QUOTE:

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

QUOTE: Quote: "And this. The NYTimes article on Dinner Parties, Political Talk and all the Bad Feelings these days. Don't worry. It's "safe." It's the New York Times! Susan" Thanks for the link, Susan, but why that woman would want to discuss elephants with her mother in the first place is beyond me.

Probably because the elephant (as opposed to the poor humble donkey) has just made the grade of the Cognitive Elite along with humans, chimps and maybe dolphins.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

QUOTE: Thanks for the link, Susan, but why that woman would want to discuss elephants with her mother in the first place is beyond me.

"Who figures and immigrant's gonna have a pony?"

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

I work at night so it has been awhile since I checked this thread. Sorry.

To pick up where I left off- Clinton didn't break any laws. Period. The only reason he was investigated was that he wanted all Americans to have health insurance coverage. And he was going to do it in a way that didn't increase the corporate profits of the major insurance companies. It's just another example of the conservatives war on the middle class.

The PlameGate as you call it is still an issue with me because leaking (and Jordan you called it a leak yourself) the name of a spy during wartime is a crime punishable by death according to the US Constitution. Unlike most of the hawkish Republicans in the congress (and the White House) I took an oath and put on a uniform to defend the US Constitution So hell yeah, this is a big freakin' deal. Don't try to play this down you mealy mouthed little jerks. You can't. I hope it doesn't away until the guilty party (and there is one or more) fry.

And yes, all politicians have lied and stolen, and so on. Doesn't give the Republicans a right to do it. When they get caught they should be punished. The problem has been that up to now, the guilty Republican haven't been punished. There have been a few exceptions but they were so blatant it was hard to cover up. Our government has been for sale for many years. As Ralph Nadar said, "Government for General Motors, by ..." you get the idea. It's time we put the people of this country back in charge. You can't do it with this generation of Republican politicans.

"The Passion of the Liberal. Sprinkled with the Self-Righteousness of the All-Knowing. I'll tell you this is where the circle goes 360 when the zeal of the Theocratic Fascists meets the zeal of the Deeply Offended Liberal.

When one's political opposition is so BLATANTLY EVIL, I suppose it is only natural to be hopping mad. To express white hot anger and indignation. Hmphf!

Therein lies the problem with over-the-top rhetoric and demonizing one's political adversaries. I mean, geez, imagine you were lamenting the horrors of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin with such... uh... FERVOR.  Well, that's where the reality sets in and distinctions are drawn.  The Dissenters Gulags are non-existent as evidenced here on the Gazette and all over the Internet and beyond."

hi Susan;

 Just saw this. I guess for myself I'm reacting to the demonization of some people, not all of them politicans, who while flawed and human, still tried to do their best. I have seen them attacked by the conservative hate machine. I have been. By my own family. Aren't conservatives and Republicans supposed to uphold family values? They don't. Not when my own family wants to disown me for simply stating that I chose to vote for someone other than the Offical Republican canidate. You should have heard the roiling rage of filth that came out when I said I thought I'd rather vote for John McCain for prez that dubyah. So all this junk about lib passion, and over-top-rhetoric needs to be reflected back on the source- yes the conservatives.

I think it goes back to Newt Ginrich (I know sp) who urged conservative Republicans to attack moderate Reps and Democrats. "You don't have to be friends with this people", he said. And even before when the conservatives used to make up stories about Jimmy Carter. Funny, then they said they wanted a good Christian man as prez and after they trashed Carter. Guess they were lying again.  

"I guess for myself I'm reacting to the demonization of some people, not all of them politicans, who while flawed and human, still tried to do their best. I have seen them attacked by the conservative hate machine. I have been. By my own family. Aren't conservatives and Republicans supposed to uphold family values? They don't. Not when my own family wants to disown me for simply stating that I chose to vote for someone other than the Offical Republican canidate. You should have heard the roiling rage of filth that came out when I said I thought I'd rather vote for John McCain for prez that dubyah. So all this junk about lib passion, and over-top-rhetoric needs to be reflected back on the source- yes the conservatives. "

Sounds like a hate filled bad situation with a family that is unreasonable for sure. But to extrapolate what you endured and turn it to roiling hate and filth against all the "mealy mouthed little jerks" on this board is misdirected rage. It is your family, who happen to be conservatives, not the world at large. No one here did anything to you. Your insults and rage are out of place.

It's Thanksgiving and Valerie Plame is the last thing on my mind. But I noticed this thread rekindled so before removing my turkey from the frig, I decided to see what's cooking in the Plame-Ado department. I haven't gone back to read the earlier stuff we wrote about so I'm taking just this one post at face value. Started out reading it and thinking, hmmm, I agree. Then I realized I was reading my own words. I know there must be areas of the country where what you describe is a regular occurence. If I lived there, I'd be certain to distance myself from the kind of behavior you describe as a rolling rage of filth.  But you need to seek the highest ground from both sides of the political spectrum, Razor.  If your family doesn't fit the bill, there may be others who can explain the POV better.  

So, let's start with the Conservative Hate Machine. This kind of terminology is... well, not something I'd choose to employ from either side. The reason? I don't believe it is an entity. I don't believe it is exclusive to any political persuasion. And more than that, I think what is described as "hate" is often a great big mushy lumpy category that may not rise to to definition of hate.

I prefer specifics. Like with your family. The family shunning and your reaction against a larger entity -- this amorphous Conservative Hate Machine -- takes the family members off the hook, doesn't it? They're just influenced by the powerful machine and it's not that they have short fuses otherwise?

I'm the first to admit I believe the atmosphere is heated. Angry. Hostile. I'm the first to admit that family relationships where there are inter-political affiliations, are strained to the breaking point in many cases. In fact, I'm a little concerned about my dinner tonight for that reason, although my closest family members will not be attending for essentially political reasons. But never mind all that. Sufficeth to say I'm going to be directing my end of the conversation toward the stuffing and cranberries and not the recent election or the war.

We can each try at least to do our own small part to keep the heat on a simmer rather than a boil. I don't know you, Razor. I don't know where you live and I don't know your family. But if you use this choice of words -- hate machines, (lower case "d") dubya for the president of the United States, for whom your parents (?) voted, blanket statements that Republicans don't support family values -- they are bound to illicit a defensive reaction.  

One thing I decided back in the lead-up to the 2004 election was to only use the actual name of any candidate. I've found that in conversations, when someone says to you "Your president" or "Bushie" or "that Nazi prick" -- whaddever -- it's hard to respond calmly. It's even more difficult to think in a measured way about the points the person may be making.

If we can take small steps with language with fellow Americans then maybe we won't have to deal with the turmoil between what once were largely loving families and friends across the political divide.

Looking back over what you wrote, I'm thinking you must be from the South -- Newt Gingrich and Jimmy Carter being my clues. I like Newt. I have no recollection of his advising people to attack moderate Repubicans and Democrats but maybe you're paraphrasing. Funny, I remember a lot of things Newt Gingrich says but not that. The section about not having to be friends with these people struck me though because that is what finally moved me from Dem to registered Rep. Throughout the late 80s and early 90s was when this gradual change took place for me. All my friends were (and mostly are still) Democrats. Liberals. I was a liberal.  I had a negative image of Republicans though I scarcely knew any. Looking back on it the Republicans I did know were not vocally political.  Silent majority types who did not engage in heated battles.  Anyway, a light bulb went off in my head as I started voting Republican in local elections, because I felt they organized things better.  I felt they were more mature. Most importantly I felt they were more effective. And I said to myself, Well I don't have to be FRIENDS with 'them.' I just want to vote for 'them.'  By 1993, I was a registered Republican and make no apologies for it. 

Jimmy Carter as a Christian, huh?  I voted for him. Twice. The first time with great reluctance because of the folksy Christian man peanut farmer southern thing. He was never my ideal, but I gave him every benefit of a doubt throughout his presidency and voted for him in what turned out to be the landslide Reagan victory. Today, I am less than enamored when reflecting on his presidency and his more recent writings and speeches. In fact, I just bought some Time-Life special edition on the Middle East before I noticed Jimmy Carter did the intro. Because of that, I've been less enthusiastic about reading it. There may be some for whom being a good Christian is a quality on their short list for the presidency. It's not for me.

John McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 primary myself. Would NOT vote for him in 2008 but that's another story. Does this mean you were a registered Republican voting in the Republican primary?  Or are you a Democrat or Independent who likes certain things McCain says?  Or is it the POW credential?  I came to believe he belongs in the Senate, not the White House.

Hope all our families come around.  Hope we can smile and laugh and drink egg nog while sharing memories of holidays gone by. After all, James Carville and Mary Matalin live together. It must be within the realm of possibility, right?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"To pick up where I left off- Clinton didn't break any laws. Period."

http://www.usa-presidents.info/clinton.htm
http://www.anythingarkansas.com/arkapedia/pedia/Bill_Clinton/

"Clinton was charged with lying under oath about his affair with Lewinsky to gain advantage in a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones, a case he later settled by paying Paula Jones $850,000. A Federal judge found Clinton also to be in contempt of court for lying in a deposition and ordered him to pay a $90,000 fine. This contempt citation led to disbarment proceedings similar to Richard Nixon 's. To avoid these Clinton surrendered his law license."

Clinton was impeached for lying and obstruction of justice. The Congress found him not guilty on the perjury charge, but were evenly split with the obstruction of justice. AFter leaving the WH, the stuff in bold happened, and funny, I don't remember the media clamoring over all the news when it came down.

So, yes, Clinton DID BREAK LAWS. Period. And he surrendered his law license because of it.

"The only reason he was investigated was that he wanted all Americans to have health insurance coverage. And he was going to do it in a way that didn't increase the corporate profits of the major insurance companies. It's just another example of the conservatives war on the middle class. "

That was 5-6 years earlier, and NEITHER party liked the Clinton Health Care plan, that's why it went down in flames. Oh please....he was investigated because of political partisanship (by Republicans) not because of some stupid health care plan which the country is better off not having. Unless of course, you believe govt should be in the health care game (and Medicare is just a prime example of how bad it would be).

"The PlameGate as you call it is still an issue with me because leaking (and Jordan you called it a leak yourself) the name of a spy during wartime is a crime punishable by death according to the US Constitution. "

And once again, the LEAK came from Armitage or whatever his name is NOT Rove or the White House. Furthermore, you have to intentionally do it, and there is no evidence of anyone INTENTIONALLY doing it. So if you want someone to be punished to death, look at the State Department.

"Doesn't give the Republicans a right to do it. When they get caught they should be punished. "

I didn't say anything differently, did I?! I don't want any politican lying, but you seem to focus on GOP lying with your rhetoric.

"Sounds like a hate filled bad situation with a family that is unreasonable for sure. But to extrapolate what you endured and turn it to roiling hate and filth against all the "mealy mouthed little jerks" on this board is misdirected rage. It is your family, who happen to be conservatives, not the world at large. No one here did anything to you. Your insults and rage are out of place."

That's for sure.

Jordan .

"So, let's start with the Conservative Hate Machine. This kind of terminology is... well, not something I'd choose to employ from either side. The reason? I don't believe it is an entity. I don't believe it is exclusive to any political persuasion. And more than that, I think what is described as "hate" is often a great big mushy lumpy category that may not rise to to definition of hate.

I prefer specifics. Like with your family. The family shunning and your reaction against a larger entity -- this amorphous Conservative Hate Machine -- takes the family members off the hook, doesn't it? They're just influenced by the powerful machine and it's not that they have short fuses otherwise?

I'm the first to admit I believe the atmosphere is heated. Angry. Hostile. I'm the first to admit that family relationships where there are inter-political affiliations, are strained to the breaking point in many cases. In fact, I'm a little concerned about my dinner tonight for that reason, although my closest family members will not be attending for essentially political reasons. But never mind all that. Sufficeth to say I'm going to be directing my end of the conversation toward the stuffing and cranberries and not the recent election or the war."

As we can see from the first quote, I'm not the only one.

Susan, you are correct in many of your observations and assupmptions. I started out as very reasonable. I still am. What has happened with me is that I am less likely to spare anyone from the back splash of their hatred and anger. After all the Repbulicans worked hard for it, they should get it. Everyone should get what they work for. I started off as a conservative Republican. Well, maybe more of a moderate to liberal Republican. I have moved in the opposite direction as you by going further left. Part of that comes with life experience, working with homeless people for instance, and part of it comes from thinking for myself. Part of my ire comes from the bitterness of of what I feel is a betrayal of our core values as a country. If I accept some feedback from you will you accept feedback from me? No one who makes lite of a breach of our national security is going to impress me. Although you and Jordan are 2 of my favorite posters here. Other than politics.

As for a Conservative Hate Machine and my family, I refer to the wisdom of Rupert Giles, Everything is connected. My aunts and uncles are responsible for their behavior, the media don't get them off the hook. But I do see a colloration between the rise of the CHM (Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, et al) and the collapse of public discourse in this country. If you've (plural sense again) seen what these idiots have written and don't recognize it as hate, I don't know that we (in the royal sense) can help you. Oh and that was a direct quote from NG.

Jordan and Raymond I wasn't going to forget you. I know what you've said before, "2 low level flunkies threw themselves under the wheel to save their boss's dumb ass. Now let's forget the whole thing." Right. You know, fellahs I don't see myself as a customer for beach front property in Arizona. Or the Brooklyn Bridge. Nice try, though. Hey, there are some hicks in Jersey, go try it with them. See? I can be helpful too.

"As for a Conservative Hate Machine and my family, I refer to the wisdom of Rupert Giles, Everything is connected. My aunts and uncles are responsible for their behavior, the media don't get them off the hook. But I do see a colloration between the rise of the CHM (Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, et al) and the collapse of public discourse in this country. If you've (plural sense again) seen what these idiots have written and don't recognize it as hate, I don't know that we (in the royal sense) can help you. Oh and that was a direct quote from NG."

Actually, I would suggest to you that the level of discourse did plummet on both sides of the aisle during the 90s. Yes during the rise of Rush, but also during one of the best character assasination administrations we've head in recent history. But I'm sure you would disagree with that too...., and those FBI files on Americans didn't just magically appear in her office one day, did it? Those were planted there by the vast right-wing conservative hate machine so they could go after Hillary, right?

"Jordan and Raymond I wasn't going to forget you. I know what you've said before, "2 low level flunkies threw themselves under the wheel to save their boss's dumb ass. Now let's forget the whole thing." Right. You know, fellahs I don't see myself as a customer for beach front property in Arizona. Or the Brooklyn Bridge. Nice try, though. Hey, there are some hicks in Jersey, go try it with them. See? I can be helpful too. "

Ray - do you ever remember saying that? I sure don't.

Jordan .

No, I don't  ??  Razor doesn't understand how to criticise the content of what is posted (which he quoted me doing above) verses attacking the poster. I mean Plamegate is over, has been for months. And it was much ado about nothing. That may have been disapointing to some, but it is what it is -or what it wasn't.  Whatever. Past time to move on. Have a good one.

But yes, Plame was much ado about nothing. The only new thing (if it's new) is that Plame and Wilson have added Armitage to their list of people to sue.

Jordan .

Joe Wilson suddenly shy of the courtroom? Not so eager to be sworn in? Or scared of Scooter?  Or simply irrelevant?  Again.

Yes, I agree that Joe Wilson is a MINOR figure in the Libby perjury trial. Much as Paula Jones was a MINOR character in Clinton's perjury/impeachment trial. But where there's a lawyer, there's a way to make it MAJOR. Oh, then of course there's that similar issue that neither Libby nor Clinton would have been subjected to charges of PERJURY had both of them told the truth. And there's the rub.

The larger cases -- Outing Plame or Sexually Harassing Jones -- well, those matters have settled with the dust as the tempests in teapots they were all along.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This may inflame the Passions of Those Who Despise the Wall Street Journal, but, who cares? Moi? Nah...

Here's a good editorial from Monday on the subject of...

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jury selection is ongoing for the...

....Trial of the Century!

{{{PAUSE}}} 

Not!

Well, here's an interesting article about the voir dire to decide who will sit on the jury.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Friday's update from AP on the Trial of the Nano-second. There have been a string of witnesses who claim they knew Plame was CIA and told others about it. Fascinating!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Hitchens on Libby (Links in original) 

Free Scooter Libby

The case gets weirder by the day.

By Christopher Hitchens

 

If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.

• Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
• Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.
• The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).
• In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count.
• The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
• The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed. This is for three further reasons, which I call to your attention.

1) There is an important constitutional question regarding Fitzgerald's original jurisdiction. It is a rather nice legal question, having to do with whether, as U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, Fitzgerald is a "principal" or "inferior" officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A dozen senior legal scholars have filed an amicus brief, arguing that the authority under which the original prosecutorial investigation was conducted was itself dubious. I have no expertise in this very important matter, but in granting them leave to file, Judge Walton made the following hair-raising comment, which I reproduce in full because it is longer than his order and needs to be read in full:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

2) This low sarcasm displays not so much bias against the defendant, but actual animus. What does the number of days have to do with it? In how many cases involving poor defendants is an issue of constitutional law involved? Does the judge not know that Libby has already been almost ruined financially and faces incarceration? Would he have adopted the same tone if 12 experts ranging politically from Robert Bork to Alan Dershowitz had filed a brief arguing the opposite position? It's difficult to see how an appeals court can avoid these questions.

3) The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right.

The rush to prejudge the case and pack Libby off to prison seems near universal. (Patrick Fitzgerald has denounced him for failing to show remorse; a strange charge to make against a man who has announced that he intends to appeal.) Given the unsoundness of the verdict, the extraordinary number of other witnesses who admitted to confusion over dates and times, and the essential triviality of the original matter (an apparently purposeless coverup of a nonleak, in private and legal conversations, involving common knowledge of information that was not known to be classified), it is unlikely that the verdict at present can stand scrutiny, let alone the sentence. But why go through all this irrelevant and secondhand hearsay again? Those who want to "get" someone for "lying us into war" have picked the wrong man and failed to identify a crime. Let them try to impeach the president, who should in the meantime step in to avoid any more waste of public money and time and pardon Libby without further ado.

nICE POINTS BY hITCHENS, THAT CLEVER ATHEIST INTELLECT. mY QUESTION IS WHY DID fITSGERALD CONTINUE FOR 3 YEARS ON A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT there was not FROM THE GATE? The waste of time and money should be the crime, and fitsgerald is the one who should be held accountable. But no, Fits had to come up with something to justify this ridiculous 3 year non case.

Libby was chosen for his possible inaccurate telephone recollection to a newsman about a diferent sibject.

This one goes down as the bggest waste of time and the most derelict functioning of a federal prosecutor in memory. Fitzgerald wins the prize, if there was one, for making nothing into next to nothing and not being fired from his position!

Darn tootin' much ado about nothing!  And now a federal judge confirms it while dismissing the frivolous Plame-Wilson lawsuit.  Once in a while -- once in a great while -- sanity prevails.  It's refreshing!

Wonder what the Plame-Wilsons intend to do with the excess $$$$$$$$$ they raised for this lawsuit??? Return in probably.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin