The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive]

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:35 AM

I'd like to show you guys something interesting. Bear with me it's going to take 3 posts to show you...

Here is the AP version of the story I was mentioning above:

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks - a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide - according to the new court filing - was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

I copied this to Microsoft Word and did a Word Count.

Results:

Pages: 2
Words: 704
Characters (no spaces): 3726
Characters (w/ spaces): 4414
Paragraphs: 20
Lines: 79

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:37 AM

Now here's CNN's take on the AP release:

Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that his boss said President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity. (Watch what the court document says Libby said about Bush -- 3:05)

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide -- according to the new court filing -- was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

Pages: 2
Words: 722
Characters (no spaces): 3823
Characters (w/ spaces): 4525
Paragraphs: 20
Lines: 80

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:41 AM

And now the FoxNews version of the AP release:

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

Before his indictment, Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the Plame leak that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was Bush who authorized the leak, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Pages: 1
Words: 281
Characters (no spaces): 1548
Characters (w/spaces): 1823
Paragraphs: 8
Lines: 32

Quite a difference, don't you think? News sources do abbreviate stories, but this version is cut alot.

Now...

Look at the positioning of the following paragraph in the Fox version:

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
It's right up front.

I find that interesting. Not surprising but interesting...
;)

Ghoulish Delight

04-06-2006, 11:45 AM

What I find also interesting is the addition of "his bosses said" in the CNN version. And what's with the weird little "whatch what the court document says" parenthetical"?

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:47 AM

What I find also interesting is the addition of "his bosses said" in the CNN version. And what's with the weird little "whatch what the court document says" parenthetical"?
It's from the website. You can click on the hyperlink and go to their video footage section that they really really want everyone to watch.

Alex

04-06-2006, 11:50 AM

What facts do you think are missing from Fox's version?

I don't see that big of a deal in moving that sentence from paragraph three to two (from sentence #4 to sentence #2).

Personally, I don't care how it is written as long as all the same facts are in it. But you realize that the right will say that it is not suprise that the AP version waits longer to reveal that the information does not support Bush or Cheney having done anything illegal, leaving alive longer the idea that somehow this revelation (which was revelated a couple weeks ago so I'm not clear why it is news now) implicates Bush or Cheney in the revealing of Plames CIA status?

We'll all find the bias we want to find.

Alex

04-06-2006, 11:51 AM

What I find also interesting is the addition of "his bosses said" in the CNN version. And what's with the weird little "whatch what the court document says" parenthetical"?

It is probably more accurate in the CNN version since Libby probably never spoke to Bush he could only recount what Cheney told him Bush had said.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:55 AM

Both of their sources are the same. The original source is much more detailed. Which, it seems, CNN caught on to. If your only source of news was FoxNews, you wouldn't be getting all the information. And why not show all of the AP release? What, are they trying to save paper on their website?

Moving sentences is common, but in this case it emphasizes Bush and Cheney's possible innocence up front. Everyone knows that people not fully engaged stop reading a news article a couple of paragraphs in. They obviously didn't want anyone to miss that sentence.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 11:58 AM

What facts do you think are missing from Fox's version?
Nothing. Except the backstory...
Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide -- according to the new court filing -- was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

€uroMeinke

04-06-2006, 12:02 PM

And why not show all of the AP release? What, are they trying to save paper on their website?

Attention spans? I'll be honest and confess that I didn't read any of the three articles beyond the headline - this is often the depth I'll go to in a political story - so perhaps they're just catering to my indifferent demographic?

scaeagles

04-06-2006, 12:06 PM

When I read the headlines, you know what I think? That Libby gave up Bush as the person who told him to leak Valerie Plame. When I read the headlines of the stories, I see the the AP and CNN stories attempting to make that impression with their headlines. What does one think of when they hear Libby and leak? Valerie Plame was what I thought of, and I'm sure most people did (though admittedly I could be wrong).

For this reason, I think the Fox story and headline are much more to the point than are the AP and CNN version. The Fox headline says what the leaks were about to clear up to the headline only readers what the story is really about. Moving the Plame paragraph up one is not a big deal and not much closer to front than in the other version.

The headline is key to me. The Fox headline is much more descriptive and to the point and not misleading in the least.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 12:11 PM

The Fox headline is much more descriptive and to the point and not misleading in the least.
If one's only source of news was Fox, they would not be getting the whole story. Not to mention the whole backstory.
Moving the paragraph isn't a big deal. But what is the reason for doing that?

€uroMeinke

04-06-2006, 12:13 PM

If one's only source of news was Fox, they would not be getting the whole story.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that non one will get the whole story until all the key players are dead and the archives release the unclassified documents some 50 years from now.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 12:21 PM

Of course, I'm of the opinion that non one will get the whole story until all the key players are dead and the archives release the unclassified documents some 50 years from now.
So, wait 50 years to worry about now?
:D

scaeagles

04-06-2006, 12:22 PM

If one's only source of news was Fox, they would not be getting the whole story. Not to mention the whole backstory.
Moving the paragraph isn't a big deal. But what is the reason for doing that?

What is the reason for less than descriptive AP and CNN headlines, which I interpret to be done in such a way as to intentionally make the casual news headline reader link Bush to the Plame leak?

Like Alex said, anyone can find bias wherever they choose to do so.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 12:34 PM

What is the reason for less than descriptive AP and CNN headlines, which I interpret to be done in such a way as to intentionally make the casual news headline reader link Bush to the Plame leak?
All three headlines say the same thing.
Like Alex said, anyone can find bias wherever they choose to do so.
And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

scaeagles

04-06-2006, 12:41 PM

And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

On that we can certainly agree.

Alex

04-06-2006, 02:03 PM

All three headlines say the same thing.

And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

Yes, and everybody will find different things obvious.

All three headlines do not say the same thing. In an article about the Valerie Plame case (where the charge is that someone illegally leaked the name of Plame) the AP headline says:

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

In case involving an illegal leak, what leak do you think this headline would refer to?

The CNN headline says:

Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

This headline give the information that the leak probably wasn't Valerie Plame's name (but that depends on whether you consider that an intelligence leak). It also contains the clarification that CNN inserted in the article that Libby doens't know what Bush said but just what Cheney told him Bush said.

The Fox headline says:

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

This one specifically says that Bush authorized a leak but removes the possibility that it was Plame's name.

Sure, it is easy to argue that Fox was trying to diffuse the story by making this point clear from the beginning. But it is equally easy to argue that the AP was trying to make it a bigger story than it is by obfuscating that point. Pick the bias you want. All three headlines are true but they don't all say the same thing and if you think they do, then who is being blind to the obvious?

As for the background information, even if Fox News is your only source do you think that this is the only article they've ever had on the entire Valerie Plame affair? Perhaps they feel it unnecessary to re-report the entire trial and history every time there is a development. I don't know. Perhaps they were just letting it in as a placeholder until they got their own reporting of the story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190843,00.html) together. A version that comes in at a whole 200 words more than the AP version and seems to have all the background information you felt to be missing.

Fox News leans to the right and AP leans to the left (though not far). They all lean in some direction.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 07:12 PM

Fox'News' is trying to brush this controversy under the carpet and ignore it. Just like the Bush administration is. The news media is supposed to be a unbiased look at every issue. Fox'News' is trying to cover the president's butt. If the AP is left leaning, then why would they use their reporting for their stories at all? The Fox version of the story still implies Plame's identity was leaked. And backstory is common in reporting any issue to fill the reader in on the events had they not previously heard about before reading the article. Lots of times when there is a development on any issue, a retelling of the issue is included in the article. Cutting 200 words is a lot. Contrary to what you may feel, it is a big story.

I stick to what I said about the headlines. All three say the same thing.

Gemini Cricket

04-06-2006, 07:26 PM

Fox'News' has a new article up about the story:
Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

Thursday , April 06, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush was defending the War on Terror to an audience in North Carolina on Thursday, just as word came that newly filed court documents reveal Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's former chief of staff to release classified information about Iraq in July 2003.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only person indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, told a grand jury that he had permission to discuss with reporters the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq weapons systems.

Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal. But the documents do hint at more problems for the administration since some may show a plan to punish one of its critics, Plame's husband, Amb. Joe Wilson.

The new information is contained in 39 pages of arguments filed late Wednesday by prosecutors as part of an attempt to block subpoenas filed by Libby's lawyers that could force high-ranking officials to testify, including former CIA Director George Tenet and Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Libby was Cheney's former chief of staff until he resigned last fall as a result of the indictment. He faces obstruction of justice charges and is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters who revealed Plame's identity.

Libby's lawyers have claimed that he might have been confused about his conversations from more than two years prior to his grand jury testimony, but he didn't intentionally mislead investigators.

According to the documents, Cheney told Libby to pass on portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to the press. Libby apparently wasn't satisfied with that request so Cheney got backing from Bush, then repeated his request to Libby to pass on the information. The president has the authority to declassify, and in fact, days later, the entire intelligence estimate was released to the press. The estimate did not discuss Plame.

Cheney told FOX News earlier this year that he too has authority to declassify information.

"There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president," Cheney said in February.

But the revelation didn't stop Bush critics from decrying the latest revelation.

"In light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

The NIE said that Iraq was vigorously pursuing yellowcake uranium from Niger, which was contradictory to critics of the administration, including Wilson, who led an envoy to investigate the allegations that Iraq was seeking the nuclear material from the African country.

Wilson's report from his trip to Niger said former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had not obtained additional uranium from Niger, though he had obtained uranium from that country in the past. Wilson also noted that a former official in Niger said the Iraqis were seeking "better commercial relations" and since they had never bought anything except uranium from Niger, the official interpreted that as an effort to get more uranium. The Iraqis efforts were foiled, however, by the fact an international consortium controlled the mining, making it almost impossible to get the uranium on the sly.

Wilson left out those elements from an op-ed he wrote in which he blasted the president. The column was published in The New York Times in July 2003, and led to the release of the NIE. It also triggered the sequence of events that resulted in officials mentioning that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Plame was part of the group that made the decision to send Wilson on the mission to investigate Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger.

The closest the NIE comes to discussing the Plame matter is that it includes a reference to Iraq "vigorously trying to procure uranium," which British intelligence continued to assert from sources other than those the United States was citing.

According to the documents filed Wednesday, the authorization to discuss the NIE led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Libby's participation in that conversation with Miller "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," according to the papers filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

The filing did not clarify what was contained in the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Miller later went to jail for more than 80 days while refusing to testify until Libby released her from their confidentiality agreement.

In its latest filing, federal prosecutors say some of the documents it has turned up during its investigation "could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."

Additionally, the documents say that Libby has mentioned "bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the 'sixteen words,' " a reference to the 16 words that Bush used to describe Iraq's connection to Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Hmm, this one's much longer and there's backstory now... I thought they weren't into re-reporting...?

Alex

04-06-2006, 08:14 PM

Who's being blind to the obvious. First of all, I provided the link to that article in my last post. Second of all I didn't say Fox wasn't into re-reporting, I just said that "perhaps" they weren't. Then I said "perhaps" they just put through the AP story as a placeholder until their version was done. Perhaps.

I'm not part of the staff at Fox News, I have no idea what reasons they might have for their editorial decisions. I'm just suggesting reasonable alternatives to your paranoid view of the world. So, if Fox published a story that includes all the things you initially found fault for, were you wrong in your initial indignation or are you blinded by the obvious and feel you must remain all puffed up and angry? Perhaps it is all part of a big conspiracy. I don't know. You seem confident you know, but I doubt the confidence is justified.

It is fine with me if you want to stick by the idea that all three headlines said the same thing. You're wrong, but that's fine with me. You're also inconsistent (moving a paragraph two lines forward is a sign of great conspiracy but a less explicit headline is essentially the same as the more explicity one).

Actually, the initial Fox version of the AP story cut 500 words not 200. The later Fox story is 200 words longer than the AP story. Why is the AP whitewashing this vital issue (and what exactly is the scandal in the story? that the president authorized giving heretofore confidential information to a reporter to support its case? that is a standard presidential power and isn't particularly controversial)?

scaeagles

04-06-2006, 09:46 PM

Beyond the way it's covered, the political rhetoric is heating up.

The President has the legal authority to declassify information. If he has the power to declassify information, then whatever he authorizes to be released is no longer classified, and therefore it is not a leak of classified information.

The political aspect now comes into play with some clips I just saw of John Kerry, who is as well linking this to Plame, though this is not connected to Plame in any way (as ALL of the articles state). Kerry said (not a direct quote) "The President has said that whoever leaked this information should be fired. I guess all this time he's been looking for himself.".

Well, as I recall, he said whoever leaked Plame should be fired. Kerry knows this, but is choosing to be dishonest.

wendybeth

04-07-2006, 12:20 AM

Let the record stand that I was ignorant as to the contents of this thread regarding reporting on the latest info on the Libby investigation. I read the AP account today on Comcast, then switched to Faux News to get their take, as I generally like to post links from there for our conservative friends. (I'm nice that way). I was going to comment on the differences in reporting, both in tone and substance, between the two agencies. Also, on Faux, the story is buried under the stunning news that the crazy lady from Atlanta (a Dem) had a rather boisterous press conference when she apologised to the DC police.

Uhm, okay. Crazy lady vs complete subversion of Democratic principles and virtually ALL that our government stands for..........

I know this is an excercise in futility. I know what all the Cons will say, and all the Straddlers, and all the Apologists. I really am not interested in arguing semantics anymore- this is an outright admission of the highest breach of security; our President has (apparently) authorized the leak of classified material in a political maneuver to cover his ass and shoot down the naysayers. Naysayers who have a right and an obligation to question the powers that be, all supposedly part of our illustrious system of checks and balances. Libby could be lying, but it sounds like the spin has begun again, and that usually indicates otherwise. I don't give a flying **** what the rational for this was, it's wrong and anyone who supports it is far more 'unpatriotic' than the most rabid Communist or Anarchist. This really makes Nixon look like a choirboy.:rolleyes:

Gemini Cricket

04-07-2006, 05:17 AM

The President has the legal authority to declassify information. If he has the power to declassify information, then whatever he authorizes to be released is no longer classified, and therefore it is not a leak of classified information.
Then why not annouce it at a press conference and be up front with the public about it? He didn't do that. He's been avidly outspoken about newspapers leaking vital information which he believes compromises us. Yet he can do it. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Chicago on Sept. 30, 2003 (at a meeting with business leaders)

Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Source (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313561)

scaeagles

04-07-2006, 06:23 AM

Isn't that hypocrisy?

That I will agree with. He should have come out and just told the info, not done a back channel. Hypocritical, yes. Illegal, no. Politically motivated, yes. Uncommon, no.

SacTown Chronic

04-07-2006, 06:30 AM

Fvcking the neigbor's wife wouldn't make me a criminal, but it would make me a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war that he so desperately wanted and then parading around the country claiming that "no president wants war" makes Bush a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war he so desperately wanted and then calling the leaking of his illegal wiretapping activities a "shameful act" makes Bush a total asshole.

I think he's channeling John Kerry: "I was for leaking classified intelligence information before I was against it."

Gemini Cricket

04-07-2006, 06:39 AM

Getting back to the randomness of this thread, which I derailed, I apologize:

Is Iraq in a civil war? At what point would it be classified as one? And why would being classified as one be of vital importance compared to the fact that it's just a mess period?

scaeagles

04-07-2006, 07:33 AM

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war that he so desperately wanted and then parading around the country claiming that "no president wants war" makes Bush a total asshole.

While I can see that point of view, I don't think the leaking of that info meant he wanted war, it was an issue of showing why he thought war was necessary. I understand we will never see eye to eye on it.

scaeagles

04-07-2006, 07:36 AM

Is Iraq in a civil war? At what point would it be classified as one?

Historically, I would say no. Looking at the amounts of bloodshed in what is typically deemed a civil war, Iraq is nowhere close. I would look at it more like I would a Bosnia, in that racial and religious hatred dating back to the beginning of time was leading to violence that required UN peacekeepers to quell the worst of it. While not a perfect analogy, I think that's closer than "civil war".

SacTown Chronic

04-07-2006, 09:11 AM

I don't think the leaking of that info meant he wanted war,
Are you saying Bush didn't want this war and did everything in his power to avoid it? Or are you simply saying that the leaking of intelligence isn't evidence that he wanted war?

scaeagles

04-07-2006, 09:23 AM

Are you saying Bush didn't want this war and did everything in his power to avoid it? Or are you simply saying that the leaking of intelligence isn't evidence that he wanted war?

I'm saying the second, as it was done to show (and build public support, no doubt) why he thought war was necessary.

I do believe the first as well, with a caveat, being that of course he didn't do everything. He could have simply ignored it and let the UN continue to appease Saddam and issue more and more ignored resolutions. He didn't do everything, but I think he did enough, and I firmly believe that it was Saddam who firced the war, not Bush. Saddam starts abiding by the agreements from the cease fire, no war. It's that simple to me.

Alex

04-07-2006, 10:23 AM

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war he so desperately wanted and then calling the leaking of his illegal wiretapping activities a "shameful act" makes Bush a total asshole.

Just as a point of order, it is impossible for the president to leak classified information since by the very fact of him giving permission for its distribution it is no longer classified.

I challenge you to find a president who didn't bemoan unauthorized leaks while simultaneously targetting information releases to preferred journalists, frequently "off the record." I know how hated it is to say "but previous presidents did it" but previous presidents have always done it (at least in the modern political era going back to WWII). Howard Kurtz (of the Washington Post) wrote a fantastic book about it in 1998 call Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News. While the case in point was the Clinton White House it wasn't hardly making the case that it was unusual or unique.

Just because Bush has been better than most at supressing the unauthorized leaks from the White House, I don't see as an argument for hypocrisy at using using authorized "leaks." John Dickerson at Slate wrote an interesting piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2139469/) yesterday about this and I think he mostly gets it right (though I disagree with him on whether this constitutes hypocrisy). But the point he makes that I think is key is that because Bush has so successfully suppressed unauthorized leaks you kind of have to begin to assume that anything that appears to be an unauthorized leak may actually be authorized.

Would I prefer Bush had just openly made his case, absolutely. Am I outraged that he did it through time-honored Washington back-corridor methods? Not really, just disappointed.

As for is Iraq a civil war*, to a degree it is just semantics, but I'd say that it is about as much a civil war as the Watts Riots and similar actions were back in the '60s. At the top levels the leadership of the various sides seem to still be working at resolution. I think reasonable people can argue either way though applying the term or not doesn't really change anything.

* The other Jon Stewart did get off the absolutely brilliant line about how we had our own Civil War and just 150 years later blacks and whites (showing Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell) came together to start one in another country.

innerSpaceman

04-07-2006, 10:30 AM

That I will agree with. He should have come out and just told the info, not done a back channel. Hypocritical, yes. Illegal, no. Politically motivated, yes. Uncommon, no.
I agree with this. Bush can make de-classify any classified information he desires. There's a formal procedure which he didn't follow, and it was done for purely political motives ... but it's not illegal and it's not unique.

It is hypocritical and Bush is taking a bit of heat for it. Not only because it looks so craven ... but because, for the first time, Bush is implicated in the chain of events that led to the outting of Valerie Plame.

It is believed that Libby leaked Plame's identity to Judith Miller of the NY Times during the same conversations that he leaked the information declassified by the President, under the President's order to leak the information. And while there is no testimony yet known that Bush specifically ordered the leak of Plame's identity ... Bush is now knee-deep in this mess - since the order to leak was a direct effort to defend the Adminstration against the published allegations of Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband.

If the ordered de-classification leak were not directly tied to discrediting Wilson, Bush would have some plausable deniability. But now that grand jury testimony links Bush to the defense-manuever leak that also resulted in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, this treasonous mess is lapping at the president's feet ... any may yet pull him under.

SacTown Chronic

04-07-2006, 10:38 AM

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war Just as a point of order, it is impossible for the president to leak classified information since by the very fact of him giving permission for its distribution it is no longer classified.

Yeah, I know. But my anti-Bush bias compells me to call it "leaking classified intelligence" instead of "declassifying intelligence". I'm jerky that way.

Ghoulish Delight

04-11-2006, 11:36 AM

On the subject of misleading headlines...

This will only last a short while until MSNBC updates their front page, but check out the top story, about Iran's nuclear announcement. www.msnbc.com

Notice that the bullet point says, "Iran to 'join the club of countries' with nukes, leader say", implying quite blatantly that Iran has admitted to developing nuclear weapons. In reality, of course, the president said they are NOT planning the enriched uranium for "nukes". Now, I'm not saying that that's proof that they aren't, but that's not what he said. Someone felt the need to spin that story lead.

Alex

04-11-2006, 03:51 PM

It now reads "Iran: Joining nuclear 'club' soon"

wendybeth

04-11-2006, 08:14 PM

In other news, karma is biting someone's backside: Katherine Harriss on the outs with GOP (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191406,00.html).

Heh heh....might we expect an embittered tell-all book soon?:D

Drince88

04-11-2006, 08:22 PM

Random Political Thought:
WHEN will this election be over? (And election day isn't until 4/22! - and there's just about a lock that there will be a run-off for New Orleans Mayor - only 23 candidates - there is no way one person is going to get 50%+1 of the vote!)

JWBear

04-12-2006, 08:52 AM

Bush's supporters can play all the linguistic games they want. It doesn't change the fact that the White House made the identity of a covert CIA operative public in order to punish her husband for telling the truth.

If a Democratic administration had done the same thing, Republicans would be up in arms. But since it was a Republican administration, all we get are justifications and word games.

Gemini Cricket

04-12-2006, 08:57 AM

If we attack Iran next, will there be a draft?

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 08:59 AM

I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything.

I find myself being less and less of a Bush supporter (I have 4 big things that are a must, and right now he is failing mightily in two and the another of the four he is not doing well enough....for those that know me, take a guess as to what I'm referring to) but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me. I could discuss reasons as to why, but it's all been hashed out many times before here and it would lead to a grand debate of unbending and unchangable opinions on this issue.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 09:01 AM

If we attack Iran next, will there be a draft?

Interesting question. I don't see an invasion, frankly. I see surgical strikes with lots of support from our allies, though not the UN, Russia, or China.

Perhaps special forces will end up in the country covertly assisting with those strikes.

Ghoulish Delight

04-12-2006, 09:05 AM

Interesting question. I don't see an invasion, frankly. I see surgical strikes with lots of support from our allies, though not the UN, Russia, or China.Hmm, isn't that what Iraq was supposed to be?

Gemini Cricket

04-12-2006, 09:08 AM

Interesting question...
I read this the other day:
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
Source (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)
What do you make of it? I'm not an avid New Yorker reader. Someone forwarded this to me.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 09:09 AM

Hmm, isn't that what Iraq was supposed to be?

Ummm....no.....the goal was to oust Saddam. Here the goal is to stop development of a nuclear program.

GC - I would not be surprised at all if there are currently US special forces inside Iran doing such things. I would suspect high tech classified surveillance planes and drones are also operating with regularity.

Ghoulish Delight

04-12-2006, 09:38 AM

Ummm....no.....the goal was to oust Saddam. Here the goal is to stop development of a nuclear program.Yes, but they planned it as a quick in-n-out with minimal troops, and heavy reliance on surgical air strikes. The absolute worst thing that could happen is to repeat the same mistake of arrogantly assuming we're just going to breeze in and get the job done sans-complication and have zero backup plan for if and when things go wrong.

Alex

04-12-2006, 09:48 AM

It isn't the same thing. The goal in Iraq is to topple and rebuild a government and it was mistakenly attempted with inadequate post topple planning.

The goal in Iran would be to destroy an asset, not topple the government. We don't want to replace the Iranian government (we wouldn't mind seeing it changed).

As for the story that the White House won't rule out the nuke option, I would ask this: when has the White House (of any president) explicitly ruled out using nuclear weapons? This story comes up every once in a while. "Ohmygawd!!!!!1 The president won't rule out nukes in situation X! What a homicidal maniac he must be."

The president asks for plans on how we might go about destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear. To say so is not to say that will happen. Frank Kaplan at Slate (a rabid anti-Bush man) is reasonable on his evaluation (http://www.slate.com/id/2139610/) of this story.

By the way, just to get this out of the way now in case it does happen. I do not support military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. I believe that development of nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and biological and mechanical) is a right of a sovereign nation regardless of U.N. treaties otherwise. The only difference with Iraq is that they had signed away their rights to do so when they invaded another sovereign country and, particularly, when they lost the ensuing war.

So if it happens, I will not support it (or the troops who do it).

Gemini Cricket

04-12-2006, 09:55 AM

In Hawai'i, I would see these old men on the beaches. They'd stick a fishing pole in the sand and fish all day. There'd be a beer filled cooler at their feet. You look at these guys and they seem to be having the times of their lives. You look at them and figure out that their ages put them right in their teens or 20's during WWII and the boming of Pearl Harbor. How stressful for them then, how not so much now. I've decided I want to be one of those old men one day. Weathered but zen.
:)

JWBear

04-12-2006, 10:04 AM

I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything.
Sources please.

...but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me...
So, outing a CIA operative, destroying her operation, endangering the people she was working with, and lessing our intelligence effectiveness - all in the name of petty political revenge - is ok with you? Alrighty then.

BTW, do you know what she was doing (in part)? Keeping watch on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Kinda ironic, huh?

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 10:04 AM

If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear.

Ever hear of "rods from God"? It is a rumored kinetic energy space weapon specifically developed as bunker busters to replace any need for "tactical nukes".

The "rods from God" are gigantic titanium rods (edited to add: they are actually tungsten. I misspoke. Not that I really know the difference between the two.) that are propelled from a satillite at tremendous velocity with some sort of precision guidance system. They are non explosive, but the kinetic energy is so extreme that they are able to penetrate very deep into the ground and have a meteor like destructive force.

Should these actually exist, I would suspect that a few rods could take care of it.

Alex

04-12-2006, 10:06 AM

Before he provides the source, if indeed John Kerry did what scaeagles says he did, will you support whatever punishment you feel is appropriate for Bush against Kerry? Or will you find a way to justify what the guy you like did while condemning the guy you don't like/

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 10:12 AM

Sources please.

This is a clip from an article in the NY Times. I have not linked to it because it is a subscription site.

We referred to this other analyst at the C.I.A., whom I'll try and call Mr. Smith here," Mr. Bolton said. "I hope I can keep that straight."

Mr. Bolton could. But two senators - Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican and committee chairman, and John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat - apparently could not. Both identified the analyst, Fulton T. Armstrong, in the hearing.

Though Mr. Armstrong had been identified in news reports two years ago about his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba, that was when he was the national intelligence officer for Latin America, and his name was no secret. When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name.

So, outing a CIA operative, destroying her operation, endangering the people she was working with, and lessing our intelligence effectiveness - all in the name of petty political revenge - is ok with you? Alrighty then.

I disagree with the premise of what you are saying for a wide variety of reasons. Should that be what happened, I would agree with you. I do not agree that this is what happened.

However, old news. I realize you are new to this on this board, JW, but it has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Alex

04-12-2006, 10:15 AM

Should these actually exist, I would suspect that a few rods could take care of it.

Should they actually exist then I'm sure they're included in the plans provided by the Department of Defense on how such a goal could be reached and presumably Sy Hersh just wasn't given that information with the rest.

Then again, should Charlie McGee really exist she could be very helpful in this situation as well.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 10:37 AM

but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me.

agreed- it is totally ridiculous.

#1- she was not covert
#2- her and her husband are liars- confirmed by a senate report

I have never seen so many people want to believe the pure BS spewed by Wilson and Plame. The desire to "get Bush" outweighs any kind of rational thought about it. If the media says it, it must be true.....let's ignore anything else that contradicts it.

The Senate report contradicts much of what Wilson said-
Link (http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf)

Starting on page 39.

(edited to add- what Leo said)

Motorboat Cruiser

04-12-2006, 12:59 PM

#1- she was not covert

Not according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/):

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 01:11 PM

and yet according to many sources she was not-that her name was common knowledge and so was what she did. She was also working a desk job-

It's all a boondoggle- but one thing I know for damn sure. Joe Wilson is a liar. A proven liar. And a liar with a purpose- and that purpose is to undermine a sitting President- and Joe Wilson makes me sick. Add their publicity whoring tendencies (photo spreads???) seems to put a lie to this whole "it destroyed her life" BS.

JWBear

04-12-2006, 01:11 PM

Before he provides the source, if indeed John Kerry did what scaeagles says he did, will you support whatever punishment you feel is appropriate for Bush against Kerry?
Yes, absolutely – if he had done what Bush did.

According to the info Scaeagle posted, it was a totally different situation. Kerry (and a Republican Senator... Scaeagle conveniently left him off of his original post) didn’t “out” him. He had been outed as a CIA operative 2 years earlier. And, they didn’t do so in an attempt to punish a family member of his. It wasn’t done maliciously for political and personal gain. A big difference, in my book.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 01:17 PM

Kerry (and a Republican Senator... Scaeagle conveniently left him off of his original post) didn’t “out” him.

Yawn....if my motivation was partisan, I could have very easily clipped his name out of the NY Times clip. I am no fan of Richard Lugar.

We can argue about who was covert, who did what was worse (even with the CIA specifically requesting he not be named), blah blah blah. All I know is that with all these "revelations" about leaks, etc, Fitzgerald hasn't found squat except to say that Libby was withholding and/or misrepresenting information, and even some of that has had to be revised by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald corrects part of court filing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101440_pf.html)

Yawn.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 01:18 PM

Yawn....if my motivation was partisan, I could have very easily clipped his name out of the NY Times clip. I am no fan of Richard Lugar.

We can argue about who was covert, who did what was worse (even with the CIA specifically requesting he not be named), blah blah blah. All I know is that with all these "revelations" about leaks, etc, Fitzgerald hasn't found squat except to say that Libby was withholding and/or misrepresenting information, and even some of that has had to be revised by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald corrects part of court filing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101440_pf.html)

Yawn.

:snap: can't mojo you- gotta give it a snap!

LOL- I love how Republican seems to automatically mean something to people- there are some Pubbies I will gladly give to the other side, TYVM. An I'll take a couple of their Dems in exchange.

JWBear

04-12-2006, 01:32 PM

...but one thing I know for damn sure. Joe Wilson is a liar. A proven liar. And a liar with a purpose- and that purpose is to undermine a sitting President- and Joe Wilson makes me sick...
So... Anyone who disagrees with the president, and who dares to tell the truth, is a "liar" and is trying "to undermine a sitting President". Huh. Ok.

And of course... No Republican would try and undermine a sitting president. No. Never. Not unless he was a Democrat!

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 01:40 PM

random political thought

If we had less career politicians we'd get more accomplished.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 01:40 PM

It's politics. Of course people try to undermine the leadership of the other party.

As any good liar knows (not that I claim to be a good liar), what makes your lies more effective is if you mix them with partial truths. Or only tell part of the story. As an example, you tried to accuse me of withholding the name of Lugar in an attempt to tell only half the story (though clearly as I introduced the name of Lugar in the clip this was not the case).

Many things WIlson said were true. Many things Wilson said were not the complete story. Many things Wilson said were lies.

Again, I honestly feel a bit sorry for you in that you've missed these discussions on the board from long ago. To me anyway, and I would guess it is to Scrooge and many others, it isn't worth going through it all again when it is quite easy for all of us to find stories and quotes and opinion pieces that agree with the point of view in question, and the opinions here are not likely to change from it all being hashed out again.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 01:40 PM

So... Anyone who disagrees with the president, and who dares to tell the truth, is a "liar" and is trying "to undermine a sitting President". Huh. Ok.

And of course... No Republican would try and undermine a sitting president. No. Never. Not unless he was a Democrat!

Um, no.

Joe Wilson lied. Check the link to the Senate report. This doesn't have diddly to do with "disagreeing" It has to do with lying, and in this case lying with a purpose to destroy.

Joe Wilson has not told the truth. That would be why I called him a liar.

And the most recent Democrat President undermined himself- um, by LYING. Perjury, ya know. And getting someone else to lie as well- yeah, LYING.

Ok, done now.

(edited to say again- what Leo said- cause he says it so well)

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 01:41 PM

random political thought

If we had less career politicians we'd get more accomplished.

Amen and amen- now if we could get them to pass term limits.

Yeah-right.....

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 01:42 PM

random political thought

If we had less career politicians we'd get more accomplished.

Agreed.

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 01:51 PM

Random thought about politics.

Debate can be fun.

Yelling, screaming, talking down to people or attacking them will never change anyones mind. In fact it will make them more set in their beliefs.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 01:52 PM

Yelling, screaming, talking down to people or attacking them will never change anyones mind. In fact it will make them more set in their beliefs.

Screw that, you moron! I'll MAKE you see it my way!:) ;)

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 01:53 PM

Screw that, you moron! I'll MAKE you see it my way!:) ;)

How dare you imply that I'm a terrorist because I wish you a never ending ride on IASW!

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 01:55 PM

Random political thought:

John McCain is a moron. At a recent speech, speaking of the need for illegal labor (and his bill for turning them all into guest workers), he said that no American would take $50/hour to pick lettuce in Yuma for the season. He even offered to pay it.

Should he come through on his offer, he'll spend his wife's fortune pretty quickly. I know a whole lot of Americans who would take $50 to pick lettuce for a month (or however long the season is).

Alex

04-12-2006, 01:57 PM

random political thought

If we had less career politicians we'd get more accomplished.
Out of curiosity, how many fewer? Would having just one do? You cut back on politicians and they get replaced by bureaucrats.

Term limits are also a bad idea because they shift power from the person to the party.

In other words, my view is that we don't need to reduce or limit politicians but simply reduce or limit what government is allowed to do. I don't really care if there are 536 politicians making decisions about defense but I do care if there is one politician making decisions about what I can put in my body.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 01:58 PM

Random thought about politics.

Debate can be fun.

Yelling, screaming, talking down to people or attacking them will never change anyones mind. In fact it will make them more set in their beliefs.

Is this where I get to call people mentally twisted and throw bugs at you to make you cave into my way of seeing things?;)

Talk about random- did you notce that I agree with you. Not everything is divided by a political gap......we DO need less career politicians!

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 02:00 PM

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 02:03 PM

Out of curiosity, how many fewer? Would having just one do? You cut back on politicians and they get replaced by bureaucrats.

Term limits are also a bad idea because they shift power from the person to the party.

In other words, my view is that we don't need to reduce or limit politicians but simply reduce or limit what government is allowed to do. I don't really care if there are 536 politicians making decisions about defense but I do care if there is one politician making decisions about what I can put in my body.

Your view would work too.

If we had less people in office spending time trying to figure out how to cater to whatever group will get them re-elected we may get some actual work done. Or have less fruitless bills and laws trying to micromanage our lives.

Prudence

04-12-2006, 02:10 PM

Or you could just appoint me as your occasionally benevolent dictator.

Alex

04-12-2006, 02:12 PM

Alex- can you explain this more?

Politics is not an easy game to play (as much as we'd like it to be; but it is made difficult by the fact that we want politicians to ignore special interests except our own) and it takes a lot of time and energy to build the networks and power that allow you to get things done.

With term limits, the politician himself is not really able to develop that power (and what is the point of another person putting a lot of capital into supporting a person who will just be gone in a few years anyway?) and they have to rely on a party to provide it. Instead it is better to scratch the back of the party and let the party scratch back than to scratch the back of the politician and have nobody scratching back in a couple years (and to say that all decisions in politics should be altruistic is the same as saying dark chocolate should fall from the sky on Sundays as a sign of benevolence from our lord savior).

Also, term limits are an embodiment of the idea that there is no such thing as "the best person for the job." That anybody can do it and the most important thing is that as many people as possible cycle through. If Person A really is the most effective person for whatever people want "a senator" to be, why should they be forced to replace him with inferior Person B after a few years? And if you're Person A and want to be involved in getting things done, which is better to be the senator or to be the person at the party who gets to pick and control senators?

Now, there nothing wrong with moving all power to the party instead of the person (most representative democracies work under this method and they generally work fine) but it isn't the way we're set up so if we're going to do it we should do it explicitly and rewrite the constitution.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 02:16 PM

In looking at the federalist papers (and don't ask me which one....I don't remember), the Senate was designed for the "career" politician, whereas the house was never intended to be filled with those. That was to be the "house of the people" with turnover designed to bring the common man into the process.

Some career politicians are necessary. The House was never intended to be that, however.

Alex

04-12-2006, 02:25 PM

Yes, and those same federalists were perfectly capable of designing in term limits and had considered them.

The Senate was never intended to be directly elected by the people, either.

Plus, by handing over the power to the party you don't avoid career politicians you just create career politicians who are beholden more their party than to their constituents.

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Isn't that what we already have? Particularly with campaign finance laws that allow large contributions to the party and smaller ones to the candidates? When the party controls the money, as they do, they can give the money to candidates that will tow the line. Both parties punish their elected members that may have voted the wrong way on a bill by withholding party money from their reelection campaigns.

I say outlaw monetary donations to the parties and allow unlimited and fully disclosed contributions to individuals.

Alex

04-12-2006, 02:33 PM

Yes, and I oppose campaign contribution limitations in any form (so long as they are publicly reported). I certainly wasn't saying that term limits were the sole cause of an imbalance in party power.

Scrooge McSam

04-12-2006, 02:46 PM

Is this where I get to call people mentally twisted and throw bugs at you to make you cave into my way of seeing things?;)

Could you please? I'm beginning to miss my old " :cool: Mentally Twisted :cool: " signature.

JWBear

04-12-2006, 02:53 PM

Um, no.

Joe Wilson lied. Check the link to the Senate report. This doesn't have diddly to do with "disagreeing" It has to do with lying, and in this case lying with a purpose to destroy.

Joe Wilson has not told the truth. That would be why I called him a liar.

And the most recent Democrat President undermined himself- um, by LYING. Perjury, ya know. And getting someone else to lie as well- yeah, LYING.

Ok, done now.

(edited to say again- what Leo said- cause he says it so well)
Believe what you want. The truth (and history) shall speak for itself.

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 03:03 PM

Believe what you want. The truth (and history) shall speak for itself.

Of that I have no worries.

Snowflake

04-12-2006, 03:18 PM

Or you could just appoint me as your occasionally benevolent dictator.
I'll vote for that!:D

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 03:19 PM

There are three sides to every story.

Their side
Your side
And the truth

Nephythys

04-12-2006, 03:27 PM

There is some truth in every lie

Some people don't believe in truth

Some people just make up truth

Alex

04-12-2006, 03:31 PM

Sentences that fit in fortune cookies are the path to understanding.

Your lucky numbers are 4, 23, 29, 32, 35, 36

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 03:36 PM

Sentences that fit in fortune cookies are the path to understanding.

Your lucky numbers are 4, 23, 29, 32, 35, 36

My fortune cookie said my lucky numbers were 4 8 15 16 23 42.

Ghoulish Delight

04-12-2006, 03:37 PM

Real fortune cookie that I received (lucky numbers changed to protect my winnings):

Keep your expectations realistic
Your lucky numbers are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

eta: damn you BTD, those are MY numbers

Alex

04-12-2006, 03:38 PM

My fortune cookie said my lucky numbers were 4 8 15 16 23 42.

There are three sides to every fortune cookie.

The fortune side
The lucky numbers side
The fake lucky number side

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 03:44 PM

I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people play those numbers and what would happen should any major lottery hit those.

Of course, I did not play them in my $220 million powerball for tonight.

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 03:44 PM

What side is going to get me on an island with Josh Holloway?

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 03:46 PM

Wrong thread, Bartop. Please move the Holloway lust to the Lost thread.

(However, Kate and Sun lust are welcome anywhere)

Not Afraid

04-12-2006, 03:46 PM

Sentences that fit in fortune cookies are the path to understanding.

Your lucky numbers are 4, 23, 29, 32, 35, 36

Best post ever - and he even got mojo. :D

BarTopDancer

04-12-2006, 03:50 PM

Wrong thread, Bartop. Please move the Holloway lust to the Lost thread.

(However, Kate and Sun lust are welcome anywhere)

Them there are fightin words you redneck commie.*

*JOKE for those who who can't tell!

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 04:13 PM

Them there are fightin words you redneck commie

Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

scaeagles

04-12-2006, 09:31 PM

Could Iran be coming to a confrontation soon?

Iran could have a nuke in 16 days? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany)

If that is true, and I have no idea how long it takes from having enough enrisjed uranium to build a bomb to actually doing it, then something is going to be happening soon.

There is no way Isreal lets them have one. If Isreali intelligence believe that Iran has a nuke in a matter of weeks, then Isreal will do something about it. That fact alone will cause the US to act, because if Isreal acts on it, then it's no longer an issue of Iran having a nuke to other Arab countries (many of whom I would suspect don't want Iran to have a nuke either), it is an issue of Jews launching a strike on Arabs.

I will point out that this takes Iran at their word that they have 54,000 centrifuges. Who knows?

Gemini Cricket

04-13-2006, 05:37 AM

I had a fortune cookie that said the following a couple of weeks ago:

"You have a voice in success for working." (Or something to that effect.)

(No lucky numbers included.) :D

Gemini Cricket

04-13-2006, 06:03 AM

A few residents guessed correctly when they figured their moldy, mud-stained homes might have to be lifted off the ground to qualify for flood insurance or federal rebuilding aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines released Wednesday are meant to help residents rebuild in ways that comply with early drafts of flood maps showing how high water is expected to rise during a once-in-a-100-year storm. The so-called flood advisories also detail how well the city's levees would protect residents.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_re_us/katrina_flood_advisories_16)

I'm wondering what the status of the levees are. Were permanent fixes made?

scaeagles

04-13-2006, 06:15 AM

So, outing a CIA operative, destroying her operation, endangering the people she was working with, and lessing our intelligence effectiveness - all in the name of petty political revenge - is ok with you? Alrighty then.

What! I'm sure Libby must be lying! He must be! He's not saying what we want him to say! (please note the sarcasm)

Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWzxmYKN1bpY&refer=us)

"A former top administration official said President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized him to discuss with reporters intelligence on Iraq's weapons program and didn't authorize leaking a CIA agent's name."

innerSpaceman

04-13-2006, 10:39 AM

Um, no one EVER said that Libby's testimony pointed to Bush authorizing the Plame leak. That has never been the issue. It's simply that Bush authorized the leak of informally, politically declassified information and, during same conversation where the authorized secrets were leaked (the ones that weren't criminal), other secrets were leaked (that were criminal).

Ball in motion.

* * * * * *

As for Iran ... they stunt they pulled with enriching uranium a few days ago puts them, by most estimates, 5-7 years from building a nuclear weapon.

Don't breathe a sigh of relief just yet. Geopolitics should be 12 times more fuktup by then ... and we'll all likely still be around to experience the fun.

We'll keep this thread open.

scaeagles

04-13-2006, 10:49 AM

Um, no one EVER said that Libby's testimony pointed to Bush authorizing the Plame leak.

Oh, I agree. But are you going to deny that the buzz was that he was going to do so? And that there was great hope (even among some posters on this board, I might add) that Libby would do so?

BarTopDancer

04-13-2006, 11:01 AM

Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

Maybe, but who cares about details when you're throwing insults?

Nephythys

04-13-2006, 11:04 AM

Or when being ignored....:p

Not Afraid

04-13-2006, 12:26 PM

Did someone say something?

BarTopDancer

04-13-2006, 02:42 PM

Dan Quayle has some interesting things to say (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dan_quayle.html)...

A few of my favorites...

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican" or "I am not the problem. I am a Republican."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

(I guess he could see the future...)

And finally...

"I deserve respect for the things I did not do."

Nephythys

04-13-2006, 03:07 PM

Eight more days and I can start telling the truth again.

-- Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.), on the Don Imus show, on campaigning

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

"It isn't pollution that is hurting the environment,
it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-Dan Quayle

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
-Dan Quayle

Tito's Kitten

04-13-2006, 05:07 PM

HAHAHA..... Oh that Dan Quayle. What a card!! (that Boxer one is priceless too.)

scaeagles

04-13-2006, 05:17 PM

Sheila Jackson Lee (D, Texas), while viewing a live feed (well, live if you don't count the 4 minute delay) of the Mars Rover -

"Can you point the camera where the astronauts planted the flag?"

JWBear

04-13-2006, 10:29 PM

Did someone say something?
Could have been. Sometimes, when I read what certain people post, I hear the sound of the "Adult" voices from the Peanuts TV shows in my head.

WHA-wha-wha-wha-WHA.

Nephythys

04-17-2006, 08:18 AM

More truth and history- for anyone willing to think outside their box and consider other possibilities-

Link (http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/04/17/193811.html)

In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush is the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation.

snip

In truth, Bush handled the issue badly. He dithered, couldn't find the words to explain himself, and weirdly withdrew the 16 words when the pressure came. And it is surely arguable that the uranium-in-Africa charge was too flimsy for the weight Bush gave it in his speech.

But as columnist Robert Novak once argued, the burgeoning "Bush lied" mantra was heavily dependent on the uranium claim. So the liar label was most firmly attached on an issue Bush was right about. Go figure.

More in answer about Plame being covert-
Link (http://www.nysun.com/article/31062)

Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.

The memo, drafted by the then head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and addressed to the then secretary of state, Colin Powell

The most frustrating thing for me is that it seems that some people want to believe that Bush lied more than they want to find out about truth. They want to see the devil in the shadows and believe negative and bad things rather than open their mind to the possibility that it might not be what they have believed it to be-

BarTopDancer

04-17-2006, 01:12 PM

Bush lied and people died.

innerSpaceman

04-17-2006, 01:46 PM

A memo that does not identify Plame as being covert? What good is that? The writer of the memo would be breaking the law if it identified, even to Colin Powell, that the named agent was covert.

Nephythys

04-17-2006, 02:38 PM

Bumper sticker mentality???

and the convenient selective memory trick.

Impressive.

Not

BarTopDancer

04-17-2006, 02:40 PM

Bumper sticker mentality???

If you are referring to me.. I'll point you back to the title of this thread. Random Political Thoughts.

Nephythys

04-17-2006, 02:58 PM

If you are referring to me.. I'll point you back to the title of this thread. Random Political Thoughts.

and my response was a random response to a random comment- inspired by yours.

What's the point?

Wait..never mind.

BarTopDancer

04-17-2006, 03:01 PM

If we've taken over a country full of oil, how come our gas is still so expensive?

[quasi-sarcasam peoples]

innerSpaceman

04-17-2006, 04:20 PM

The whole point is to make it even more expensive ... but to have the money line the pockets of Exxon/Mobil's CEO (who, it was just recently reported, during the period 1993 thru 2005, had a salary of $150,000 PER DAY!!!!)

Alex

04-17-2006, 07:40 PM

For years we've been told we're going to run out of gas, that peak oil is in the rear view mirror. That the oil companies have overstated their reserves. Well, if all of that is true then perpetually rising oil prices (without necessarily a concomitant increase in cost of production) is going to be the product.

If we're not pumping more oil out of the ground but a lot more people want oil for a lot more puposes then that is going to spell a whole lot of wealth for the people with the oil without any market manipulation required.

For me, I don't really care how much the oil companies make, it isn't like I was shedding tears for them when they were all going broke in the '80s.

iSm: I haven't seen the story and it doesn't make a huge difference, but was that actually salary or realized bonuses and incentives?

innerSpaceman

04-17-2006, 08:13 PM

That was pure salary.

It's not that I mind oil companies making profits, even huge ones for something so in demand. But it is so in demand that it's an essential commodity that has passed the tipping point of availability. Without alternate sources of energy within a century, all recognizable economic activity on the earth will stop.

I'm of the opinion that anything that essential should be regulated. And the ever-increasing costs of something that essential should be controlled by governments such that oil company executives get filthy rich, but not obscenely rich.

Sorry, but that number of $150,000 a day just stunned me. An amount I aspire to make in a year is earned in salary alone by one man in a day. Socialist or not, I don't want the food or water or health or justice or essential energy industries run for the same profit motive as general capitalism allows.

Such a thing may stifle innovation, but it would also stifle greed. I think a balance should be struck. And the Exxon/Mobil CEO making $150K each time the sun rises is not the kind of balance I find properly balanced.

€uroMeinke

04-17-2006, 08:38 PM

But as the cost of oil and gas rise, the alternatives become cheeper and people become both both more entrepenurial and inventive. I think this is where the market plays a good role here. Rationing and regulation won't spur the development of alternatives.

innerSpaceman

04-17-2006, 08:43 PM

Sorry, but I think taxes should fund research into energy alternatives, and into health solutions. I think great, vast, unbearable evils come from running life-essential endeavors for the standard profit motive.

€uroMeinke

04-17-2006, 08:52 PM

And yet it seems to have worked quite nicely up to this point - the government has too much politics around it, favors to play - research funneled into pet projects for a given district corn based ethenol for example.

Alex

04-17-2006, 09:10 PM

You can use the taxes to fund research into alternatives but if you cap prices those alternatives don't necessarily become economical until the commodity simply runs out.

If fuel cells become economical when gas hits $90 a barrel then it will never become economical if government caps it at $75 a barrel. Plus, unless you have a world government imposing a global cap, a cap will just encourage oil to flow away from capped nations to nations without caps and we begin to set up a repeat of what caused the power shortages in California back in 2000.

As for the salary, can you point me to the story on that iSm? I was shocked by that number myself and looking at the 2005 proxy for ExxonMobil it shows that Raymond's salary in 2005 was $4 million with a $4.9 million bonus (http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsa W5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NDA5MjgyOSZkb2M9MSZ udW09MjM=). That's a lot of money but nowhere near $150,000/day (which would be $54 million/year). Are you sure you're not talking about his retirement package?

scaeagles

04-17-2006, 09:45 PM

You cannot tell another country at what price to sell their oil. Simple supply and demand. OPEC restricts production, prices rise. They raise production, prices fall. The only alternative is to saturate the market place to bring the prices down. (This, of course, does not bring into consideration natural disasters and political unrest.)

Hmmm....how can we do that? Sadly, we don't have the production capacity to do anything about it, and while I won't go into discussion of those I beleive responsible for our inability to produce domestic oil, the only solution to ensure the free flow of oil to meet our needs is to produce oil domestically.

Anyone who wishes can go read various information at the USGS website, and I have in the past, but there is a whole mess of oil we could access in a wide variety places domestically.

Aside from that, though, I believe the shortest and most practical answer lies in the trillions of tons of shale throughout the rocky mountains. If I recall what I've read correctly, shale oil can be extracted at a cost (to the purchaser) of about $90/barrel. That will cap what the price of oil is coming from foreign sources. What needs to happen is development and streamlining of existing processes to enable extraction more inexpensively. Should we lower what it costs to extract that by 20%, OPEC then has incentive to raise their production limits to lower the costs to again be significantly below that production cost of shale oil, making it impractical from a profit standpoint to continue to pursue shale oil.

My personal favorite, though, is US investment in Mexico oil exploration and production, They have a hell of a lot of oil, so if they become a major player in the oil market, they have more money locally, and Mexican citizens can find work in Mexico, solving their economic problems as well as our illegal immigration problem.

CoasterMatt

04-17-2006, 09:50 PM

Mexico has a hell of a lot of resources, but they've got a hell of a lot of political corruption, too.

Alex

04-17-2006, 11:54 PM

Did some more poking around and it appears that the $150,000/day number refers to his 2005 income only, not 1993-2005. Most of the $51 million he made in 2005 came not in salary or bonus but in exercising previously granted stock options.

On tonight's Daily Show Jon Stewart said the total retirement package of $400 million (most of which is tied up in outstanding stock options as well as participation in the same pension plan that all Exxon people are part of) was equal to $150,000/day for every day Raymond worked for Exxon. This is neither true of his full run at Exxon (46 years) nor his time as Chairman (12 years). At $150,000/day that equals about 7 years. Still a lot of money, though.

What's interesting to me in looking deeper at this is how screwed up the general media is at reporting financial numbers. Headline after headline says he is getting a $400 million dollar retirement package. As near as I can the source of this number is a cobbling together of money mostly unrelated to his retirement and the biggest chunk of it is pretty much statutorily required.

Components of the $400 million number seems to be:

$4,000,000 - 2005 salary
$4,900,500 - 2005 bonus
$32,087,000 - 2005 restricted stock award
$7,484,508 - 2005 incentive plan payout
$450,800 - other compensation

You can argue that these are excessive and I'd generally support that notion. But they have nothing to do with his retirement. That is compensation for 2005, prior to his retirement. Also, the third item there is not actual cash payout, according to the proxy statement he can't sell any of those shares for five years so the value could go down significantly before then. That's about $48 million of the $400. The other expenses are mostly non-cash such as bodyguards, club memberships, cars, personal use of company aircraft.

Then there is this stuff:

$3,089,400 - Restricted stock dividends paid in 2005.
$21,212,022 - Exercised stock options in 2005.

Again, neither of these have anything to do with his retirement. They also have nothing to do with compensating him for work in 2005. This is the result of compensation given in previous years.

Then we have some pseudo-money:

$69,630,280 - unexercised stock options
$151,027,200 - value of previously granted restricted stock
$4,900,500 - future payouts from existing long-term incentive program

Again, nothing to do with either retirement or 2005 compensation. These are grants that accumulated in previous years. Approximately 1/3 Raymond's existing stock options are under water and by the time he can exercise it is possible they all would be or they could be worth much more than this amount. Same with the restricted shares which can't be sold for 5-9 years depending on grant date.

The incentive plan I can quite figure out but I believe it also derives from past years and not current years.

$98,437,831 - lump sum pension payout
$1,000,000 - post-retirement "consulting" fee
Other services exptected to be under $1,000,000 year

Finally, these are the only things in the $400 million retirement package that actually have anything to do with his retirement. The lump sum payment is part of the defined pension plan at ExxonMobil and the executives participate in the exact same plan as everybody else. The man has been an executive in the company for 46 and gets a huge payout. But this big piece of change was not a gift from the Board of Directors; there was absolutely no discression in its receipt. The consulting thing is a sham that most major companies do to "ensure a smooth transition" and the other services mostly have to do with continuing bodyguards, club memberships, and other personal services.

Sorry to go into such detail but I didn't really have another venue for it and the way the non-financial press covers these things always pisses me off. Yes, Raymond was paid a lot. But they've essentially screwed up the $400 million thing completely. Also, they act like this was all a surprise.

The man did not negotiate a retirement package and get a big old bear hug from the directors. If in January 2005 you had been told Raymond would retire in January 2006 you could put together almost the entire $400 million detailed here by looking at the public informatin in the last few proxy reports. The only uncertain spot would be the 2005 bonus and restricted stock grant.

I have no problem with the argument that the market has overvalued CEOs and chairmen (they have) but when people show so little understanding of what they are talking about it just distracts the discussion from where it should be.

innerSpaceman

04-18-2006, 07:54 AM

^ Thanks for the detail, Alex. I was too lazy to go digging for confirmation of what I heard on the car radio and then glanced at in the newspaper. What a cool thing this here intraweb is.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 08:00 AM

That is amazing detail, and I share your disgust of the laziness of the news media. I am curious - how long did it take you to compile the information you post, Alex?

Alex

04-18-2006, 08:39 AM

It took me longer to write the post than to compile the information. All it can be found in the 2005 ExxonMobil proxy statement. Not only that, it is all on just 10 consecutive pages of the proxy statement.

People are too afraid of SEC filings. Yes, they can sometimes be arcane but 90% of the time everything is laid out in relatively plain English. Just remember to read the footnotes.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 08:42 AM

What I am amazed by is that no reporters decided to do the same thing as you did. Laziness? Sensationalizing? Figuring the stupid public (which is what I think most in the media think of the public in general) couldn't grasp it?

Alex

04-18-2006, 10:00 AM

I'm sure there are reporters who have done what I did. But most of the headlines you're seeing are based on the same wire story and wire stories are rarely re-reported.

And there is always the chance that I am wrong and there are other retirement package components I've missed. But the stories I found referenced the proxy statement so if it is in there I'm completely missing it.

Alex

04-18-2006, 10:11 AM

And here's another logical flaw (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/18/085248.php) I'm starting to see pop up in the reporting. Admittedly this is from a blog but I've seen it elsewhere this morning:

Now, as if to show off to the world just how awash it is in cash, ExxonMobil, the fattest of the fat has awarded its former CEO a retirement package worth four-hundred million dollars...

...Exxon’s generosity towards Mr Raymond is not limited to his platinum parachute. His 2005 compensation package was worth just over fifty-one million dollars

So not only is the $51 million included in the $400 million it is then highlighted to show just how out of line his compensation was for his last year of employment. This, of courses, counts the $51 million twice. It also fails to note that 70% of the $51 million is from compensation given in previous years and not compensation awarded in 2005.

Gemini Cricket

04-18-2006, 10:16 AM

Getting rid of Rumsfeld is like firing Homer at the Springfield Power Plant. The real problem is Mr. Burns.

BarTopDancer

04-18-2006, 10:22 AM

Getting rid of Rumsfeld is like firing Homer at the Springfield Power Plant. The real problem is Mr. Burns.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2006, 11:58 AM

Moussaoui clearly wants to die. Whether it's because he's afraid of prison, or if he wants martyr status, who knows? Probably a little of both. But clearly he was just an annoying hanger-on, desparate for the attention, but completely on the outside of the real workings. So now he's just trying to bolster his role to make himself look more important. And, unless he's completely off the deep end, I can't imagine he thinks he's fooling Allah into givin' him the virgins, he must just really want some mortal recognition. I find myself leaning more towards pity for the pathetic bastard (not pity as in, "I think he's a good soul gone astray," pity as in, "You're gonna spend a miserable life in prison because you're filled with hate, and yet astoundingly ineffectual. Sucks to be you.")

Gemini Cricket

04-18-2006, 12:28 PM

Regarding Moussaoui - Can a US court sentence someone to life in solitary confinement? He'd be too much of a hero or teacher while spending a lifetime in prison with others. That's not good.

Gemini Cricket

04-18-2006, 12:39 PM

President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_16)

Uh, that's kinda scary.
:eek:

wendybeth

04-18-2006, 12:49 PM

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_16)

Uh, that's kinda scary.
:eek:
Well, you know, he is The Decider (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/index.html).

Motorboat Cruiser

04-18-2006, 01:04 PM

There is an old saying among musicians that when you are in a situation where you might have to perform a song that you haven't learned beforehand and don't really know, you play it "wrong but strong". The idea being that if you are confident in your playing and look like you know what you are doing, the people watching just might think you know what you are doing. You can get away with a lot of bad notes that way.

That to me best describes Bush's way of handling things...wrong but strong.

Alex

04-18-2006, 01:12 PM

Has any president since James Garfield promised not to use nukes to change the mind of people who wanted to keep the nation on the silver standard ever publicly ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a conflict?

Not to the best of my ability to recall. And yet everybody gets all excited every few years with the "president won't rule out nukes; reveals self as monstrous maniac!" headlines. You can find the same headlines about Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know how far back it could go because I don't know when peole developed the silly idea that the president might actually publicly reject a specific military tactic ahead of time.

I would be strongly opposed to the use of any nuclear weapon to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I also would be opposed to the president saying ahead of time that he wouldn't use them.

Nephythys

04-18-2006, 01:24 PM

innerSpaceman

04-18-2006, 01:35 PM

Actually, I would adore a president who said flat out that the U.S. would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike.

As means of aggression or unmatched use of force, weapons that have the potential to destroy all higher forms of life on earth should be taken off the table by the president of the United States.

BarTopDancer

04-18-2006, 01:40 PM

I wonder what the reaction here would be if another country took a "premeptive strike" against us.

Oh wait...

Alex

04-18-2006, 01:42 PM

Probably about the same as the last time it happened.

BarTopDancer

04-18-2006, 03:46 PM

Why don't people see that what we're doing to other countries in the name of a "premeptive strike" is pretty much what was done to us. :(

Can you really blame them for wanting to cause us harm? What was our reaction? Let's bomb em! We should be thankful that so far the countries involved don't have the ability to get a bomb to us on their own. If they did we'd be playing a different ball game and maybe we'd stop acting like such a bully.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2006, 03:50 PM

Why don't people see that what we're doing to other countries in the name of a "premeptive strike" is pretty much what was done to us. :(While I'm still against the concept of preemptive strikes, there's a big difference between directly targeting a civilian building and military action against another military (which is what the war in Iraq started as).

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 03:54 PM

Other countries? Which other countries?

Afghanistan wasn't a preemptive strike. They were assisting the terrorists who planned and funded 9/11.

I can see the argument that Iraq was a preemptive strike, but I do not subscribe to it myself, as the reality is that Iraq repeatedly violated cease fire agreements from the first gulf war.

Where else have we preemptively struck? We haven't done anything to Iran. We haven't done anything to Syria.

I do blame them for wanting to cause us harm. I do not think we are a bully. We deposed a terrorist sympathetic government in Afghanistan, and deposed the leader of a country who wouldn't abide by agreements he made after he was removed from Kuwait.

What were we doing prior to 9/11 that should in any way been seen as excusing 9/11? Supporting Isreal?

innerSpaceman

04-18-2006, 04:05 PM

What were we doing prior to 9/11 that should in any way been seen as excusing 9/11? Supporting Isreal?
Surely you jest?

How far back do you wanna go in the history of U.S. blowback?

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 05:31 PM

I don't jest. You are saying that we deserved the attacks of 9/11 and that they were justified? Sorry, but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

Not Afraid

04-18-2006, 05:52 PM

I don't think any attacks are justified, but I can certainly see why our world actions and bully presence got us into a situation where it did happen.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 06:35 PM

Please talk to me about our bully actions. Seriously. I have never considered us to be a bully nation. Are we talking militarily?

In the last century, what can I think of?

Participation in WWI.
Participation in WWII.
Korea.
Bay of Pigs.
Vietnam.
Failed rescue attempt in Iran.
Afghanistan (assisting rebels)
Grenada.
Nicaragua (assisting rebels)
Panama.
Gulf War I, and the extension of it in Gulf War II.
Afghanistan.

I see all of those as reaction to other bullies or as a direct action to protect allies or our citizens. I can see two exceptions to that, being the Bay of Pigs and ousting Noriega from Panama (it was Noriega, right?). We can argue about the logic of particiapting in Korea or Vietnam or helping Afghan rebels when the Soviets invaded (now there's a bully nation, thankfully having returned to dust) or whatever, but how can those things be regarded as us being a bully or an aggressor?

Are we talking economic bullying? I suppose I don't know enough about that to say yes or no.

Are we talking about not giving in to what the rest of the world wants, like Kyoto?

I see bullies out there. Plenty of them. Oppressors of their own people. Saber rattlers who proclaim that Isreal must be run into the sea and that Jews must be exterminated. Warlords who starve people to control them. Plenty of former ones as well that no longer exist, like (Nazi) Germany and the USSR. I do not consider us to be in that company.

Edited to add: I have no doubt my list is incomplete. I have been thinking of others since I posted, most significantly the naval blockade of Cuba.

Not Afraid

04-18-2006, 07:10 PM

Well, your list of facts is impressive, but it doesn't seem to help the impression and perception of many others in the world that we are the big bully's as opposed to the benevolent leaders and protectors. It's always a sad wake up call to hear how many citizens of other countries the world over percieve us. It doesn't really matter if the perceptions are based in facts or not, it's a perception that needs some attention IMHO or we will will be in for more terrible catashtophes.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 08:09 PM

Let's look at Somalia. Our primary mission there was humanitarian, if not solely, even to the point that we wouldn't provide troops with armored personel carriers to avoid the appearance of looking like we were trying to be bullies. Did it do us any good? Not in the least. The result was the troops that were there to pass out food ended up getting shot at and killed.

No matter what we do, there will be opposition from someone. Those who perceive our actions as unacceptable or wrong. The simple fact is that in a big world there is no way to please everyone. So you do what you think is best. I realize that this means other groups or countries will do what they think is best. Sadly, this means that conflicts arise. The difference is that we typically win. I won't go into the numerous reasons why we do, but when you are at the top of the food chain economically and militarily, others are gunning for you because they want to be in that position.

In a world of unending conflict, where there will always be conflict, I will make no apologies about being happy that we usually come out on top in those conflicts, because I am on our side. I am not saying in any way that anyone here is not on "our side", but I think many here have an unrealistic view of the world in that conflict can and should be avoided at all costs. I don't think many governments or peoples in the world think that way, though they often play the part when it suits their interests. Considering that I believe us to be the most free country there is (based on rights we have gauranteed to us in our Constitution that no other country has), I want us to be in a position to be able to continue to ensure that freedom. And that means when conflict arises that it is our responsibility and in our best interest to have it come out our way.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2006, 08:21 PM

Let's look at Somalia. Our primary mission there was humanitarian, if not solely, even to the point that we wouldn't provide troops with armored personel carriers to avoid the appearance of looking like we were trying to be bullies. Did it do us any good? Not in the least. The result was the troops that were there to pass out food ended up getting shot at and killed.Let's look at the current situation in Palestine. And, because looking at an individual situation in isolation without looking at the larger world picture is particularly pointless, let's combine it with the larger world picture. In fact, let's start with the larger world picture which, for the last three or so years, has been about Bush's drum-beat about freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy is the Middle East's path to being a player in the world economy without sanctions. Freedom and deomcracy is what we respect. Hold free, democratic elections, and the will of the people will guide your countries to happiness and prosperity!

Unless you elect Hamas.....

Do you see the inherent bullying b.s. of that attitude? Here we are in Iraq, dozens of people dying nearly daily, and our whole message is that we're bringing them the glory of free elections. And yet we turn around and pull the rug out from under the Palestinians, who have just held the freest elections the Muslim world has seen in a long time.

Now, I'm NOT saying I disagree with cutting off aid and political negotiations with Hamas. They are terrorists and until they move the way of the PLO, they should be treated as such. But the lesson that I think needs to be drawn is that we need to shut the hell up with this whole, "Our ways of democracy and freedom are your ticket to splendor" bullsh!t. It's the hypocritical attitude of "We're going to fight for your freedom...as long as it's our brand of freedom!" that gives the US its reputation. By all means, join in support of those fighting for freedom, but running around the world espousing free elections as the one, absolute answer for everyone is guaranteed to land us in this exact position, because there is no absolute answer for everyone.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 08:35 PM

While I see your point, I disagree with your conclusion.

I don't think the point has ever been that free elections is the end to your problems. We have enough problems in our own country to know this is not the case. However, it is a first step.

I am not surprised that the Palestinians voted as they did. They danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (prior to "pulling the rug out from under them", as you put it), and financially support suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I think this is exactly what was expected. What happened is we went from a position of having to deal with Arafat and the PLO, who were never interested in peace (as Clinton was able to demonstrate when he got Isreal to agree to 96% of the land the Palestinians were demanding and they turned it down), to having exposed them as a country that truly does not desire peace in that they elected Hamas, who as a group has sworn to eliminate Isreal.

You see bullying. I see great foreign policy.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2006, 09:19 PM

I am not surprised that the Palestinians voted as they did. They danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (prior to "pulling the rug out from under them", as you put it), and financially support suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I think this is exactly what was expected. What happened is we went from a position of having to deal with Arafat and the PLO, who were never interested in peace (as Clinton was able to demonstrate when he got Isreal to agree to 96% of the land the Palestinians were demanding and they turned it down), to having exposed them as a country that truly does not desire peace in that they elected Hamas, who as a group has sworn to eliminate Isreal.

You see bullying. I see great foreign policy.Once again you've narrowed your view to an isolated situation, rather than the world perspective. I told you I don't disagree with the decission to not deal with Hamas. I disgree with us throwing our weight around spouting our ideals when we (correctly) don't hold to them when it's convenient for us.

scaeagles

04-18-2006, 09:32 PM

Once again you've narrowed your view to an isolated situation, rather than the world perspective. I told you I don't disagree with the decission to not deal with Hamas. I disgree with us throwing our weight around spouting our ideals when we (correctly) don't hold to them when it's convenient for us.

Once again you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation.

I understand you agree with the decision, and you clearly stated so. I think you are misreading what happened. There was an election. We have not gone in and overthrown the government and installed a different one. We have simply said "OK, you've made you choice. We don't support terrorist governments." It is most certainly holding to two of our foreign policy philosophies, being the pursuit of democratically elected governments and not dealing with terrorists. It is completely consistent with our stated foreign policy goals.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2006, 09:37 PM

Once again you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation.

I understand you agree with the decision, and you clearly stated so. I think you are misreading what happened. There was an election. We have not gone in and overthrown the government and installed a different one. We have simply said "OK, you've made you choice. We don't support terrorist governments." It is most certainly holding to two of our foreign policy philosophies, being the pursuit of democratically elected governments and not dealing with terrorists. It is completely consistent with our stated foreign policy goals.
I understand all that. But from the perspective of the citizens of the countries we've invaded and have threatened to invade, that's not the message. When we spend 3 years spewing rhetoric about freedom, this looks like complete undermining of what we're spouting.

Madeningly, so much can be fixed simply with a change of attitude, not a change of action. If Bush had focused on the situation at hand, rather than going on and on about the spread of freedom across the world, it wouldn't look nearly as bad. But all of his posturing has set us up to look like bullies.

Gemini Cricket

04-19-2006, 07:16 AM

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday he is resigning, continuing a shakeup in President Bush's administration that has already yielded a new chief of staff and could lead to a change in the Cabinet.

In another move in an ongoing shakeup of the White House staff, longtime confidant and adviser Karl Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/19/bushshakeup.ap/index.html)

innerSpaceman

04-19-2006, 03:09 PM

I thought Scott McClellan was the worst press secretary EVER. And that's saying a lot!

Alex

04-19-2006, 05:45 PM

Random political thought:

Should I post random political thoughts while I have four vicodin in my system. Probably not.

For the record, these are my first vicodin ever (been prescribed many times, never taken). They don't seem to do much in the actual way of pain relief, just a feeling of blickiness.

scaeagles

04-19-2006, 05:52 PM

wendybeth

04-19-2006, 05:57 PM

Are you combining the drug thread and political thread?

Sorry to hear that you have had to take vicodin. Hope the pain goes away.

When I was on drugs, the stuff the liberals were posting did make more sense.:)

Scaeagles has done more posting under the influence than anyone else on these boards. I figured it was his coping mechanism.:p:D

Not Afraid

04-19-2006, 06:35 PM

Alex

04-19-2006, 07:00 PM

Wisdom tooth removal. I took one and it seemed to have absolutely no effect. I took the second and while it didn't seem to have much effect I slept for most of the afternoon so I don't. I'm on the second cycle now.

I think I'm somewhat impervious to painkillers. For a root canal last year they had to inject me with novocaine five times before I got the numbness they wanted. Once I had to get stiches in my face and they had to inject lidocaine four times since feeling kept returining too quickly.

Not Afraid

04-19-2006, 07:03 PM

Ahhh, I have the same problem. I am a 4 Advil gal.

Wisdom teeth are the worst. I had all 4 done at once and I was glad I didn't have to do it again.

Alex

04-19-2006, 07:15 PM

I may have to go back. Because of the root placement they used a less common technique of removing only half of each of the bottoms. Odds are good that they'll heal and that little bit of tooth will just remained buried in my forever. There's also a fair chance I'll have to get it get infected or rejected so that my body will naturally move the tooth bits so that they can go in and remove them.

innerSpaceman

04-19-2006, 07:22 PM

From the description of your vicodin reaction, I'd say you were indeed impervious to proper painkiller effects. The symptom you describe is how vicodin usually effects people who have no pain symptoms.

That's why I dispose of vicodin once the pain is over. The drug acts entirely differently on systems with and without pain. For those with pain, it is a usually excellent painkiller with no druggie effects. For those without, just a general downer, drugged out, "blicky" effect.

My medical advice to you, Alex: Don't get hurt.

€uroMeinke

04-19-2006, 07:43 PM

Nonesense - there's always morphine

Not Afraid

04-19-2006, 07:50 PM

Vicodine, codine, morphine, heroin, laudnum, oxycodone, etc are all opiods or opium dirivitives. They all act basically the same way but some are semisynthetic or synthetic.

Some people don't react the same as other to opiates and they don't seem to work. I find that Advil does more for me than the opiate family.

Prudence

04-19-2006, 07:53 PM

And none of them work on me as well as Advil. Although if I actually take vicodine I get to experience the joy that is projectile vomiting.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-19-2006, 09:02 PM

According to recent reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now costing us 10 billion dollars a month, twice as much as the first year.

This breaks down to approx. $231,481.00 per minute.

sleepyjeff

04-19-2006, 09:16 PM

According to recent reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now costing us 10 billion dollars a month, twice as much as the first year.

This breaks down to approx. $231,481.00 per minute.

How much of that is spent in-country and how much State-side? The State-side money should mostly go right back into our economy and the money spent over there can't hurt their economies any.

Alex

04-19-2006, 09:31 PM

The time I had a kidney stone a morphine drip did seem to act quickly. But that is the only time before today that I've ever taken non-local painkillers (the kidney stone passed before I came off the morphine). My sample size is so small who knows what works and what doesn't.

Steve, since they don't seem to be acting as anything other than a sleeping pill I'd already decided to skip them unless pain becomes absolutely unbearable or I can't get to sleep.

sleepyjeff: a bullet that does a $0.04 boost to the stateside economy can do a lot more than in damage to the warside economy and vice versa.

sleepyjeff

04-19-2006, 09:43 PM

sleepyjeff: a bullet that does a $0.04 boost to the stateside economy can do a lot more than in damage to the warside economy and vice versa.

I don't follow:confused:

innerSpaceman

04-19-2006, 09:46 PM

This breaks down to approx. $231,481.00 per minute.
Wow ... and here I was complaining (in one thread or another) that the Exxon CEO was making $150,000 a day.

Kinda puts things in perspective.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-19-2006, 09:51 PM

I don't follow:confused:

Have some vicodin. It seems to help scaeagles understand. :)

Alex

04-19-2006, 09:53 PM

Well, the total U.S. budget outlay for 2006 is $3,026,000,000,000 ($3.026 billion) which works out to $5,761,035 per minute. Or $96,017 per second. So maybe you can see why scaeagles gets upset.

Seems kind of hard to believe that the United States received $96,000 worth of benefit from the government every single second.

sleepyjeff

04-19-2006, 10:55 PM

Have some vicodin. It seems to help scaeagles understand. :)

I'am strictly an Advil kind a guy;)

wendybeth

04-20-2006, 12:15 AM

How much of that is spent in-country and how much State-side? The State-side money should mostly go right back into our economy and the money spent over there can't hurt their economies any.

Well, I don't don't about how this helps us (stateside) over all, but I do know that the guy who got the Pentagon contract for body armor (David Brooks) gave his daughter a $10,000,000 bat mitzvah and provided employment for such illustrious groups as Aerosmith, Don Henley, 50 Cent and the like. Of course, this was before his defective armor was recalled and he got in trouble with the SEC and investors started filing lawsuits......

I'm just sure that's gonna trickle some direction to us. Really.

(Even Eisenhower knew what the hell was going to happen, Jeff- and what he was afraid of is happening now).

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 07:42 AM

Have some vicodin. It seems to help scaeagles understand. :)

No, no, no.....I'm a percocet man. Vicodin made me hurl big time. Not fun after abdominal surgery.

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 07:42 AM

Exactly who do you suppose would invade our country if we dismantled the Department of Defense and went back to calling it, and using it as, the Deparment of War ... i.e., no having no significant military power unless and until a time of war (war being declared, per that pesky Constitution thingy, by the Congress and not the president)?????

I think we could get things down to spending only $50K per second, and still pump up our vital infrastructure, our health services, our education services, our justice systems, our energy futures, our economic picture, our disaster response capabilities, and our internal & border security measures. All for less than what we are currently spending on "defense."

Is our military really protecting us from invasion? Note I say "invasion," and not "attack." It's been proven that petty criminals can mount a fairly credible attack. I mean a true military threat to our country? Where exactly would that be coming from???

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 07:48 AM

I'm just sure that's gonna trickle some direction to us. Really.

No such thing as a perfect economic or political system.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." Winston Churchill.

Same could be said for capitalism and economic systems, I suppose.

Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. Plenty of it in the military, plenty of it in social programs, plenty of it in education.....suffice it to say anywhere in government. Not good anywhere.

Regardless, I am not a deficit hawk. I have always struggled to put into words why not, but here is an absolutely brilliant explanation as to why.

Is there a federal deficit? (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/04/19/193985.html)

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 07:54 AM

Is our military really protecting us from invasion? Note I say "invasion," and not "attack." It's been proven that petty criminals can mount a fairly credible attack. I mean a true military threat to our country? Where exactly would that be coming from???

It depends on what you mean by military attack. Do psychotic leader such as North Korea's Kim Jong (mentally) Ill and Iran's whatever-the-heck-his-name-is scare me? Absolutely. N. Korea already has nukes (I won't bring up how they got them, as that might be seen as slamming previous administrations, and who cares about history). Iran is closing in on them.

China scares me a bit in that they have nukes, and now have ballistic missile ability (please see previous parenthetical comment), have puppet governments in their neck of the woods, and are most likely going to invade Taiwan at some point. If we protect Taiwan, our ally, then we will basically be at war with China, who is quite formidable.

So.....yeah. There are true military threats to our country.

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 08:23 AM

But, insanity aside, what would be the economic or military motive for invading the United States?

Though there have been cases of insanity-wars, most military adventures throughout history have been economic in nature. Would someone want to enslave our population? Would it be our vast coal resources? Colonization of a land with lots of water and agriculture? What are we so in danger of?

Saying we are in danger of kooks with nukes is like saying you are in danger of being hit by a bus today.

It's possible, but I wouldn't advise spending half of your weekly paycheck on avoiding that bus accident.

Nephythys

04-20-2006, 08:29 AM

Not Afraid

04-20-2006, 08:32 AM

Why is it that soooo many people don't see the grey. It must be boring in black and white. Or, maybe it is just easier to understand that way.

Nephythys

04-20-2006, 08:38 AM

when people want you dead Lisa- there is no grey.

They are using our lax illegal immigration laws to sneak in and get false papers.

They are setting up camp in our country, for the purpose of destroying us.

If we stop fighting them-we will welcome their threat into our homes.

YOU of all people-with some of the dear friends you have close to your heart-should not be seeing grey when it comes to such a threat.

You can't paint this with grey paint and make Islamic radicals into your friends- you value your independence, your ability to travel, you treasure free thought and art and expression- you're a free spirit- and these people want to take that away from you- for being a woman, for being NON-Muslim.

So you want to tell me how I see the world- in black and white- I guess I would have to say that I think you are seeing it through rose colored lenses that refuse to acknowledge the threat to all that you love.

wendybeth

04-20-2006, 08:41 AM

What I find sad is that we are not going after the terrorists, just all the people that look like them- except in our airports, of course.

Scaeagles, I am surprised at your restraint regarding the slamming of prior admins- is this some new policy?;):p

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 08:44 AM

Sane people don't scare me with nukes. Insane people do. I regard the leaders of N. Korea and Iran to be insane. You are attempting to apply logic to those that are not logical. You are attempting to apply economic sense to those who don't care about economics. The "kooks with nukes" phrase spells out exactly why we must be prepared - kooks aren't exactly predictable. Should North Korea decide to do something stupid like nuke Japan, or should Iran be far ahead of where we believe they are with regards to acquiring nukes and take out Isreal, or somehow they got one into LA, the buzz would be that not enough attention was paid to those two countries and that we didn't do enough to prevent it. Isn't that what happened with 9/11? Why weren't we more prepared? Shouldn't we have been able to prevent it?

What bothers me, and I do it as well, is second guessing everything. Whenever something bad happens, the cry is that we should have been able to prevent it. If we are actively working to prevent cetain things, and nothing on those fronts happens, then often the cry is that we are doing too much to stop something that is not the threat. It's a no win.

I do not fear a direct invasion by the Chinese anymore than I feared a direct invasion by the Soviets. However, I do fear what will happen when China decides to finally invade Taiwan.

As far as economic, crippling the US economy would bring great joy to Kim Jong Ill and Iran's guy (I just have no idea how to spell his name), as well as to a whole bunch of other smaller players in the world, like a Syria or the Palestinians or Chavez in Venezuela or Cuba or.....the list goes on and on. China needs our dollars in trade too much to directly attack us, and I believe that fact alone is why they have yet to invade Taiwan.

Not Afraid

04-20-2006, 08:45 AM

I guess I'm just not as paranoid. I realize the threat that ALL radicals have on my life and those I love, but I just can't make a blanket statement about one race or belief system because of a few radicals. Nor can I justify being reactionary just for the purpose of attempting control or something we have little control over.

I also think it is important to look at our own actions and take responsability for them and , perhaps, change our ways a bit. The old, point one finger and there's three pointing back at you phrase applies here.

BarTopDancer

04-20-2006, 08:45 AM

I find it sad that when there is a group out there who want us converted or dead- who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women-the response is "we don't need the military, we're the bad guys, and we need to just stop defending ourselves"

Sad......and blind

Islamic radicals are not my friends.

Neither are Christian radicals who bomb abortion clinics, who want us converted or dead, who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women.

Yup Nephy, I can take your entire statement and apply it to Christian radicals as well. Can we use our military against them too? Pretty please with sugar on top? Heck, they're already in our country, it will be cheaper then going overseas.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 08:47 AM

Scaeagles, I am surprised at your restraint regarding the slamming of prior admins- is this some new policy?;):p

I got tired of being told that history didn't matter, and that everything in the world that has gone wrong or could go wrong is as a direct result of this administration.

So yeah....perhaps it is a new policy, but not because I don't think it still applies.:p

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 08:50 AM

Yup Nephy, I can take your entire statement and apply it to Christian radicals as well. Can we use our military against them too?

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-20-2006, 08:51 AM

I find it sad that when there is a group out there who want us converted or dead- who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women-the response is "we don't need the military, we're the bad guys, and we need to just stop defending ourselves"

Sad......and blind

You do understand that the rights of religious freedom and the rights of women in Iraq is decreasing post-invasion, rather than increasing, right? Iraq was a secular nation. Now, it's new constitution clearly states that Islam will be the official language. If you think that bodes well for women, gays, religious freedom, or the US, I fear you are mistaken.

Ghoulish Delight

04-20-2006, 08:55 AM

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.But someone who bombs a restaurant in Baghdad is a Muslim?

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 09:06 AM

But someone who bombs a restaurant in Baghdad is a Muslim?

You bring up an interesting point.

I believe that Islam is moving more and more in the direction of violence in order to achieve their goals. I do not believe this is the case with Christianity today. Today, "radical Chirstians" are those who would try to use the political process to achieve their goals. There are idiots like you Fred Phelps crowd, but I am not aware of daily violence (or even monthly violence) as a method of acquiring power.

Radical Islam most certainly does. And you don't find many Muslim leaders - whether Imams or whomever - condemning violence against Jews and Israel.

sleepyjeff

04-20-2006, 09:11 AM

Well, I don't don't about how this helps us (stateside) over all, but I do know that the guy who got the Pentagon contract for body armor (David Brooks) gave his daughter a $10,000,000 bat mitzvah and provided employment for such illustrious groups as Aerosmith, Don Henley, 50 Cent and the like. Of course, this was before his defective armor was recalled and he got in trouble with the SEC and investors started filing lawsuits......

I'm just sure that's gonna trickle some direction to us. Really.

See this just proves my point. 10 million dollars on a bat mitzvah that may of not have happened had the pentagon not spent that money. I am sure that most of those working the mitzvah were middle to lower class. Some of that money would make its way back to the feds thru taxes......all I am saying is that what looks like an incredible amount of money is not just being flushed down the toilet.......

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 09:18 AM

I gotta disagree with you on that one, sleepy. While not "flushed", whenever the government spends money that is wasteful or unnecessary, it takes money out of the private sector, and I see nothing good about it.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-20-2006, 09:18 AM

I would think that each soldier that didn't receive their body armor as a result of the money going to Aerosmith, might not look as favorably on the situation as you do.

wendybeth

04-20-2006, 09:31 AM

See this just proves my point. 10 million dollars on a bat mitzvah that may of not have happened had the pentagon not spent that money. I am sure that most of those working the mitzvah were middle to lower class. Some of that money would make its way back to the feds thru taxes......all I am saying is that what looks like an incredible amount of money is not just being flushed down the toilet.......

You have got to be kidding.

sleepyjeff

04-20-2006, 09:34 AM

Not really. Where do you think that 10 million went?

JWBear

04-20-2006, 09:41 AM

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.
And "Islamic" terrorist bombers are no Muslims, either.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 09:48 AM

And "Islamic" terrorist bombers are no Muslims, either.

Please refer to my post a couple posts after the one you quoted in response to GD's similar question (#217 in the thread).

BarTopDancer

04-20-2006, 09:55 AM

provided employment for such illustrious groups as Aerosmith, Don Henley, 50 Cent and the like.

Sheesh. All I got was a DJ. I think I'll sue my parents or something now.

JWBear

04-20-2006, 10:12 AM

...And you don't find many Muslim leaders - whether Imams or whomever - condemning violence against Jews and Israel.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444

What do I win?

I find it appalling that there are people that immediately associate “Islamic” with “Terrorist”; people who condemn all of Islam for the actions of a fanatical and deranged few. And before some says “But mainstream Islam is evil because it does not condemn the fanatics!”, stop and think about the resounding silence of mainstream Christianity in this country when it comes to fanatical Christians – not just the Fred Phelps and the Pat Robertsons, but the Scalitos, and the Wildmons, and the Reeds, too. Where is the Christian outrage at the hate these people spew? When mainstream Christianity starts chastising people like this for their un-Christian behavior, then they can condemn mainstream Islam, and only then.

I suppose that for some it is far easier to live in hate and fear than it is to think for themselves – far easier to reduce the world to “us” vs. “them” than to try and gain understanding of those who are different. I just can not understand the mindset that says we must fear and hate that which is different, simply because it is different. It shocks me that, in this day and age, with our ever shrinking global community, there are still those who consider everything that is “foreign” to be a threat; something to be contained and destroyed lest it attack us in our sleep. How sad.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 10:16 AM

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.

JWBear

04-20-2006, 10:31 AM

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.
I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.
The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 10:34 AM

So the motivation comes down to "hatred" (Nephythys) and "insanity" (scaeagles).

One is a dangerous motive without capability, and the other is capability without a credible motive.

I'm talking INVASION, not a mere attack. An endangerment of our nation, not the slaughter of some of our people. Sheesh, more people die in traffic accidents everyday than died in 9/11. And the vast majority of "terror cells" in the United States are comprised of Americans.

Does anyone want to either take over our country or wipe it off the face of the earth, with the ability to do so? If someone with their hand on the button is so crazy that they want to wipe out a billion people, what kind of threat is their own retaliatory destruction?

In other words - if suicide bombers start using nuclear bombs, how is there any way to stop them? Why waste the money on trying?

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 10:41 AM

I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:

And before some says “But mainstream Islam is evil because it does not condemn the fanatics!”, stop and think about the resounding silence of mainstream Christianity in this country when it comes to fanatical Christians

The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:

The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 10:45 AM

I'm talking INVASION, not a mere attack.

In other words - if suicide bombers start using nuclear bombs, how is there any way to stop them? Why waste the money on trying?

I will agree that invasion is not something we are likely to face. At least militarily. One might argue with validity that 11 million illegals constitutes an invasion of sorts, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

If we stop trying to prevent a suicide bomber with a nuke, then we will certainly end up facing one. We may anyway.

I find your comparison to traffic accidents like saying since we can't stop traffic accidents, we should throw out stop lights and speed limits. After all, they'll happen anyway.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:08 AM

President Hu?

I loved that the Chinese President was heckled today. So nice for him to be exposed to something here without the power to imprison the heckler.

JWBear

04-20-2006, 11:10 AM

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:

The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:

I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.
Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

JWBear

04-20-2006, 11:13 AM

If we stop trying to prevent a suicide bomber with a nuke,...
How, exactly, would that be possible?

BarTopDancer

04-20-2006, 11:14 AM

President Hu?

I loved that the Chinese President was heckled today. So nice for him to be exposed to something here without the power to imprison the heckler.

That's awesome.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:16 AM

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:21 AM

How, exactly, would that be possible?

Prevention of terrorist states, like Iran, from acquiring them is a good first step.

Right now there are machines being installed (or that have been installed - I am not sure of the time line) that scan ports and ships for radiation signatures common to nuclear weapons.

There is monitoring of terrorist "chatter".

And there are probably hundreds of other things going on that I have no idea about.

The interesting thing about the gathering of intelligence and successes in the intelligence world is that revealing successes will often lead to revealing the methods employed in those successes, therefore rendering those methods less successful.

There is no fool proof method, however. It is an ongoing tricky process that cannot be relaxed. It is only a matter of time until the next attack (nuke, dirty bomb, or otherwise) that will leave the press and the populace screaming "why weren't we doing more to prevent it?!?!".

Nephythys

04-20-2006, 11:23 AM

If words are the issue can I charge several members of certain forums with hate speech for the outrageous and hateful things said about what I believe in?

(sarcasm..tounge in cheek- for those who forget that I do that sometimes too)

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 11:44 AM

I will agree that invasion is not something we are likely to face. At least militarily. One might argue with validity that 11 million illegals constitutes an invasion of sorts, but that isn't what we're talking about here.
But we should be. It's PRECISELY the kind of invasion that our prime enemies, the radical muslims, are expert at perpetrating. They are systematically taking over Europe. But a military is not the solution to this true colonization threat.

Which again begs my question, why waste half our GNP on military "defense?" when the only credible threat comes from legalized immigration?

* * * *

We are indeed defending our country's economic interests throughout the world. Wars and military adventures have rarely been waged for anything else. As with almost any human endeavor, follow the money.

But are we getting the proper bang for our buck by defending our economic interests with wars, invasions, military occupations, maintaining overwhelming military superiority, and maintaining military readiness via bases spanning every corner of the globe? If our military purposes are economic, are we spending more than we are receiving?

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:44 AM

How could we ever stop shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles from getting into the US?

Guilty plea in missile smuggling (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060419-110441-8567r.htm)

Similar to things that would go on to prevent a nuke from being smuggled i, I would suppose.

In regards to President Bush meeting with Hu today, I would love it if Bush asked him why a Chinese General was implicated, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:47 AM

But we should be. It's PRECISELY the kind of invasion that our prime enemies, the radical muslims, are expert at perpetrating.

100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion. This is an area that I completely agree Bush is failing drastically in, and it should be his highest priorty, as those very few Constitutionally mandated federal responsibilities include protecting the borders of the US.

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 11:48 AM

Right now there are machines being installed (or that have been installed - I am not sure of the time line) that scan ports and ships for radiation signatures common to nuclear weapons.

There is monitoring of terrorist "chatter".

And there are probably hundreds of other things going on that I have no idea about.

The interesting thing about the gathering of intelligence and successes in the intelligence world is that revealing successes will often lead to revealing the methods employed in those successes, therefore rendering those methods less successful.

There is no fool proof method, however. It is an ongoing tricky process that cannot be relaxed. It is only a matter of time until the next attack (nuke, dirty bomb, or otherwise) that will leave the press and the populace screaming "why weren't we doing more to prevent it?!?!".
And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq? The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

Not Afraid

04-20-2006, 11:49 AM

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

Couldn't disagree more. Words are words. Those who do the actions (or plan the actions) bear the blame themselves.

And right here is a great illustration of where some of the fundemental differences are between various poters on this board - and probably the world over (since we are such a perfect little microcosm ;) )

I happen to agree with JWBear on this because the hate that is taught can and DOES lead to violence. The church or whichever institution is teaching intolerance can deny direct responsability for the actions but they still had a part in getting the radical thinker to that point of insane action.

There is so separation, no black and white, it's all just a continium - a domino effect. That's where I think we have a great deficite in our national intelligence. There is not a whole lot of understanding about cause and effect. Maybe Candide shoule be required reading again.

innerSpaceman

04-20-2006, 11:55 AM

100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion.
Um, the problem in Europe is legal immigration. Muslims are not sneaking across borders; they are legally inflitrating Europe with the intention of creating a Muslim continent within four generations. And they may succeed. But not without the complicity of the individual European nations' individual immigraton policies.

Those are what must change. A wall does nothing to stop the legal Muslim tide.

We are facing a similar problem with latino immigration, and I'll admit that I don't know what portion of such immigration is legal or illegal (oops, maybe it's time for me to merge all the Daily Grind threads after all).

But if they are trying to make the U.S. into a latin nation, that's something I've never heard of. Maybe they're just being more surrepticious than the Muslims ... but I somehow doubt that. (Many muslims brag quite openly about taking over Europe ... it would be laugable if it weren't so demonstrably happening.)

scaeagles

04-20-2006, 11:56 AM

And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq. The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

I understand you sentiment, but disagree with the premise of your opening statement. Occupation implies control of the government. I do not agree that we are an occupying force.

Be that as it may.....should a nuke explode in LA, would it not be said that we weren't doing enough or spending enough to have prevented it?

Of course it would not be reasonable to have a cop on every corner. It is reasonable, though, to install traffic cameras to prevent red light running (Phoenix has a bunch and they are proving effective). They aren't at every intersection, just the busiest with a history of a problem of red light running.

We aren't monitoring Finland for terrorist activity or trying to depose the leader of Monaco because we have suspicions. That would certainly be excessive. I do not find our middle eastern activities to be excessive.