny *all* the claims according to the
intelligence available, *WHETHER OR NOT* they came from Republicans.
And don't kid yourself about the closed session either. They're due to
report their findings and they've BEEN due to report their findings.
Reid's little escapade was just a stunt to take credit for the Sun
rising. Sort of like taking credit for armored HUMVEEs or body armor or
tourniquets.
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless partisan
trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor of any
investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how partisan it
is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on, right?
Sure, let's get it *ALL* out in the open. Let's investigate Joe Wilson's
lies, and let's see all the ABLE DANGER material, and let's see what
Sandy Berger was trying to steal, too.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 07:16:37 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"thissteve"
(snip)
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless partisan
trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor of any
investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how partisan it
is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on, right?
Sure, let's get it *ALL* out in the open. Let's investigate Joe Wilson's
lies, and let's see all the ABLE DANGER material, and let's see what
Sandy Berger was trying to steal, too.
Berger is another politician, which I thought you prefer over
professionals. Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat, so that's different, like it
matters to non-extremists which particular flavor of scoundrel it is.
Personally, I don't think he was trying to steal, I think he just
screwed up. It's a truism that the worst security screw-ups are by
people (especial higher-ups) who can't be bothered by all the fiddly
procedures, so they walk out with something in their briefcase,
remember that they were supposed to leave it behind, but decide they
are too busy, or it is too much trouble, to report their screw-up and
put the materials back like they are supposed to.
On a personal level, I'm curious as to what he was doing, but I don't
want to know what it was; I am not read on nor do I have a need to
know. I trust that the counter-inteI people went over the whole case
with a fine tooth comb and probably a committee (probably including the
source of the documents) have produced a report, complete with
recommendations.
I consider leaking classified info to be a very low form of behavior,
but it is also different from whistle blowing. Properly classification
protects methods, sources, and intentions. Classification of screw-ups
or misbehavior to hide it from the public is so wrong that exposing it
(i.e., whistleblowing) is a form of justified civil disobedience, and a
form of refusal to follow an illegal order, to put it in military
terms.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
18 Nov 2005 07:45:21 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132341396.989768.56550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"thissteve"
(snip)
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless
partisan trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor of
any investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how
partisan it is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on,
right?
Sure, let's get it *ALL* out in the open. Let's investigate Joe
Wilson's lies, and let's see all the ABLE DANGER material, and let's
see what Sandy Berger was trying to steal, too.
Berger is another politician, which I thought you prefer over
professionals.
What gave you that idea? Oh, yeah, your extremely limited imagination.
Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat, so that's different, like
it matters to non-extremists which particular flavor of scoundrel it
is. Personally, I don't think he was trying to steal, I think he just
screwed up.
Yeah, he just screwed up and disposed of high-security papers.
It's a truism that the worst security screw-ups are by
people (especial higher-ups) who can't be bothered by all the fiddly
procedures, so they walk out with something in their briefcase,
remember that they were supposed to leave it behind, but decide they
are too busy, or it is too much trouble, to report their screw-up and
put the materials back like they are supposed to.
So instead they cut them up with scissors and then lie about it.
On a personal level, I'm curious as to what he was doing, but I don't
want to know what it was; I am not read on nor do I have a need to
know. I trust that the counter-inteI people went over the whole case
with a fine tooth comb and probably a committee (probably including
the source of the documents) have produced a report, complete with
recommendations.
Oh, you trust that committee but not the Senate Intelligence Committee
that exonerated the President from the charge of manipulating
intelligence?
I consider leaking classified info to be a very low form of behavior,
but it is also different from whistle blowing. Properly
classification protects methods, sources, and intentions.
Classification of screw-ups or misbehavior to hide it from the public
is so wrong that exposing it (i.e., whistleblowing) is a form of
justified civil disobedience, and a form of refusal to follow an
illegal order, to put it in military terms.
There's a third sort of leak, which is to reveal misleading information
in order to bias public perceptions.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
21 Nov 2005 01:51:59 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132341396.989768.56550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"thissteve"
(snip)
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless
partisan trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor of
any investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how
partisan it is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on,
right?
Sure, let's get it *ALL* out in the open. Let's investigate Joe
Wilson's lies, and let's see all the ABLE DANGER material, and let's
see what Sandy Berger was trying to steal, too.
Berger is another politician, which I thought you prefer over
professionals.
What gave you that idea? Oh, yeah, your extremely limited imagination.
Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat, so that's different, like
it matters to non-extremists which particular flavor of scoundrel it
is. Personally, I don't think he was trying to steal, I think he just
screwed up.
Yeah, he just screwed up and disposed of high-security papers.
It's a truism that the worst security screw-ups are by
people (especial higher-ups) who can't be bothered by all the fiddly
procedures, so they walk out with something in their briefcase,
remember that they were supposed to leave it behind, but decide they
are too busy, or it is too much trouble, to report their screw-up and
put the materials back like they are supposed to.
So instead they cut them up with scissors and then lie about it.
Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to do things like that.
SOme even get away with it. Personally, I think Berger should lose
whatever access he may still have.
On a personal level, I'm curious as to what he was doing, but I don't
want to know what it was; I am not read on nor do I have a need to
know. I trust that the counter-inteI people went over the whole case
with a fine tooth comb and probably a committee (probably including
the source of the documents) have produced a report, complete with
recommendations.
Oh, you trust that committee but not the Senate Intelligence Committee
that exonerated the President from the charge of manipulating
intelligence?
Well, of course. They are at least professionals for whom dealing with
security matters is a matter of pride, as opposed to a gaggle of
politicians, many of whom are predisposed to cut the current President
undeserved slack.
I consider leaking classified info to be a very low form of behavior,
but it is also different from whistle blowing. Properly
classification protects methods, sources, and intentions.
Classification of screw-ups or misbehavior to hide it from the public
is so wrong that exposing it (i.e., whistleblowing) is a form of
justified civil disobedience, and a form of refusal to follow an
illegal order, to put it in military terms.
There's a third sort of leak, which is to reveal misleading information
in order to bias public perceptions.
Case in point: leaking Plame's name.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
21 Nov 2005 03:41:01 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132581119.841441.298320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1132341396.989768.56550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"thissteve"
(snip)
Now don't complain that further investigation is a needless
partisan trick. Surely the party of Ken Starr will be in favor
of any investigation of any length on any subject, no matter how
partisan it is. If there's nothing to hide, bring it all on,
right?
Sure, let's get it *ALL* out in the open. Let's investigate Joe
Wilson's lies, and let's see all the ABLE DANGER material, and
let's see what Sandy Berger was trying to steal, too.
Berger is another politician, which I thought you prefer over
professionals.
What gave you that idea? Oh, yeah, your extremely limited
imagination.
Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat, so that's different, like
it matters to non-extremists which particular flavor of scoundrel
it is. Personally, I don't think he was trying to steal, I think he
just screwed up.
Yeah, he just screwed up and disposed of high-security papers.
It's a truism that the worst security screw-ups are by
people (especial higher-ups) who can't be bothered by all the
fiddly procedures, so they walk out with something in their
briefcase, remember that they were supposed to leave it behind, but
decide they are too busy, or it is too much trouble, to report
their screw-up and put the materials back like they are supposed
to.
So instead they cut them up with scissors and then lie about it.
Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to do things like that.
SOme even get away with it. Personally, I think Berger should lose
whatever access he may still have.
On a personal level, I'm curious as to what he was doing, but I
don't want to know what it was; I am not read on nor do I have a
need to know. I trust that the counter-inteI people went over the
whole case with a fine tooth comb and probably a committee
(probably including the source of the documents) have produced a
report, complete with recommendations.
Oh, you trust that committee but not the Senate Intelligence
Committee that exonerated the President from the charge of
manipulating intelligence?
Well, of course. They are at least professionals for whom dealing
with security matters is a matter of pride, as opposed to a gaggle of
politicians, many of whom are predisposed to cut the current President
undeserved slack.
I consider leaking classified info to be a very low form of
behavior, but it is also different from whistle blowing. Properly
classification protects methods, sources, and intentions.
Classification of screw-ups or misbehavior to hide it from the
public is so wrong that exposing it (i.e., whistleblowing) is a
form of justified civil disobedience, and a form of refusal to
follow an illegal order, to put it in military terms.
There's a third sort of leak, which is to reveal misleading
information in order to bias public perceptions.
Case in point: leaking Plame's name.
Case in point: Pretending that the mention of Plame's name was a "leak".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
24 Nov 2005 03:37:58 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132581119.841441.298320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132341396.989768.56550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
There's a third sort of leak, which is to reveal misleading
information in order to bias public perceptions.
Case in point: leaking Plame's name.
Case in point: Pretending that the mention of Plame's name was a "leak".
What name? You have forgotten the party line here Fred. You are
supposed to claim that because they did not give her name it did not
release her identity. You are supposed to say that "Joe Wilson's wife
is a CIA agent" does not identify her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06 |
24 Nov 2005 03:49:57 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1132846678.482888.279420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132581119.841441.298320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
news:1132341396.989768.56550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
There's a third sort of leak, which is to reveal misleading
information in order to bias public perceptions.
Case in point: leaking Plame's name.
Case in point: Pretending that the mention of Plame's name was a
"leak".
What name? You have forgotten the party line here Fred. You are
supposed to claim that because they did not give her name it did not
release her identity. You are supposed to say that "Joe Wilson's wife
is a CIA agent" does not identify her.
Oh, sorry, I don't hold to silly arguments by either side.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
