Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Bush will cover up for WH Leaker.

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 12:27 PM
    [b] The subsequent investigation was a witch hunt nonpareil...


    [/b][/quote]
    Here's shakin's world view, Republican's good, Democrat's bad.

    Its too bad he doesn't put America first, but that would require him to admit that his "team" has sometimes made mistakes. In shakin's world Republican's never make mistakes. You see he and 5-ever have a very immature understanding of politics. They are the kings of the neophytes.

    They approach politics and sports the same way, all that matters to them is for their team to win and the hell with everything else. In effect their anti-American. They'll even condone revealing the name of a CIA operative if it furthers their agenda. They could care less if it puts that person's life or the lives of their contacts in jeopardy. Shameful.

    BTW... shakin please take the time to explain how Watergate was a witch hunt? I'd love to hear how you'll spin this one.

  2. #22
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 03:06 PM
    [b]
    BTW... shakin please take the time to explain how Watergate was a witch hunt? I'd love to hear how you'll spin this one.

    [/b][/quote]
    I'll stoop to using your patented lazy-ass response: "Look it up!"


    Well, now I feel a bit guilty...alright, I'll point you in a helpful direction. Read "Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Nineties", by Paul Johnson.


    Oh, and thanks for the kind words!

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 04:17 PM
    [b] Oh, and thanks for the kind words! [/b][/quote]
    Your Welcome!

    After all of the kind words you've had for me I figured I owed you the same.

    BTW could you please summerize in a paragraph or two how exactly Watergate was a witch hunt?

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 8 2003, 08:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 8 2003, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:33 PM
    [b] Do you even realize what happened in 2000?
    [/b][/quote]
    Sure I do, the Bush brothers stole the election that&#39;s what happened. [/b][/quote]
    Can you do me a favor? As a Floridian, I would like to know how you support this statement? Not looking for an argument, looking for your insight. Please cite something if you could. I don&#39;t understand the whole "stole the election thing." I am being serious. Thanks in advance for clearing it up.

  5. #25
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 9 2003, 04:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 9 2003, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 04:17 PM
    [b] Oh, and thanks for the kind words&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Your Welcome&#33;

    After all of the kind words you&#39;ve had for me I figured I owed you the same.

    BTW could you please summerize in a paragraph or two how exactly Watergate was a witch hunt? [/b][/quote]
    Watergate was essentially a coup organized by the press and liberal members of Congress. Many people on the Left had long-standing grudges against Nixon. One reason was his successful red-baiting Senatorial campaign 1950 against Helen Gahagan Douglas, for instance.

    Nixon&#39;s greatest sin, however, may have been his role in the espionage investigation of Alger Hiss, a respected East Coast establishment figure with a promising career in the State Department. Thanks in large part to Nixon, he was eventually convicted of perjury. (The underlying charges against him were pretty much proven when Soviet intelligence information became available in the 1990s.) Watergate was the liberal left&#39;s payback for Alger Hiss. Additionally, Nixon had run against Kennedy and lost in 1960, and many progressive people still cherished the contrast. Their over-the-top pursuit of the President and his men in the Watergate affair could be categorized as a manifestation of the lingering fury the liberal establishment felt for having been deprived of their fantasy of the Kennedy Administration when JFK took a bullet in the brain.

    Witch hunt.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    shakin...That&#39;s total nonsense. You&#39;ve really spun yourself into the ground this time zippy.

    So in shakin&#39;s mind (as dim as it is) any burgler and their accessories who are apprehended are victims of a political witch hunt?

    That dog don&#39;t hunt.

  7. #27
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 04:33 PM
    [b] Watergate was essentially a coup organized by the press and liberal members of Congress. Many people on the Left had long-standing grudges against Nixon. One reason was his successful red-baiting Senatorial campaign 1950 against Helen Gahagan Douglas, for instance.

    Nixon&#39;s greatest sin, however, may have been his role in the espionage investigation of Alger Hiss, a respected East Coast establishment figure with a promising career in the State Department. Thanks in large part to Nixon, he was eventually convicted of perjury. (The underlying charges against him were pretty much proven when Soviet intelligence information became available in the 1990s.) Watergate was the liberal left&#39;s payback for Alger Hiss. Additionally, Nixon had run against Kennedy and lost in 1960, and many progressive people still cherished the contrast. Their over-the-top pursuit of the President and his men in the Watergate affair could be categorized as a manifestation of the lingering fury the liberal establishment felt for having been deprived of their fantasy of the Kennedy Administration when JFK took a bullet in the brain.

    Witch hunt. [/b][/quote]

    This from the guy who thinks liberals spend too much time coming up with conspiracy theories. You&#39;re some piece of work.

    So, in your mind it is OK to arrange a break-in of party headquarters? Or did the evil liberal shadow conspiracy also hire the cuban bozo plumbers just to discredit Tricky Dick?

    Just out of curiosity, do you also believe McCarthy was an innocent victim too? Yup, the guy was just protecting our precious bodily fluids and inserting clauses into the pledge to keep future generations from perpetuating some ridiculous myth of Separation of Church and State.

    For what it&#39;s worth, I actually have some respect for Nixon -- the absolute indefensible pillaging of Cambodia and Chile c/o Kissinger notwithstanding. He worked a lot harder to get where he did than George W. Bush, and he got caught doing some things I believe several other Administrations have done before and since.

    But like your antichrist Clinton, he rolled the dice and knowingly commited perjury and tried to erase evidence and thus paid the price in spades. He was not a "victim" in any way, and that is simply an amazing claim coming from a die-hard conservative who loves to hammer the cliche about "the politics of victimization" when it concerns people who actually have it bad instead of rich corrupt politicians and media blowhards.

  8. #28
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    Wow&#33; I&#39;ve garnered a tag-team response from Dil and Doh...this is truly a special moment.

    I guess you guys can&#39;t grasp the concept of "motivating factors." To see my point you have to share some of the same assumptions as I do -- that the FAR left (note the adjective FAR) is insidious and evil, and -- yes -- Anti-American. And they have far too much control within channels of influence (traditional media, academia, entertainment), and they use it destructively. Again -- if you don&#39;t hold that same belief you have no chance of seeing my point of view. It&#39;s that simple.

    Nixon&#39;s boys got caught doing something naughty -- JSJ you admit it yourself that it was something most administrations before and since probably engaged in just the same. The major media&#39;s tireless manic chasing down of the story when it&#39;s Republican dirt vs. their (at best) apathy or (at worse) politically motivated ignoring when it&#39;s a Democrat is undeniable. Nixon got caught, he went down. Clinton and his wife/partner in crime serve 8 full years in the White House with the ubiquitous stench of foul play on a dozen fronts -- hell, even murder for Christsakes -- but the big media gives their good old lefty Dem icon a pass beyond belief.

    Tailgaters, my apologies for using all the big words here. Sound them out...

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,506
    Its obvious that Tailgators is infatuated with GWB. Dont you guys realize that this is how he gets aroused. Everytime he tyoes Bushes name he gets a big hard on.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jetman67[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:47 PM
    [b] Its obvious that Tailgators is infatuated with GWB. Dont you guys realize that this is how he gets aroused. Everytime he tyoes Bushes name he gets a big hard on. [/b][/quote]
    It&#39;s not worth it.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 08:34 PM
    [b] if you don&#39;t hold that same belief you have no chance of seeing my point of view. It&#39;s that simple.

    [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, but in order to see your view you&#39;ve got to shove your head up your ass.
    You&#39;re a complete idiot.

    Paul Johnson? Puleesse he&#39;s in the same catagory as Micheal Moore. Go back to school.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,506
    I LIKE BUSH>>LOTS OF IT&#33;&#33;

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant+Oct 9 2003, 04:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (JetFanTransplant @ Oct 9 2003, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[quote]Originally posted by -tailgators@Oct 8 2003, 08:52 PM
    [b]<!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:33 PM
    [b] Do you even realize what happened in 2000?
    [/b][/quote]
    Sure I do, the Bush brothers stole the election that&#39;s what happened. [/b][/quote]
    Can you do me a favor? As a Floridian, I would like to know how you support this statement? Not looking for an argument, looking for your insight. Please cite something if you could. I don&#39;t understand the whole "stole the election thing." I am being serious. Thanks in advance for clearing it up.[/b][/quote]
    hmmm... Shame, I thought I was finally going to understand what the hell went on in Florida. Guess not. Thanks anyway.

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta+Oct 8 2003, 04:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Jet Set Junta @ Oct 8 2003, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 03:34 PM
    [b] This is nothing but yet another example of lame, bitter and dirtball Democratic politics at its finest. As many times as it blows up in your faces (see recent "innocently timed" L.A. Times smear campaign against new California Governor Ah-nold S.), it&#39;s still the only way your sorry team knows how to play. [/b][/quote]

    You are every bit as smug, one-sided partisan hack, and obnoxious as you constantly claim tailgators to be. At least 5ever is objective enough to take a wait-and-see attitude and admit the 1998 thing was a ****storm -- for the record I&#39;m probably more pro-Starr than he was at the time. It was stupid to escalate the blowjob thing into a national crisis, but Clinton absolutely gambled big time, lied under oath, and deserved some of the consequences that came from it.

    Spew all the gripes about "liberal hypocrisy" you want, but if investigation was good enough for your side in 1998 then it&#39;s good enough for the current White House with its widely established reputation for masterful propaganda and strongarming anyone who disagrees with it. And again, CIA LEAKS (if true) ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAN BLOWJOBS.

    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58650-2003Oct7.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2003Oct7.html[/url]

    Oh yeah, everything in the Post and Times is pure fiction, so this URL is disqualified. Plame trained at The Farm in Virginia so she could sit at a desk in Washington. And Republicans have never lied in office, made dump foreign policy decisions, given corrupt governments ridiculous amounts of aid or technology secrets. Joseph McCarthy was a victim, and anyone who defends Separation of Church and State is a communist who wants to destroy the institution of marriage and prevent people from having kids. Did I miss anything? [/b][/quote]
    [b]Jet Set, et al -[/b]My take on this leak thing goes something like this:

    It is clear that a crime has been committed, obviously. And that is bad and certainly should be pursued. However, I take a bit of an exception to immediately characterizing this crime as "compromising national security" or "putting Ms. Plame in grave danger." Similarly, I objected to the self-important descriptions of Clinton&#39;s crimes as "perjury" or "knowingly violating Ms. Jones&#39; civil rights" and all of the &#39;sanctity of the Constitution&#39; nonsense the Henry Hydes of the world were spouting back then. Yeah, Clinton technically did do all of these things and obstructed justice and all that, but I think perspective was needed and for the sake of the Presidency, and not merely short-term political gain, I think it should never have risen to the levels it did. They were not High Crimes and what should have happened was he should have served out his Presidency and then gone through a criminal trial or civil trial afterwards. It was not impeachable, IMO.

    Wilson&#39;s wife&#39;s identity may have been an &#39;open secret&#39; around Washington as Clifford May suggests, or it may not have been. This is a vital piece of information. Similarly, it is also vital to know whether or not she sits at a desk in Washington or whether she is presently in deep cover inside some Czech terror group, anxiously trying to escape with her head intact before her fellow terrorists read the Washington Post and figure her out. I have a hard time figuring out exactly [i]how[/i] our national security has been violated by this leak, in any material sense, especially if it turns out that she is not truly a "covert operative." The true definition of her role is another vital piece of information that we need prior to judgment, IMO. (It is likely we may never know this)

    I also think Wilson himself is germane to this whole thing. If Bob Novak&#39;s explanation is to be believed, the leak was not meant to intimidate anyone, but it was merely germane to the issue of why Wilson was given the job of investigating the uranium story, since he had little investigative experience and no expertise in uranium whatsoever. He knew a lot about Africa, perhaps that&#39;s why he got the job. Perhaps his wife suggested him. Who knows? If the leak was truly given in that context, while still illegal, it does not rise to the nefarious levels that current shrieks imply and "intimidating dissenters" etc. Wilson was an outspoken opponent of the war even before getting this job and one could wonder about his objectivity...especially since his investigation, by any standards whatsoever, was woefully inadequate. Also - he concluded that no transaction had taken place, which is not what he was sent to do. He was sent to see if a transaction was being pursued...there is a difference. But the "Bush lied about WMD" story is another one entirely.....

    Now, Bob Novak could just be a GOP soldier who is knowingly taking a bullet for The Cause. Leaking the name for the accused reasons (and all of the shrieks) could be true and his explanation could be just a CYA thing. I don&#39;t know and people who already lean right or left will surely reach polar conclusions about this. My father thinks Maureen Dowd just "took one for the team" when she purposely misquoted Bush regarding OBL "not being a problem anymore." She was disciplined by the Time and several newspapers stopped running her columns. I, however, think she is just an a-hole and that was not part of some larger conspiracy.

    This is why I take a wait and see attitude.

    Here is my [b]opinion/hunch [/b](biased and all):

    The reason why I do not think this was a planned leak, in the sense of trying to smear Wilson and "crush dissent" is because Rove just isn&#39;t this stupid. I mean, what, exactly, does the White House gain from all this? Rove gets credit for being a brilliant, long-term, three-moves-ahead strategist. Would he really authorize Novak to not only use Plame&#39;s name but to also say he got her name from a senior official? I mean, how does that help the GOP at all? I DO think it was an off-hand remark and I DO think Ms. Plame is not in any danger and I do think a crime was committed and should be investigated. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a huge conspiracy, although I am not inclined to believe in conspiracy theories by nature, admittedly. I think some admin guy f-ed up and the Dems are trying to capitalize. It has happened before many times and will happen again in both parties. Election-year stuff, IMO. But again, we don&#39;t know all the facts so this opinion is not truly refined yet. The danger, though, is that we may never get the information needed, so questions will always linger. This, obviously, helps the Dems and is just another chink in the armor. Obviously, they know this and don&#39;t even care about the results of the investigation or the (likely) fact that Ms. Plame is not really in any danger, the doubts are there and that is that. Mission accomplished, for the Dems.

    On the question of [b]independent counsel[/b] -

    Jet Set, I didn&#39;t have too much of a problem with the independent counsel law and respect why it was formed. However, it&#39;s a problem of good intentions thwarted by crappy implementation. I can sympathize with why Dems don&#39;t think Ashcroft should investigate the WH given his close ties to it. And let&#39;s face it - every AG will have ties to the guys who gave him/her the job. The problem quickly becomes "how the hell do you ensure an independent counsel truly is independent? You can&#39;t. Who picks who becomes the independent counsel? Using what criteria?

    GOP guys say that the Dems hated the idea of an IC in 1998 and are now hypocritically calling for it, purely for short term political gain. While this statement is true in a strict sense, it is not entirely fair. The only reason that the Dems opposed the IC was because the GOP used it for short-term political gain in 1998&#33; So, GOPers who loved it back then and who don&#39;t want it now are also being duplicitous.

    This shows that neither party can be trusted to use the IC the way it was intended and it was only needed in the first place because neither party can be trusted&#33; <_<

    The GOP trivilaized a serious law (impeachable offenses) for short-term gain and now, I think, the Dems are exaggerating something for the same reason. But I may be wrong...although I [i]really[/i] don&#39;t think I am too far off.

    Sorry for being so long-winded.

    [b]
    Tail[/b] - think whatever you think about me, I don&#39;t have the energy to care about your views anymore.

  15. #35
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 9 2003, 11:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 9 2003, 11:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 08:34 PM
    [b] if you don&#39;t hold that same belief you have no chance of seeing my point of view. It&#39;s that simple.

    [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, but in order to see your view you&#39;ve got to shove your head up your ass.
    You&#39;re a complete idiot.

    Paul Johnson? Puleesse he&#39;s in the same catagory as Micheal Moore. Go back to school. [/b][/quote]
    tailgater, I assure you that I have rocks in my garden that have more insight and intelligence than you have shown on this board. You are by far the biggest hypocrite here -- just look at the childishness and bitterness oozing from your posts. You complain about name calling -- yet you are by far the worst offender. You ask for explanations, then instead of counterpointing, your response is invariably "you stupid punk, you&#39;re an idiot" or such. You are absolutely the reason these political threads get dragged down to the level they do. You&#39;re a complete waste of time.

  16. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 10 2003, 09:00 AM
    [b] Tail - think whatever you think about me, I don&#39;t have the energy to care about your views anymore. [/b][/quote]
    While I too have doubts that Ms. Plame (or Mrs. Wilson) was ever or will ever be in personal danger or harm&#39;s way. My concern is for her "contacts", as I understand the situation they are the people who could be exposed to potential harm.

    BTW...5-ever if it makes you happy to feel superior to me then more power to you. Have a nice weekend.

  17. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 10 2003, 09:52 AM
    [b] You&#39;re a complete waste of time. [/b][/quote]
    I feel the same way about you.

    BTW... Paul Johnson isn&#39;t a respected scholar, reading his material is a complete waste of time.

  18. #38
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 10 2003, 08:00 AM
    [b] The GOP trivilaized a serious law (impeachable offenses) for short-term gain and now, I think, the Dems are exaggerating something for the same reason. But I may be wrong...although I [i]really[/i] don&#39;t think I am too far off.

    Sorry for being so long-winded.
    [/b][/quote]
    You have nothing to be sorry about; I appreciate your willingness to debate the issue in-depth, unlike Shakin318 who has lost every shred of credibility w/ me based on his latest "Watergate was a Liberal Witchhunt" tirade -- I&#39;m sure he&#39;s just devastated, being as he considers me part of the "insiduous and evil" faction of America.

    I agree with pretty much everything you say, other than the interpretation of what "danger" Ms. Plame is in. The law was established to protect these operatives whether or not they happen to be off-duty at home or in deep cover at the moment their name is outed. Even if she is in no immediate danger, her current career is seriously comprimised at best, entirely ruined at worst, by this incident.

    Independent Counsel as a "hypocrisy" is IMO nothing more than checks and balances at work, where the party "in opposition" at the time clamors for some Justice Dept investigation/trial that they feel will fly despite the protests of the "in power" party. Some of the rhetoric is annoying on both sides, but I&#39;d rather see these things investigated than swept under the rug in some cynical "politics and business as usual" as shakin318 apparently feels Watergate should have been.

    If Republicans are really going to harp on the slogan that they are "restoring integrity to the White House", they haven&#39;t done a good job of it so far w/ Bush&#39;s administration -- but that&#39;s simply my personal biased opinion. But they owe it to themselves and to the public to see this through, and conservatives should be pragmatic enough to take a wait-and-see attitude rather than assume it&#39;s some huge liberal conspiracy.

    As for the interesting "What was there to gain" thing, which is a great point btw: My personal belief is that Rove has spent a considerable amount of time feeding nuggets of information to major news outlets and columnists as part of maintaining a favorable PR for the Administration&#39;s moves (another "business as usual" tactic that they are hardly the first to use, but are quickly proving themselves the best ever at IMO), and this just got lost in the shuffle w/ his staff. They have a ****load of classified and unclassified documentation they pore through every day to come up with new speech material, press releases, and strategery (sic) planning and I&#39;d very much buy that this was an accident -- but it&#39;s still an accident that was illegal and part of what I believe was an overbearing propaganda campaign since this war was first envisioned.

    Good arguments; let&#39;s try to keep this civil.

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Oct 10 2003, 09:35 AM
    [b]
    As for the interesting "What was there to gain" thing, which is a great point btw: My personal belief is that Rove has spent a considerable amount of time feeding nuggets of information to major news outlets and columnists as part of maintaining a favorable PR for the Administration&#39;s moves (another "business as usual" tactic that they are hardly the first to use, but are quickly proving themselves the best ever at IMO), and this just got lost in the shuffle w/ his staff. They have a ****load of classified and unclassified documentation they pore through every day to come up with new speech material, press releases, and strategery (sic) planning and I&#39;d very much buy that this was an accident -- but it&#39;s still an accident that was illegal and part of what I believe was an overbearing propaganda campaign since this war was first envisioned.

    Good arguments; let&#39;s try to keep this civil. [/b][/quote]
    Hard to argue with this paragraph. There is no doubt that it is illegal and should 100% be investigated, regardless of intent. And yes, Ms. Plame&#39;s career may be in jeopardy, however, again, it would be helpful to know exactly in what capacity she worked. I reserve judgement until (and if) we know this, but agree 100% that it is a big deal if she cannot c[i]ontinue[/i] in that capacity becuase of this leak, regardless if it was harmless or not. But, again, it would be helpful to know if it really was an "open secret" as some have suggested. But with so much opportunism and C.Y.A. going on on both sides, it&#39;s hard to tell.

    I hear on you the independent counsel thing. I don&#39;t really have a strong opinion about whether or not it should exist. I agree with you reasoning, I just think that ideal is unacheivable - NOBODY is truly independent, you know?

    But I wouldn&#39;t care if they appointed a spcecial counsel or brought back the IC position. Yeah, the rhetoric gets annoying on both sides.

    I do like Bush and will vote for him, because I agree intensely with what he did in Iraq and contrary to what critics believe, this war was not for political gain and I said prior to it that his deicision to follow trhough was actually a big political RISK, rather than opportunism. I think that, agree or disagree, factoring in the political risk makes his decision appear MORE sincere, since he knew by doing it he could lose his job. Right or wrong, he&#39;s doing what he feels is right, IMO. War is not what it used to be, politically-speaking. Vietnam changed all that and Somalia pointed it out again - Americans don&#39;t like to see their boys dying in some Godforsaken place.

    That said - Bush spends like a drunken sailor and I really don&#39;t have much strict allegience to the GOP. Basically, they piss me off considerably less than the Dmes do and since I am a philosophical conservative, I tend to agree with them moreoften than I agree with the Dems. Do you know Bush hasn&#39;t vetoed a single spending bill that&#39;s made it to his desk since the election. Not even ONE. :( So, believe me, I wouldn&#39;t cry too loudly if he loses in 2004, although I still think it is unlikely. California&#39;s recall (a circus&#33;) showed recently that polls are deceiving. Arnold won much more handily than would have been expected due to polls.

    Jet Set - do you have any suggestions as to who is a good person to read if I want to balance my National Review, etc with thoughtful, reasonable liberal slants? Not Dowd or Krugman or anyone like that. Just a few names of good liberal guys I can read to get a view of the &#39;other" side.

    I would suggest, for you (if you are interested) to check out Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg. (Goldberg is a younish, quasi-hipster who uses too much humor, IMO. But he&#39;s a good read. He&#39;s been on the Jon Stewart Daily Show, etc)

    Also - a great insight into the evolution of conervative thought is "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot" by Russell Kirk. It can get pedantic in spots, but once you get going it&#39;s pretty good.

  20. #40
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    Hey Jet Set, I find it amazing that you would consider something a guy pecks out on his keyboard during a coffee break to be a "tirade." Why don&#39;t you relax a bit? You seem to have an inability to view Watergate as anything beyond a single event -- the break-in. My point is simply that the resulting MEDIA behavior clearly featured a tireless zeal that for some reason doesn&#39;t rear its head when the "suspect" in question is a liberal Democrat.

    Nixon&#39;s boys got caught doing something wrong, and paid the price. Okay? Frankly, I knew full well that espousing the views of Paul Johnson to support my contention was going far right, and the response here was pretty much what I expected.

    My contention is simply that the media (as was the case with Watergate) was and is a liberal tool, and the recent California mess is a good example. The liberal L.A. Times spares no expense and digs deeper than hell to dig up dirt on Arnold, then has the shameless nerve to claim that the timing of their "expose" -- a week before the election -- was "purely coincidental." Yet NOWHERE in any of the major press outlets did there EVER appear a story about Cruz Bustamente&#39;s ties with MEHcA -- a violent, racist Hispanic organization. The group&#39;s motto? "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Given the opportunity during the campaign to renounce his ties with the group, Bustamante refused.

    Now tell me, honestly now Jet Set -- consider how much play a passing comment Arnold made about Hitler received -- then justify the mainstream media&#39;s absolute blackout on Bustamante&#39;s racist organization.

    As far as my "insidious and evil" comment, it was clearly specified as applying to extreme left wing fringe groups that unfortunately have found refuge (if not considerable clout) in today&#39;s Democratic party. I could easily cite plenty of examples, but I&#39;m sure that would generate nothing more than a response that I&#39;m an "idiot."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us