Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

No Democrat in Washington -- or anywhere else -- had enough pressure, or a lever long enough, or a string tied in the right place, or enough favors, to get the John Ashcroft-led DOJ to investigate senior members of the White House staff, such as Dick Cheney's chief of staff.