Tenet resigns today. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 06-03-2004, 07:32 AM

Resigned for "personal reasons"
Will Tenet enter the land of the "Disgruntled" (tm)?
Only time will tell.

This may have tight connections to the Plame investigation and Bush hiring a private lawyer. I didn't know what to make of that hiring until I saw this story today.
It's just capitol hill blue. But it does offer an explanation for why Bush felt the need to hire a lawyer. Up until now I actually believed that Plamegate was all done without his knowledge.

Quote:

BUSH KNEW ABOUT LEAK OF CIA OPERATIVE'S NAME

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_4629.shtml

Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.

Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

This will be an exciting run up to election. I hope, whoever it was that did it, gets the death penalty for Treason.

Rekna · 06-03-2004, 08:04 AM

one down two to go (Rumsfeld/Bush)

Wax_off · 06-03-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
one down two to go (Rumsfeld/Bush)

Three. Cheney too. Wait... Four. Asscroft. Oh forget it, all of them.

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 09:00 AM

I have a lot of respect for our governmental officials - no matter what their political affiliation. The pressure they are under is unmerciful. The good jobs they do for us are the hardest jobs in the world. The phrase "public servant" is not an empty phrase.

It takes solid people to staff these positions. It takes nothing at all to take easy and off-the-cuff potshots at them.

apeman · 06-03-2004, 09:12 AM

*gropes for something positive to say*

I quite like Colin Powell, he seems ok to me

Kadath · 06-03-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I have a lot of respect for our governmental officials - no matter what their political affiliation. The pressure they are under is unmerciful. The good jobs they do for us are the hardest jobs in the world. The phrase "public servant" is not an empty phrase.

It takes solid people to staff these positions. It takes nothing at all to take easy and off-the-cuff potshots at them.

With all due respect, I consider "firefighter" to be a tougher job than "career politician." I also think "teacher" is a job more deserving of respect and admiration. That being said, it can't be easy to be in the spotlight all the time, and the jobs are difficult. However, I imagine the power and influence that comes along with the job might help to ease things, something which cannot be said for "police officer" or the other jobs I have listed.

hannukah harry · 06-03-2004, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I have a lot of respect for our governmental officials - no matter what their political affiliation. The pressure they are under is unmerciful. The good jobs they do for us are the hardest jobs in the world. The phrase "public servant" is not an empty phrase.

It takes solid people to staff these positions. It takes nothing at all to take easy and off-the-cuff potshots at them.

it takes solid people to staff these positions well. To do a good job. Unfortuantly, we don't have solid people staffing these positions.

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 10:59 AM

You guys are right. I should have said they have some of the world's hardest jobs. Thanks.

The hardest job in the world, of course, is the job of President of the United States.

Superbelt · 06-03-2004, 11:05 AM

And we should have a dedicated, highly intelligent, principled man in that position who can wisely staff his office with people who will not compromise national security for political one-upmanship.

Like they did with Plame.

Good old blast from the past.

Quote:

Robert Novak July 14, 2003
WASHINGTON -- The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.

Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position -- viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post July 6, he talked about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," asking: "What else are they lying about?"

After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. "The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech." The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 11:08 AM

Of course, you are aware that in my opinion, we have the sort of man described by your initial statement in George Bush.

Superbelt · 06-03-2004, 11:10 AM

You are right. So you fight for what you believe in, I fight for what I do. And in early November we will see who is most successful in selling that to the public.

Deal?

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 11:12 AM

Absolutely.
And if your man wins, I will be far more supportive of the expressed and executed will of the people as personified by the victor than I see from the opposition today.
That's a guarantee from me, because:
I love my country. I have a great deal of respect for our elected officials. And I am a patriot.

Superbelt · 06-03-2004, 11:18 AM

Cool.

I also love my country. I have a great deal of respect for our elected officials who execute their post in good faith and am a patriot.

But I don't think you believe any of that.
And for that I feel the need to repost these.

Quote:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."
- Thomas Paine

Quote:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 11:32 AM

I mean what I say.

onetime2 · 06-03-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Absolutely.
And if your man wins, I will be far more supportive of the expressed and executed will of the people as personified by the victor than I see from the opposition today.
That's a guarantee from me, because:
I love my country. I have a great deal of respect for our elected officials. And I am a patriot.

Amen Art.

I almost wish for Kerry to win so that we "biased", "Bush loving" conservatives can prove that we won't stoop to the level(s) exhibited by the majority of "Anti Bushies". I promise:

I will not rejoice in Kerry falling off a bike.

I will not call him an idiot for everything he does.

I will not wish him harm.

I will not claim "conspiracy" whenever an email contains a solitary questionable line

I will not claim he's destroying the country because I don't agree with his stands

I will not compromise my beliefs because "anything" is worth it to get rid of him

etc, etc, etc

apeman · 06-03-2004, 11:56 AM

it is a bit sad when "politics" is reduced to whether Bush is an idiot or not

uh ... he does tend to polarise opinion though doesn't he?

Scipio · 06-03-2004, 12:08 PM

Well, if they're only half as mean to Kerry as they were to Clinton, it's a step in the right direction. Then again, it's Tom Delay and Grover Norquist we're talking about here. They aren't exactly the principled statesmen this country deserves. This is not to say that the Republican party as a whole isn't good, or that there aren't any good individuals in there, but that many of its leaders are power hungry people.

It's a gamut on both sides. For every Delay, there's a John McCain. For every Daschle, there's a Wellstone.

Now, back to the topic.

I wouldn't count Tenet among the "evil Bush administration folk" that many people on my side of the aisle would like to snub. He was a Clinton appointee, but not a partisan for either side. In this case, not having a side seems to have hurt him a bit. CIA directors are supposed to be non-partisan, and he was, but non-partisan leaders in Washington don't have a team backing them up. I'm not sure we'll ever know why Tenet resigned. He might have been forced out, though I doubt that. There was no scandal for him to take the fall for, and it doesn't seem to me that he's a casualty of anything. Sure, some inaccurate intelligence got out of the CIA, but the CIA estimates were more accurate than the ones put out by the White House.

In my mind, Tenet should have resigned when it became apparent that the CIA was nothing more than a tool for promoting White House policy. When CIA estimates didn't support what the WH wanted to do, either the CIA was pressured to revise the estimates, or other sources were used. In my mind, it's unacceptable to treat the intelligence community like that. They should never have to choose between reporting what they feel is accurate, and skewing their reports to pacify the White House.

Wax_off · 06-03-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Amen Art.

I almost wish for Kerry to win so that we "biased", "Bush loving" conservatives can prove that we won't stoop to the level(s) exhibited by the majority of "Anti Bushies".

Ah, I so wish that kind of tolerance had been on view when Clinton was president. If you remember, conservatives attacked him relentlessly for his entire two terms. And not just during the Lewinsky scandle. Remember Whitewater? How much of the publics money was spent and nothing came of it?

I have little doubt that if Kerry is elected that conservatives will stoop to exactly the same level if not deeper. They've already started in the campaign. Face it, this is the face of American politics now. And I submit that it was started (or at least dramatically worsend) by conservatives during the Clinton presidency.

prb · 06-03-2004, 01:18 PM

What about the timing of Tenet's resignation announcement? Announced the same day that it was disclosed in the press that Chalabi was passing on intelligence secrets to the Iranians. Iran was told by our man Chalabi that the CIA had cracked Iran's coded intelligence communications. Someone high up within the CIA or WH must have spilled the beans to Chalabi.

Scipio · 06-03-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prb
What about the timing of Tenet's resignation announcement? Announced the same day that it was disclosed in the press that Chalabi was passing on intelligence secrets to the Iranians. Iran was told by our man Chalabi that the CIA had cracked Iran's coded intelligence communications. Someone high up within the CIA or WH must have spilled the beans to Chalabi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/po...rint&position=

Quote:

Officials would not identify who has taken polygraph examinations or even who has been interviewed by F.B.I. counterespionage agents. It could not be determined whether anyone has declined to submit to a polygraph test.

No one has been charged with any wrongdoing or identified as a suspect, but officials familiar with the investigation say that they are working through a list of people and are likely to interview senior Pentagon officials.

The F.B.I. is looking at officials who both knew of the code-breaking operation and had dealings with Mr. Chalabi, either in Washington or Baghdad, the government officials said. Information about code-breaking work is considered among the most confidential material in the government and is handled under tight security and with very limited access.

But a wider circle of officials could have inferred from intelligence reports about Iran that the United States had access to the internal communications of Iran's spy service, intelligence officials said. That may make it difficult to identify the source of any leak.

"Senior Pentagon officials" is a pretty exclusive club, and as the article notes, even if someone didn't know for a fact that Iranian codes were compromised, they could have inferred that fact from other intelligence. I also heard that Chalabi heard about it from a "drunk" CIA analyst. There's no telling, but it's common knowledge that Chalabi was closely connected to a number of high ranking Pentagon and White House officials.

Sparhawk · 06-03-2004, 03:23 PM

It's. About. Fucking. Time.

Worst DCI Ever.

matthew330 · 06-03-2004, 03:27 PM

I don't know much about CapitalHillBlue, nor about this case for that matter. I do know that some outspoken critic of Bush or the war, probably both, had his wife exposed as a CIA operative. Not sure whether or not the two are a cause / effect relationship. I suppose it certainly wouldn't be unheard of and it'd be real fucked up if it were the case. If there were some vendetta the government felt were necessary, couldn't they attack him. Isn't attacking someone that's working for you sort of "cutting your nose off despite your face." Isn't the government more crafty than this at shutting someone up?

Clearly something happened, whether intentional (in effect treason) or careless (that's how little i know about this). But there are two things i notice about this:

1. It really boils down to the frequency of the accusations, not too mention the severity of them, made against Bush since the day he took office. I couldn't begin to tell you the # of articles cut and pasted here and elsewhere of fairytales of Bush scandals that a month later you hear nothing about.

2. The website from which this article came, and my purpose here is not to write off the entire subject, it admittedly needs to be investigated but.....on it's home page it took an event that happened in my city, Baltimore, a few months ago where a teenage birthday party resulted in a 12 year old girl getting sent to Hopkins because she got the shit kicked out of her for kissing a boy on the cheeks, and it was instigated by the birthday girls mother who told her daughter "take care of your business." Well this crazy situation according to capitol hill blue is a result of a patriarchal society where women are failing at taming men, men are making women evil. I don't know, i just need a more credible source to make me feel so much anger at this situation that im ready to put someone to death for treason (the anger from the left is already clearly there).

3. The title of the article "Bush knew about CIA operative's leak and did nothing to stop it". Of course the article itself is all "allegedly", but it seems to me the title is definitively accusing Bush of treason.

Long before this Iraq war my Mom's neighbor who she was relatively friendly with (even to this day i think), told her she wished president Bush were dead. There is a hatred for this man, that i just don't get, and it pisses me off - especially because i like him, and I believe he is honest, and does what he does because he believes it's the right thing to do.

My Mom's super conservative, my dad not so much - definately sees both sides of the aisle, but i think a little more to the right. Little story: My mom DESPISED Clinton, his policies, his treatment of women, etc etc. But my parents went to some play or opera in DC with a friend of theirs (who felt the same as my Mom) and he Clinton walked down the aisle. Everyone stood and clapped except my parents friends who refused. Afterward my Mom tore this guy a new asshole saying "I don't like him as a person, nor his policies but he occupies an office which transcends all of that and until he's gone he deserves respect."

The t-shirts 'Not my president", "Pull out Bush, your daddy should have", Thief, Liar, Mass Murderer, etc etc, from day 1....... well, i'm going to need a more credible source before i suggest some high level government official deserve "the death penalty", and a few more details to convince me that this isn't another selfish baseless attack.

onetime2 · 06-03-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
Ah, I so wish that kind of tolerance had been on view when Clinton was president. If you remember, conservatives attacked him relentlessly for his entire two terms. And not just during the Lewinsky scandle. Remember Whitewater? How much of the publics money was spent and nothing came of it?

I have little doubt that if Kerry is elected that conservatives will stoop to exactly the same level if not deeper. They've already started in the campaign. Face it, this is the face of American politics now. And I submit that it was started (or at least dramatically worsend) by conservatives during the Clinton presidency.

It became no worse than countless other administrations. The only difference was the appetite of the press. While in the past the press "protected" Presidents and politicians to an extent, today's press is after only ratings. The Republican party can control the press no more than the Democrats can. When there's blood in the water the press attacks and where there's controversy, politicians are sure to push their agendas.

The attacks against Bush are worse, IMO, because they are encouraging terrorist organizations by showing a fractured country which they think will turn tail and run when faced with more death. A united front is the appropriate face to present to our enemies but that certainly isn't going to happen with the political climate of today.

Boo · 06-03-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
Ah, I so wish that kind of tolerance had been on view when Clinton was president. If you remember, conservatives attacked him relentlessly for his entire two terms. And not just during the Lewinsky scandle. Remember Whitewater? How much of the publics money was spent and nothing came of it?

I have little doubt that if Kerry is elected that conservatives will stoop to exactly the same level if not deeper. They've already started in the campaign. Face it, this is the face of American politics now. And I submit that it was started (or at least dramatically worsend) by conservatives during the Clinton presidency.

I imagine that if Kerry were to be elected and pulled the same bullshit that Clinton did then he would get the same treatment.

Like Bush can get a break or it just started in politics. Heh!

assilem · 06-03-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Absolutely.
And if your man wins, I will be far more supportive of the expressed and executed will of the people as personified by the victor than I see from the opposition today.
That's a guarantee from me, because:
I love my country. I have a great deal of respect for our elected officials. And I am a patriot.

*Thunderous Applause!!!!*

KillerYoda · 06-03-2004, 06:53 PM

Poor bastard. If history tells us anything, he better not go canoeing at midnight and end up like William Colby.

Superbelt · 06-03-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
It became no worse than countless other administrations. The only difference was the appetite of the press. While in the past the press "protected" Presidents and politicians to an extent, today's press is after only ratings. The Republican party can control the press no more than the Democrats can. When there's blood in the water the press attacks and where there's controversy, politicians are sure to push their agendas.

The attacks against Bush are worse, IMO, because they are encouraging terrorist organizations by showing a fractured country which they think will turn tail and run when faced with more death. A united front is the appropriate face to present to our enemies but that certainly isn't going to happen with the political climate of today.

Come now, you know the attacks on Clinton went much farther than that. Impeachment. That doesn't happen often. And over 'lying' about a blowjob. The millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Watergate that never turned up anything.
That goes well beyond what has happened to most any other president outside of Nixon.

onetime2 · 06-04-2004, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Come now, you know the attacks on Clinton went much farther than that. Impeachment. That doesn't happen often. And over 'lying' about a blowjob. The millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Watergate that never turned up anything.
That goes well beyond what has happened to most any other president outside of Nixon.

First off there is a big difference between just lying about a BJ and committing perjury. Minimizing the fact that he committed a crime while in office is unacceptable to me but that subject has been beaten to death elsewhere.

As far as why it went as far as it did, you don't think the unprecedented press coverage and the bitter disputes throughout the country at the water cooler had anything to do with Republican's ability to get it to that level? Even Democrats were open to censure and other options because the level of outrage around the country was significant enough for them to fear for their re election hopes.

Several trends converged to enable the impeachment vote. Clinton's constant story changes, the general distrust people had in him prior to the "scandals", the salaciousness (sic?) of the press which was growing for years before Clinton. Remember the Gary Hart scandal and the William Kennedy Smith story? Both had sex and politics interwoven. The ratings for these taught the media that these stories equalled viewers. Look back to the days of JFK and you didn't see many stories about his trysts because the public didn't have the appetite for it. The public was a little more respectful of others' "privacy" than they are now. Hell even while Reagan was in office there was talk about Nancy's "affairs" but the public didn't buy into it. People want to see scandal and the media is more than happy to portray anything they can that way to generate ratings.

Kadath · 06-04-2004, 06:14 AM

So onetime2, bottom line is people who don't support the president now are petty jerks who don't love the country, people who didn't support Clinton were justifiably angry and restrained? I can't wait for you to not stoop to our level if Kerry wins.

onetime2 · 06-04-2004, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
So onetime2, bottom line is people who don't support the president now are petty jerks who don't love the country, people who didn't support Clinton were justifiably angry and restrained? I can't wait for you to not stoop to our level if Kerry wins.

Yep that's exactly what I said. No doubt about it.

If you want to continue putting your perceived conservative beliefs into my mouth I will have to ignore your posts.

As stated in the previous posts:

The only reason Clinton was so tormented was the desire of the public to be entertained by the story. If the public and press wasn't reacting to it his opponents wouldn't have persisted. Does that mean they were "justifiably angry and restrained"? Of course not. It means the politicians took advantage of the winds of public interest.

As far as all those who don't support the President being "petty jerks who don't love the country" I've never said anything of the sort. There's little doubt that quite a few TFP regulars have expressed extreme pettiness in their posts about the President. You want to disagree about issues, then do so but stop resorting to personal attacks and rejoicing at every minor mistake he makes (falling off a bike, choking on a pretzel, falling from a Segway, mispronouncing "nuclear", etc, etc, etc).

Anyone who thinks portraying a splintered image to the world with regard to our enemies is a good thing is hopelessly naive. Feel free to disagree but please don't put words in my mouth, it's a trend that's rather annoying and leads to no rational discourse.

ARTelevision · 06-04-2004, 07:05 AM

It's not always easy to put effort into our responses to the degree that civility is maintained. It's always necessary however.

Everyone, please take a step back from the vortex. It should be apparent when one is approaching a black hole event horizon.

Superbelt · 06-04-2004, 07:13 AM

You and I both know, with common sense that Clinton , in effect, lied. But when it comes to perjury that is a much dicier subject. From what I have read it is an extremely flimsy argument and unlikely to succeed if Clinton were tried for Perjury. Finally, He wasn't tried for perjury.

But that was good enough for the Republicans who took an issue from a CIVIL trial and brought it to further national attention.

So, are you saying that Republicans were just responding to the press coverage of Clinton? That they couldn't resist because the press just kept it in their faces? It shows how childish they are then that they were so easily manipulated then by the media? No, I don’t believe that. There was intense hatred by republicans for Clinton. Much past anything we can muster up for Bush I believe.

Hell in addition to the Blowjob, and Whitewater in which they used a vehmenently partisan prosecutor to go over every inch of his life and put together a report that read like pornography. There were allegations of Clinton being a rapist and murderer. His wife being a lesbian. His friends were arrested to intimidate them into incriminating Clinton. And those are only the ones that became mainstream attacks against Clinton.

Finally Clinton’s personal approval ratings did slip during all the mudslinging, that is to be expected because of the sheer volume and pitch of it. So what you are saying is the Republicans were feeding off their own scandalous press? But Clinton’s job approval ratings soared There was nothing the Republicans could accuse Clinton of that could even dent that. In fact the ‘pub attacks only seemed to bolster his ratings. People didn’t distrust Clinton. My grandmother for instance thought it was stupid that Clinton finally gave the Republicans something to attack him with, but she realized just how petty and horrible the constant attacks were. She doesn’t like Kerry but she said she will never be able to bring herself to vote for a Republican because of how they slandered Clinton. And she would have voted for Bush this election otherwise. She is pretty socially conservative and agrees with him on abortion and gay marriage. She hates that they weakened this country by diverting our leaders attention from important issues with petty bullshit that had no bearing on how he performed his job.

The way I see it, at least the anti-Bush people are going after Bush for the way he is running the country. For the decisions he is making. The Clenis haters were attacking Clinton for who and what he was.

onetime2 · 06-04-2004, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
You and I both know, with common sense that Clinton , in effect, lied. But when it comes to perjury that is a much dicier subject. From what I have read it is an extremely flimsy argument and unlikely to succeed if Clinton were tried for Perjury. Finally, He wasn't tried for perjury.

But that was good enough for the Republicans who took an issue from a CIVIL trial and brought it to further national attention.

So, are you saying that Republicans were just responding to the press coverage of Clinton? That they couldn't resist because the press just kept it in their faces? It shows how childish they are then that they were so easily manipulated then by the media? No, I don’t believe that. There was intense hatred by republicans for Clinton. Much past anything we can muster up for Bush I believe.

Hell in addition to the Blowjob, and Whitewater in which they used a vehmenently partisan prosecutor to go over every inch of his life and put together a report that read like pornography. There were allegations of Clinton being a rapist and murderer. His wife being a lesbian. His friends were arrested to intimidate them into incriminating Clinton. And those are only the ones that became mainstream attacks against Clinton.

Finally Clinton’s personal approval ratings did slip during all the mudslinging, that is to be expected because of the sheer volume and pitch of it. So what you are saying is the Republicans were feeding off their own scandalous press? But Clinton’s job approval ratings soared There was nothing the Republicans could accuse Clinton of that could even dent that. In fact the ‘pub attacks only seemed to bolster his ratings. People didn’t distrust Clinton. My grandmother for instance thought it was stupid that Clinton finally gave the Republicans something to attack him with, but she realized just how petty and horrible the constant attacks were. She doesn’t like Kerry but she said she will never be able to bring herself to vote for a Republican because of how they slandered Clinton. And she would have voted for Bush this election otherwise. She is pretty socially conservative and agrees with him on abortion and gay marriage. She hates that they weakened this country by diverting our leaders attention from important issues with petty bullshit that had no bearing on how he performed his job.

The way I see it, at least the anti-Bush people are going after Bush for the way he is running the country. For the decisions he is making. The Clenis haters were attacking Clinton for who and what he was.

First and foremost, it was perjury. No doubt about it. He was disbarred because of it.

Politicians constantly try to push the stories that will help their cause. This isn't new and it certainly isn't confined to "conservatives". The vast majority of these stories never take off because the public doesn't care about them. Clinton lying under oath about an affair, an alleged pattern of harrassment, etc, etc, etc was a story that the public ate up. Just because they didn't punish Clinton for it, doesn't mean they didn't relish the stories.

Whether they liked it or not everyone had an opinion on the subject and politicians are loathe to offer opinions that would alienate their voters. Dems couldn't push their belief that Clinton did nothing wrong (in terms of perjury) because everyone, as you say, knew he lied.

Certainly the Republicans didn't control the media's coverage of the stories and if there was no public interest in it the "scandal" would have died out. If the story about Cheney's dealings with Haliburton took off with the public do you not think the Dems would be pushing it like mad? Hell they're pushing it like mad without public interest right now. From the very outset the story about a President screwing an intern generates interest. The Republicans didn't force Clinton to do it and he damn well knew that if it got out he'd have issues. His opponents simply made use of the interest just as the Democrats have done and will do again.

The attacks on Bush go far beyond just how he's running the country. Military service from decades ago. Accusations of being a liar for everything he says. Attacks on his privileged upbringing. His business ownership. His performance while in school. Falling off a bike, the segway, choking on a pretzel, etc,etc, etc have what exactly to do with running the country?

I agree that a fair number of the attacks against Clinton were inappropriate but there were several that are entirely justified. Just as investigations into some aspects of the Bush administration are appropriate. But to say that he is not being attacked with ANY inappropriateness is untrue.

pan6467 · 06-04-2004, 08:12 AM

As for the resignation, sometimes things in politics are not fueled by politics, but by personal issues. Perhaps this is the case. We can speculate forever, but I truly believe Tenet (he was placed by Clinton I believe so he isn't necessarily a Bush crony) is one of the few honorable men in this administration and is resigning for no other reasons than the ones he gave.

As for this:

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
First and foremost, it was perjury. No doubt about it. He was disbarred because of it.

Politicians constantly try to push the stories that will help their cause. This isn't new and it certainly isn't confined to "conservatives". The vast majority of these stories never take off because the public doesn't care about them. Clinton lying under oath about an affair, an alleged pattern of harrassment, etc, etc, etc was a story that the public ate up. Just because they didn't punish Clinton for it, doesn't mean they didn't relish the stories.

Whether they liked it or not everyone had an opinion on the subject and politicians are loathe to offer opinions that would alienate their voters. Dems couldn't push their belief that Clinton did nothing wrong (in terms of perjury) because everyone, as you say, knew he lied.

Certainly the Republicans didn't control the media's coverage of the stories and if there was no public interest in it the "scandal" would have died out. If the story about Cheney's dealings with Haliburton took off with the public do you not think the Dems would be pushing it like mad? Hell they're pushing it like mad without public interest right now. From the very outset the story about a President screwing an intern generates interest. The Republicans didn't force Clinton to do it and he damn well knew that if it got out he'd have issues. His opponents simply made use of the interest just as the Democrats have done and will do again.

The attacks on Bush go far beyond just how he's running the country. Military service from decades ago. Accusations of being a liar for everything he says. Attacks on his privileged upbringing. His business ownership. His performance while in school. Falling off a bike, the segway, choking on a pretzel, etc,etc, etc have what exactly to do with running the country?

I agree that a fair number of the attacks against Clinton were inappropriate but there were several that are entirely justified. Just as investigations into some aspects of the Bush administration are appropriate. But to say that he is not being attacked with ANY inappropriateness is untrue.

I have to disagree with you Onetime and agree with Superbelt. Clinton was persecuted the day he was elected. It was a never ending (and to this day Limbaugh and others still work to destroy the man).

Clinton did have his problems but it was a pathetic showing by the GOP to nail him for lying about an affair when any man in this world with some sort of power would lie in court over an affair.

There's a big difference what the Dems are doing to Bush. They are keeping it about the office and how he runs the country. We don't hear many jokes about his drunken daughters, the way we had to hear about how ugly Chelsea was and how she must be scarred from her family (when noone truly knows nor has the right to know what the family relationship is.)

The GOP cries foul when asked about Bush's National Guard record, but they were ok to ruin people's lives and spending billions of our tax money for never ending investigations over any little rumor involving Bill.

In the end the GOP did exactly what they wanted, prevented Clinton from being an effective president. The Dems. have not even been close to the level of despicable behavior that the GOP showed during Clinton.

Hell, Gingrich himself was having an affair with one of his staff while persecuting Clinton. Wonder how many other hypocrites were on the floor in Congress.

In the end history will show the GOP worked to destroy a man's life (Clinton) simply for political power, so that he wasn't able to accomplish what a majority of the voting people elected him to do (for 2 terms). While the Dems. whimpered and tried to draw fire not on Bush's personal life but the way he continuously ruined the US with policies and corruption.

The biggest problem in the US is not taxes, the war, terrorism, morals, whatever the press and politicos want us to believe. The problem that is destroying us faster than anything ever will, is the divisive hatred and apathy the 2 parties hold for each other. And in my opinion it is more the GOP neo cons more than all other groups combined. They do nothing but hate.

elfuq · 06-04-2004, 09:13 AM

Last year, in the UK, something quite astonishing happened. A politician resigned from a position of responsibility because she did not think that she could do the job. She was Estelle Morris, the UK Minister for Education.

Considering the apparant competency and honesty of certain members of the US administration, it might help if they were to take a close look at her example.

<I>Runs away and covers head</I>

onetime2 · 06-04-2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467

I have to disagree with you Onetime and agree with Superbelt. Clinton was persecuted the day he was elected. It was a never ending (and to this day Limbaugh and others still work to destroy the man).

Not unlike Bush (just substitue Michael Moore et al for Limbaugh). Not recognizing the pattern present in politics and the media today is one reason that we are doomed to see it continue.

The attacks against Bush are as politically and personally motivated as those against Clinton. The DNC and Kerry campaigns are simply in the "throw as much crap into the media as possible to see what sticks" stage. Just like the RNC and Gingrich were in the beginning of Clinton's term. The DNC and Kerry just haven't found a story that will resonate with the public. This is partially due to their inability to really go after him in the days after 9/11. If you look at the Dem strategy as being just a couple years behind the Republican strategy against Clinton the strategies are remarkably similar.

They threw out the National Guard stuff, the ties to energy companies, the puppet of Cheney bs, the being in the "pocket of big business" card, the ties to the "oil industry", the Saudis, and the Bin Ladens, too much time on vacation, etc, etc ,etc. These stories just didn't stick.

In Clinton's days it was "travelgate", the FBI files, the "secret healthcare" meetings, Whitewater, etc, etc, etc. Same shit different day. Unfortunately for Clinton and the Dems earlier, there wasn't much news that would push their stories off the page. Today terrorism, the economy, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, prison abuse scandals, and several other things get more focus.

apeman · 06-04-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elfuq
Last year, in the UK, something quite astonishing happened. A politician resigned from a position of responsibility because she did not think that she could do the job. She was Estelle Morris, the UK Minister for Education.

please don't take an example from our government

they pretty much took an example from your government in the first place

this was either
1) a moment of sanity
2) she'd been promised a better job
3) didn't want education any longer (teachers hate ANY minister of education)
4) genuine

now (4) is possible but my money is on (2) or (3)

/back to topic

hasn't some other senior CIA official resigned since too? we only had a brief item on our news over here

elfuq · 06-04-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
please don't take an example from our government they pretty much took an example from your government in the first place

I'm a Brit living in the States who feverishly follows UK politics.

So, I see both sides of the fence.

onetime2 · 06-04-2004, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman

hasn't some other senior CIA official resigned since too? we only had a brief item on our news over here

Yes. According to USA Today:

Quote:

The head of the agency's clandestine service, James Pavitt, plans to announce his retirement Friday — a decision the 31-year CIA veteran made several weeks ago, before he knew of Tenet's decision, a CIA official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Sparhawk · 06-04-2004, 04:44 PM

Okay. I'm guessing now the reason Tenet retired for "personal reasons" as opposed to Bush firing his ass was to stop the Democrats from gaining a PR victory. Still, I'm glad he's out. We should never have Directors serve for more than 4 years, in my opinion, much less seven.

06-03-2004, 09:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I have a lot of respect for our governmental officials - no matter what their political affiliation. The pressure they are under is unmerciful. The good jobs they do for us are the hardest jobs in the world. The phrase "public servant" is not an empty phrase. It takes solid people to staff these positions. It takes nothing at all to take easy and off-the-cuff potshots at them. __________________ create evolution

06-03-2004, 09:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	gropes for something positive to say I quite like Colin Powell, he seems ok to me __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-03-2004, 10:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	You guys are right. I should have said they have some of the world's hardest jobs. Thanks. The hardest job in the world, of course, is the job of President of the United States. __________________ create evolution

06-03-2004, 11:08 AM	#10 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Of course, you are aware that in my opinion, we have the sort of man described by your initial statement in George Bush. __________________ create evolution

06-03-2004, 11:12 AM	#12 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Absolutely. And if your man wins, I will be far more supportive of the expressed and executed will of the people as personified by the victor than I see from the opposition today. That's a guarantee from me, because: I love my country. I have a great deal of respect for our elected officials. And I am a patriot. __________________ create evolution

06-03-2004, 08:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	one down two to go (Rumsfeld/Bush)

06-03-2004, 11:10 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You are right. So you fight for what you believe in, I fight for what I do. And in early November we will see who is most successful in selling that to the public. Deal?

06-03-2004, 11:32 AM	#14 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I mean what I say. __________________ create evolution

06-03-2004, 11:56 AM	#16 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	it is a bit sad when "politics" is reduced to whether Bush is an idiot or not uh ... he does tend to polarise opinion though doesn't he? __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-03-2004, 12:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Well, if they're only half as mean to Kerry as they were to Clinton, it's a step in the right direction. Then again, it's Tom Delay and Grover Norquist we're talking about here. They aren't exactly the principled statesmen this country deserves. This is not to say that the Republican party as a whole isn't good, or that there aren't any good individuals in there, but that many of its leaders are power hungry people. It's a gamut on both sides. For every Delay, there's a John McCain. For every Daschle, there's a Wellstone. Now, back to the topic. I wouldn't count Tenet among the "evil Bush administration folk" that many people on my side of the aisle would like to snub. He was a Clinton appointee, but not a partisan for either side. In this case, not having a side seems to have hurt him a bit. CIA directors are supposed to be non-partisan, and he was, but non-partisan leaders in Washington don't have a team backing them up. I'm not sure we'll ever know why Tenet resigned. He might have been forced out, though I doubt that. There was no scandal for him to take the fall for, and it doesn't seem to me that he's a casualty of anything. Sure, some inaccurate intelligence got out of the CIA, but the CIA estimates were more accurate than the ones put out by the White House. In my mind, Tenet should have resigned when it became apparent that the CIA was nothing more than a tool for promoting White House policy. When CIA estimates didn't support what the WH wanted to do, either the CIA was pressured to revise the estimates, or other sources were used. In my mind, it's unacceptable to treat the intelligence community like that. They should never have to choose between reporting what they feel is accurate, and skewing their reports to pacify the White House. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

06-03-2004, 01:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
prb Psycho	What about the timing of Tenet's resignation announcement? Announced the same day that it was disclosed in the press that Chalabi was passing on intelligence secrets to the Iranians. Iran was told by our man Chalabi that the CIA had cracked Iran's coded intelligence communications. Someone high up within the CIA or WH must have spilled the beans to Chalabi.

06-03-2004, 03:23 PM	#21 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	It's. About. Fucking. Time. Worst DCI Ever. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-03-2004, 03:27 PM	#22 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I don't know much about CapitalHillBlue, nor about this case for that matter. I do know that some outspoken critic of Bush or the war, probably both, had his wife exposed as a CIA operative. Not sure whether or not the two are a cause / effect relationship. I suppose it certainly wouldn't be unheard of and it'd be real fucked up if it were the case. If there were some vendetta the government felt were necessary, couldn't they attack him. Isn't attacking someone that's working for you sort of "cutting your nose off despite your face." Isn't the government more crafty than this at shutting someone up? Clearly something happened, whether intentional (in effect treason) or careless (that's how little i know about this). But there are two things i notice about this: 1. It really boils down to the frequency of the accusations, not too mention the severity of them, made against Bush since the day he took office. I couldn't begin to tell you the # of articles cut and pasted here and elsewhere of fairytales of Bush scandals that a month later you hear nothing about. 2. The website from which this article came, and my purpose here is not to write off the entire subject, it admittedly needs to be investigated but.....on it's home page it took an event that happened in my city, Baltimore, a few months ago where a teenage birthday party resulted in a 12 year old girl getting sent to Hopkins because she got the shit kicked out of her for kissing a boy on the cheeks, and it was instigated by the birthday girls mother who told her daughter "take care of your business." Well this crazy situation according to capitol hill blue is a result of a patriarchal society where women are failing at taming men, men are making women evil. I don't know, i just need a more credible source to make me feel so much anger at this situation that im ready to put someone to death for treason (the anger from the left is already clearly there). 3. The title of the article "Bush knew about CIA operative's leak and did nothing to stop it". Of course the article itself is all "allegedly", but it seems to me the title is definitively accusing Bush of treason. Long before this Iraq war my Mom's neighbor who she was relatively friendly with (even to this day i think), told her she wished president Bush were dead. There is a hatred for this man, that i just don't get, and it pisses me off - especially because i like him, and I believe he is honest, and does what he does because he believes it's the right thing to do. My Mom's super conservative, my dad not so much - definately sees both sides of the aisle, but i think a little more to the right. Little story: My mom DESPISED Clinton, his policies, his treatment of women, etc etc. But my parents went to some play or opera in DC with a friend of theirs (who felt the same as my Mom) and he Clinton walked down the aisle. Everyone stood and clapped except my parents friends who refused. Afterward my Mom tore this guy a new asshole saying "I don't like him as a person, nor his policies but he occupies an office which transcends all of that and until he's gone he deserves respect." The t-shirts 'Not my president", "Pull out Bush, your daddy should have", Thief, Liar, Mass Murderer, etc etc, from day 1....... well, i'm going to need a more credible source before i suggest some high level government official deserve "the death penalty", and a few more details to convince me that this isn't another selfish baseless attack.

06-03-2004, 06:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	Poor bastard. If history tells us anything, he better not go canoeing at midnight and end up like William Colby. __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-04-2004, 06:14 AM	#29 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	So onetime2, bottom line is people who don't support the president now are petty jerks who don't love the country, people who didn't support Clinton were justifiably angry and restrained? I can't wait for you to not stoop to our level if Kerry wins. __________________ it's quiet in here

06-04-2004, 07:05 AM	#31 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It's not always easy to put effort into our responses to the degree that civility is maintained. It's always necessary however. Everyone, please take a step back from the vortex. It should be apparent when one is approaching a black hole event horizon. __________________ create evolution

06-04-2004, 07:13 AM	#32 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	onetime: You and I both know, with common sense that Clinton , in effect, lied. But when it comes to perjury that is a much dicier subject. From what I have read it is an extremely flimsy argument and unlikely to succeed if Clinton were tried for Perjury. Finally, He wasn't tried for perjury. But that was good enough for the Republicans who took an issue from a CIVIL trial and brought it to further national attention. So, are you saying that Republicans were just responding to the press coverage of Clinton? That they couldn't resist because the press just kept it in their faces? It shows how childish they are then that they were so easily manipulated then by the media? No, I don’t believe that. There was intense hatred by republicans for Clinton. Much past anything we can muster up for Bush I believe. Hell in addition to the Blowjob, and Whitewater in which they used a vehmenently partisan prosecutor to go over every inch of his life and put together a report that read like pornography. There were allegations of Clinton being a rapist and murderer. His wife being a lesbian. His friends were arrested to intimidate them into incriminating Clinton. And those are only the ones that became mainstream attacks against Clinton. Finally Clinton’s personal approval ratings did slip during all the mudslinging, that is to be expected because of the sheer volume and pitch of it. So what you are saying is the Republicans were feeding off their own scandalous press? But Clinton’s job approval ratings soared There was nothing the Republicans could accuse Clinton of that could even dent that. In fact the ‘pub attacks only seemed to bolster his ratings. People didn’t distrust Clinton. My grandmother for instance thought it was stupid that Clinton finally gave the Republicans something to attack him with, but she realized just how petty and horrible the constant attacks were. She doesn’t like Kerry but she said she will never be able to bring herself to vote for a Republican because of how they slandered Clinton. And she would have voted for Bush this election otherwise. She is pretty socially conservative and agrees with him on abortion and gay marriage. She hates that they weakened this country by diverting our leaders attention from important issues with petty bullshit that had no bearing on how he performed his job. The way I see it, at least the anti-Bush people are going after Bush for the way he is running the country. For the decisions he is making. The Clenis haters were attacking Clinton for who and what he was. Last edited by Superbelt; 06-04-2004 at 07:19 AM..

06-04-2004, 09:13 AM	#35 (permalink)
elfuq Insane Location: San Francisco	Last year, in the UK, something quite astonishing happened. A politician resigned from a position of responsibility because she did not think that she could do the job. She was Estelle Morris, the UK Minister for Education. Considering the apparant competency and honesty of certain members of the US administration, it might help if they were to take a close look at her example. <I>Runs away and covers head</I>

06-04-2004, 04:44 PM	#40 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Okay. I'm guessing now the reason Tenet retired for "personal reasons" as opposed to Bush firing his ass was to stop the Democrats from gaining a PR victory. Still, I'm glad he's out. We should never have Directors serve for more than 4 years, in my opinion, much less seven. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."