Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're like a Marxist in your capacity to eliminate complexity and detail in order to reduce things to a simple, deterministic world view. I was wondering whether you would respond with anything about what actually happens, but I'm not surprised that you didn't.
We all know about issues between Bush and the CIA since 2000. This doesn't mean that the CIA is controlled by or answering to Democrats. They have other reasons to be pissed, one of which is that the White House ruined the career of one of their people to score political points. That has everything to do with the CIA's institutional interests, and nothing to do with whatever you mean by "Democrats in power" -- there weren't any in Washington at the time we're talking about, a fact that either eludes you or is too inconvenient for your "it's all politics, all the time" worldview.
Which Democrats told the CIA to do something it didn't want to do anyway? What was their leverage? You had Republican congressional leadership that wasn't letting House Democrats hold meetings in conference rooms, so I'm curious about the "power" you have in mind. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee was Jay Rockefeller, who since 2000 gladly let himself get rolled on just about every occasion where it was possible, and some where it probably wasn't but he did it anyway. What "power" did he exert over the CIA.
And then there's DOJ. Tell me about the supernatural political powers possessed by Democrats that let them force John Ashcroft's DOJ to open an investigation, and then to get him to recuse himself, and then to get Fitzpatrick to get appointed by James Comey.
Did you even know who James Comey was? Or is your commitment to the idea that it's all political so profound that you can just repeat that mantra without knowing much of anything about what actually happened.
Fitzpatrick then got Republican-appointed judges to preside over a jury trial -- the unanimous jurors who voted to convict were clearly the pawns of unnamed but resourceful Democratic politicians who bent their feeble minds to the interests of the Democratic party, as we all know that only a partisan could look at evidence and decide that it shows anything beyond a reasonable doubt, right? -- and to affirm the conviction. Never mind that these judges had the sort of connections and careers that got them appointed to the bench by Republican presidents, and never mind Article III, which gives them life tenure -- you just know that these judges, too, were acting because of some sort of pressure from Democratic politicians. Do tell.
At other times, you are happy to post here about how useless and hapless the Democratic Party is, a party which didn't do much else to control the actions of the Bush Administration over the last several years. Yet here they had amazing powers.
eta: Sorry, no blog posts or evidence -- I figured you would more appreciate whatever rhetorical flair I could muster.
|
In order (skipping your "Marxist" intro):
1. I didn't say "controlled." You said controlled. I said some Dems put pressure on the right people holding the right levers. You're trying to make my allegation broader to attempt to paint it as absurd. The CIA's interests and the Dems' interests dovetailed here. That does not mean the Dems were not pulling strings. Your bizarre argument that no Democrats had any power in the run up to the Iraq War is amazing. What do you think? that when the GOP has a majority, the Dems are all locked in a cage in the Capitol basement? You think they suddenly lose all the sway they had, all the favors they're owed and all the connections they've built? And you're calling me simplistic?
2. Do you think that the parliamentary rules, and the committees people like Rockefeller head are the only instruments of power in DC? Do you think the bigger decisions are made in committees, with minutes kept? You know litigation, right? Ever called a clerk and gotten a favor? Ever gotten a trial bumped by dealing with a Federal Magistrate you'd been before a couple of times and knew liked you? Imagine that sort of soft gladhanding at 100X the "chumminess" level. We're talking about a city where Abramoff made $30 million lobbying in two years and basically owned congressmen. You rail against the GOP mightily. Why on earth would you think the Dems operate any differently? You and I will NEVER know exactly what favors were called in and what levers were pulled by the Dems, or which dems did it, to take this non-issue and balloon it into a controversy. But to suggest they weren't is just plain silly.
3-5. Disingenuous arguments all. Once the investigatory and prosecutorial mechanisms were operating and the press had its claws into the story, I agree with you, the political games ended.
Here, in plain English:
The Dems' "hit" here wasn't forcing the judges or prosecutors to convict Libby. It was getting the investigation and prosecution of such a non-issue started in the first place.
You're clonflating those very different acts to try to make my position look absurd because you know damn well the Democrats were working behind the scenes to force this to an investigation and prosecution.
6. Again, you're conflating two things in a flaccid attempt at a rhetorical haymaker. That I call the Dems politically hapless in their poor choice of candidates (Hillary) and backward political views doesn't at all equate to an indictment of their ability to work the political machine in DC. My prime criticism of the Dems is their love of, and exploitation of, the political system. The Libby "hit" was masterful. It's a classic Dem move. I've always given them credit for that type of thing. But you knew that.
Your rhetorical flair I like a lot more.
