"Some way deficient", that's got to be the understatement of the century. How can any sentient, moral human so slavishly continue support for such a failed, corrupt to the core government? Everything they've done, WH & Congress has been an utter failure.
You don't have to read the pundits, Tico. Just look at the record.
Scandals Alone Could Cost Republicans Their House Majority
By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 2, 2006; A01
Indictments, investigations and allegations of wrongdoing have helped put at least 15 Republican House seats in jeopardy, enough to swing control to the Democrats on Tuesday even before the larger issues of war, economic unease and President Bush are invoked.
With just five days left before Election Day, allegations are springing up like brushfires.
Four GOP House seats have been tarred by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling scandal. Five have been adversely affected by then-Rep. Mark Foley's unseemly contacts with teenage male House pages. The remaining half a dozen or so could turn on controversies including offshore tax dodging, sexual misconduct and shady land deals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103146_pf.html
Ticomaya - in his continuing dialogue with Blatham wrote:
What's interesting here, is that my experience here with you has revealed the clear allegiance you hold to the liberal notions you hold most dear. You have not demonstrated any change in your bias or preferences, or inclination to change. So while you claim that I (and some others) are "deeply resistant" to change, you have not demonstrated that you aren't.
Yes, we all have biases and preferences. But what's remarkable about you is your hypocritical stance that those conservatives who don't appear to change their minds after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say, are in some way deficient, even though you yourself don't appear to change your own mind after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say.
I like Bernie and enjoy conversing & debating with him. I also confess to being almost as stubborn as he in clinging to fixed ideas. However I do believe that Tyco has eloquently captured a pertinent truth here.
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
Mr. Bowen's office has inspected and audited taxpayer-financed projects like this prison in Nasiriya, Iraq.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.
As I mentioned earlier, george is the only "conservative" on this board (so far as I've seen) who has had the intellectual plasticity to change his opinion on the war in Iraq.
That isn't the only difference between you two guys as regards intellect and integrity to something above party or ideological allegiance, but it's a bellweather.
I invited you earlier, tico, to join me in keeping a full and honest accounting of what information sources each of us attends to day by day. You declined. I asked you just previously to lay out the elements of propaganda as utilized by Goebbels. You didn't bother.
After listening to you repeat (perhaps forty of fifty times) that "Clinton had lied" (yup, he did) I brought forward the evidences toward the reasonable conclusion that Bush has been lying and, you'll recall, evidences that Karen Hughes had lied. You were having no part of any such admission. The two of them were still hanging out naked and innocent and tending god's shrubs. And if you had allowed yourself to be straight that these two weren't edenic types after all, then you would - as sure as hell - switched over to the binary opposites tact...everybody else does it too.
All of which is to say, in a nutshell, phuck ya. It's a sunny day, there's a lovely woman lying naked in the bedroom, my cracked ribs are healing well and my wrist again finally permits those pleasures that Rev Ted Haggard has been paying a male prostitute for, and enough of America looks like it ain't half so blind as you have allowed yourself to become. Why would I want to waste my time.
blatham wrote:As I mentioned earlier, george is the only "conservative" on this board (so far as I've seen) who has had the intellectual plasticity to change his opinion on the war in Iraq.
And if he did (and I don't know whether he did or didn't), that makes him superior in your view. The thing I haven't figure out exactly -- although I have my suspicions -- is whether you would hold the same admiration for someone whose opinion changed from being opposed to the war to supporting it. I mean, is it the changing of opinions on a matter that you admire, or the changing of an opinion to one you share?
I asked you a simple question concerning why you believed the the radio talk show hosts event was propaganda, and I used the definition you then provided to point out that the New York Times disseminated propaganda. Your response was to say it's only propaganda if it's false or misleading ... to which I responded by asking you to point out what information was disseminated at the radio talk show host event that was false or misleading. It was in response to that question -- which you never did answer -- that you asked me to lay out the elements of propaganda as utilized by Pravda. Attend to this: The question you asked me to answer was not responsive to my question to you. Rather than answer my question, you ducked.
Here again is a prime example of your thinking, blatham. If I don't agree with your line of thought, you find fault with me for having "rigidity of thought," rather than consider the possibility that: (a) you didn't make a very good case, (b) there are other possible answers beyond the one you have embraced, or (c) I don't share your passionate quest to find fault with conservatives and Republicans.
British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il
· US allies think Washington threat to world peace
· Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom
Julian Glover
Friday November 3, 2006
The Guardian
The ICM poll ranks the US president with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)
Speaking of secrecy and Cheney, the WH just argued to the court that the secret energy meetings are covered under national security.
Documents turned over in 2003 revealed they looked at Iraqi oil maps in those meetings.
Those 2 items do make one wonder....
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26.
This week we learned that some 90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming, demonstrating the fundamental challenge facing everyone working to promote critical journalism and a vibrant free press.
First off, let's clarify why this is taking place: The crime isn't that Air America is partisan. All or most of these firms advertise on politically conservative talk radio programs and/or stations. And the crime isn't even being "liberal." Some of these advertisers have moderate or liberal executives who donate to Democratic candidates and are far from rabid conservatives.
So what is the problem? While "liberal" Air America clearly favors big D Democrats, unlike virtually all other programming on commercial radio and television, it gives airtime to reports that are critical of corporations and the powerful politicians they keep in Washington.
This is the heart of the problem: Air America commits a crime called journalism. Almost none of the so-called conservative radio shows or networks do any semblance of actual reporting. They merely pontificate -- repeating talking points that seem to be emailed straight from Karl Rove's laptop.
