Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-30-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...thompson_N.htm
Thompson wants to be 2008's outsider

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
STAMFORD, Conn. — Politician-turned-actor Fred Thompson has been coy with audiences as he flirts with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

In an interview with USA TODAY, however, the former Tennessee senator not only makes it clear that he plans to run, he describes how he aims to do it. He's planning an unconventional campaign using blogs, video posts and other Internet innovations to reach voters repelled by politics-as-usual in both parties.

"I can't remember exactly the point that I said, 'I'm going to do this,' " Thompson says, his 6-foot, 6-inch frame sprawled comfortably across a couch in a hotel suite. "But when I did, the thing that occurred to me: 'I'm going to tell people that I am thinking about it and see what kind of reaction I get to it.' "

USA TODAY ON POLITICS: Thompson wants to 'go right to the people'

His late start carries some problems but also "certain advantages," he says. "Nobody has maxed out to me" in contributions, he notes, and using the Internet already "has allowed me to be in the hunt, so to speak, without spending a dime." .....

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":

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...news_wsj&cid=0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1180...glenews_wsj#CX

......Backers look for Fred Thompson to use a June 2 speech to Virginia Republicans to step closer toward the race. Thompson allies have had discussions with Tim Griffin, the Arkansas U.S. attorney and Rove protégé, about taking a top job with the campaign......

Quote:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/030807PALAST.shtml
Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?
BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide. Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by GREG PALAST

Timothy Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.
March 7, 2007—There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.

But the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/3956129.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, 17:06 GMT 18:06 UK

New Florida vote scandal feared

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.....

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?

The_Jazz · 05-30-2007, 11:19 AM

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?

Bill O'Rights · 05-30-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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?

host · 05-30-2007, 11:52 AM

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.

seretogis · 05-30-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Thank you, mods !

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

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

The_Jazz · 05-30-2007, 12:09 PM

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.

ubertuber · 05-30-2007, 12:16 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post

Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was the Senate Watergate Committee's chief minority counsel in 1973 and 1974. In 1975 he wrote a Watergate memoir entitled "At That Point in Time."

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMDB

Thompson can be seen on the archival footage of the Watergate Hearings in Oliver Stone's JFK (1991). He was one of the active lawyers on the Watergate commitee during the trial.

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.

The_Jazz · 05-30-2007, 12:26 PM

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.

samcol · 05-30-2007, 03:24 PM

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.

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 03:47 PM

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.

Rekna · 05-30-2007, 04:11 PM

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

seretogis · 05-30-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He's a homophobe, for one, voting against having sexual orientation included in hate crimes and against gay marriage.

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?

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

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.

seretogis · 05-30-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

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.

seretogis · 05-30-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

loganmule · 05-30-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"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.

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.

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 07:01 PM

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

Quote:

Did you ever wonder why more and more companies, state and municipal governments, and colleges and universities are granting benefits to gay workers' partners and children? One big reason: It's cheap. On average, it would add 1 percent - 2 percent tops - to employers' benefit costs, says Susan Sandler, editor of a newsletter, HRfocus, for the Institute of Management and Administration in New York.
/snip
As for the financial impact on the government, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that if gay marriage were allowed throughout the United States, it would "improve the [federal] budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years." (That wouldn't make much of a dent in a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0830/p17s01-cogn.html

samcol · 05-30-2007, 07:36 PM

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.

FoolThemAll · 05-30-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"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."

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.

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Hate crime legislation is about as Orwelian as a law can get.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

ut 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.

- 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.

dksuddeth · 05-30-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

wow, an absolutist argument from you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The road to tyranny is subjugation.

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

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

samcol · 05-30-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

FoolThemAll · 05-30-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

- 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.

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.

samcol · 05-30-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

If a black guy killed you because you were white, you'd get the same protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

wow, an absolutist argument from you?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

Yes, I covered that in post #10.

samcol · 05-30-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If a black guy killed you because you were white, you'd get the same protection.

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).

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?

Willravel · 05-30-2007, 08:46 PM

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

Sorry for the threadjack.

host · 05-30-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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, "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:

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...rssnyt&emc=rss
DEBATE ON REPORTING OF NASHVILLE SCANDAL REOPENS

July 22, 1983, Friday
By JONATHAN FRIENDLY, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT); National Desk

A new book has set off a lively debate about how the state's best-known newspaper, The Nashville Tennessean, reported a state official's fight against corrupt bosses.

The debate has focused attention on how the paper treated the opening phases of a big political scandal that involved the Governor it had supported. The debate has also underlined how a book, written away from the pressure of deadlines and shaped according to the writer's dramatic vision, can tell a story sharply different from episodic daily journalism.

The book, ''Marie: A True Story,'' is about Marie Ragghianti, the head of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, who was ousted after she balked at releasing some prisoners who were later proved to have bribed aides to Gov. Ray Blanton. She sued and was ordered reinstated; the Governor left office and was later tried in Federal court on other graft charges.

The book's author, Peter Maas, charges that The Tennessean missed the pardons scandal at first because the editors supported the Governor and later because the reporters had decided Mrs. Ragghianti was only a jilted girlfriend of the Governor's legal counsel.

''Basically they blew the story,'' said Mr. Maas, whose earlier best-seller, ''Serpico,'' was about Frank Serpico, the New York policeman who exposed corruption among his fellow officers. They Say Her Role Was Small

Reporters and editors at The Tennessean said that the story was never as clear-cut as Mr. Maas says and that Mrs. Ragghianti played only a minor role in bringing to light the sale of pardons. They said that the Governor was driven from office not because of the clemency case but because of a liquor license scandal that The Tennessean uncovered. Mr. Blanton's conviction in this case is on appeal.

John Seigenthaler, editor of The Tennessean, said, however, that he had long known Mrs. Ragghianti had an interesting story to tell but his own reporters had been unable to get it. He said he later introduced Mr. Maas to Mrs. Ragghianti, saying, ''She won't talk to us but if you can get her to talk, you will have a female Serpico.''

In 1976, Mrs. Ragghianti, who was 34 years old, divorced and supporting three children, was working in the office of T. Edward Sisk, the Governor's counsel. He encouraged her to seek a position on the State Parole Board.

Mr. Maas's book said that Mrs. Ragghianti, whose father had worked for The Tennessean, asked Mr. Seigenthaler to help her get the appointment. He recommended her to Governor Blanton, whom the newspaper had backed. 'I've Recommended a Lot'

''I have recommended a lot of people for a lot of jobs, in and out of government,'' said Mr. Seigenthaler. He said journalists could often unearth important news through such friendships.

''If John Seigenthaler wrote all the stories he knew, The Tennessean could sell for $2 a copy,'' said Larry Brinton, a reporter for a Nashville television station. As a reporter for The Nashville Banner, which is as strongly Republican as The Tennessean is Democratic, he got Mrs. Ragghianti to talk to him and he wrote the first articles about the Blanton scandals in 1976.

John Haile, who wrote articles on Governor Blanton for The Tennessean and who now heads the editorial pages of The Orlando Sentinel Star, said it was common knowledge in Tennessee that newspapers and politicians were close, adding, ''Perhaps we were too close.''

Mr. Seigenthaler said his efforts in behalf of Mrs. Ragghianti's appointment had not affected coverage of her work because the reporters had not known about the efforts. 'We Covered Her,' Editor Says

Marsha Vande Berg, a city editor at The Tennesseean who covered the story when she was reporting on the Federal courts, said that, on the contrary, she had known of Mr. Seigenthaler's role but he constantly pushed her in 1977-78 to find out whether Mrs. Ragghianti was cooperating with Federal investigators. ''We covered her just as hard and as vigorously as we should have,'' she said.

The Tennessean printed occasional articles about the Federal inquiry but none said the paper was making its own investigation. In its only editorial comment, the paper said the Federal inquiry was a waste of public funds.

Henderson Hillin, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation with whom Mrs. Ragghianti worked, said the press reported as much as it could about her case. ''All she had at the time were her suspicions,'' he said, ''but there was nothing until the F.B.I. made the case.''

When Governor Blanton dismissed her in 1977, she filed suit for reinstatement. At the trial, a year later, the jury took 50 minutes to conclude that the charges against her were trivial and that she should be reinstated. She Sees No Follow-Up

Mrs. Ragghianti said this alone should have alerted The Tennessean that there was substance to her charges of improper pressure from the Governor's office, but she said reporters did not follow up the leads in her testimony.

Tennessean reporters said Mrs. Ragghianti did not go to them with information and would not reply when asked questions. Her lawyer, Fred D. Thompson, said that the only questions his client was ever asked were about her personal life.

Editors and reporters at The Tennessean say they believe Mrs. Ragghianti was having an affair with Mr. Sisk and possibly others, including the Governor. Mrs. Ragghianti said they never asked her about that rumor, which she denies. She adds that, in any event, promiscuity would not excuse selling of pardons.

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":

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...M2NjQ5OGU0YTc=
March 7, 2007 6:00 AM

Law and Disorder
Sherman’s march through the law.

By Fred Thompson

Doesn’t Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor’s press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.

Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. <h3>When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law.</h3> Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.

The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.

From there the players’ moves were predictable. Fitzgerald began his Sherman’s march through the law and the press until he thought he had finally come up with something to justify his lofty mandate — a case that would not have been brought in any other part of the country.

The media by then was suffering from Stockholm syndrome — They feared and loved Fitzgerald at the same time. He was establishing terrible precedent by his willingness to throw reporters in jail over much less than serious national-security matters — the Ashcroft standard! Yet Fitzgerald was doing the Lord’s work in their eyes. This was a “bad leak” not a “good leak” like the kind they like to use. And it was much better to get the Tim Russert and Ari Fleischer treatment than it is to get the Judith Miller treatment. Fitzgerald paid no price for his prosecutorial inconsistencies, his erroneous public statements, or his possible conflicts of interest. And now they get to point out how this case revealed the “deep truths” about the White House.

The second decision was made by Libby himself. It was the decision to spend eight hours without counsel in a grand-jury room with Fitzgerald with this controversy swirling around him while trying to remember and recount conversations with various news reporters — reporters who he knew would be interviewed about these conversations themselves. These, of course, were reporters Libby had no right to expect to do him any favors. This sounds like a man with nothing to hide. This sounds like a man who doesn’t appreciate the position he is in or what or whom he is dealing with.

It is ironic that what Libby is facing today is not due to the evil machinations so often attributed to the White House but rather due to an apparent naivety.

Like most Washington political fights, very few participants have been left unscathed. Among the results of this investigation and trial, there will be less cooperation by public officials in future investigations and less ability of reporters to get information. We should ask ourselves: Are our institutions or is our sense of justice stronger because of this prosecution?

— Fred Thompson, an actor, is a former Republican senator from Tennessee. <h3>He is on the Advisory Committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust .</h3>

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.

The_Jazz · 05-31-2007, 04:49 AM

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?

aceventura3 · 05-31-2007, 09:45 AM

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.

host · 05-31-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ert/index.html
Wednesday May 30, 2007 08:58 EST
Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V - Update VI)

NBC News, yesterday:

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003. . . .

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to [Directorate of Operations - Counterproliferation Division], Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA" . . . .

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

The right-wing noise machine spent the last two years repeatedly, continuously and emphatically telling their followers the exact opposite:

Fred Barnes, Fox News Special Report, November 3, 2005 (via Lexis):

The CIA made such a big deal out of Valerie Plame and her name being published. She wasn't even an covert agent or anything.

Fred Barnes, July 17, 2005 - Fox News roundtable (via Lexis):

Well, wait a minute, though. I mean, look, if they were really pushing this case, really trying to get her name out and discredit and disclose that she was a CIA agent, really out her -- and I don't think she was a covert agent. She worked at a desk in Langley at CIA headquarters.

Mark Levin, National Review, July 18, 2005:

Despite all the hype, it appears that Plame works a desk job at the CIA. That's an admirable and important line of work. But it doesn't make her a covert operative, and it didn't make her a covert operative when Bob Novak mentioned her in his July 14, 2003, column, or the five years preceding the column's publication, during which time she hadn't served overseas as a spy, either.

Washington Times Editorial, July 19, 2005:

What is known thus far suggests that . . . In July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak first mentioned in passing that Mrs. Plame worked for the CIA, she was not functioning as a covert agent and her work for the CIA was common knowledge.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, July 15, 2005:

Since it seems as clear as anything in this affair that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent the day before Novak's column either, I think we can chalk this up to Joe Wilson's habitual disingenuousness. . .

Nobody ever said that she wasn't working for the CIA -- the question is whether she was a covert spy or a paperpusher, and the answer seems pretty clearly to be the latter.

Rich Galen, Republican strategist, CNN's Situation Room, October 6, 2005 (via Lexis):

GALEN: At the time she was not undercover. She was not a covert -- and we call them officers, not agents. . . We're arguing whether or not she was a covert agent at the time and I'm saying she was not.

Alexander Haig, CNN, October 30, 2005 (via Lexis):

Now, let me tell you, he didn't lay a finger on anyone about a conspiracy associated with the war, or about an effort to get the so -- called State Department official's wife, who was really a bureaucrat and not a covert operator.

John Hinderaker Powerline, November 5, 2005:

When CIA leaks hurt the administration, these papers have gleefully passed them on. It was only when Scooter Libby mentioned the name of a non-covert CIA employee, Valerie Plame, that the Post, the Times, and other MSM outlets suddenly developed a faux concern about lapses in security.

Barbara Lerner, National Review, March 19, 2007:

The charge was false, and the CIA knew it was false from the get-go. Valerie Plame was their employee; they knew she was not a classified agent because she was not covert and had not worked abroad for more than five years.

Robert Novak, CNN's Crossfire, September 29, 2003 (via Lexis):

According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about? Pure Bush-bashing.

Many people who listen to right-wing commentators such as these get their "news" about the world primarily, even exclusively, from these sources. And these sources, knowing that, routinely create their own self-affirming though wildly warped realities, in the process denying the most established facts or asserting propositions for which there is no factual basis (Fred Barnes: "The CIA made such a big deal out of Valerie Plame and her name being published. She wasn't even an covert agent or anything" -- Glenn Reynolds: "Since it seems as clear as anything in this affair that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent the day before Novak's column").

And there are countless identical statements about Plame that are not included here where the commentator confined their assertion to whether Plame was "covert" within the parameters of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Victoria Toensing, for instance, repeatedly made misleading statements insinuating that Plame was not covert -- even calling for Senate Democrats to investigate the CIA's criminal referral of the Plame disclosure -- but typically couched those claims as a statutory analysis, rather than a straight-forward claim about her employment status with the CIA.

But the above-listed right-wing pundits simply made clear, unequivocal statements about Plame's status with the CIA that were outright false. They had no basis at the time for making such statements. But, as they so often do, they made them anyway, because those statements helped to defend the Leader and bolster their political agenda. Most of all, they know that their readers will trust what they say even when those statements are demonstrably false.

That is the purpose they serve -- to say whatever needs to be said, whether true or false, to diffuse concern among their followers that the Leader has engaged in any real wrongdoing. That is why Tim at Balloon-Juice -- who last night said: "I could entertain myself for hours looking up the hair-singingly civil manner that countless conservative blogs attacked the idea that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. If one in twenty corrects their error you can color me shocked" -- can rest easy. No shock is forthcoming. These falsehoods are never acknowledged, let alone retracted, because they are a critical part of the role they play.

UPDATE: This morning, I read through roughly 50 or so (at least) panel discussions and "news" items from Fox News over the last couple of years on the Plame matter. If Fox were your principal source of news, you would believe that the proposition that Valerie Plame was not considered "covert" by the CIA was a fact so established that nobody really questioned it:

Fox "moderate" Mort Kondracke, Special Report with Brit Hume, September 1, 2006 (via Lexis):

I don't think we know that Karl Rove knew and I assume that Scooter Libby may have known but he may have -- you know, she was not a covert officer, she was not a covert agent, and she was not covered by the intelligence agent's identities act. So, all of that is beside the point.

Laura Ingraham, Hannity & Colmes, March 7, 2007:

This is bizarre that this case would have gone this far when they knew who leaked this information, and they knew that this was not a situation where Valerie Plame, at this point in time, at least, was a covert agent.

David Rifkin & Lee Casey, National Review, January 25, 2007:

First and foremost, based on information in Wilson's book, among other places, it became abundantly clear that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, but an official based in Langley whose identity was well-known around town.

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Corner, September 30, 2003:

Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already.

Imagine having risked your life to go undercover for your country as a CIA operative and then having to listen to the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes and company belittle your work by falsely insulting you as a "desk jockey" and acting as though you were nothing but a worthless file clerk, all in order to protect the Leader and assure his followers that they did nothing wrong.

UPDATE II: Once Valerie Plame testified before a House Committee in March that she was covert and had traveled overseas in that capacity within the five years prior to her outing (a fact which the newly released CIA documents confirm), CIA Director Michael Hayden also confirmed that she was, indeed, "covert."

As a result, Fred Barnes -- who had spent the last two years stating unequivocally that she was not covert -- began saying things like this, on Brit Hume's March 16, 2007 show (via Lexis):

If anybody triggered the exposure of her as an agent and it's very unclear what "covert" actually means because it's not clear that under the act that actually designates whether an agent is covert or not, whether that applied to her or not.

In the face of conclusive evidence that Plame was "covert," Barnes simply abandoned his two-year-long assurances that she was not covert and began pretending that it was "unclear." He never once retracted anything he said or even acknowledged having spewed plainly false claims so emphatically, and he never will.

Who would possibly consider someone who engages in deceitful behavior like that to be even remotely credible? And Barnes' behavior here is merely illustrative; it was replicated by virtually the entire right-wing propaganda edifice.

UPDATE III: In February of 2006 this year, Tony Snow guest-hosted for chatted with Bill O'Reilly and said this (h/t Zack):

Very quickly -- very quickly, you got this Valerie Plame case. Now, it turns out that [special counsel] Peter (sic: Patrick) Fitzgerald doesn't -- can't even identify any harm. She wasn't a covert agent. She wasn't compromised. . . She wasn't covert anymore.

Are there any consequences at all for the White House Press Secretary to tell outright lies like that? Does that prompt any media scandals? Why can Tony Snow say with impunity that Plame "wasn't a covert agent" when their own CIA confirms that she was? Really, how can that be allowed? (Correction: Snow's statement was made in February, 2006, prior to his becoming Press Secretary. Dishonest defenses of the administration on Fox is how he trained for that job. He still ought to be asked about it).

UPDATE IV: In WashingtonPost.com today, Dan Froomkin notes an amazing fact:

Even as the Libby case was about to go to the jury, the Washington Post published a scathing opinion piece by Victoria Toensing in which she charged Fitzgerald "with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed" because he "should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there."

Just compare the statements Toensing made with such certainty to actual reality, to the truth, and one sees all one needs to in order to know exactly what Toensing is. That is who Bush followers pointed to as the authoritative source on the Plame matter -- someone who ran around accusing Patrick Fitzgerald of acting improperly because he "should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert."

Speaking of which, Glenn Reynolds mentions that "Patrick Fitzgerald says Plame was covert" without ever bothering to note that Reynolds emphatically told his readers the exact opposite. Then he adds an update claiming that he was contacted by a Salon reporter (I don't know who) "who wanted to know if [he] was going to 'retract'" his earlier false statements about Plame, and this is what Reynolds said: "I noted that one normally issues a retraction for original reporting, not commenting upon other people's news stories."

There you have it. Reynolds thinks he is free to spew all sorts of false statements and never retract them when proven wrong because one does not issue retractions when "commenting upon other people's news stories" -- even if what one says is factually and completely false.

Just as was true for his right-wing comrades, it was Reynolds' own affirmative statements about Plame which were false, not merely news stories he cited: e.g., "it seems as clear as anything in this affair that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent the day before Novak's column either" and "the question is whether she was a covert spy or a paperpusher, and the answer seems pretty clearly to be the latter." They will do anything to avoid admitting that the propaganda they fed their readers was false.

Reynolds also links to a post from Tom Maguire which is so self-evidently dishonest it is barely worth a reply. Maguire says he is still "unconvinced" that Plame was covert and that news reports confirming her covert status are merely based upon the belief that "when a prosecutor expresses an opinion in a sentencing memorandum, that is dispositive." That's just a deliberate falsehood.

Yesterday's story about Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert. That conclusion is consistent with the initial 2003 determination of the CIA that she was covert, the subsequent confirmation from the current CIA Director (handpicked by Bush and Cheney) that she was covert, which in turn was confirmed by Plame herself when testifying under oath, all of which led the Republican federal prosecutor to emphatically state this in court.

But even in the face of that conclusive evidence from multiple authoritative sources (all of which Maguire conceals from his readers by claiming it is all based on nothing more than "Fitzgerald's opinion"), Maguire still says the issue cannot be decided, presumably because Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds and Laura Ingraham say she was not covert and - hey! - who can say who is right? It's all still up in the air!

Blue Texan has much more on the Reynolds/Maguire game here, and Maguire shows up there to repeat his excuse-making in the comment section. But it does not matter how transparently false Maguire's claims are. They will link to it and rely on it because it does the trick -- it provides a hook for followers of the right-wing noise machine to avoid the recognition that they were lied to for two straight years about Plame, and more importantly, it provides an escape route for right-wing pundits to avoid admitting error ("we still don't know if Plame was covert!").

UPDATE V: Bill Bennett on the Bill O'Reilly Show, November 14, 2005 (h/t via email from this gentleman):

When this information was supposedly leaked about Valerie Plame, everybody went nuts. Turns out she wasn't covert.

The list simply would not have been complete without a contribution from the Virtuous One.

UPDATE VI: Here is an excellent summary of the mountain of evidence demonstrating Plame's covert status, all of which -- as noted there -- is being steadfastly ignored by those, such as Maguire, trying to claim that this is still an open question. As the post asks of Maguire: "Why pretend like Fitzgerald has formed his opinion out of thin air? Why ignore the evidence? Why not at least tell the whole story? Would it make your continued skepticism too difficult to maintain?"

Even if one accepted Maguire's "we-still-don't-know" defense, that amounts to a clear indictment (not that Maguire would ever say so) of all of the above-cited right-wing pundits (such as Toensing) who said definitively that we do know and that Plame was not covert. But now, the only ones who can claim that we still do not know if Plame was covert are the ones who desperately want to avoid knowing.

-- Glenn Greenwald

aceventura3 · 05-31-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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.

ubertuber · 05-31-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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 know the risk she was taking with her husband. 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.

aceventura3 · 05-31-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

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.

seretogis · 05-31-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

ubertuber · 05-31-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

The_Jazz · 05-31-2007, 12:31 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 05-31-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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.

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.

The_Jazz · 05-31-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

05-30-2007, 11:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-30-2007, 11:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
host Banned	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. Last edited by host; 05-30-2007 at 09:46 PM..

05-30-2007, 12:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-30-2007, 12:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-30-2007, 03:24 PM	#9 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. Last edited by samcol; 05-30-2007 at 03:34 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-30-2007, 03:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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. Last edited by Willravel; 05-30-2007 at 04:15 PM..

05-30-2007, 04:11 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	With the Democrats being the party that is in bed with the Hollywood elite the Republicans sure run a lot of movie stars.

05-30-2007, 07:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. Last edited by samcol; 05-30-2007 at 07:39 PM..

05-30-2007, 08:46 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Okay, I'm moving this to another thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...85#post2254585 Sorry for the threadjack.

05-31-2007, 04:49 AM	#30 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-31-2007, 09:45 AM	#31 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-31-2007, 12:31 PM	#38 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo