Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or?
 

I am not excited by this news. In addition to the usual "conservative" political POV that he "offers", Thompson seems like "same old", "same old"...
he made a recent speech to a CNP dinner, and his campaign is recruiting Karl Rove's protege and former RNC opposition "researcher", Tim Griffin for a "top slot":
I thought that it would be a good idea to examine whether Fred Thompson's new candidacy would bring any positive change to the dialogue offered as a forward political vision by current republican frontrunners, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

....and, do we really need another republican entertainment personality involved in a prominent race for governor or president?

No one's saying you have to vote for him, host. A vote for someone else is a vote against Thompson.

Personally, I think that Fred Thompson is an honorable guy that has fought against some pretty big assaults on our rights. That said, I probably won't vote for him either, but Fred Thompson the Politician shouldn't be judged by Fred Thompson the Actor.

By the way, do you know who he played in his very first role and why?

The earliest thing that I remember him in was Fat Man And Little Boy, as General Barry, in 90...91? And I'm guessing because...I dunno...the pay was good?

Edit: I was concerned that the comments in the two preceding posts would derail the discussion from the intended topic of discussion. I was more disappointed by the "spirit" of the comments in those two posts, because I perceived an indifference conveyed in them as to whether....or not.....the thread stayed on topic, that I would not have anticipated coming from the authors of the two preceding posts, before this.

I suspect that my sensitivity was raised after comments that I posted in another forum that led to this response:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=26

I'm going to take a leap here and share my concern that my reaction to the comments in the two preceding posts, my reaction to the thread that the post linked above responds to, my reaction to what was expressed in that post, and my reaction to the "reception" that the recently posted "Are Supporters of the VP and Libby Aiding and Abetting War Time Treasonous Acts ?" has (not) had, are "out of synch" with what "everybody knows", "some perople say", and "most people believe....."

I've been posting on this forum as a way to "channel" my reaction to political developments. Compiling my posts, after researching their content, and then sharing what I've learned and been able to document to support my positions, seemed to be a calming thing to do, because I learned more after my intitial reaction, and putting my thoughts into words requires patience and a measured approach.

I started this thread after first reading that Thompson's campaign organization had been considering adding Tim Griffin. A short time later, I read that Thompson had thrown his hat into the ring.

I view Griffin as the "poster boy" of a corrupt political machine masterminded by Karl Rove, and formerly by Lee Atwater. I included Greg Palast's reporting about Griffin. Griffin seems to be the reason that the exemption of senate approval of presidential US Attorney appointments was slipped into a bill by Arlen Specter's staff, just before it's certain passage was voted on in congress.

Speculation is that Griffin announced his departure, after a very short tenure as US Attorney, because he would have to answer questions from the senate judiciary committee, to keep his US Attorney position, after all, and he cannot risk being questioned about his illegal "caging" activities in the 2004 election.

I'm also sensitive to the fact that Thompson represented one of the poorest states, per capita (Tennessee) as a senator, and he voted to eliminate the discharge of bankruptcy debt for his constituents, who at the time led the nation in home loan foreclosures. It is reported that Thompson donned a flannel shirt and drove around campaigning in Tennessee in a pick up truck, to convince his lower than average income and wealth holding fellow Tennesseans that he was "one of them"....a candidate worthy to be elected to follow up on the (in their best interests) representation that Al Gore had given them in the US Senate.....

As this forum's "expert" on the secretive CNP...Council for National Policy, I took exception to Thompson's recent appearance before that group.

IMO, the campaign strategists who work to elect republican candidates are aware that their candidates mostly have no constituency that would rise to numbers that would result in their getting the most votes in election contests.

I suspect that they know that they must illegally suppress the opposition vote, and fool some of those who vote for them into voting against their own best interests, and play to the racial and ethnic prejudices of still other potential voters to bring them "on board", as well.

Thomspson, as an actor, was a SAG member. SAG is a guild of workers in the acting field....a union. As a lawyer, however, Thompson is reported to have consistently represented the corporate opponents of unions.

Maybe I take the current political situation and the almost exclusively republican corruption, too seriously....maybe others here do not take it seriously enough. Maybe I am making a mistake because I cannot bring myself to write that maybe the most accurate perception is somewhere in between.

(i'm sorry....I can't write that because I just don't believe it to be a possibility, in this decade, anyway.....)

I keep coming here because I need an exchange that is not a rubber stamp of my political opinions, but I also need some things to be considered seriously, as in the case of Fred Thompson's candidacy and it's overtures to Tim Griffin and to the CNP and the executive branch outing of Valerie Plame as political "payback".

I may be someone living in serious political times, who takes political developments too seriously. I still lean in the direction that, given the gravity of things that I have spent time looking into, and of who is still in control of the US executive branch and of a near majority in the senate, and the growing disparity in the way wealth is distributed in this country, even my serious concern is not sufficiently serious...and a symptom of my leaning is my sensitivity.

Hey, at least they didn't nerf your sig.

As far as Fred Thompson goes, I'll pass. Ron Paul 4 lyfe, yo.

Host, snarkey comments aside, my question is actually relevant to the topic at hand. I can't believe with all your google skills that you aren't able to find it. The only other alternative is that you aren't willing to find it, which would mean that you aren't really interested in discussing anything.

Thompson's first role was playing Fred Thompson in "Marie". It's a movie about the woman who took on the governor of Tennessee and the pardon board in the mid-70's. Thompson defended her when she was illegally removed from office for refusing to rubber-stamp pardons that had been bought and paid for. When Roger Donaldson made it into a movie, he asked Thompson to play himself. That's his first role, as a crusading lawyer defending the unjustly accused.

Thompson was also responsible for Howard Baker's question "what did the President know and when did he know it" during Watergate.

So host, when you attack Thompson as being an "entertainment personality", you really make yourself look uninformed and ignorant of the facts.

The_Jazz, I thought you were going for archival footage of the Watergate Hearings, which was included in Stone's JFK.

That's also relevant, IMO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...dthompson.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/bio

The guy's got a bio. It would be silly to dismiss him as nothing more than another entertainer. I'm not saying he's necessarily presidential material, but he's been around and done a few things. It might interest you, host, that Thompson spent more time in the U.S. Senate than John Edwards. He was also elected twice as many times.

Well, considering that "Marie" came out in the mid-80's and "JFK" came out in 91, I think I got it right.

The Watergate hearings weren't entertainment. I don't think we can find anyone who would logically argue that point.

Thompson was also Howard Baker's chief of staff during Watergate, and I think that someone could probably argue pretty well that Baker was the most relevant Senator of the past 40 years.

The mention of "JFK" reminds me of some family trivia. Not only was my father in the same Civil Air Patrol unit as Lee Harvey Oswald, but the character that Joe Pesci played (the one with no hair) was a friend of my father's growing up but was kicked out of my grandmother's and great-aunt's houses every time he showed up because neither one could stand him.

Before knowing anything about him, I became immediately suspicious due to drudge, hannity, beck and limbaugh hyping him up. If those four endorse him there's about a zero chance i'll like him.

The only real different candidates that I have noticed is Gravel for the Democrats and Paul for the Republicans. The rest of them have the same stance on everything minus an issue here or there.

Thompson was involved in campaign finance reform, which is good, but he's still a hard line conservative.

In case anyone is wondering where he stand on certian issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

He's a homophobe, for one, voting against having sexual orientation included in hate crimes and against gay marriage. He voted in favor of the bullshit law ruining bankruptcy. He voted for limiting death penalty appeals, which suggests that he is pro-death penalty. He wants to drill ANWR. He voted to de-fund solar and renewable energy. He's probably against gun control. He's pro-big medicine.

However:
He may be pro-environment, as he voted to restrict the funding for building roads in National Forests. He's pro-immigration (which surprises me). He doesn't want to privatize social security, which is great.

My main beef is that he voted to authorize the war, despite the fact he reformed on Kosovo during the Clinton administration.

With the Democrats being the party that is in bed with the Hollywood elite the Republicans sure run a lot of movie stars.

That's funny. If I were in office I would vote against those two things, and I am certainly not a homophobe. Maybe he's just a conservative who doesn't believe the government should be regulating such things?

"I don't believe in regulating things, so I'm going to regulate whether two people I've never met before can get married and can be beaten without it being a hate crime."

A homophobe is a homophobe. Anyone who allows their personal feelings toward homosexuals to effect their decisions so as to effect homosexuals negatively is a homophobe. It's a sign of both fear and nonacceptance. You can not understand or approve of homosexuality without trying to squelch it. He failed that test.

You're missing the point. If you don't believe that marriage itself should be regulated, you would vote against FURTHER regulation of it. While it may appear to be anti-gay-marriage, it would in fact be anti-regulation-of-marriage, which is pro-gay-marriage in the end. However, I have no idea if this is what Fred Thompson is thinking or if he is a "..marriage is between a man and a woman.." wacko, I am simply presenting a possible explanation as to why some people like myself would vote against gay-marriage legislation while clearly not being a homophobe.

You're not getting it, he's supporting government regulation of marriage. If you don't believe marriage should be regulated, then how are you going to tell Fred and Steve that they won't have that white wedding they want so bad? That's the regulation. You are deregulating by creating or maintaining laws that restrict people? That makes no sense.

Nevermind, I didn't realize he voted yes to the DOMA, I had thought he just voted against legislation to recognize gay marriage.

I had a yes-no reaction to your post, will. I oppose excluding homosexuals from hate crime legislation, but am concerned about the economic implications of recognizing a homosexual union as a legal marriage...it's not fear based, and I could be talked into going along with it...I just want to know how much more additional expense will be involved, taking into consideration the resulting changes in the cost of insurance benefits, government programs, etc.

It's human nature to recognize differences among us, but that isn't prejudice in a general sense, or homophobia in this instance...it's missing the element of disliking or hurting someone by the mere fact of whatever the differences are. Here, there simply is no evidence (e.g., statements by Thompson) demonstrating that his positions are motivated by negative feelings towards homosexuals. I'd be interested in anything like that which you could dig up, as he otherwise seems like a guy worth taking a second look at, as a presidential candidate.

Expense? Less than 4% of men and 1% of women are estimated to be gay. Of those, only a fraction want to get married. I'm afraid I have no idea where the concern of expense comes from.

Check this quote out from the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0830/p17s01-cogn.html

Hate crime legislation is about as Orwelian as a law can get. Making murder MORE illegal because the victim is gay or black or another minority class? Why enter subjectivity into a cut and dry crime? While opposing homophobic hate crime legislation may indeed make him homophobic , why do we need more legislation based around a flawed concept anyway?

Will, it's like your saying one group is being persecuted so we must persecute all groups to make things fair. That's the road to tyranny imo.

Seretogis already laid out the answer to that first part, though apparently it doesn't apply to the DOMA-supporting Thompson. But if you want the assertion of homophobia to look more like a supported fact and less like a plausible assumption, you've still got some ground to cover. Frankly, I think you're better off dropping the assumption. Thompson's position is wrong either way.

I'd see your assumption as much more probable if, say, Thompson supported hate crime legislation otherwise - does he? But if he's opposed to the entire idea, that only undermines your assumption of homophobia further. And Thompson's position is right either way, crime penalties shouldn't change based on the level of animosity. Premeditation, sure. Intimidation, absolutely. Hate? Nah. Hate isn't necessarily any more destructive than greed.

Do you know what hate crime is? It's a crime committed against a person or persons motivated by bigotry. For example, a man lynches another man because he's black. Stopping this is Orwellian? Have you even read 1984?
We have first and second degree murder. That's a case where one murder is more illegal than another. Maybe you'd like to clump involuntary manslaughter with murder one, that way when someone gets in a sober car accident and accidentally kills a passenger, they can get the electric chair? Saying 'murder is murder' is like saying being able to fly like superman is the same as taking a plane (sorry, I'm watching Heroes). There are murders that are worse, and we already have legislation to protect people from being murdered because of things like race, sex, and creed. The idea that this guy voted against adding homosexuality to the list was motivated because he doesn't agree with hate crime laws doesn't make any sense.
Persecuting hate criminals is perfectly fair. If you break the law, you must pay for your mistake.

The road to tyranny is subjugation. It's allowing loud voices to control what we think and do, like convincing us that homosexuals are some sort of threat to us.

- Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
- Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

That is a consistent prejudice against homosexuals. Every time an issue of homosexuality has come up, he's voted against homosexuality. A prejudice against a particular group, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is called bigotry. What do we call someone who is a bigot against homosexuals? Homophobe.

I rest my case.

why should a black man get better protection from the law than me?

wow, an absolutist argument from you?


Did you really just say that? Do you believe that?

And for the record, Fred Thompson is most certainly against gun control.

Sorry Will, you are so far off imo. Don't stop the lynching because he's black. Stop it because they are KILLING A PERSON unjustly. God won't judge me if I kill a black man, or a white man, or a brown man, he will judge me for killing a man period.

The degree of murder or manslaughter isn't based on minority classes or hatred. It's based on if the person had planned to kill, or killed in the heat of the moment or on accident etc. If you're going to base crimes off race you're doing nothing but inciting more hatred and racism. The crime is murder treat it as such, don't bring race, religion, or sexual orientation into the sentence.

Is a person who plans to kill his wife any different than a person who plans to kill a homosexual? They are both pre-meditated murder. Giving the person who killed the gay man a stiffer sentence just puts gays on a higher platform than everyone else.

I support candidates on the issue not on what party they voted for or why they voted against something. Government not recognizing 'gay' marriage is the 'freedom' choice ( or the 'not recognizing an establishment of religion choice'). Just like it would be if they didn't recognize heterosexual marriage. There job is to enforce contracts not recognize religious ceremonies.

Government's job is not to protect the right of different classes, or races, or groups of people, it's job is to protect the right of every "INDIVIDUAL" EQUALLY.

Objection, your Honor. Prosecution misses the point, assumes too much from facts in evidence.

If Thompson is against hate crime legislation in general, then those first two votes are not compelling evidence of homophobia.

If Thompson is against regulating the hiring practices of private businesses in general, then that last vote is not compelling evidence of homophobia.

That third vote comes close. It's actually fairly compelling. But it's not an open and shut case, and you should have called more witnesses. There are reasons other than bigotry to welcome gay marriage bans - the belief that gay marriage will further destabilize the institution (as the Scandinavian study might superficially appear to demonstrate) or the dictionary argument ("It's just not marriage, it's something else"), coupled with some lack of serious thought on the matter. Put simply, laziness is an equally good explanation for some opposition. It's not a greatly important issue, after all, next to stuff like the war, fiscal policy, immigration... pretty much every other major issue.

I've had friends who opposed gay marriage, yet never withheld the slightest bit of kindness or respect for their gay friends. Call them bigots, and the word 'bigot' loses all meaning. Or at least your usage does.

These kind of assumptions are pointless, anyway - his position is no less wrong/right either way. And 'u' and 'mptions' are all the worse for wear.

Honestly, are they lynching a man, or are they lynching a black man Will? Do you not see what is Orwellian about that now?

If a black guy killed you because you were white, you'd get the same protection.
I was arguing against absolutism. I think there are different types of crimes and a hate crime is just one type of crime that happens to be worse than some others. I'd hardly call that absolutist.
Why don't you ask an African kidnapped from his home, sailed across the ocean and forced into slavery? Or maybe you can tell that to a 12 year old girl in Thailand who's been forced into prostitution. One of the many roads to tyranny is the mistreatment or demonization of a group of people. A great example would be how Hitler used hatred of the Jews or Stalin and the Ukranians (if I remember my history, I'm a bit rusty on Stalin).

I know you believe that the road to tyrrany is gun control or gun bans, but you can't think that's the only way to get there. There's no way you're that pertinacious.
Yes, I covered that in post #10.

Had Hitler slaughtered 6 million Asians, or Americans, or Africans, or South Americans, or Australians made any difference? Should his sentence of made him anymore hanged or shot to death? It is GENOCIDE. Just like murder is murder. Black or white, what's the difference we are all people right?

What if the slave was from Asia, or the girl forced into prostitution was from Mexico? Do they deserve less justice?

Why should a class get a preferential victim status? You still haven't really explained that.

And why shouldn't individuals be equal under the law?

Okay, I'm moving this to another thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...85#post2254585

Sorry for the threadjack.

The_Jazz, "things" are not always the way they seem....especially dramatized events in a movie based on a book by the author of the earlier book titled "Serpico", later made into a movie starring Al Pacino:
The_Jazz, go check out John Seigenthaler Jr. He has a reputation as a distinguished journalist....even a hero for his exploits in the field of journalism.
He seemed less impressed with Thompson's client, Maria, than the author of the book about her, did.

....and...I suspect that Thompson deserves a place on my "republicans aiding or abetting treason", list, for this contrived POS, pro Libby propaganda piece, and because of his "service" to Libby's "Legal Defense Trust":
Consider that Thompson, an attorney himself, who is described by The_Jazz as the Watergate counsel to then Sen. Howard Baker, not only served as a legal advisor to Libby's "Defense Fund Trust", he wrote the "hit piece" against Patrick Fitzgerald, <b>after</b> all of the evidence and testimony in Libby's trial was publicly presented, and after both Libby and VP Cheney failed to testify in Libby's defense, and after a jury found Libby guilty on 4 of 5 counts.

We are "at war". How blindly partisan is Thompson, and how little respect for the law does he have, to write such blatantly political crap after the verdict?
I think we can draw from the mindset that Thompson displayed in his NRO opinion piece, that, if he was the president of the US, as Bush did not, he would not have insisted that the white house director of security investigate whether classified information regarding Plame's CIA employment status had been leaked. Like Bush, it seems that Thompson would react to such allegations as if they were a politically motivated attack, and not as an alert to look for a security leak and investigate to find a culprit, or eliminate suspicion that security was breached by executive branch personnel.

host, you can infer anything you want from Thompson's actions and set up any alternative universe you want with whatever rules you want. There's no way to prove or disprove what Thompson would have done if he were President instead of Bush. It's a completely meaningless debate since we can both throw anecdotes back and forth to try to prove what would have happened in that evenuality.

John Seigenthaler Jr. is indeed a distinguished journalist. He's also human. He was wrong in this story. Blanton was basically kicked out of office early because of the parole scandal. Members of the legislature conspired to move up the swearing-in ceremony for Lamar Alexander, which was constitutional at the time. Alexander was told that it was because of the parole issue. How do I know this? I have a close family member that's one of Alexander's closest friends.

Host, The Tennessean is one of the better papers in Tennessee, but it's not the only one. The Knoxville Journal (now defunct) reported extensively on the parole issue at the time as did The Chattanoogan.

As for Thompson's op-ed piece? He's entitled to his views. He saw it as a Democratic political hit. I disagree. I'm not voting for Thompson regardless. So what?

I just read the 3/7/07 article by Thompson posted by Host. I think I am begining to like Thompson, he certainly has a clear view of the Libby issue.

ace.... you clearly foster support for commission of treasonous acts during a "time of war"...so does Thompson. Where would our country be if everyone condoned the outing of a secret CIA agent (or....in order for you to have a factual basis for your opinion......Patrick Fitzgerald has lied to the court, and Henry Waxman lied in his opening statement at a March 16, 2007 congressional committee hearing....) for "politcal payback".....or for any reason?

We disagree on how secret she was. My "reasonable man test" says that covert agents should not be married to people writing articles in major newspapers about intelligence information and expect people won't do a bit of research on the person who wrote the article, and then release that information. Yes. I blame Plame for letting her cover be blown. She must have known the risk she was taking with her husband when he decided to have his article published. She should have told her husband to stay out of the lime light. He could have written his article under an assumed name or just gave his information to a reporter. If her husband did not know she was working for the CIA, I would admit to being 100% wrong on this.

That's kind of ridiculous. The "research" you're referring to which allowed her cover to be blown consisted of releasing classified information.

I think people would have found that she worked for a fictcious company. I think that she and her husband would have face an endless amount of questions, given the circumstances.

But, most important, she let her husband put her covert staus in the cross-hairs of the White House. Given their track record of attacking those who attack them, that was a pretty dumb thing to do.

It's important to make a distinction, though, between "dumb" and "wrong" or illegal.

:confused:

What's pretty dumb is a White House administration that releases classified information as a method of political attack. That is the primary source of pretty dumb in this situation. Plame placing herself at risk of illegal and unethical attack from the very people charged with enforcing our laws is a lot further down list of what's dumb about this.

Ace, the analogy is by no means perfect, but I think that you're almost blaming Plame for getting raped because she was wearing attractive clothes and looked nice.

In general for a moment, legality and ethics don't always protect you. Good judgement does.

Specific to this issue. The Administration has not been found guilty of outing Plame, but they certainly sent a message to everyone in the CIA. I don't pretend that politics is pretty or for the weak.

No, I would not say it was because she was wearing attractive cloths and looked nice. I would say it is more like, kicking a pitbull while wearing high heels rather than running shoes with the scent of raw meat behind your ears.

So Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby are all just dumb animals that don't know any better?

Sorry, anyone at that level of power is immediately disqualified from that kind of analogy. Those guys knew what they were doing and had what they thought were very good reasons for it. I think those were bad and illegal reasons, but that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things.

No. They are pretty smart. They knew exactly what they were doing. How did you conclude what you wrote above based on what I wrote?

I remember reading what Bill Gates once said about what Microsoft was going to do to the competition at one of the anti-trust trials. Things can be ruthless in the world and even smart people can be ruthless. I only made the point that Plame had to know who she was dealing with, if she didn't - she was not a good CIA agent.

Even Honest Abe Lincoln used his political power to get what he wanted or to send a message.

I don't want to go through this again, as I did with another poster here on another issue. All I will say is - there are professions and things certain people should avoid if they don't want to get hurt.

OK if Bush et al aren't the pitbull, then who is? The pitbull is just reacting dumbly and instinctually in this scenario.

And Plame by no means kicked the dog. Maybe her husband did, but they just used her to attack him. That's both unethical and illegal in my book.

Ace, even if I were to stipulate your assessment as the status quo, I wouldn't think it was OK. If we expect better and nail the people we can catch, we can have a better system.

I guess on some level it sounds like you feel that things are the way they are and there isn't any reason to expect more.

In your "world" ace, no one who has a job to protect, a career, or a reputation, and certainly no one who is a spouse of anyone employed in a classified position in a government agency, <b>SHOULD....if they know what's good for them</b>, openly challenge or criticize the principles in the US executive branch, or they will be "paid back" if they sepak out publicly, just as Plame was, for her husband's challenge of white house assertions to justify invading Iraq and toppling it's government.

Do I have what you are saying, about right, ace? Why would you or anyone, want to be (settle for....) living in a country where the elected leaders claim they stand for "freedom", but behave like that....making an "example" of Plame, to discourage the "rest of us" from speaking out in objection, even to the point of "outing" a 20 year covert CIA veteran, managing a group working on investigation of possible Iranian WMD programs?

ace, here is the issue that your opinion, vs. mine....and others who have weighed in here, can be reduced to....it's in the last sentence in this opinion piece:

I thought this was common knowledge. Dick Chaney is the administration "pitbull", or the behind the scene guy that does the "unpleasant work". I have never met or studied "nice", powerful, yet effective person ( I do think Bush is in the category) who did not have a guy like Dick Chaney. I don't know Dick Chaney personally, but I have met people who are like him and has his personality. If you choose to pick a fight with these people, you cannot do it in a half-assed way. You must be prepared to take it to the limit, people who are not willing to do that are foolish to take on the fight.

You may be correct about it being unethical and illegal, but like I said legality and ethics don't always protect you. Fitzgerald doesn't think the outing of Plame was illegal enough to bring charges against anyone. On the question of ethics, I am sure there are people who would argue both sides of that question.

You assume Plame is an innocent victim, I don't. I assume she knew what she and her husband were doing. She is a CIA agent, a agent who was covert, doesn't that say enough about her ability to play the game and fool people.

Yes, we can have a better system but we don't. There are people who clearly go over the line and then there are those who "test the limits". We live in a world were people who "test the limits" will always rationalize their actions. I think this is a situation were the administration "tested the limits" but did not cross the line. Reasonable people can disagree. However, they did give Fitzgerald the freedom to investigate this matter.

So in my view not only did the Administration "test the limits", they are now thumbing their nose at critics given Fitzgerald's unwillingness to bring the outing issue to trial.
In addition, you have the Gonzales matter, the war funding issue and a few other things were the Administration is just wiping the floor with their critics and oppnents. It amazes me how people under-estimate Bush and his team.

I don't have an Ivy League education, but I do have a good street education. The irony is that when people think of street knowledge they percieve that it only applies to the street and not to board rooms and to Washington's ivory towers. Nothing has changed since Cain and Abel. We can expect more, but should not be surprised when our expectations are not met.

I think you get my point if you understand that things are not always fair.

Fitzgerald has the freedom to bring the issue to trial, he has not done that for whatever the reason. So when you say the rule of law, I would argue that the rule of law is not on either side at this point because it has not been invited to the party.

ace, do you disagree with my expectation that the executive branch, charged with upholding the law, and enforcing it, should itself, respect the rule of law?

This isn't about "fairness", it's about official decisions to elect to disclose classified intelligence agency info, while our "troops are in the field", to punish someone because her husband publicly questioned statements by the president in his attempt to justify going to war.

...again, ace.... you're leaving me to assume that you choose the "Thompson ticket", over Fitzgerald's:
Which "ticket" do you choose ace, Thompson's, or the rule of law? Isn't it just a tad fucked up, that Thompson still raises money for Libby and writes op-ed attacks on Fitzgerald's motives, and boasts about it to a secret gathering of CNP goons <b>after Libby is convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation?</b>

Can you not see that Thompson is leveraging his "image" as the TV character that he plays....the NYC District Attorney in an extremely popular and long running TV show, to run both a PR campaign to counter Fitzgerald's unimpeachable record as a smart, dogged, apolitical, credible, honest, and ethical US Attorney ("Acting" as if Thompson's fictional character is an "equal" offset to Fitzgerald's "real life" one...), and a political campaign to pander to the republican party fringe that swallows the anti "rule of law" bullshit he is spewing about poor "victimized" Libby and his 5 million dollar, eleven lawyer legal team being no match for "hatchet job" prosecutor Fitzgerald and a jury of Libby's peers in DC....

You ace, make it clear that you subscribe to republican official lawbreaking and scorn for the law, because it can all be excused as "political", and therefore, somehow understood, and then excused. Ace, if Libby was witnessed by several citizens who later testified against him in court, driving the getaway car (a witness "made" his license plate numbers...) for a couple of unidentified others who were seen leaving Plame's residence moments before Plame called 911 to report that she had been assaulted and badly beaten, and then Libby falsely told investigators that he had sold his car to a news reporter who he had allowed to drive it home the day before Plame was assaulted, before returning the license plates to Libby, how do you think the opinions from you and Thompson would seem....mainstream...or on the fringe?

Fitzgerald is following the law ace....the "process" is a special one, because the "perp" at the center of this crime is the VP of the United States, and it isn't over....it's playing out as the constitution planned for it, to. You and Thompson are on the wrong side of this, ace:


Later that day, Fitzgerald said the following in a press conference that followed the indictment announcement:
ace.... Patrick Fitzgerald made it quite clear that Libby's crimes were akin to throwing sand in the eyes of an umpire trying to call a play in a baseball game. Can you point us to anything that came from Libby during his trail that makes "the play"....the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame Wilson by VP Cheney with the complicity of president Bush, significantly clearer to "call". Libby and Cheney were slated to testify in Libby's defense, but they didn't ace...and Libby was convicted. Why do you think that neither Libby or Cheney took the witness stand to defend the actions and statements of the man who Cheney called "one of the finest men that I've known"?

You didn't answer the question I asked about what you have been correct about, in your posted opinions of the Plame CIA leak and it's criminality.

Patrick Fitzgerald got the ball rolling, ace....and now the ball is on the "court" where it belongs, given the process mandated in the US Constitution to deal with "high crimes and misdemeanors" by high federal officials, and the "process" is continuing:

Yes. However, there can be laws on the books that should be broken or tested. Andrew Johson was the first US President to ever be impeached, he violated the Tenure in Office act passed by Congress to restrict the President's ability to terminate members of his Cabinet. Johnson nor any President should have respected this law, Johsno violated the law knowing the consequences.

The President has the authority to decalssify information. If I were President and I found that people in the CIA were not loyal, I would act against them in a punitive manner, perhaps others would not. That may explain the way I feel about this compared to you.

Fitgerald is an attorney, attornies do what they do, I am indifferent to them. Thompson's article reflected what I thought about the Libby trial and conviction.

Based on the way you present the question, I choose Thompson.
Thompson is free to do what he chooses. His acts don't violate the law.

Yes I see it. Politicians develop strategies to win support. I also see it when Democrats do it.

I fully support accepting consequences. If I break the law or if anyone breaks the law they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are laws I would choose to break in certain circumstances, I bet others would too. I don't make excuses for that. The issue here is that it has not been proved the the law was broken.

Ooh they sent a message to the CIA alright. But the message is "We only pay lip service to actual national security, and we'll play scorched earth politics with our agency personell if it helps our partisan causes.

Plame worked on WMD issues under her front company. That work and the likely millions that went into it are now ruined and lost forever. All because the Admin wanted to 'send a message'?
Is this something you really want to defend?

Also, the Administration HAS been found guilty of outing Plame. Two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators.

I don't have a guy like that. I guess I'm not powerful enough yet. :paranoid:
She was looking for the truth; doing her job. She was being a responsible CIA operative (something I didn't knew existed anymore). They just happened to have found out that the Africa source for uranium story was bogus, and the president lied. It's because of that her cover was blown.

Can you see the other side of the issue? Certainly, using Plame to send a message is problematic, however, at some point people in the CIA have to show loyalty to the administration, discretion and good judgement.

The CIA has used the media and disinformation in other countries to discredit world leaders and and governments. They are trained on how to do this and do it well. Plame (pure speculation on my part) knew exactly what her husband was doing and knew the impact it would have on public support of the war in Iraq. Basically the information obtained and reported on by Plame's husband was not material to our case for war. The article, however, was used to discredit the case for war. As an agent of the CIA she should not have let her husband publish the information in a manner that could be linked to her. She failed the loyalty test, she failed in using discretion, and she failed in using good judgement.

Can you imagine if every CIA agent with a political agenda, used the power of thier position, unchecked, to do whatever they want? Like it or not, the CIA is accountable to the office of the President. Our Constitution does allow for checks and balances and member of the CIA do have recourse, I just suggest they do it in a proper manner.


If you are talking about Libby, I think that connection is reaching.

I let my wife handle that stuff for me. I often feel guilty after she is done what she does to people. There have been a few times where I went back and apologized and reminded them not to piss her off again.

I don't think trying to discredit the case for war was her job or her husband's. If that is what she wanted to do she should have submitted her resignation, and then took on her political cause.

the President did not lie. He did not make the stry up. I think that is the problem. People associated with the CIA should not be cloesly connected to people calling the President a lier. Her husband could have relased the information to a reporter anonymously, the same way others do.

Career employees, including covert operatives, in the CIA have absolutely NO moral or legal responsibility or obligation to show "loyalty to the administration" In fact, good judgement would require them to do otherwise and show their loyalty solely to the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than any present or future president.

To whom do they owe loyalty? I thought the CIA chain of command goes up to the President. If I am wrong, I will change my view.

However, I think employees owe loyalty to those higher in the chain of command. If an issue is in dispute the honorable thing to do is to seek proper recourse through available channels. Using your husband (speculation on my part) is not proper in my view. Using the media is not proper in my view. When I have had major disputes with my superiors in employment situations , I went up the ladder or resigned.

{Added}
I thought about this some more. I think you help define how a person will see the Plame issue. In general it boils down to the qestion of loyalty. Those who answer the loyalty question as you do compared to those who answer the loyalty question as I do. In my view what the administration did to Plame was not nice, but it was something that needed to be done. Further, I think the administration did it in a manner within the letter of the law and gave Fitzgerald the power and freedom to investigate the matter and bring it to trial if needed to further emphasize the point the Administration was sending.

Why did Bush need to retaliate againt Plame? .She did not appoint her husband to investigate the Niger connection...In fact, she did not even recommend him. A co-worker knew of his experience with Iraq, Africa and nuclear issues under both GWH Bush and Clinton...and suggested him to Plame's boss who agreed he was emminently and uniquely qualified for the mission.

He reported his findings, along, with his personal opinion (not hers) which were contrary to what Bush wanted the American people to believe....She had nothing to do with it...and for that, she was outed by the WH.

If you think it was honorable for the WH to retaliate against her...for what you describe as "disloyalty to the administration"....solely based on her husband's findings and opnion....and through no actions of her own.,...then we absolutely disagree on the meaning of loyalty. A president should be loyal to CIA covert operatives who serve the country and not the man.

LOL, whoa, remind me never to cross her (not that I ever would).
'Discredit the case for war' in plainer terms is seek the truth, actually. It was her job to gather intelligence about threats to the US. It's her job to determine whether something is or isn't a thread. This OBVIOUSLY wasn't a threat, so she took an active role in finding proof of the truth.
In early 2002, the CIA and State Department already knew the classified information about yellow cake from Africa was inaccurate. Marine General Carlton Fulford personally went to Niger and determined that there was little chance any of the uranium could have been sent to Iraq. He sent a report saying as much to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. The US Ambassador to Niger came to the same conclusions and reported to the state department.

It wasn't until January 2003 that Bush made the statement in his State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This was long after everyone knew the intelligence was bullshit. Either Bush was left in the dark about something that coincidentally supported his wish to invade Iraqw (the odds of this are astronomical), or he deliberately used outdated and incorrect information to fool the American people into supporting the bullshit war.

Read about it yourself. Wiki actually has a really great page on it here. I got a lot of my information from there and verified it with news articles published in the past 4-5 years. It's a good read.

ace.,,,you may also want to reread the Op Ed by Joseph Wilson, in which he walks through the process by which he came to conclusions about Niger as a soure of yellowcake....and how the WH either ignored his findings or misrepresented (ie lied) his findings:

What I Didnt Find in Africa

and for that, the WH retaliated against his wife, for which the DCI was concerned enough to ask for a DOJ investigation.

And you think the WH action was honorable and necessary?

I love that article, DC. I've read that more than a few times, and now it's bookmarked!

Out of curiosity, Do you think you might revise your "Ethics" in this situation if you felt people would die if you did not? And, is it ok to ignore pertinent Data if it is in dissagreement with your objective?

Can I see the other side of the issue? No, I can't. My mind doesn't process asshole thought processes that well. People in the CIA have to protect this country. Not protect the Administration's agenda when the reality does not intersect with their motives. Joe Wilson simply discredited what was a very large part of the President's argument for war. It was very much 'material to our case for war'. How could scare tactics over nuclear weapons be anything BUT? The PRESIDENT had a huge national platform to whip this nation into a frenzy of fear against the possibility that Iraq was preparing nuclear weapons to use against us. I expect and demand that those in our government are truthful to us and if anyone has a way of getting it to us, they do.

Valerie Plame was not appointed to the CIA by Bush. She doesn't own him any extraordinary loyalty. She did not sign one of his draconian loyalty oaths. She was hired to do a job, and she did her job.

Can you imagine if every CIA agent surgically implanted their lips to the Executives ass and ignored the truth, using their position to allow a President to lie us into war in which we are quickly approaching 3,500 casualties?
The CIA is accountable to the office of the President, but the President is supposed to be accountable to us, and the CIA is not supposed to protect him from the truth or help him LIE to us.

The connection to Libby is not reaching. He was the Chief of Staff to the VP. The 4th most powerful and influential position in our Executive Office. There is a reason he was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. He was protecting others in the Executive Office. It didn't start or stop with Libby. We know that Rove was one of the sources as well, so that is TWO of the four most powerful and influential positions in the Executive Office, that we know of, that were privy to this crime.

The President lied. He was informed well before his SOTU that the yellowcake claim was false. He lied about it to us anyway.

I again read the Wilson article in the New York times dated 7/6/03. I do not think Wilson should have written the article. I think (speculation) Plame was aware of her husband's mission, findings, and later his plans to write the article - I further believe the intent of the article was to discredit the case for war.

Wilson conducted his investigation but by his own words did not have access to all of the information, but based on his investigation he made his conclusion about the yellow cake and he was proved correct. However, I think it is reasonable to consider that others who investigated the issue could come to a different conclusion. If presented with conflicting reports it is also reasonable for the "decider" to act on one or the other based on a judgement call.

In the article Wislson uses terms like "highly doubtful", and "probably forged". Further, he was not aware of any written report of his findings nor did he have firsthand knowledge of if and how the information was communicated to the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President. Yet, he broadly concludes the following:

He says "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program...", rather than being specific in relationship to the information he gathered. How does he make that conclusion? I think that is a conclusion he could only make with the assistance of his spouse, a CIA employee or with some other CIA insider.

So in my view we have a covert CIA agent engaged in pillow talk or some other form of talk, expressing her opinion on intelligence matters, and then being involved in publishing information in a major newpaper to discredit the case for war.

I think what happened shows disloyalty, lack of discretion and poor judgement.

I do understand how others see it differently. Unless, there is a change in how, I or you guys who disagree with me, address the question of loyalty in this issue, we will never see this the same way.

{added}

Just for the record, concerning "lies", here is something I came across - I think saying Bush lied is wrong.

I would suggest going to the link and reading the whole thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Translation: wink, wink....hey, Council for National Policy members....I'm an ignorant racist, bigot, too !

Ace....I have to admit I do find it amusing that you have no basis for Plame's involvement in Wilson's article other than speculation about "pillow talk".

It sorta contradicts a statement you made in another thread regarding federal employees and how you "assume some people have the ability to not compromise their principles." (link)

I guess you think only WH political employees will not compromise their principles and a career CIA operative will (without presenting a shred of evidence or any factual information to back it up).......hardly an objective or consistent analysis.

I layout my arguement for my speculation. I know I could be wrong, I know that Plame may be an innocent victim of this mess.

However on its face I cannot see how Wilson, not being a CIA insider, can be so adamant that Bush twisted and misused intellegence information. I can see how he would have an opinion on the yellow cake intel he provided, but then he did not prepare a written report, he did not know if one was prepared, he did not know if his report was even shared with the VP or President, he did not know about other intelligence, he did not even read the initial report leading to his assignment. He also assumes that the people he talked to while on official US government business would be honest with him given the trade restrictions and the climate against Iraq at the time. I cannot ignore these bit of information, so I assume Plame was involved.

Also, there is no evidence that she tried to distance herself from her husband's political views, not only what he writes in the article but also afterward with all the publicity he was surrounded by. As a covert agent at the very least, not controlling her husband was foolish, unless she had no concerns about staying covert.

Not at all. There is often a price for taking a principled stand. Wilson and Plame, given Plames position as a CIA employee, should not have expected to call the President a lier, say intelligence was misused and expect no response from the White House. When people take principled stands relative to their employment they should be prepared to resign and then give 100% effort to their cause. I said Plame did not use good judgement, this is an example of that.

We can use George Tenant as an example. He had conflicts with the Administration, resigned, and then went public with his issues and concerns. I think what Plame did (again I do not think she is an innocent victim) compared to the way Tenant handled his situation is very different.

I don't know how objective I am on this issue (never made that claim) based on my bias towards loyalty. I can tell you up front, people who do what Plame (based on my view that she is not an innocent victim) did, have an extra burden of proof with me. This would be true regardless of party or the underlying issue.

So let me get this straight. You believe our public servants should be beholden entirely to the wishes of the President. Even when they have the capability and substantiation to alert the American public (i.e. their real boss) to falsehoods and lies.

You see Tenet as a shining example of a public servant. Someone who knew things were wrong, but toed the Administration line, publicly at least, as long as he was in office. A failure to act that at least partially contributed to us ultimately going to war on false pretenses that resulted in 3500 allied casualties.

Sorry, but that's messed up.

Who in the CIA is elected by the public, and thus qualifies as a "public servant?" Elected officials are public servants, and government organizations work with those public servants to help them serve the public. Work with, not against. If un-elected officials of government organizations take issue with the way the duly elected public servants are going about things, they have the option to resign and voice their frustration as a private citizen.

You're a public servant if you work for the government, and only a small fraction of government positions are elected.

It was Plame's job to gather intelligence about threats to the US. It's her job to determine whether something is or isn't a thread. The yellowcake OBVIOUSLY wasn't a threat, so she took an active role in finding proof of the truth.

Can we get back on the topic of Fred Thompson at least? There's plenty of other threads about Plame et al.

You don't consider police officers to be public servants then? :confused:
"To Protect and to Serve"

I just did a page search and the first 13 instances of 'Libby' in this thread were from Host, the OP.
I don't think he'll mind the tangent. He started it.

I consider them a local government agency. If you live in Sometown, USA and you and your fellow Sometownians elect John Someguy as Mayor and he passes a local ordinance, would you not expect the police to enforce it rather than sit, consider the ordinance carefully, then perhaps decide maybe to enforce it? It is not their place to decide whether or not to enforce it, they do their job and uphold the law which the elected government officials draft.

Granted it is a bit more complex on a national level, but the CIA is still a government agency and it is their job to serve the elected government, not "the people" directly. If they work to undermine the [legitimate] efforts of a [legitimate] administration, regardless of political affiliation, they are undermining the foundation of our system of government.

To head off a possible response regarding this: Whether or not Bush or his war are legitimate are not really what I am arguing for or against.

What is messed up? Wilson and Plame did what they could to discredit the case for war. The Administration responded. A special investigator investigated. Libby got 30 months. Plame got her day in front of Congress. Plame and Wilson got on the cover of Vanity Fair. wilson and Plame have a lawsuit pending. Wilson and Plame will make who knows how much on book deals. Plame may get Julia Roberts to play her in the movie. Isn't this like a fairy tale come true for our secret agent and her husband?

:thumbsup:FRED THOMPSON:thumbsup:

That is all.

seretogis.....there are federal standards of conduct for federal employees..."to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government.....

ace...I know you hold Plame accountable for her husband's actions even without a shred of evidence...but I dont think that position would get very far in an internal investigation of her actions, which the DCI never felt was necessary.

OK...back to Thompson :)

Thanks for the link. I bet if Fred Thompson had the authority to investigate this issue he may find proof that Plame was complicit with her husband. This link is no different than the logic others use who speculate about Bush and Chaney being complicit in various endevors without a shred of evidence.:orly: You have to agree that obtaining evidence is often the purpose of an investigation.

If I were Fred Thompson I would point out the fact that in the link you provided we would find that one should not use non-public information for private gain, which Plame did (based on my speculation, but if Thompson could investigate I would bet he could get hard evidence...). Plame shared that information with her husband and used him as a shrew. And even Thompson knows that using shrews is consistant with Plame's CIA training as a covert agent to spread disinformation.:thumbsup:

I bet Fred Thompson has this all figured out even without the help of Tom Clancey.

You guys are a laugh riot.

At least I now have confirmation that Jon Stewart's not posing as one of you characters.

Or so I heard Fred Thompson say.

From post #6
The_Jazz, the historical record strongly suggests that Fred Thompson was a political hack, secretly acting at the direction of, and in the best interests of a criminal president, instead of in the way he appeared to be acting on the surface, part of a sincere congressional effort to check and balance the unlawful acts of the executive branch.

I think it is reasonable to say that the record shows that Thompson, a member of the bar, acting in that capacity, and thus, as an officer of the court, can and should, now that this info is public, be held to a higher standard....the double dealing SOB was earnestly and secretly helping the president to attempt to obstruct the Watergate congressional committee investigation, and that is contempt of congress, and obstruction of justice, not to mention an indication of intense partisanship.

The record indicates that the Nixon white house had programmed the cooperative Thompson to appear that he was examining, as a committee staff attorney designated by a prominent senator, a sworn witness who was cooperating with the committee's investigation, John Dean. Instead the record shows that Thompson's intent was to discredit Dean, via white house instructions. Thompson also misled the official record of the hearing, and all in America who were watching the televised hearing, by falsely denying Dean's accusation that Thompson took direction from the white house, in the manner in which he was examining witness Dean.

You are certainly welcome to post how you think this makes "anyone look", considering the final sentences in your post #6.


<h3>Watch the video:</h3>
Note that "liberal" NPR is running it's "in depth" coverage of this news story, nearly four months after the AP first reported it.

host, you're once again ignoring the real world results in an attempt to skewer a Republican.

So basically the White House THOUGHT that Thompson was going to help them. In reality he did nothing of the sort.

Seriously, you're trying to defame the guy because of what someone else thought he would do. You've even gone so far as to highlight the evidence to the contrary in the NPR story with Armstrong's quote about how the taping system wouldn't have been found and revealed WITHOUT THOMPSON'S HELP. Sounds to me like he pretty much did his job and did it with efficiency.

All this said, I have no intention of voting for Thompson, and the one opportunity that I had to vote for him in 1992, I didn't vote for him then either. My sole point of respond is to "poke the bear" to see what else you'll come up with in your singleminded pursuit of ridding the world of Republicans. I'm convinced that there has never been a single individual, real or fictional, that you would deride and belittle if you saw them as a Republican. I'm hoping for more entertainment.

What are you talking about? Are we reading the same reporting? Two sources, four months apart.....same "take" on what happened in 1973. Thompson and Baker intended to help the Nixon white house, while intentionally appearing to be part of the committee's investigation of Nixon. Thompson is not described GIVING "an old memo of Thompson's, intended to be seen only by the committee's Republicans", .....to Democratic investigator in the meeting, Scott Armstrong". If there is any doubt, it is removed by this, from Armstrong;
""I thought Thompson would be filling out his resume looking for new work.""

Why did Armstrong think that? Because Thompson carelessly and inadvertently gave access to his "old memo" to democrat appointed investigator, Armstrong.

The additional support for the way I presented Thompson in my last post is this, from the July AP reporting:
.... I've supported everything I've posted on this thread, and on every other, yet your intent seems to be to "paint" me as posting as if I do not have my details in order......just rabidly partisan "for the hell of it". That is a smear tactic, IMO. I provide enough to offer ample opportunity for rebuttal, but your response is to shoot the messenger.

host, I think you're reading them with the intent of deriding Thompson. I'm reading them with an open mind. When I see

that says to me that Thompson was intrumental in uncovering and revealing for the committee one of the most valuable pieces of information about the whole Watergate affair. Taking Armstrong at his word that Thompson "collaborated" with Nixon et al, he certainly didn't do them any favors by revealing the existance of the recording system and I suppose some could argue that he worked more for the welfare of the nation than Richard M. Nixon's interests. Hell, Thompson described himself as a Nixon loyalist in 1975, so it's not like this is really news.

Baker and Thomspon walked a fine line between what was best for the United States and what was best for the Republican Party. In the end, revealing all of the incriminating evidence in open testimony pretty much sealed the deal on Nixon.

In other words, I think that Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around and fucked them for the betterment of the country. Your evidence proves my point just as well as it proves yours. In fact, given the end result (including the fact that Baker was ready to impeach Nixon in 1974), I think that it supports my position much better than it does yours.

There is nothing to CLEARLY support your
I suggest that you listen to the recording of yesterday's NPR broadcast. My "take" matches the conclusion in the AP reporting, and is supported by the recorded Nixon tapes conversations. Your opinion is not supported by the reporting or by the evidence. There is no record that confirms Thompson giving his "old memo" to Scott Armstrong. There is a record of Thompson's denial to Dean that he, Thompson, had been coached by the white house.

...and, consider this:
In quoting Armstrong in it's July reporting, it appears that AP made an effort to "tone down" Armstrong's opinion of Thompson's intent. Armstrong also told ABC that
It is not supported by the record that Thompson gave the overall committee anything. It is established that Armstrong was given info by a "A staffer on the committee", that was clearly embarassing to Thompson...that he was receiving and passing, Nixon's attorney, Buzhardt's instructions to Thompson's fellow republicans on the committee.These republicans all outwardly gave the apperance of earnestly working on a bi-partisan, congressional committee investigation of the Nixon white house.

It is a testimony to the success of their duplicity that, 34 years later, you interpret Thompson to have been doing the exact opposite of what the evidence of his actions, and intent was.

You know host, if you could do me the favor, please tell me which Republican is the worst, more corrupt, and most vile so I know who to vote for in the primary.

Thompson is my current front runner though.

unfortunately, jeb bush isn't running. :P

It's amusing to read the attempts of you and The_Jazz to portray me as
No one is deriding Thompson, or other unprincipled, unscrupulous, disingenuous republicans, as much as they are doing it to themselves. You either don't perceive it, or refuse to let on that you do. The uniformity of your reaction indicates that you are sincere, but consistently incorrect. You're seeing "honest men", and even "heroes", where the relentless progression of revelations about their actions and intent, tells us the opposite about the characters of these partisan political operators. They are revealed as committed only to partisan goals.

Please, host. You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics. If you can't acknowledge that about yourself, then we really have nothing to discuss. Even the Democratic operative that posts here will occassionally acknowledge that not all Republicans are bad people.

The fact that I find it far easier to discuss anything with Ustwo than you for the simple reason that he'll accept shades of grey should speak volumes to you. I don't have any problem with you bringing your axe to grind in every thread, but the fact that you expressly refuse to acknowledge your agenda really detracts from your overall message here.

I've never said that Thompson was a choir boy or an angel. Far from it, as a matter of fact. What I have said, at least in the last 24 hours worth of posts is that Thompson pumped the White House for information that he used against them.

Really, all of this stuff has been in the historical record for decades and it's nothing new. The only reason it's being dredged up again is Thompson's political aspirations. Why is it relavent what the White House thought of Thompson at the time when the results CLEARLY show something completely different actually happened? There were always accusations that the Republicans on the Watergate committee were taking orders from the White House. Those who made those accussations changed their tune after Nixon's resignation.

The_Jazz, it is an extreme provocation that you would compare me to Ustwo. I meticulously and studiously provide ALL of the information that shapes my opinions.

Again, please stop shooting the messenger and discuss the information, Challenge it, or ignore it, but stop coming at me. Your argument is weak, and since it is weak and contrary to the news reporting it can reasonably be described as a meritless, partisan defense of Fred Thompson's conduct when he served as minority counsel on the Watergate investigation committee.

Again, I am not "one of the most partisan". The "most partisan" are folks who post unsupported statements of opinion, or supported only by, over and over, highly prejudiced sources, instead of by news reporting.

My expectations are dashed more as I read each new post from you, but I still hold out a sliver of hope that you are able to do the right thing here, since I believe that you have repeatedly directed opinions at me, and about me, that are inappropriate and uncalled for. You've made it more difficult for me to participate here. Please stop doing it.

Partisan suggests bias motivated not just by logic or reason, but emotion.

I don't think his allegiance is emotional. I'd say it's more rational. Yes, one can have an emotional response from a reasonable conclusion, but the initial opinions and facts are dispassionate.

This is an excerpt of what you wrote in post #77:
...it is partisan, IMO, to the degree that it is divorced from what a reasonable person would conclude, after earnestly researching the available record, actually happened. Your idea that Thompson
...is as partisan an opinion as mine would be if I posted that Thompson took the revelation from Sanders and called the white house to warn them about Butterfield's revelations, so that the white house would be alerted to destroy the taped evidence.... Thompson admitted in his 1975 book that, he

It is not reasonable to say that Thompson called the white house so that it would know to destroy the taped evidence, and it is not reasonable to say:
Don't you think that I anticipate, that, at the very least, I will be subjected to ridicule in a series of one line "drive by" posts, in response to anything I post? I take extreme measures to post almost exclusivey what will "stand up".

I posted that Libby and Wilkes broke the law, they were convicted on multiple charges. I posted that the president committed the crime of pre-emptive aggressive war. I cited in agreement, no less than the opinion of Ben Ferencz the eminent living expert on the issue. A reasonable person could conclude that former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz's opinion on the matter, along with the quotes I've posted of chief Nuremberg Prosecutor Robert Jackson's arguments at the Nuremberg trials, would make an argument reasonable, that, Bush, by ordering pre-emptive war against another sovereign nation, had committed a war crime, a crime against humanity, in that, as Jackson said, all subsequent crimes related to the decision to wage such a war, were the responsibility of those who launched pre-emptive war.

None of these examples from my posts are partisan, because they are reasonable to believe.

host, you've posted that you want me to stop making this about you, and I'll respect that if its what you want. That said, this is the last line of your lastest post. I'm happy to go find any number of posts that are actually partisan from any one of several threads. I'll add that just because you've said it and supplied "evidence" doesn't make things truth or fiction.

If you were actually offended by a comparison to Ustwo you shouldn't be. It wasn't a comparison, simply my perferrence for debate partners.

Again, I'll let this drop if that's what you want, but you seem to be reopening the door, so I'll leave it to you where to continue this conversation.

:orly:

You mean its not host?

:paranoid:

So.... our operative is?

Seriously, you need me to answer that? You're a smart guy; you may be rude and belittling sometimes, but you're definitely smart. I refuse to belive you haven't figured it out for yourself.

I'm only an occasional visitor........ please enlighten me, Jazz?

Yep, I'm obviously stupid, and it wouldn't be fair to label someone based on the limited interaction of the internet when you have eliminated the obvious candidate. I may have a suspect, but unlike others who post here I won't accuse them of being an 'agent' just because I don't agree with their politics or manner of posting.

If you said something you were not suppose to accidentally, it happens, let me know and I'll drop it, but I feel its fair to know who has a professional agenda when posting in what should be a free discussion of ideas when considering their opinion.