BigSoccer Politics Forum readers knew about this on July 17. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=61193 Yes, some might have a problem with this source, but it's an interesting examination of the situation. http://www.rense.com/general42/trait.htm "She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. "The Bush administration pushed very hard the idea that America is in danger from WMDs being placed into the hands of terrorists. This was one of the central arguments behind the war in Iraq. Yet in order to protect Bush's political standing, a couple of "administration officials" blew Valerie Plame, and by proxy her network, completely out of the water in an attempt to shut her husband up. In short, in order to protect Bush from the ramifications of using fake evidence to support his war, this White House destroyed an intelligence network that was protecting us from the threat posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons."
So you are suggesting that citizenship should only be bestowed on those who pass a lithmus test and agree with NSlander's views? The founding fathers certainly would be proud of an American like you. America is a great country because of men like Jefferson and Madison, and NSlander, champions of freedom of thought. And BTW, you speak of partisanship. I have registered as an independent because I have issues with the republican party platform and some of their views. I am not a defender of either party, although I do have lots of respect for our president. I am judging people by their actions. Our president is seriously trying to get to the bottom of this issue while the democrats are throwing mud and playing politics. Let's contrast Nancy Pelosi's statements with those of our president. Anyway, this is separate from the issue of the deplorable, treasonous act that was commited. Whoever is proven to be responsible for the leak, whether it is a democrat or republican or independent, wether it is a janitor, senator, campaign manager, or the president, belongs in Jail. But right now all the people who are talking loud don't know who that person is. As our president says, lets do all we can to find out.
Is that why back in 1776, the right to vote was pretty much restricted to white male Protestant property owners over 21? Not exactly universal freedom of thought doled out by your champions.
There is a difference between ideas and action. The American revolution was a revolution of ideas. It was not an action revolution like the French or the Russian revolutions, in which society was turned upside down, with little regards for the rights of the people. When independence was declared in America, very little changed at first in the former colonies. Except for the representatives of the King, the status quo remained. Those who had wealth kept it, those who were poor remained poor, slaves remained enslaved and so on. But the ideas of Jefferson and Madison (certainly not those of NSlander) were revolutionary. The idea that a person's rights should be protected and that a person's rights extend beyond their property rights to their beliefs and thoughts and more (ie their pursuit of happiness) was something new. It took a long time to implement these thoughts in society and to reach the logical conclusion of those ideals. We are not even there yet, but are still evolving in that direction. As long as we are faithful to these revolutionary ideas and continue to strive to implement them, our country (as well as all those other contries who have adopted these ideals) will continue to move in the right direction.
WaPo did a poll on this, and it ain't good for Bush. And the sentiment is fairly bipartisan; even Reeps think it's bad. I doubt they'll be able to stonewall this thing.
Many democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, were so strongly opposed to the idea of an independent counsel and his power and his tactics. (And rightly so, I also thought Kenneth Starr was a big waste of time and money). Yet now they are so eagerly asking for a new independent councel? Aparently they are not opposed to it based on principle, but only when it is used against one of their own. The only reasonable explanation I can think for all the sudden calls for an independent councel is that these people talk out of both sides of their mouth, and that vendetta is alive and well in Washington DC.
That poll is described here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29560-2003Oct1.html and in more detail here. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsTonight/CIAleak_031001_poll.html A quote that caught my eye in the Washington Post story. "As the White House hunkered down, it got the first taste of criticism from within Bush's own party. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that Bush "needs to get this behind him" by taking a more active role. "He has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it," the outspoken Hagel said last night on CNBC's "Capital Report." " My italics. I admittedly don't know much about Hagel, but I've gotten a vague general impression from various mentions I've seen in newspapers that he's a pretty forthright guy with quite a bit of integrity. So, I'm not surprised to see that he would take the lead within the GOP on pushing for a stronger White House response. And, although I can't draw any conclusions from this without the comment's context, It's also interesting that he specifically mentioned that Bush should be talking to Cheney about it. I think there are some rumors that someone in the VP's office might be involved, so there could be something there. Of course, if in fact Bush hasn't actually seriously discussed this with Cheney in the months since the allegations came out, that would seem to indicate that he's either oblivious to what's happening within his own administration, or simply doesn't care very much about potential security breaches at high levels of the executive branch.
1. I thought of starting a thread "Who on the other side do you respect?" Hagel would have topped my personal list. 2. The bulk of informed, triangulated speculation revolves around Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, the key aide to Dick Cheney. I was struck by that comment of Hagel's too, and I do NOT think it was an accident.
To recap: My last post restated a) YOUR stated contention that the administration's reluctance to deal with treasonous acts from within the White House is EXCUSABLE because Democratic leadership's acting on it now may be politically motivated. b) I conclude by stating such blatant intellectual dishonesty renders one "ill-fit for effective citizenship." IF ones does indeed advocate premise a), it follows that one is indeed "unfit for effective citizenship." Don't quibble with premise statement a). You proposed it yourself. So to weasel out, you deceitfully conflate "unfit for effective citizenship" with "undeserving of Constitutional protection." Yet more dishonest garbage. I did not challenge any of your purported "ideas". I called you out for LYING. Your statement betrayed any pretense to good faith. Any "idea" was DOA. And before you neco-bugger Madison and Jefferson, do you think, just perhaps, the Founding Fathers presumed that honesty was necessary for EFFECTIVE political discourse? Do this again and don't be surprised if Thomas Jefferson goes Sally Hemmings on your ass in your dreams.
Needless to say, we aren't the only ones who noticed. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100203233am I think that Hagel was deliberately pointing a finger. While I don't know what percentage they represent, I imagine there are still a large number of genuine public servants within the GOP who are not happy about the extent to which their party is currently under the influence of extremist ideologues and dishonest hacks, and want to fix it. Hopefully this mess will help them do so. I also agree with Josh Marshall that the attacks on Wilson/Plame probably weren't just an a attempt to discredit someone who could be politically inconvenient for Bush, but were more likely part of a larger struggle between the administration's hawks and their perceived enemies in State and intelligence. That's why I doubt that Rove was behind the whole thing (although he certainly may have condoned it), and Libby seems like a very plausible candidate.
No independant counsel is needed - nor should there be one. There is a growing malaise about character issues in the White House. A failed justice department investigation would only make it worse. But the more calls for an independant counsel draw more attention to it - I think that is what the dems calling for it are really after. Smart ones don't really want one. They stand more to gain from a refusal to have an independant counsel, followed by the failed justice investigation.
Of course, Madison predicted that the unpropertied poor would eventually massively out-number the propertied rich, and insisted that it would be better that the propertied rich protect the unpropertied poor's personal rights, than trust the unpropertied poor to protect the propertied rich's property rights. Not exactly as enlightened as we're led to believe. Edit.Of course, that whole voting issue was in fact fixed over the years, but it always rubs me raw when people hold up the founding fathers as some form of higher being.
"We've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them, and I want to know who the leakers are." Dubya—Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003
Quick update on some stuff I mentioned earlier. I've heard someone claim that Hagel's interview comment that was quoted in the WP was in response to a question that specifically mentioned the vice president - if so, the stress on that point in the interview and the article may represent more a journalistic view of who the likely culprits are than Hagel's own view (like I said, the context matters). I still think the VP's office and Libby look like plausible candidates, along the lines of what Vincent Cannistraro is saying here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...15079.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house Still just at the level of speculation, though. Oh, and for some perspective on the possible seriousness: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1,7265663.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions and: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6915422.htm
asf...Sally Hemings is the slave who bore several children either to Jefferson, his brother, or one of his nephews. DNA testing has proved that.
Thanks. I remember now. I just didn't recognize the name. And her descendants claim that it was Jefferson himself, rather than a brother or nephew. I guess we have to realize that these people lived at a different time. We can see further than them, but that is because of the legacy of ideas that they left to us. As someone said, we are like dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.
Oh come on! How can you apologize for slavery because it was "a different time" and then tell us that they were such great thinkers compared to us today? Because at that very "different time" (4 years prior to the Decl. of Independance, in fact), slavery had already been held illegal in England, the very country we were seeking independence from. The Americans, so very revolutionary and visionary, were in fact the backward-thinking nation at the time on that issue. Yes, some of the "founders" were against slavery, but they weren't willing to risk the independence movement to do away with it, a move which cost 9 more decades of slavery, and the War between the States.
Apologize for slavery? I think you and NSlander must be the same person. When did I apologize for slavery? I am saying that the ideas of Jefferson and Madison were revolutionary. It has nothing to do with slavery. In England, the Cronwell revolution gave rights only for property. Even Locke, a revolutionary thinker in his own right, spoke of the rights to tangible property. Jefferson and Madison took it one step farther when they spoke of the rights to our thoughts and ideas and so on. Those are the ideas that I admire. I abhore slavery and I never apoligize for it. But I will not discount the ideas of the people of that era which influenced us for the better, just because there was slavery at the time.