Another Bush crony another scandal
 

Will it ever end with this administration? And will those who crucified Clinton finally start admitting Bush is just as bad if not worse in his dealings?

This is my favorite part...............
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...27&postcount=3

One of the most intriguing Bush appointees is Susan Ralston:<br />

Here is a link to the "map" of "west wing" offices at the white house, and a description of Susan Ralston's job title. What <br />

follows are links and excerpts about her background and "duties". Susan Ralston was Abramoff's long time assistant, before <br />

coming to work at the white house in 2001. Her duties include screening Karl Rove's calls, and apparently submitting names of <br />

callers to Grover Norquist, who reportedly decides who then is cleared to speak with Rove. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald <br />

subpoenaed Ralston, and she testified before his grand jury in July, 2005:
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5060601310.html</a><br />
.....9. Susan Ralston, Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor (Karl Rove)<br />
Steve Atkiss, Special Assistant to the President for Operations

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">

<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133/site/newsweek/?page=2&amp;#note" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133...k/?page=2&amp;#note</a><br />
<br />
STATE OF THE NATION | APRIL 21, 2005<br />

<br />
............But the lobbyist’s ties to the White House extended well beyond money. When top Bush adviser Karl Rove was looking for an assistant in early 2001, Abramoff suggested his own top aide, Susan Ralston. She remains one of Rove’s top deputies. At the same time, Bush tapped Abramoff as member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues. That level of close access to Bush, DeLay and other GOP leaders has been cited by many of the Indian tribes who hired Abramoff with hopes of gaining greater influence with the administration and Congress on gaming issues. Whether the tribes got their money’s worth is a question still being investigated by Congress, but there’s no question some doors were opened. In 2001, Bush met personally with a group of Indian leaders—including at least one tribe represented by Abramoff—to talk about his tax cut plan. The meeting was reportedly arranged by Grover Norquist, a prominent GOP activist with close ties to the administration and Abramoff.<br />
<br />
While many GOP lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from Abramoff, the White House has remained largely quiet on Bush’s ties to the controversial lobbyist. Last fall, when Congress opened hearings into Abramoff’s lobbying and fund-raising, the Bush-Cheney campaign pointedly refused to return a $2,000 contribution check from the lobbyist and said there was no reason to question any other checks Abramoff brought in as a top fund-raiser for the campaign.<br />
<br />
Editor's Note: On April 21, a White House spokesman told NEWSWEEK that Abramoff had played no role in Rove's hiring of Ralston.<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">

<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/24/armey/index1.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...mey/index1.html</a><br />
House divided<br />
GOP enforcer Tom DeLay and his former partner Dick Armey are locked in a nasty dispute over the future of the Republican <br />
<br />

Party.<br />
<br />
By Mary Jacoby<br />
<br />
May 24, 2004 | WASHINGTON <br />
<br />
.....Although he is out of Congress and the GOP leadership, Armey makes his comments at some personal risk; he is now a <br />
<br />
lobbyist on Washington's fabled K Street, which is ruthlessly patrolled by DeLay and his key ally, Americans for Tax Reform <br />
<br />
president Grover Norquist. For years, Norquist and DeLay have worked to purge the nation's corporate lobby shops of <br />

<br />
Democrats, and companies that fill GOP campaign coffers with money are rewarded with access to lawmakers. Enemies don't get <br />
<br />
their calls returned, and without access, they lose clients. Access is coordinated by the White House, often through the <br />
<br />
office of another powerful Texan, political strategist Karl Rove.<br />
<br />
For two years, the assistant who answered Rove's phone was a woman who had previously worked for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a <br />
<br />
close friend of Norquist's and a top DeLay fundraiser. One Republican lobbyist, who asked not to be named because DeLay and <br />
<br />
Rove have the power to ruin his livelihood, said the way Rove's office worked was this: "Susan took a message for Rove, and <br />

<br />
then called Grover to ask if she should put the caller through to Rove. If Grover didn't approve, your call didn't go <br />
<br />
through." ........<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>

<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0406.whoswho.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...06.whoswho.html</a><br />
........How did Norquist attain such influence over Ralston? Flowers every Friday? Redskins tickets? The answer, actually, is <br />
<br />
what the White House ethics lawyers call a "preexisting relationship." Ralston had formerly worked for lobbyist Jack <br />
<br />
Abramoff, a close friend of Norquist's and a top fundraiser for House majority whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).<br />

<br />
Ralston has since left the pressure cooker White House job for possibly the most isolated island in Washington. She is now <br />
<br />
executive assistant to Eddy R. Badrina, the senior advisor of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and <br />
<br />
Pacific Islanders. ............<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">


<!-- / message -->




<!-- sig -->

So this is the Great New Democratic Strategy of the 21st century?
It appears the Dems have finally found a successful political strategy: Shooting Politicians in a Barrel.

Leadership.

Oh please. You're telling me you're forgetting all the witchhunts republicans went on when Clinton was in office? I'm sorry you don't like your comeuppance, but you've more than earned it. At least in this case the democrats have legitimate gripes - being lied to in justification of a war that's killed over 2000 americans and countless Iraqis, having the economy flushed down the toilet, and much more - You republicans had a bullshit whitewater investigation that went nowhere because nothing actually happened, and then you had a sex scandal that was nobody's business and had no reflection on how he conducted his presidency.


If you don't want to be attacked for every little thing, maybe you should change your strategy when the other guy's in office. Of course, if you don't want to be attacked on a daily basis, maybe your party should consider not being corrupt, hardline, hawk criminals who make no attempt to disguise their contempt for anyone not filthy rich. I know it's fun to try and blame the democrats for the fact that your feet are being held to the fire, but your party built the fire, and your party deserves to be held accountable for it.

I will put the accuracy of the content of my posts here at TFP Politics, side by side with yours, powerclown. Why don't you select five or ten of my posts, and I'll select five or ten of yours, and we'll hold them up to the light...

You post your "political majority as victim" <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1927490&postcount=8">message</a>, here, and I post a research rich, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1927497&postcount=8">rebuttal</a>, that you ignore, and then, before long, here you come again, repeating the same message.

President Bush now has an approval rating that is more than 30 points lower than Clinton's was, <b>after the house drew up articles of impeachment against Clinton.</b> This polling result, just as the Dec. 1998 approval number was, is largely due to what republican's have done to themselves, and the American people's reaction to it.

The content of my posts is compatible with 11/05 polling, and my perception of recent political history is in line with 11/98 polling.

And....yours is.....?

If the dems want to keep this as their party-line, keep at it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :crazy:

I just find it pathetic that the same GOP that were so eager to burn Clinton for lieing about cheating on his wife (and that is all they had) are so defensive and seemingly don't give a damn about all the corruption and scandal that Bush seems to be surrounding himself with.

Laugh if you want the polls are showing the people aren't drinking your Kool Aid anymore.

Does it help the Dems? Depends if the Dems find their voice and make names for themselves by offering definitive changes, if not and they just assume these scandals will put them into office they are sadly mistaken.

But none of that changes how corrupt and scandalous this administration is and how hypocritical, partisan and ignorant those that blindly support Bush are.

I read your post, quoted above, and it brought to my mind, only this:
Some of us work too hard to post coherent, researched arguments here, to just let posts like your last one, pass without comment.

And all that is posted by the left, over and over, is the same ol' stuff. And I can't laugh at it?

2 years of investigations and all the left has is Libby lying. That really means nothing. If he lied, he should go to jail, but that is the crux of the liberal crusade against bush. 1 guy alledgedly lied to investigators. Hardly does that make bush surrounded by corruption and scandle. Keep making up stuff and eventually something will happen, like getting someone to do something stupid, like lie to investigators, then you've got an indictment and a real life scandle then the public will more easliy be able to swallow the accusations.

But what was it that upset you? Was it the part where I pointed out what the democratic party line is? or the part where I thought it was funny?

stevo where is your proof that shows "that is all they have"? I don't think it is safe to assume Fitzgeralds investegation is over or the investegation into the reasons for war is over yet.

Not to mention in the buisness world if someone below you messes up big time they will fry for it but you can bet you will catch a lot of heat too.

Where is your proof that there is more? Of course his investigation isn't over yet, bush hasn't resigned and rove isn't in jail. If they had more, after 2 years there would be more indictments on actual matters actually referring to the actual war in iraq, not small potatoes. Keep digging, eventually you'll hit something.

i'm not a prosecuter but i know in the research field you don't jump out and say you found something everytime you think you found something. Instead you verify the information, research it, and get lots of proof to back up your claim that way you are ready for questions when you announce it. I'm sure earl new months ago that libby lied but he didn't announce it until recently. Why is that? Instead there is more investigating going on. If they didn't have anything at all the investegation would be over but it is still going. There are a lot of things that are surfacing because of this investigation and I have a feeling we have only seen the tip of the iceburg.

1.)Rove was not indicted for perjury because Fitzgerald cannot present him at Libby's trial, as an indicted liar, testifying against Libby.
2.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime is similar to a player throwing sand in the umpire's eyes, making it impossible for him to see and then rule on the play...
3.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime delayed results of his investigation by at least a year.

It is ludicrous for you to attempt to downplay the seriousness of this still ongoing investigation, with an argument that <b>"If this is all you got, after two years of digging, then....."</b>, when the prosecutor in the case charges the accused with obstructing his investigation for an additional year!

The accusation that Libby's obstruction enabled the knowledge of the actual crime to be kept from American voters in the November 2004 presidential election, is undsiputed, if Fitzgerald's statements are considered.

You have to ignore most of what Fitzgerald himself said, to post what you do here, stevo. I don't recall reading arguments intended to question his credibility.

Sorry to burst your bubble, host, but that is not proof. Because no one can uncover anything, the coverup worked. Sounds like a pretty sweet idea: make up some charges and then when you can't prove them, its because of a great right-wing conspiracy cover-up that worked! The only thing is the left's tactics don't.

So...special counsel Fitzgerald, "made up some charges". Were his statements about Libby in his 10/28/05 press conference, baseless, as well? If so, he sure fooled the main stream press, and much of the rest of the country.

Compare this investigation to Ken Starr's. There were so many intentional leaks to the press from Starr's office, that the presiding federal judge in the case agreed to having his office investigated. President Bush himself, recently called Fitzgerald's investigation, "dignified".

What is behind this contempt for the law and for the judicial process that you and your brethren exhibit so frequently?

Please make credible, documented assertions here from sources that are respected and in line with the ones that those of us here who exhibit a sincere intention to post reliably and accurately, regularly do, or stop what you have been doing. Politically, these are exceptionally "interesting times"; there are a lot of eyes on you here, stevo, and on me. You do your own reputation no favor by posting in the manner quoted above.

This issue has been driven into the ground and its baseless. It is nothing but an attempt by the left to bring down the bush administration. Do I have to find a writer in the NYT to write this first before I can post it?

Wilson had no experience in WMD's, his wife did. After bush mentioned iraq "trying" to buy yellowcake in niger the CIA sends wilson to investigate. he comes back to the CIA, gives an oral report (he was not required to put it in writing), and he tells the CIA that, yeah, its possible that saddam was looking around, possibly trying to buy uranium.

Then wilson writes an Op-ed piece, that is 180 degrees from his statements at the CIA. The whitehouse reads it and wants to know what is up. Who is this guy, why was he sent to niger, what are his intentions and the intentions of the CIA? No one wants to talk about Joe Wilson and how he lied. The left puts this guy up as a poster child, him and his wife, perfect angels before the big bad evil republicans ruined her career because they were mad at wilson for telling the truth about saddam and niger.

Through the course of the whitehouse's own investigation into the Wilson op-ed piece they figure out that his wife works at the CIA as an analyst on WMD intel. Novak mentions this in his piece because it is relevant information and he was not forbid to mention it (he may have been asked not to mention Plame's name and relationship, but he was not forbid). A couple months later all hell breaks loose because the democrats, bitter about losing at the polls think they might have a way to hurt bush. And, as we all can see, nothing substantial has come from the investigation but one guy allegedly lying to investigators. Because Libby may have lied, does not mean anyone else did anything illegal.

The CIA never raised much concern over Novaks piece, Justice looked into it for a weekend and then dismissed it. yet the left feels it is there mission to figure out who leaked this "covert" agents identity. Too bad the CIA and Justice Dept didn't think it was necessary to figure out.

That is the reason this is a non-story. It is a partisan attempt to bring down an administration. The media feels as if it is reliving watergate, while the left is desparate for power because they cant win at the polls. We've been through this time and time again and nothing has changed, so why should I try and refute every little article you post? Because its all a bunch of horse-poopie. So first I ignored you, then I laughed at you. If you think I'm going to fight you over this you probably think you're going to win, as well.

Well put Stevo. Read an a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that pointed out the samethings, shed light on the situation for me.

I should pick up todays journal...but I can say I haven't read that piece yet.

do you have proof of his oral report being different than his op ed?

Found it

Some truly interesting points, I especially like the 500 page Bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report that didn't put any blame on Bush for the failure of intelligence. Furthermore those statements quoted by democrats about the danger Saddam possessed, hell even Al Gore, a 50 pound heavier beard totting out of work Gore who lost to Bush. Just goes to show this is a pathetic partisan attempt to go after Shrub, although maybe not entirely baseless, at best unfounded nor supported by reality.

There is a real good article here http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html it is quite lengthy, so I will not post it all here, but I will post the part that talks about wilson's report to the CIA and how the CIA interpreted his findings. I do recommend to anyone that really wants to know the facts about this case and not just partisan dribble read the article. I hope factcheck.org is non-partisan enough for everyone.

sorry to threadjack a bit, but wasn't that exactly what the supporters of bush said when no WMDs were found?

that doesn't seem to me like he said two different things. it says there that iraq did not purchase and thing and probably wouldn't ever then stated they wanted to expand commericial relations. I'm sorry but you can't just assume that means buy uranium. Bush asserted that Iraq tried to buy uranium which is definatly not what Wilson asserted. Your post earlier sounded like he said "yes iraq did try to buy uranium" followed by his piece claiming otherwise. Please don't throw out distortions as fact.

Maybe you didn't follow the link and read the whole article. so here's some more
So Wilson gets back from Niger, gives a report to the CIA and this is how they interpret his findings. Then Wilson writes an op-ed piece that can not in any way be close to what he told the CIA, for if it was, the CIA would not have come to these conclusions. These are not distortions. This is actually the intel the CIA received after Wilson spoke with them about his trip to Niger.

Yet, bush lied...That line didn't win the presidency in 2004 and it isn't going to work now.

Senator Pat Roberts' select intel committee, according to Roberts himself, has not even yet investigated the Bush administrations's pre-invasion role of "fixing the facts, yet your "Calre Booth Luce" articel, falsely reports that the "Phae I" report somehow vindicates the Bush administration.

Here is what Roberts himself said when the "500 page report" was released in July, 2004...
So much has to be denied to make any of these TP's from the right, "stick".
Much bluster, no credible references.

To address this point particularly:

Imagine you are an analyst at the CIA and you know that uranium almost constitues 3/4 of niger's exports. Then you here how Saddam sent people to Niger to find out about "expanding commercial relations." How would you interpret this? Buy saying "oh, well you just can't make assumptions like that" you really aren't doing your job now, are you?

You only see what you want to, host.

stevo this is also from that same article
[Quote]
The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.
[\Quote]

Wilson did not tell them that they were seeking, he told them that the nigerian representive though that may have been why they came but that the issue never came up in their meeting. If they were there to buy uranium then they would have brought it up....

I fail to see where Wilson lied.

yet it is clear to you that bush lied?

no it isn't clear to me that bush lied, but it is clear that he may have lied and there was a campaign of disinformation amoung at least one of his subordinates in an attempt to cover something up. Now whenever I see a coverup I ask myself what are they covering up? You don't coverup nothing. You coverup something. I'm just asking that we continue to investigate this until we know the truth of what happend.

And when do you admit to yourself that nothing happened? 2 years, 3 years, or once bush is out of office?

when the investigation produces a report saying there is no credible evidice to suggest that something happend

Are people asserting that Libby lied to cover something up? Way I gather it the dude is a moron because he probably wouldn't have had a reason to lie seeing he had clearance to the info, only a goon would double back on testimony.

Okay let's all take a deep breath and have a good laugh at the name "Jack Abramoff." What an unfortunate sap to have parents that didn't know what "jack off" means. Every time I hear his name in the news I think 'who's Abram and why jack him off?'

Anyone else seen the clip from the Bill O'Reily show where he reads a letter from "Jack Mehoff"? :lol:

I'm curious if some of your are advocating the idea of not investigating potential crimes unless we already have all the evidence needed to prove a crime occured and who the perp is. If this were the case nothing would ever get prosecuted..... we have investagtions to investigate if something happend. if nothing happend then the investigation says so. The way I see it there are only 2 valid reasons to fear an investigation 1) you are guilty 2) you have no faith in our judicial system. So if you fear the investigation which of these two is it?

When the investigation has been completed.

I have hesitated to say anything in this thread, simply because I felt I may need to make a Mod Note to settle things down....but what the hell.

This is an ongoing investigation into what happened, and what did not. To resort to eventual name calling, when the facts are not yet clear seems a bit silly.

Sure....Bush may have had a hand in the deception that is coming to light, or he may have simply not been party to what may be a non-issue in the first place. I ask only one thing:

Do Not Get Nasty With Each Other......please continue.

Well, if all of it just gets posted over and over, why not just ignore it and the thread will die?

There truly is no reason to get sarcastic and vicious. IF you choose not to add any debate because you are tired of the subject then here's a simple thought: IGnore the thread and move on to something you want to debate.

Ok, am I wrong for taking offense here? Apparently my Republican party is criminal in nature, a war-mongering group of "filthy rich" people who are class elitists. Since I am a Republican, I have to assume that this applies to me, as well as the countless Republican politicians that I have known personally on a local, state, and national level.

Guess what - I call "FOUL".

I come here only intermittently, and that is because I have a difficult time wallowing through the sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, and efforts to use an overload of information as a club with which to beat the poster's message into the brains of President Bush's "co-conspirators".

Guess what? I'm a Republican, and I believe that:
1) Abortion is the woman's choice;
2) Government has no business mucking around in religion;
3) Big Oil is bad, and alternative fuels presents real economic opportunities for our country's future;
4) We need less taxes, but corporations should bear a slightly larger tax burden;
5) If you commit perjury as President, and get caught, maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
6) If you lead a nation to war using intelligence that you KNOW is wrong, then maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
7) If advisors close to the President are convicted of a crime, then they should lose their jobs;
8) We created the mess that was Saddam Hussein, and we needed to step up to the plate and fix things;
9) Most of our foreign policy goals in the Middle East, Korean Peninsula, and other areas, should continue to be addressed through diplomacy
10) Even though I make less than $50,000/year, I can still vote Republican

No but it might help if you tried to find SOME credible source to back your posts up. Because otherwise it SOUNDS like you're just spouting the same old bullshit party line pat answer to everything, i.e. "we're wonderful, anyone who says otherwise is lying/a traitor/unpatriotic/just out to get us."

I know it pains you to realize this, but you are backing a group of criminals. You don't have to be convicted to be a criminal - the guy that robs the bank and gets away with it still isn't innocent even if he doesn't get caught by the authorities.

And then you whine that after two years of digging all we've come up with is an indictment of Scooter Libby. Hell, you guys dug for EIGHT YEARS and didn't get JACK on Clinton - but you sure burned through a helluvalot of taxpayer dollars on your witch hunt.

Even if we HAD nothing to find (laughable) and were just on a witch hunt, it would still be absurdly foolish of you to whine about it considering that then we would only be doing the exact same thing you did to Clinton.

Of course, since the reality is that your guy actually IS guilty of, at the VERY least being a complete idiot and doing anything his advisors tell him to do whether it's a good idea or not, it's even more asinine that you take this whining "the whole WORLD is out to get me!" attitude.

You know, frankly that line of BS reminds me of little kids when they're caught misbehaving. It's always something along the lines of "well HE MADE me do it" or "you're just after me because you hate me" or some other childish bullshit like that. Frankly I'd expect the party that claims to be the best choice for America to be a little more adult than that. Shame that so far, at least in this thread, the Republicans are not living up to that expectation.

Moondog, from one moderate to another, thanks for posting that. I'm equally affronted when I am labeled something I am not simply because it doesn't fit someone's narrow ideology of "right" or "left." Please come here more often, as centrist views need a larger voice. :icare:

Your points are well taken, but surely you'll admit that the people currently in power in your party do not share your views on the issues you brought up. As unforutnate as it may be the republican ideals you believe in are not the ones being pushed by the ones in control of your party.

The post that I was responding to was one which is throwing its full support behind the current administration - also republicans - and this is an administration that you yourself disagree with.

So no, my comments were not directed at you.


And for what it's worth, your politics are far more palatable to me than those of many others, republican AND democrat.

Um, why are you a Republican? Is it a local thing? I don't get it. #1-3 are directly at odds with the Republican platform, as is the second half of #4, #5 "maybe", #6 check out the downing street memos, #7 Bush flip-flopped on this one - hard, #8 that certainly wasn't the Republican rationalization for war and you know it, #9 "Axis of Evil" is not diplomacy, #10 okaaay true but why would you--you do know as such that you're now paying MORE of the tax burden than before.

I would guess it's for the same reason that I don't protest too much when someone says I'm a democrat - - it's not that I like the democrats or think they're worth a plug nickel, but they're a hell of a lot better than the republicans.

He probably doesn't like half of what the republicans say, especially the current breed of them, but he likes them better than the dems.

Believe it or not in most cases I'm a moderate. I voted for Bush I in '88, liked Buchanan in '96 and would have voted for him. In '00 I voted for Nader and in '04 because of lack of choice I voted for Kerry although I liked Edwards far more.

In '08 I'll probably vote McCain if he runs, if not I'll probably vote for anyone but Hilary in the primary and in the general election see who is running.

My point is I get attacked for being a "know nothing, rhetoric spewing, leftist who should live anywhere but the US" because of some of my beliefs.

Moderate GOP's have a good platform, the Dems have great social plans and solutions and they are not always tax and spend.

We see Bush cut taxes but spend like crazy..... Clinton, like him or not managed to budget and had a surpluss. But yet Dems are considered the bad guys because of their social plans.

In topics like this I just like to show the hypocrisy of those who wanted to fry Clinton but all these Bush scandals are nothing and just say it's just a Dem ploy.

We are too divided in this nation. We don't truly debate issues anymore because everyone is too wrapped up in their partisan viewpoints and the "I'm right, you're wrong so go take a flying $%^&.

Yet, if we truly sat down got rid of the Limbaugh/Moore mentalities and decided to truly try to better the nation I believe we could. The problem is letting the moderates find their voices.

People like you get shoved aside because the radical GOP want everything their way. Same as the Dems., the moderate Dems. get shoved aside and the radicals make it hard for the rest.

The problem is the radicals aren't getting anything done except taking us totally into the shitter, and the people (and it's the very vast majority) in the middle get tired of hearing it so they tune it all out and don't give a damn anymore. Which, if I were a conspiracist (and I am in some ways), I'd say both radical sides would want so they can continue this fight and divisiveness.

And the moderates like me (socially very liberal, fiscally conservative) get attacked and attacked every time I try to debate so eventually it's take a side and fight to be heard or keep putting up with the bullshit.

I'm too passionate and I fight to be heard because I think my points are worth debating. I prefer to be peaceful but eventually when attacked for my beliefs and not faced with true debate, I fight back because the one thing I hate most is having my beliefs attacked without debate or justification.

Anyway, I hope this helps and explains a side to you.

I wish you and more moderates with level heads would come in and debate and start calling bullshit and start standing up and wanting to be heard. It would be refreshing to hear some of your ideas, beliefs and opinions.

There are some very, very good debaters on the other side (DJ, Bear, Stevo and Mojo when they want to be, and so on) I do respect their opinions because they show me and others respect at least a majority of the time and when they call bullshit on me I take it seriously and look at what I have been saying and showing.

So please hang around, more voices like yours may change the shape of this board and that is needed. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Either what I have posted earlier was ignored or forgotten. Did anyone choose to read the factcheck.org article? I posted the link, posted excerpts I thought were central to my arguement - and actually laid out my entire arguement to begin with. Obviously, something is missing.

I have no problem with an investigation. Investigations are great. Its wonderful that we have a country where those in the highest seats in government can be investigated and held accountable if they commited a crime. You can't say the same for every country. I don't fear an investigation and would love to see fitzgerald's case torn apart in a court of law, and the same lines over and over from the left really don't even bother me. So I ignored them for a while. Then I made some quips and laughed a bit. Apparantly that pissed some people off who challenged me to add something useful to the debate. But when I do go out and get some unbiased sources and lay out my arguement for all to see...well look at the responses I get - they are quoted above.

p.s. clinton was IMPEACHED

Stevo,

I understand what you are saying and my intention on this thread was not to get into the Iraq business.

But to show in my opinion another area in which the Bush administration and one of his "friends" ran their office and abused the power.

We have enough of the Iraq debates.

Your first post you showed laughing but didn't address the topic. Granted, this turned into another Iraq post fast and that may have been my fault because I didn't maintain the focus and I did title it wrong, but when I read the original article and saw another Bush crony involved in another scandal it pissed me off.

Why?

Because as I addressed in the 1st and 7th posts, the GOP were so eager to hound and crucify Clinton that they truly didn't give him much of a chance, yet Bush has scandal after scandal come out and the GOP blindly follow, defend and make excuses for him and it sickens me. It shows me a hypocrisy and that party for some comes before the country. To me that is extremely sad and ultimately very scary.

I’m pretty sure politician is a euphemism for hypocrite (on both sides). It is sad that you see both sides condemning the other side for doing the same as themselves.

Not the politicians, the people. Big difference. Politicians publicly almost always have to follow the party line unless they are strong enough at home to not worry about it (like McCain).

No, I'm talking about the people who even today yell about how corrupt Clinton was (even though all they could get him on was lying about an affair) yet ignore the corruption in the Bush WH and act like Bush is still a great president, who can do no wrong.

They defend every scandal with the same mantra and laugh it off. Yet the evidence such as for this thread's scandal has proof, has GOP senators asking WTF is going on, and yet as with almost every other Bush scandal this will be swept away and forgotten.

There was a sacrificial lamb, a resignation and the administration denying it had anything to do with it.

I just believe if you are going to set a standard for one, you have to follow that standard for all. Which we don't get, we get instead..... "the Dems. are just attacking and there's nothing there." But how many scandals have to come out before one of these GOP posters say, "maybe there is something there, maybe we do need to clean house."

If you keep blindly following along party lines and dismiss scandals then these politicians know they can get away with anything.

And if you are going to try to clean one side up, you best be willing and wanting to clean your side up and hold them to the same standards. Yet, neither party does and it is sad.

I'm all for a full investigation into EVERY member of congress and getting them to start setting true ethics rules and regs that they have to follow strictly and a bipartisan comission to be a watchdog over them and the President to make sure the people are protected.

Perhaps, by doing that there maybe better leadership in both parties and things may actually truly change in Wash.

Good suggestion, except that there would have to be a law passed to do this, and who would vote for it? The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

maybe some judicial activists can reinterpret the constitution to add this oversight ;) Did the supreme court do that once before?

They have the ethics laws there now, but the party in charge is also in charge of the oversight committees.

Like you say the inmates are in charge and perhaps the people should start getting more vocal about wanting a change in how Congress and the President look at their ethics and how much lobbyists influence there is and so on.

When enough voices speak out Congress does listen, even if it is only for their own self preservation.

Plus there's the election finance reform issue, another good cause that is stonewalled because nobody wants to vote down their own funding.

I dunno how likely any public outcry is going to be. People seem to have become numb in the last 5 years, just too much $hit to react to and process anymore. Like living in a sawmill town, eventually you just don't smell it anymore.

Wow. I'll give this to you. You're very good. You almost had everyone fooled into thinking that was the point I addressed in my post to you. Unfortunately, this is what I was replying to, NOT whether or not Bush lied:


You have no evidence that this is baseless, you have no evidence (hint: Rush Limbaugh does not count as evidence) that it's just petty bullshit from the left, yet you claim it to be.


Because your unbiased source said nothing whatsoever about what you were talking about in the statement that I replied to.



Yes, which means he was put on trial, and then his case was "torn apart" when it came before congress. He was impeached, but was not convicted. Did you have a point with that? Or are you trying to say that anything Bush does, no matter how smarmy, is OK because a democrat back in history got impeached? Are you planning on using Clinton's impeachment as the excuse for any wrongdoing committed by your party for the rest of your life? I frankly hope not - that would be pretty pathetic.

sour grapes.

Actually...he has a point. I have seen the "Clinton Manifesto" used so many times I cannot count them. (yes I just made that up). It is a common escape for supporters of Mr. Bush to use Slick Willy as a means to avoid actually addressing the deficiencies layed out concerning Bush. Dont get me wrong....Clinton was guilty as sin, and got off on a technicality, as he did lie in court, but that should have no bearing on the Guy that is running the counrty...Now.

tec, shakran brought clinton into this thread, not me. So what point does he have?

Actually Stevo, I brought Clinton into it in my first post by saying I really find it hypocritical that the people so willing to fry Clinton are turning blind eyes and defending Bush. And it is very true.

This wasn't a thread to compare the 2 either, it was to point out another Bush scandal and see what defense there was from the Bush followers here and why after scandal upon scandal this behavior is ok from the president, all of a sudden. And so far there hasn't been any defense but to turn and attack.

To me no defense means it's blind following and a blank check because these people truly do not care about what is right or wrong just who has the power.

This wasn't to be a thread to compare the 2 though, it was to ask why were these people so willing to destroy the presidency, spend billions upon billions to investigate everything he did, and pretty much bring the country to a standstill while they prosecuted him, while these same people do nothing about Bush.

And any Dem who points anything out gets attacked for "sour grapes" or "this won't go away will it nothing there..." or etc.

Yet it is scandal after scandal after scandal in this administration, with proof of wrongdoing, questionable ethics and lieing to the people and congress.

So when I start to post why I laugh at the left for this attempt at plamegate, and show how it is all bogus, with documented sources even, for some reason it is ignored almost whole-heartedly by the left on this board. Clinton is brought into it, a sentance here or there that isn't central to my main point is attacked. Now we see who is really dancing around the issue. Maybe the reason the same people who investigated clinton aren't doing it here isn't because bush has some free-pass, but because they've looked at the evidence and decided it wasn't worth their time.

If you were to read the entire factcheck.org article, the link which is posted by me earlier in this thread, then you would see that it shows the statement I made is true. This is all bogus.

Supporting a president is one thing, but delusionally insisting that a president can do no wrong, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, indicates that you're either not paying attention to the facts or that you're determined to support this guy no matter what, even if it makes you look foolish.

I'm just curious if there's anything that could possibly happen that would deflate even a little bit Bush's status in your eyes. 65% of the country already sees this administration for what it is. Why are you so in the minority.

If you were to read the entire factcheck.org article, the link which is posted by me earlier in this thread, then you would see that it shows the statement I made is true. This is all bogus. It isn't spelled out for you, like a second grade book, but you have to read the article and think critically about it for a moment. Weigh the facts in the case, not just your own wishful thinking, and then you'll be able to see that there is nothing to this. But you're right, it doesn't just come out and say, in the first paragraph: The plame-leak is a bogus attempt by the left to take down the bush administration, here is why (1), (2), (3). and then go on in subsequent paragraphs to explain. sorry, I'll do better next time.

Mountains of evidence does not equal nyt and wash post articles. If there was mountains of evidence there would be a whole lot more than one indictment on scooter libby for lying to investigators about conversations he had with reporters.

It won't take mountains of evidence for me, just some evidence.

Excellent! Sarcasm and insults! Rule of thumb for debate - when you're cornered and you know you're defending a heaping pile of bullshit, turn the tables and attack the intelligence of the one you're debating with. Masterful touch, even if it is technically against the forum rules. But then as long as we're staunchly defending a man who doesn't give a crap about rules, why should we bother to follow them ourselves?

I think you missed something in my 65% comment. That means only 35% of the american public supports the president. This is quite significant when you consider the old rule of thumb: 40% of the people will support democrats no matter what. 40% will support republicans no matter what. The remaining 20% is who you fight over in elections.

But with only 35% of the people supporting Bush, that means he's even managed to piss off 5% (give or take a few %) of the people that usually support republicans regardless of the evidence.

At any rate, if you can't see that Bush has royally screwed this country, perhaps this excellent quote from Fark will help:



This guy is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. His numbers reflect that. The american people are finally, slowly, waking up to this fact. It's pretty bad when you have approval ratings that are the lowest since Nixon.



I'll give you this much. The guy in office might not be a crook and a liar. But he's stupid enough to surround themselves with them and then believe everything they tell him. Either he's behind it, or he's too stupid to see that it's happening. Either way, that's an indication of someone who should NOT be president.

The factcheck article is completely inconclusive, and says so itself in the last paragraph:

With selective quoting, you can use the article to argue any side you want to. Here are some examples:

So it appears the authors of the factcheck article didn't have, in hand, all the classified information pertinent to the question, and other information existed at the time that that should have been used as a reason for excising those 16 words, but for some reason was not, according to Tenet.

The take home message that I see from that article is that the CIA was being pressured in a particular direction, which was not the direction towards the truth. I think it would be naive to think that this was not intentional.

But of course anything involving the CIA is shrouded in secrecy so we probably will never know the details. Hence the factcheck article's conclusion, again:

That's a pretty weak defense of Bush, IMHO.

I'll wait for the indictments, thank you very much, if they ever come.

I might have had a different view of bush if it wasn't for the extreme hatred portrayed by the left in this country and across the world. That just makes me want to support him more. Its kind of like giving a big middle finger to everyone else. so I say - go bush! do whatever the hell you want! go bush! blood for oil! go bush! cut taxes! spend more! drive the economy into the pisser! kill us all!

get it?

Sure, you're saying here clearly that your support for bush is just perverse taunting and nothing more.

I do that a lot too, but it's usually in sports bars, not usually in political debates. In the latter it ultimately trivializes death and suffering.

There was a police cavalcade escorting two black SUV's into the federal courthouse today. This has become a pretty comon sight here since Bush was re-elected. Honestly, I don't think Bush is criminal. He has a dastardly problem of rewarding two things, 1. friends 2. incompetence.

BTW, "Brownie" put his town house up for sale this weekend. $890k gets it. It's out of the flood plain.

This thread ceased to be a political debate a long time ago.

Like you said. the article says:

thats not evidence. yet all that is heard is how much of a criminal bush and his administration is. Now shakran says I should stop supporting bush because he has low approval ratings. And you still see this as a political debate. Pah-lease. This thread is a joke.

And nobody was using that particular article and its individual opinion as evidence against bush. It was originally brought up as evidence in support of bush.

. . . and the evidence against bush starts with Tenet's own statements on the record, on this subject.

And like I have already stated: If there was evidence we would have more than speculation and accusations. If all this evidence is so obvious and apparent why aren't rove, cheney, and bush indicted yet?

Uh, well, let's see,

Man in charge #1 - Bush
Man in charge #2 - Cheney
Man in charge #1's brain - Rove

I think that clears it up.

And we do have more than speculation and accusations, we have several indictments of bush cronies, as several posts in this thread have pointed out.

I must have missed them. could you point me to the several of them?

Well let's see, within the administration we have Safavian and Libby. Then outside we have Delay, but the allegations against him are probably connected to the White House through Safavian. Have I missed anybody?

So yes, we do have more than "speculations", we do have indictments.

Thats the first time savavian has been mentioned in this post. What was he indicted for? I still fail to see any connection to bush lying about the iraq war. sepeculation.

how about the fact that every justification he gave for the war has been shot down and it has been shown that he knew much of the intel was bad when he presented it.

That is speculation and assumptions, and indictments don't mean anything without convictions.

not facts. speculation. there will be no debate if actual facts are presented. facts would be indiputable. If those were facts, he would be on trial. But they are not facts. just speculation.

Who's going to? The GOP are in power of both Houses and while as in the start of this thread a senotor or rep may go after someone from the WH, the investigation never gets past committee and even fewer stay in the press very long. Look how long this one did.

The polls keep going down on a president that right after 9/11 could have had blind support for whatever he did....... oh wait he did have an unsigned check and he took advantage of it. The problem is the party and protecting mean more to the Senators and the Reps. than doing their jobs and truly investigating any scandal. (This is why we truly need a Bipartisan watchdog group that has no interest in who is in office.... oooo wait we did the press.... but they were consistently attacked by Bush followers as being too biased...... oooo wait we did the voters but they were too turned off by election scandals and believed their voices just didn't matter anymore......)

He could have worked and brought the country together with solid leadership (he didn't even have to be great), instead he used what the American people gave him and the power to drive a partisan wedge deeper between us and worked to destroy everything this country stood for.

The polls show it as people are waking up, there has finally come to be too much evidence, too many scandals, too much arrogance, too much partisanship, too much hatred for those who question him for the majority of people to take.

I just think the Bush supporters are selling out their beliefs, their morals and their country for hatred of the Dems and not love for Bush. (Which is fucking sad.)

I think the Bush supporters turn blind eyes and would rather see Rome burn and Nero fiddle than to admit something seriously wrong is going on and it not only affects the present but truly fucks in for the future.

Do I want Bush impeached? No, that would just put Cheney in charge.

I truly believe when all is said and done history will point to this as one of the worst presidencies and one that not only tore and divided the nation but bankrupted it for his own gains.

I truly hope for my children and grandchildren I am wrong, but I don't think so and I think the negative retributions and effects of this presidency will felt for a very, very long time.

Finally, I guarantee you this, if by next May Bush's numbers are still in the shitter and the scandals are still coming out, those GOP Reps, and Senators seeking reelection will be pulling away from him and will be admitting problems and deeply investigating Bush. Because self preservation in the end is what politics is about and it may be the only thing that truly can save this country.

Fiddle Nero Bush fiddle and laugh while Rome burns, for you had what it took to stop it and instead you added the fuel to make it burn even faster and hotter.

As stevo himself pointed out, indictments require legal evidence. That's the point. Evidence is more than "speculations and assumptions".

So there is legal evidence of criminal activity within the bush administration, on at least two separate, independent fronts.

My speculation was in regards to Rekna's regirgitation of the Bush lied line, which are speculation and assumptions.

In all criminal cases there is almost always evidence, it isn't always wise to hold a presumption of guilt because of an indictment alone.

We know that the whitehouse knew the Nigir documents were fake before they presented them. We also know that they knew the claim that Saddam was aiding AQ was more than likely false (from their own internal reports). Both of those were presented as strong cases to go to war. Now what else do we know, we know the all the other claims proved to be unfounded it is safe to say there is evidence to suggest that information may have been miss represented. There is at least enough to warrent an investigation. Unfortunatly with the republican controlled house and senate this motion is being stonewalled.

Here is an article from a source you can't claim is biased against republicans on the AQ link (emphasis added).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174708,00.html

Sure, but that doesn't mean indictments are meaningless. What proportion of criminal indictments lead to conviction in the U.S.? Isn't it somewhere like 80-90%? If someone is indicted, the chances are very high that they will be convicted.

Of course we should presume innocence, but at the same time, especially when we're talking about the highest levels of government, we should be prepared for the most probable outcome, which is conviction. These people have enormous power, this is not like someone off the street caught shoplifting.

i think it should also be mentioned that the level of evidence needed to convict your normal person off the street vrs someone with lots of money or power is vastly different. I think we should all acknowledge that a person with lots of money/power is much more likely to be aquited given the same evidence than a normal every day person.

In a common criminal case agreed Rekna, not the same for government personnal facing indictment, in that case I would say the tables flip against them.

perhaps, i guess it would depend on the circumstances, who is the judge, the ruling party, and the public outcry.

Ahh, no, I pointed out that you're in the minority. I didn't say that low approval numbers mean you should stop supporting him. I'd have to be pretty stupid to come up with that logic, since the reverse would be true, which would mean I was wrong not to support him when his numbers were up.

However, he did go from a 90% approval rate in September of 2001 to a 35% approval rate now. Any time a president falls by 55 percentage points, it's an indication that perhaps you should sit up and take notice.


Of course it is, and you're the one who made it a joke. You now admit that you're only supporting bush because other people don't support him. You admitted that you're just trying to tick us off. In short, you admitted that you're a troll. And since the people here are net-savvy, we don't feed trolls. You might as well go away now.

I agree, but my guess is that most bush supporters will be resistant to this idea for obvious reasons. It's not hard to predict what the spin will be when these people get convicted.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that, at this level of government, the idea that "indictments are meaningless without convictions" couldn't be further from the truth. We place our lives, our livelihoods in the hands of these people. We trust them, depend on them. An indictment at this level is a serious violation of the public trust. This is why it is unethical for a person at this level to remain in a position of power. This is why all the indicted individuals I mentioned resigned immediately.

One obvious "meaning" of such indictments is that it is time for a serious, honest accounting from the administration on the issues/evidence relating to them. The administration of course is not being upfront, they are stonewalling, which in my opinion is not good for this country.

Lebell has chosen to believe that this thread is identical to Host's recent thread concerning actual indictments against Abramoff. *This* thread has been highjacked in so many directions that I find that hard to believe, but whatever.

I am going to reconstruct Host's new, but now locked thread as best as I can.

Host posted on 11/18/05:

A combination of two posts by Elphaba:

Scanlon and Ney have also been implicated in Abramhoff's SunCruz purchase.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral.../printstory.jsp

If you guessed that those same bodyguards are in jail for the murder of Boulis, you win extra points.

Previously Posted by Elphaba in a locked thread:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111505G.shtml

And finally, recreating the post I lost in the lock down.

I was doing my usual clumsy attempts at searching for information via Google, when I came upon the following article. I find much of the information disturbing in that Abramoff and Norquist have been linked with what are believed to be money sources for A'Q. It is my hope that the good folks on this forum will take a critical look into what is being reported here and the supporting links that are provided in support of the claims. If investigations or indictments are underway, I have yet to find them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/122311/72

Host has been trying to draw our attention to Abramoff and his machinations within our government for quite some time. He has routinely been ridiculed, dismissed, or criticized for multiple links in support of his posts. His topics get summarily merged or locked arbitrarily, in my opinion.

He was RIGHT about Abramoff, long before most of us recognized the name.

I probably will not be allowed to post during Thanksgiving week because of the comment that I will end this post with, Elphaba, so I'll take this opportunity to wish you and every one else who participates or reads the TFP
politics threads, a happy holiday.

I think that it was a misuse of moderation to disallow a thread that has Abramoff's name in the title...I checked and there are not any titled that way on here. Abramoff is not just another "Bush crony". His name will continue to be regularly in the political headlines, and a signifigant number of people in high places will require pardons because of relationships with him.

I want to talk about the most signifigant current issues, and I want to highlight the most important ones. It's becoming increasingly obvious that I cannot do that without interference here. It's not my place to make the decision whether the interference is necessary or appropriate, but I don't see anyone else's efforts impeded because they contibute too much information on this forum...and I'll leave it at that.

I insist that Hal judge the actions of Labelle in his treatment of Host on this forum. I find it unjust that Host receives punitive action for what appears to be arbitrary decisions, and yet highly dubious posts by others are ignored or encouraged.

Hal, with all due respect, I do not believe that Labelle is able to separate his own political beliefs to fairly moderate this forum. His own topic starter that claimed we owed Bush an apology is another example, if more are needed.

I await your opinion, Hal.

Respectfully,
Pen

New names are being leaked in the investigation of Abramoff, which I presume are a result of Scanlon's cooperation:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112605Z.shtml

I have long suspected that DeLay would ultimately be caught up in his dealings with Abramoff and the whole 'K' Street adventure, but it is still a bit of a shock to see his name leaked. Dolittle and Burns are names that are new to me, and I don't see California and Montana having an obvious interest in tribal gaming. Investigation of Federici of the Interior Department is getting uncomfortably close to Norquist, and I believe there lies the end game when you follow the money.

Host, do you agree, or do you think criminal involvement with Abramoff will rise above Norquist?

This just in... Burns helps out a Michigan tribe.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112605A.shtml


I have to believe that Scanlon knows where to turn all of the rocks. Even so, the behavior of Burns should have produced a red flag long ago. If something like this has been treated as "business as usual", I suspect we have a gravel pit of corruption involving both parties.

I'm curious... has anyone ever checked on the sources for Robert Byrd's campaign funds? Could they be businesses in WV, by any chance?