3
   

Mary McCarthy - Politics of treason?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:14 pm
Clintonista? what does that word mean?


I think of Clinton as approaching the right, as a cling-on, even though I now miss him dearly in higher power.



Oh, plus, he can talk.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:45 pm
Quote:
Clintonista? what does that word mean?


The modern leftist Democrats that run the party nowadays kind of have an affection for the socialist - communist movements around the world. I think the name stems from the Sandinistas in Nicaraugua, which was one of those movements, which of course the Democrats hated Reagan for helping the opposition defeat the Marxist leaning Sandinistas. So Democrats / Clinton koolaid drinkers / supporters have been dubbed Clintonistas by many political pundits over the past several years. The term fits perfectly because many young idealogue Democrats would support Clinton no matter what crime he committed or policy he advocated, because the cause, or end, is more important to them than the means.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 06:03 am
Ends justifying means? You mean like lying to whip up war fever? Like exposing a working, undercover CIA agent and her entire network to get back at someone who publicly disavowed one of the lies being told to support said war fever?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, to quote from the Bible, look to the beam in your own eye before complaining about the mote in that of your neighbor.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 06:50 am
okie wrote:
So Democrats / Clinton koolaid drinkers / supporters have been dubbed Clintonistas by many political pundits over the past several years. The term fits perfectly because many young idealogue Democrats would support Clinton no matter what crime he committed or policy he advocated, because the cause, or end, is more important to them than the means.


Yet, you had made no conclusion about McCarthy when you called her a Clintonista? Rolling Eyes

McCarthy was a career CIA worker. Clarke spent a career working for both parties. Same with Wilson who was hailed by GHWBush for his actions in Baghdad. Perhaps these people have always put country ahead of party. But no.. you draw no conclusions when you refer to them as Clintonistas in spite of your definition.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 07:08 am
PREWAR INTELLIGENCE Is There A Double Standard On Leak Probes?

Quote:
On the issue of leak investigations, one former senior intelligence official said that the Bush administration has targeted "leaks and leakers they don't like, while turning a blind eye to those they do like, or [leaks] they do themselves." Should this continue, the former official said, it would set a "dangerous precedent in that any president will be able to control the flow of information regarding any policy dispute.... When historians examine this, they will see that is how we got into war with Iraq."


Sums up the whole matter.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 07:12 am
okie wrote:
Quote:
Clintonista? what does that word mean?


The modern leftist Democrats that run the party nowadays kind of have an affection for the socialist - communist movements around the world. I think the name stems from the Sandinistas in Nicaraugua, which was one of those movements, which of course the Democrats hated Reagan for helping the opposition defeat the Marxist leaning Sandinistas. So Democrats / Clinton koolaid drinkers / supporters have been dubbed Clintonistas by many political pundits over the past several years. The term fits perfectly because many young idealogue Democrats would support Clinton no matter what crime he committed or policy he advocated, because the cause, or end, is more important to them than the means.


Clinton isn't even a liberal, much less a leftist. Put down the crack pipe. BTW what crime has Clinton committed? Somehow, I missed the news on that.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 02:02 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
BTW what crime has Clinton committed? Somehow, I missed the news on that.


Did you sleep through the 90's?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 02:34 am
This case concerning the CIA, more than just McCarthy, but including the Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame case, is growing to be an even more interesting case. If only the country had other things to spend its time on, but unfortunately this has huge ramifications in my opinion, and this will be a huge can of worms to try to unravel. A few years down the road, a book a few inches thick, probably many of them, can and likely will be written about the shadowy claims and counter-claims as to what is really happening here. There are plots, sub-plots, and counter plots. Who is telling us the straight story here?

Now the claim of Plame working covertly on Iran WMD, of all things. This after the Vanity Fair appearance, having twins and devoting her time to them. If this is the only logical person in the CIA that can covertly make connections in the Middle East to evaluate WMD in Iran, seems like we need to take a good hard look at the agency. Somehow, Plame and Wilson do not gender much credibility in my book. We already know that Wilson lied to Congress, even admitted by Democrats. Is this claim of work on Iran WMD legitimate or just another questionable assertion in cooperation with certain chosen members of the press, as part of a web inside the CIA to ensnare an administration they were out to get? I tend toward the latter. And Fitzgerald, do something meaningful. Prove you even have a case to begin with. Is he afraid to actually try to bring this to a conclusion of something meaningful for fear it will all blow up in his face? I for one can't wait for a bunch of people to go on the witness stand.

Last point. Can the CIA accomplish anything until it straightens itself out and cleans out the moles?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 07:26 am
Does your ability to twist logic and stand facts on their heads know no bounds? Will you stop at nothing to throw blame on everyone except the idiot in the White House and his administration?

Never mind. The answers to those questions are self-evident. I don't know what I was thinking to expect anything different from one who places party loyalty above country.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 07:42 am
Quote:
We already know that Wilson lied to Congress, even admitted by Democrats.


We do? Where can I find this "fact?"
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 09:08 am
I know where you are probably going with this.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/WilsonDefendsHimselfInLtrToSenate.html

Sounds like a second grader claiming the dog ate his homework to me. I put more stock in the original conclusions by the Senate committee than his supposed explanations "to set the record straight."

As I said, it depends on who you think is credible. I don't think he is.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 06:04 pm
Gee okie.. It appears the report doesn't state that Wilson lied at all.

It certainly isn't admitted to by Democrats in your link.

The only questions were raised by 3 Republicans and they never called Wilson a liar.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 10:02 pm
I made the statement based on the original Senate committee findings. I will be out of pocket for a few days. And I think some time needs to shake out on this to see what transpires anyway. Most of the misrepresentation by Wilson centers around his wife recommending him, which he denied, which is a matter of semantics. Perhaps she did not "recommend him" but she did point out his qualifications to her superiors or colleagues with the obvious suggestion he would be a good man to do it, and there is also a disagreement or confusion over what Wilson actually found out in Niger. There were no covert findings there, only a few discussions over tea with officials, and of course they would know nothing of substance, and how could he even pretend to draw big conclusions with that? I find it odd he never even wrote a report on it. He draws one conclusion while others looking at his findings draw other conclusions. Theres lots of weird things about this case, but I don't have time to go over it all now. Alot of it is old news, and a bit rusty in my mind now, but it becomes pertinent again with what is happening.

Many reasons why all of this is fascinating, and I think lots of things may link together more at some point. In other words, connect the dots. Give it time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 07:20 am
No, you didn't base it on the original SENATE findings. The Senate findings say no such thing. It is found in an addendum by 3 GOP Senators. Most of the GOPers didn't even agree with the addendum.

So... lets see. .NO Dems made the statement. NO Senate finding made the statement.. YOu are batting .000 so far okie.


The dots seem to be the RW spin.. They don't dare stick to the truth. Maybe they are out of touch with reality.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 08:30 am
Quote:
As I understand it, Engineer, the crime now being focused on Libby is that he supposedly lied about something during a grand jury investigation into a crime that has never been established as a crime. Does that not strike you as odd? Now, if he lied intentionally before the grand jury anyway, then he must bear the consequences, but why was his testimony even pertinent to begin with


My understanding is that lying is not acceptable, regardless of whether the person lying thinks it is pertinent. Didn't this issue come up 8 years ago with former President Clinton?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 08:34 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Bush Should Polygraph Staff on Plame Outing: Dana Priest's Sources were Multiple and Were Most Likely in Europe http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001365.php


I doubt that will do any good. According to this article in the Washington Post, polygraphs are often wrong and are very subject to the person interpreting them. When the subject has significant power over the tester, the results often show the subject is as honest as can be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:18:14