PDA

View Full Version : Hey liberals, read this...


Paladin
03-20-2007, 10:10 PM
if you want to see what some common sense can do for you. This guy is an opponent of the Iraq war and still sees things for what they are. I have never heard of him and I don't know mcuh about him, but he sure makes alot of sense.

I wonder how mustangman and black01gt will respond? :rolleyes:



Scandal under every rock?
By Don Erler
Special to the Star-Telegram

An otherwise intelligent woman recently told a coffee group that the Bush administration was "Stalinist." She exhibited no fear of imminent incarceration or execution.


Her perspective is no longer unusual. This president was selected, not elected, in 2000, no matter what the vote recounts and legal verdicts declared. George W. Bush "lied" to get us into war, using intelligence that caused President Clinton to threaten the same and congressional Democrats to authorize Bush's military actions.


Finally, as the current dust-up over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys (who serve "at the pleasure" of the president) demonstrates, left-leaning citizens find "scandal" in nearly everything that emanates from this White House. It's irrelevant to such folks that Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office, along with 30 more during his two terms. Democrats good, Republicans bad.


And if voters are too stupid to fire them, Republican officials should be incarcerated or politically executed. After all, that was the hope when Lewis Libby was forced through the legal meat grinder. Virtuous Democrats -- surely including the former Clinton official with stolen classified documents in his trousers and the congressman with money in his freezer -- expected to see either Karl Rove or Dick Cheney "frog-marched" into prison when their conspiracy to destroy a foe of this administration was exposed in the Libby trial.


But the Scooter (Libby's nickname) had no motor. There was no scandal, no mystery to solve, no administration conspiracy -- merely a broken man who might have lied about or merely misremembered something of trivial importance.


For readers whose eyes glaze over when confronted with stories of apparently Byzantine complexity, these are the essential facts.


In his 2003 State of the Union address, the president reported that British intelligence "learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As of today, British (and several other countries') intelligence stands by that report.


But in 2002, U.S. intelligence sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate this British claim. His wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Some say she had recommended that her husband be sent on the mission, but she denied that in sworn testimony before Congress last week.


According to both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British Butler report, Wilson's initial report tended to substantiate the Saddam-Niger connection. (Left-wing journalist Christopher Hitchens reported that Wissam al-Zahawie, one of Saddam's top nuclear experts, led a 1999 Iraqi trade mission to Africa.)


But Wilson wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times in which he denied that his findings supported the uranium claim; he falsely asserted that the vice president had recommended him for the trip; and he boasted that he discredited certain "forged" documents supporting the British claim. (The documents did not even surface until eight months after his trip.)


Finally, columnist Robert Novak (like me, an opponent of the Iraq war) learned from State Department official Richard Armitage -- a political foe of Cheney -- that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak learned her name from Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America.


Because Plame worked for the CIA, and because it violates the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to reveal identities of covert agents, the Justice Department had special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald look into the matter. He learned early on that Armitage had divulged Plame's affiliation, just as he quickly concluded that no law had been broken.


But in our era of criminalizing politics, Fitzgerald managed to convict Libby of lying, largely on the testimony of some journalists whose recollections differed from Libby's. Yet those journalists differed among themselves and, at least in the case of NBC's Tim Russert, have been shown to have faulty memories as well.


No crime, no mystery, no administration conspiracy. True, something similar happened to Clinton. Yet there is a huge difference: Clinton kept his job and his freedom; Libby lost his post and faces mammoth legal bills and up to 25 years in prison.


The criminalization of politics needs to end.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Erler is president of General Building Maintenance. donerler@sbcglobal.net

GhostTX
03-21-2007, 08:18 AM
Good read.

At least he gets it, despite his position on some matters.

D
03-21-2007, 08:32 AM
Good read.

Paladin
03-21-2007, 10:00 AM
Good read.

At least he gets it, despite his position on some matters.

I agree, even though I may disagree with him on a few points, he does get it.

exlude
03-21-2007, 01:33 PM
Can't say I really know much about the latest attorney firings, I kinda gloss over lately when I read "scandal" in a headline. I don't think I ever really cared about the Libby "scandal" either, after the first dozen articles or so I read.

One point he barely touched on though, the criminalization of Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq. This is something much larger than the other "scandals" and seen internationally.

While I didn't agree with the war going in. I'm a stay-the-course believer. Pretty much the opposite of what a lot of America seems to be going for now (or atleast what is being reported to us). I think we had other priorities, other threats to worry about. Also believe that terrorism would have followed us wherever we went.

People demanding that Bush lied to get us in there are a little silly. I'm as sceptical as the next guy, and I don't trust much of any politician, but gd it we all believed it and the intel was there. We all went in there on the same ticket. Even if the intel wasn't real (which is pretty damn hard to fake unless you are one of those real TFH clubbers). It took an act of congress, might as well get pissed at all of them.

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I guess I'm just saying that all this finger pointing gets us nowhere. If someone did something illegal, get rid of them, move on...let's get the job done.

Paladin
03-21-2007, 01:38 PM
Can't say I really know much about the latest attorney firings, I kinda gloss over lately when I read "scandal" in a headline. I don't think I ever really cared about the Libby "scandal" either, after the first dozen articles or so I read.

One point he barely touched on though, the criminalization of Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq. This is something much larger than the other "scandals" and seen internationally.

While I didn't agree with the war going in. I'm a stay-the-course believer. Pretty much the opposite of what a lot of America seems to be going for now (or atleast what is being reported to us). I think we had other priorities, other threats to worry about. Also believe that terrorism would have followed us wherever we went.

Ieople demanding that Bush lied to get us in there are a little silly. I'm as sceptical as the next guy, and I don't trust much of any politician, but gd it we all believed it and the intel was there. We all went in there on the same ticket. Even if the intel wasn't real (which is pretty damn hard to fake unless you are one of those real TFH clubbers). It took an act of congress, might as well get pissed at all of them.

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I guess I'm just saying that all this finger pointing gets us nowhere. If someone did something illegal, get rid of them, move on...let's get the job done.

I was told that Clinton fired almost all of them when he fiirst got in office, and then about 30 more during his terms. Sounds like this latest "scandal" is another Democratic strategy to win the White House back.

I remember seeing a Democratic strategist after the Swift Boat ads saying that the Dems would not sit by and get attacked without aggressive attacks of their own. I guess he was right.

exlude
03-21-2007, 01:40 PM
I was told that Clinton fired almost all of them when he fiirst got in office, and then about 30 more during his terms. Sounds like this latest "scandal" is another Democratic strategy to win the White House back.

Yeah I remember reading that. Personally, I don't really know what it means or if it carries any real significance so I can't go one way or another with it.

I remember seeing a Democratic strategist after the Swift Boat ads saying that the Dems would not sit by and get attacked without aggressive attacks of their own. I guess he was right.

If I could have it my way, we wouldn't have either of the two parties we now have.

Mustangman_2000
03-21-2007, 04:32 PM
interesting read.

he made some great points and was able to be neutral in some areas.

Walsted
03-21-2007, 06:49 PM
...
I remember seeing a Democratic strategist after the Swift Boat ads saying that the Dems would not sit by and get attacked without aggressive attacks of their own. I guess he was right.

James Carvelle (sp?) started that with Bill Clinton. His strategy was to make sure everything that made the news that was unflattering to Bill had a response within the same news cycle. Dick Morris operated the same way, and I suspect that is who you saw after the Swift Boat ads, since he now appears regularly on FOX NEWS.

As far as the original post, it is too bad others that are vocal in the Democratic party leadership don't see things his way. When the Democrat leaders make a big deal out of non-issues, it ruins their credibility when they actually have a decent issue that needs to be addressed.

Or I could be wrong.

Vertnut
03-21-2007, 07:09 PM
I was told that Clinton fired almost all of them when he fiirst got in office, and then about 30 more during his terms. Sounds like this latest "scandal" is another Democratic strategy to win the White House back.

I remember seeing a Democratic strategist after the Swift Boat ads saying that the Dems would not sit by and get attacked without aggressive attacks of their own. I guess he was right.
Clinton fired 93 of them, in the middle of a Whitewater investigation! The Rose Law Firm was also being looked at (remember Vince Foster and Hillary?).