RICHARD NIXON'S REVENGE

BH - Dubya didn't actually go to Vietnam, but he did volunteer to go. If you read the Rathergate report you'd know that. It's on p.31.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

BayingH - I don't know that six members of the press were contacted by the adminisration re Plame - the reporters aren't talking. Some have gone to jail to keep from talking. I think its going to be great if it gets out this was fed to them by somebody in the DNC, etc. as an effort to embarrass the administration.

Er, well, the CIA thinks so ... they were the ones who asked for the investigation, after all. The original story in the post is here. The source is someone in the Administration so unless he's a double agent for the Dems, your proposition is unlikely.

Foxfyre wrote:

But nice deflection bringing in unrelated topics.

I'm sorry, that's unrelated? My bad, I certainly thought the question of whether the press was biased for or against the Rubs was a point under consideration. I thought that the relative quiet on this story was relevant. Is it not?

Foxfyre wrote:

You'll have to come up with a better analogy I think.

Really? Huh, I thought it was pretty good example of how one small misdemeanor took the press by storm while another huge lie by multiple members of an Administration to justify an otherwise completely justifiable action to the entire world has, well, kind of fizzled when considering relative press attention. How silly of me.

0 Replies

BH wrote

Quote:

What I honestly don't get is why someone who is pro-military, like myself, could gag at Kerry's maneuvering with respect to Purple Hearts given that even the Swift Boat Captains for Truth agree he was actually in Vietnam and be happy with a President donning the uniform after he didn't actually go to Vietnam. A President whose budget prior to 9/11 for the Armed Forces reduced their outlay. A President who, in time of war no less, actually is behind a budget that would reduce monies for VA hospitals. A President whose whole-hearted endorsement of stop-loss under the current situation strikes me as, frankly, heartless.

I won't comment on the jump suit though my military friends and relatives didn't have a problem with it. I sure can't say nobody associated with or in the military didn't have a problem with it though.

I will say there have been NO budget cuts for the military prior to or after 9/11 via the Bush administration. The Bush administration had only been in office eight months at the time of 9/11 and was still running on a Clnton budget. Nevertheless every Bush budget has substantially increased military spending including for the VA hospitals. I can get the numbers but you can see them for yourself in any World Almanac at the grocery store.

In Democrat math, (willingly repeated by a left biased media), any reduction in a proposed increase is called a cut. That there were no cuts is testified by the swelling deficits (which are a concern to us conservatives). Some monies were shifted around here and there, but all were nevertheless increased. My aunt's next door neighbor is a physician with the VA hospital here in Albuquerque. This physician who has been with this hospital for a decade now advises there has been no cut in their budget, no reduction of staff, and she has been getting her raises on time.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

BH - Dubya didn't actually go to Vietnam, but he did volunteer to go. If you read the Rathergate report you'd know that. It's on p.31.

I just read p. 31, but could not find what you are referring to. (You're right when you deduce that I have not read the 200+page report.) I understood, though I'm happy to be wrong, that he volunteered for the National Guard, which I understand to be quite different than volunteering for one the four branches.

0 Replies

Foxy - too funny about the radio stations. I need to start listening!

Yeah - agree it's kinda mean, but you can imagine NPR would run with it if they had the ammo. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

JW writes

Quote:
Finally, it doesn't matter what I personally think of Dean momentarily losing control. It's the effect on the general population that matters

The radio talk show hosts are having a field day with it though. Whenever they are playing a tape of some new Democrat rant on this or that you hear in the back ground Kennedy shouting out "Hello?.....Hello?.....followed by a Dean scream. It's a little mean I guess, but it's funny. When they keep feeding us the ammunition, it's really hard to pass up.

Unfortunately, it's seems to be ammunition for idiots these days. I had no idea that firing up the masses at a rally was considered "losing control." But it seems typical when coming from the mouth of one who refers to liberals as "gang bangers."

As Novak can't even get his information correct when he attempts to quote Dean, I think it's fair to say that this old journalistic hack is close to grazing in the pasture. The bottom line is that outing a CIA operative is a FELONY, and against the law, and those who argue about the law are being utmost hypocrits in not "getting to the bottom of this," as Bush swore early on in the Valerie Plame scandal. Well, we all know Bush's true intentions now, as he's done nothing to resolve this.

As he's done nothing to actually GO after bin Laden. Well, at least we're keeping him hiding. And what better place to be in order to run your Al Qaeda operations against American targets.

Clinton lied about an extramarital affair, and the nation became obsessed with BJs, stains on blue dresses, and impeachment over all of this.

It's truly amazing what the nation DOESN'T give a rats ass about.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will say there have been NO budget cuts for the military prior to or after 9/11 via the Bush administration. The Bush administration had only been in office eight months at the time of 9/11 and was still running on a Clnton budget. Nevertheless every Bush budget has substantially increased military spending including for the VA hospitals. I can get the numbers but you can see them for yourself in any World Almanac at the grocery store.

In Democrat math, (willingly repeated by a left biased media), any reduction in a proposed increase is called a cut. That there were no cuts is testified by the swelling deficits (which are a concern to us conservatives). Some monies were shifted around here and there, but all were nevertheless increased. My aunt's next door neighbor is a physician with the VA hospital here in Albuquerque. This physician who has been with this hospital for a decade now advises there has been no cut in their budget, no reduction of staff, and she has been getting her raises on time.

I have not looked at the actual budgets myself. I remember reading so, but certainly not everything you read is true. I will give it a gander to be sure one way or the other, though going through a federal budget proposal is time intensive.

0 Replies

BH, that Post article is precisely the kind of journalism we are talking about here. It starts out with 'allegations' in the first paragraph but then goes on with supposed 'facts' citing unnamed source after unnamed source. I would guess George Tenet wouldn't appreciate the way he is portrayed here and he's the Post's only named 'witness'. I don't know how anybody with any sense of ethics could intentionally smear somebody either overtly or by implication citing anonymous sources, unnamed officials, etc. etc.

Then you see this in the story:

Early on

Quote:

The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

Then later in the story with no qualification

Quote:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

Novak himself adamently denies that the information he had was any kind of 'leak' and adamently denies that the story was offered to six others before 'he bit'.

Geroge Tenet also was working at the pleasure of the President and it seems highly unlikely he would have 'called an investigation' without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of the President.

I think the President believes there is nothing to hide in this matter. At any rate the press sure as heck doesn't know much, no matter how they spin it, and none of us will know until maybe the Grand Jury completes its work. (And there is no way anybody in the Bush administration, I think, is stupid enough to risk the kind of exposure that calling those reporters would have caused.)

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Foxy - too funny about the radio stations. I need to start listening!

Yeah - agree it's kinda mean, but you can imagine NPR would run with it if they had the ammo.

But it was in heavy rotation in the supposedly liberal media, quite seperately from the talk shows, would be the point.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the President believes there is nothing to hide in this matter.

Really? Then why did the Administration resist an effort at an independent inquiry in the first place? Give me a break!

0 Replies

BH, all presidents resist independent inquiries that take up huge amounts of staff time and resources. That's a no brainer. Even the Democrats blanched at the though of another independent counsel on this one. (Of course they may already know it wasn't the White House too, but that's pure speculation on my part.)

Anyhow, I would like to join JW in my appreciation for your debate style. It's a pleasure to parry with somebody who actually reasons out his responses instead of just parroting the standard left wing spin. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

BH, all presidents resist independent inquiries that take up huge amounts of staff time and resources. That's a no brainer.

Any inquiry takes up huge amounts of staff time and resources, Foxfyre. Politically, it was a no brainer to just let it happen, which is what they were eventually forced to do, of course. The fact that they resisted despite the fact that it was obvious that it had to go down is very relevant in my opinion. Buying time, anyone? That you discount it so quickly--and seem to think it not so serious a breach of ethics in a time of war--is very, well, odd given your apparent convictions.

Foxfyre wrote:

Anyhow, I would like to join JW in my appreciation for your debate style. It's a pleasure to parry with somebody who actually reasons out his responses instead of just parroting the standard left wing spin.

Standard left wing spin aside, it is good to know that no one feels that I'm targeting them personally as opposed to their logic and evidence.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

BH, all presidents resist independent inquiries that take up huge amounts of staff time and resources. That's a no brainer. Even the Democrats blanched at the though of another independent counsel on this one. (Of course they may already know it wasn't the White House too, but that's pure speculation on my part.)

WTF???

Janet Reno assigned an independent investigator against Clinton. Then we had years and millions of dollars spent to only find out that the Clinton's had nothing to do with the Whitewater mess and that Clinton was a womanizer. And then the Republican controlled House felt it necessary to impeach him because he lied about a BJ.

So, maybe it's those Presidents who actually HAVE something SERIOUS to hide who are "resistent to independent inquiries that take up huge amounts of staff time and resources."

And besides, the Bush Crime family have done wonders in keeping the American people from enjoying a transparent government. Those days were over when Bush was placed in office.

Why is it that Clinton could sit by himself and be grilled by the independent prosecution regarding lying about SEX, whereas Bush laid down a shitload of rules in his testimony to the 9/11 commission, including no notes, no recording, NOT being under oath, having lawyers nearby, and making sure that Dick Cheney was right beside him?

Can ANY conservative POSSIBLY explain this? Or is the nation just much more concerned with sex and breasts then they are with the security of our country?

Truly quite pathetic.

0 Replies

BH, I didn't mention 'war' at all in this matter. I just said that so far there are widely differing versions of what happened, and I do believe the lefist press to be intentionally and willful participates and instigators of the politics of personal destruction. There is no way the administration can get anything accomplished if they rise to the bait every time it is thrown out there. And somebody, somewhere screams for an independent investigation EVERY time something comes up that somebody thinks can be even remotely associated with malfeasance. And the Democrats think EVERYTHING the administration does is malfeasance. Okay that's a bit of an exaggeration but not much.

They're going to harp on any issue they think they can give legs to and Valeria Plame is one of those issues. Bush's draft record was another. So far, they've come up empty on both.

If it turns out somebody in the Bush administration did intentionally try to hurt Wilson by outing his wife, I'll live with that. But if you really think about it, it makes absolutely no sense for them to risk that now does it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's a pleasure to parry with somebody who actually reasons out his responses instead of just parroting the standard left wing spin.

And you don't parrot the rightwing spin? Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

BH, I didn't mention 'war' at all in this matter.

Well, it's a rather important factoid, don't you think?

Foxfyre wrote:

I just said that so far there are widely differing versions of what happened, and I do believe the lefist press to be intentionally and willful participates and instigators of the politics of personal destruction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's at issue here is whether or not the press is indeed leftist. I contend that it is not, which is what all of my posts have been about. Simply saying that it is so does not make it so.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no way the administration can get anything accomplished if they rise to the bait every time it is thrown out there. And somebody, somewhere screams for an independent investigation EVERY time something comes up that somebody thinks can be even remotely associated with malfeasance. And the Democrats think EVERYTHING the administration does is malfeasance. Okay that's a bit of an exaggeration but not much.

Er, that's huge exaggeration. Since Monica everyone's been leary of independent investigations, as you point out in an earlier post.

Foxfyre wrote:

They're going to harp on any issue they think they can give legs to

Well, yeah, the Dems will do that ... it's called politics. The question is why don't you think that outing a covert CIA agent in a time of war is a grave issue worthy of serious and regular coverage. The fact that they haven't gotten anywhere may, of course, have much more to do with the fact that the Rubs control every single branch of government added to the fact that the journals in question wish to protect their right to protect sources than the facts of the case, or do you not think so?

Foxfyre wrote:

and Valeria Plame is one of those issues. Bush's draft record was another. So far, they've come up empty on both.

I think these two issues are hardly comparable. But I don't think that they've come up empty on Bush's draft record. Hardly the smoking gun some thought it was, but neither is it exemplary, or do you actually contend it was exemplary?

Foxfyre wrote:

If it turns out somebody in the Bush administration did intentionally try to hurt Wilson by outing his wife, I'll live with that.

Exactly, you'll live with it instead of being screaming bloody murder mad those completely evil bastards get them out of office, which is precisely what strikes me as odd.

Foxfyre wrote:

But if you really think about it, it makes absolutely no sense for them to risk that now does it?

Because it makes no sense does not mean that it was not done. Watergate, as you point out above, was at first a minor misdemeanor which Nixon likely would have weathered fairly well had he just admitted it, but sometimes folks can't just admit it, can they? Of course, admitting this would be admitting to something much more serious, or do you not agree?

0 Replies

Well your rebuttal was all opinion Bayhound and I respect your opinion though I disagree with your take on it.

you wrote

Quote:

Because it makes no sense does not mean that it was not done. Watergate, as you point out above, was at first a minor misdemeanor which Nixon likely would have weathered fairly well had he just admitted it, but sometimes folks can't just admit it, can they? Of course, admitting this would be admitting to something much more serious, or do you not agree?

The difference is, any White House operatives who allegedly outed Valerie Plame to six different reporters could be fingered, identified, accused, and, because to do this would be a felony, arrested, convicted, imprisoned.l In my opinion, there is no way they called up six reporters to out a CIA agent. And if they did, it is my error that I will live with. You don't know me if you think I would not be screaming for their heads.
Out of curiosity, would you be screaming for all heads or just the guilty ones?

The difference between this and Watergate is the Watergate burglars didn't expect there to be any witnesses. They thought they could get away with it. How many professional types do you think would risk a felony conviction by calling up six reporters though?

0 Replies

Fox, why don't you reverse the roles JUST for a second, and ask yourself how YOU would respond if it was DEMOCRATS doing all of this.

Honestly, Fox, without the spin, if you can...

Because I personally would react vehemently against Democrats JUST as much if I were to discover these tactics being employed by them.

But hey, that's just me. It's more about integrity and ethics across the board, be it Republican OR Democrat. That's how it should be. See, I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican. And those 14 Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill, I say a pox on all their houses for conspiring with their corporate interests, ESPECIALLY Biden, who obviously has a stake in his home state.

The Republican neocons are destroying our Constitution and our Democracy, and Democrats are too spineless to fight back. It is a sad day for America...

0 Replies

bayinghound:

You may be fighting a worthless cause here with Fox, but I certainly admire your persistent writings in stating your case. Very well done!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well your rebuttal was all opinion Bayhound and I respect your opinion though I disagree with your take on it.

Fox: And your rebuttals would be...?

0 Replies

RICHARD NIXON'S REVENGE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know