it's hard to believe that cheney, libby, etc are going to get off the hook because cheney is allowed to release classified info by an obscure loophole. their actions made our country less safe by ruining the career of a wmd expert as well as the covert people she was connected with; what a sad state of affairs.
I said, "in my opinion," which is what it is... my opinion. I can't find any other explanation. It doesn't dovetail with what I hear from Republicans I know, as I said, or what are traditional Republican policies or values. If you weren't referring to one of my posts right now, I'd have to assume that you simply don't read them. I've made many, many posts critical of national Democrats. Do a search yourself. D&D is littered with them. You could start with John Kerry. See, I'm being helpful. Also, I would find your parroting of Trader_J/texxx amusing, if it weren't so sad, from my perspective. I've admired a lot of your posting in the past, but I seriously don't understand, with all due respect, where you are coming from these days. Keep D&D Civil.
Certainly you've had to move your goal posts on several points. You haven't had to move them on all of them, yet, but on certain ones you have. 1. The claim that Plame wasn't in violation of the '83 statute because she wasn't out of the country working in the past five years was one of your expressed doubts, previously. Now we see that she was assigned over seas duty within the last five years. 2. Then you doubted the claim that leaking her name was actually damaging to national security. Now it has come out that it was damaging to national security, in several areas, not the least of which was Iranian nuclear capabilities. There have been various articles posted detailing this, and you hadn't responded, so I guessed that you had given up defending the leakers on this one. But apparently you haven't. If you haven't then certainly you have had to move the goal posts.
"where i'm coming from" is simple- i'm bored with the same old arguements, and the continued attempts to depict supportes of Bush as ignorant stooges. it's been going on since well before the 2000 election. bush is no saint, but almost uniquely among contemporary politicians of either stripe, he understands the need to kill those who would kill us. that's why i support him. if you've read any of my posts you'd know i'm no religious zealot, or even religious at all, and i'm probably a bigger supporter of gay and other individual rights than most "liberals" here. the left in this country has completely abandonded its core principles in a death match against george bush. it saddens me, sickens me, but ultimately it bores me. if and when any of the ridiculous crap you, sammy, mc josh, and ll the chimpy mchitlerburton chargers come to your senses, i'll be glad to engage in "debate and discussion" with you. until then, uhmmm, not so much...
but almost uniquely among contemporary politicians of either stripe, he (Bush)understands the need to kill those who would kill us. the left in this country has completely abandonded its core principles in a death match against george bush. basso A growing majority of Americans (55%) think the war in Iraq is a mistake. We just don't share your view that the Iraqis were trying to kill us before we occupied them. As far as the left abandoning its principles, are you actually claiming that in its hatred of Bush, the left is failing to support Bush even though he is supporting all these leftist positions? This is certainly an eccentric position. The left has always opposed coups sponsored by the US to overthrow democratically elected governments as Bush did in Venezuela and Haiti, so they view his sudden claim to have invaded Iraq for democracy as a sham. I think it is you who has efectively abandoned your stands on separation of church and state, gay rights, the environment and individual liberties etc. and backed Bush due to an overwrought fear of terrorist groups who pale in comparison to many of America's enemies in the past.
Well, you've certainly made the reason you support Bush perfectly clear. Like MasterBaiter, who supports him because of his stance on abortion, and not for any other reason worth mentioning (if I remember correctly, SM), you support Bush because you believe that he, and no one else in the other party, believes in fighting terrorism. One issue basso. You can regal your grandkids with the stories of how you stood by him, through thick and thin, regardless of what else he did to the country, or how many trillions of dollars of debt your progeny is saddled with. Clap. Clap. Clap. That's with one hand. Keep D&D Civil.
releasing the name of a classified agent with wmd expertise will help prevent this from happening again? blind loyalty is an interesting phenomenon.
Scooter Libby's memory-loss expert Posted by Jim Popkin, Senior Producer, Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, has hired a renowned memory-loss expert to assist him with his legal defense. Harvard psychology professor Daniel L. Schacter tells NBC News he has been retained by Libby as a consultant. An official familiar with the Libby defense team confirms the news. Schacter, who has been at Harvard since 1991 and who has a 29-page resume, is the author of "The Seven Sins of Memory" and "Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind and the Past." His books offer explanations for the "vulnerability of memory." Schacter writes that if we are distracted as an event unfolds, "we may later have great difficulty remembering the details of what happened." Time, of course, often weakens our memory. And, he writes, it is easy to "unwittingly create mistaken -- though strongly held -- beliefs about the past." Libby's lawyers hinted in court filings last week that memory loss will be "central themes" of Libby's defense. Libby's lawyers write: "...any misstatements he made during his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony were not intentional, but rather the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory." Libby's lawyers say that, during Libby's hectic days handling sensitive national-security matters, "it is understandable that he may have forgotten or misremembered relatively less significant events. Such relatively less important events include alleged snippets of conversations about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment status." Libby has been charged with lying to investigators about his role in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's role as a CIA operative. His trial is scheduled to begin in January 2007. http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/scooter_libbys_.html#below-fold
basso, have you ever realized that 9/11 might not have ever occurred had we not supplied Osama Bin Laden with money and training during the Reagan Administration? Obviously, you and your brethren have not.
No telling what Scooter has up his sleeve. But it will certainly be entertaining. I just want Deadeye Dick under oath.
What happened to basso? What happened to his heart? And the ideals he once pursued? You young, idealist, opera singer you!
As far as basso is concerned, 9/11 changed everything, to the extent that nothing else matters in the United States of America. Not assaults on it's Constitution, not gay rights, not a woman's right to choose, not the environment, not the Bill of Rights, not Congress's constitutional right to act as a balance to the executive power of the President, nor alleged crimes and misdemeanors in this Administration, record budget deficits, record trade deficits, lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court. That, and much more, too much to list, really. None of it matters to basso. 9/11 changed everything. I completely disagree. If 9/11 changed everything, to the extent that all else being done to this country by this Administration doesn't matter, then the terrorists have won. They want to destroy our way of life. People like basso don't especially care, from where I sit, and it's a damn shame. 9/11 didn't change everything, but the Bush Administration is doing it's damnedest to change what it can. basso apparently thinks that none of it matters, because "9/11 changed everything." I'm glad that over 60% of the country disagrees. Keep D&D Civil.
We knew that a long time ago. It will probably work. So frustrating. How does it work in a courtroom, anyway? I assume the burden is on the prosecution to prove intent?
that's what i hate about our justice system, we actually have to prove someone's guilt! why can't we just throw him in the water and see if he floats?
