Politics As Usual

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
*I really feel for Ryan - only guy to go down in a sex scandal for getting cock blocked by his WIFE

Classic GOP for you -- this party can have a big "sex scandal" where the participants are married to each other and the sex never happened. Talk about uptight. geez.


S_A_M

A prior history of drug use and evasion of national service should not be a prerequisite for our nation's highest office.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What makes you think this? A great majority of California's voted to legalize pot for medicinal purposes, but the Feds are balking.

Remember how we Republicans joke around that we are not the party that reads daily polls to find out what positions we should take? Well, just on the off-chance that you or someone else here didn't get it, its supposed to pose a complete contrast between our solid law-abiding moral stance as a party and the shifty murky lie-when-you-can-get-away-with-it and there-is-no-such-thing-as-morality stance of the Clinton era.

In other words, Clinton did whatever the polls said to do, and that ain't us. See where I'm going now? If the polls told Clinton to eliminate the war on drugs entirely, he would at least have raised the idea. Instead, he didn't touch it with a ten foot stick. Nor has any other mainstream party leader.

Funny thing is here, I'm in favor of it, and only because I think we could do better by regulating it. But there is no way that doing drugs can be described as "moral"; so if its against the law to do drugs, I'm pretty content thinking that its moral to obey the law and not-moral not to. And Republicans, Democrats, martians or anybody else better think long-and-hard before giving a blanket pass to lawbreakers, particularly when the lawbreaking activity does not provide any documented positive effect to society. Sitting at the front of the bus this is not, and I'd hate to think that you or any other solid rightist would argue that merely-self-gratifying (but illegal) behavior should not be counted as a strike against a candidate for our nation's leadership.

Or do you (or anyone else here) see this as something other than merely-self-gratifying behavior? Do junkies provide some societal benefit of which I'm not aware?

Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Classic GOP for you -- this party can have a big "sex scandal" where the participants are married to each other and the sex never happened. Talk about uptight. geez.

My point exactly. Although it wasn't the GOP that muckraked the story. And now they are similarly refusing to dig up Kerry's divorce records.

For the record, I find their restraint admirable in this case, but the "pick and choose" strategy of the paper is patently biased and disgusting.

Joe Pulitzer would be proud.

A prior history of drug use and evasion of national service should not be a prerequisite for our nation's highest office.

Nor - in this day and age - should either be a disqualifier.

[SlaveNoMore]

From the National Review daily Corner


"Joe Wilson responds to the Washington Post today. On the question of whether or not his wife pushed him for the job, he writes:

• The decision to send me to Niger was not made, and could not be made, by Valerie. At the conclusion of a meeting that she did not attend, I was asked by CIA officials whether I would be willing to travel to Niger. While a CIA reports officer and a State Department analyst, both cited in the report, speculate about what happened, neither of them was in the chain of command that made the decision to send me. Reams of documents were given over to the Senate committee, but the only quotation attributed to my wife on this subject was the anodyne "my husband has good relations with both the PM (Prime Minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In fact, with 2-year-old twins at home, Valerie did not relish my absence for a two-week period. But she acquiesced because, in the zeal to be responsive to the legitimate concerns raised by the vice president, officials of her agency turned to a known functionary who had previously checked out uranium-related questions for them. [Italics mine]

This is misdirection. As best I recall, the charge was never that Wilson's wife made the "decision" to send him to Niger. It was that she promoted him for the job which, until recently, he categorically denied (or he made it sound like he was categorically denying it). I'm sure Wilson's telling the truth here. But so what? He can also deny that his wife was the the second gunman on the grassy knoll, and that would be just as relevant. Wilson now makes no attempt here to claim that his wife didn't tout him for the job. That is quite telling.

Wilson continues:

• But that is not the only inaccurate assertion or conclusion in the Senate report uncritically parroted in the article. Other inaccuracies and distortions include the suggestion that my findings "bolstered" the case that Niger was engaged in illegal sales of uranium to Iraq. In fact, the Senate report is clear that the intelligence community attempted to keep the claim out of presidential documents because of the weakness of the evidence.

More misdirection. Wilson claimed that he had debunked the Iraq-seeking-Yellocake story. This was the premise for the "Bush-lied" hysteria which ensued. Now he's arguing that his report merely didn't "bolster" the case that Iraq sought uranium. I think he's on thin ground here too. But saying "I didn't bolster the case" is a far cry from saying "I debunked it." It's now pretty clear, in the wake of the British and Senate reports, that the uranium question was an open one. Wilson claimed, or gave the impression, that it was a closed one. Indeed, Wilson freelanced that Bush was a liar about the Yellowcake story when he clearly didn't have all of the facts. That much is still obviously true. Whether or not Wilson's report bolstered the case that Iraq sought Uranium from Niger or not is an important question insofar as it would help demonstrate the degree of Wilson's dishonesty, but not the fact that he has been deeply dishonest. "

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wilson now makes no attempt here to claim that his wife didn't tout him for the job. That is quite telling.

Did you read his six-page letter, or just the excerpts of it than ran in the National Review?

More misdirection. Wilson claimed that he had debunked the Iraq-seeking-Yellocake story.

At the time, the "story" was whether Iraq's nuclear program posed a threat to us. Wilson came back from Niger and said that it didn't.

Now, the "story" is whether there is any credible excuse for the White House's effort to mislead people in the State of the Union address. I say effort to mislead because we now know that the attribution of intel to the British was done to cover the fact that the CIA didn't think it was any good, and had previously told the White House that the President shouldn't address the issue. Though no one in the White House could know what England's sources were, they refered to those findings because they were trying to muster a case for war. Wilson's findings only look like "misdirection" because he failed to anticipate that by this point we would all accept that Iraq's nuclear program was no threat to us, and that the only question left would be just how hard the White House was working back then to snow everyone.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Did you read his six-page letter, or just the excerpts of it than ran in the National Review?

No. Post it. I refuse to "register" with WaPo

At the time, the "story" was whether Iraq's nuclear program posed a threat to us. Wilson came back from Niger and said that it didn't.

Bullfuckingshit. Wilson went there to determine if the claims of Iraq trying to purchase Uranium from Niger was credible. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, the "story" is whether there is any credible excuse for the White House's effort to mislead people in the State of the Union address.

The story was whether the 16 words were truthful. And they were.

I say effort to mislead because we now know that the attribution of intel to the British was done to cover the fact that the CIA didn't think it was any good, and had previously told the White House that the President shouldn't address the issue.

Why won't you digest page 66 [for the 3rd time] and admit that the CIA had the speech and cleared it????

Though no one in the White House could know what England's sources were, they refered to those findings because they were trying to muster a case for war.

Concur.

Wilson's findings only look like "misdirection" because he failed to anticipate that by this point we would all accept that Iraq's nuclear program was no threat to us, and that the only question left would be just how hard the White House was working back then to snow everyone.

You claim that my views are saturated by reading Sullivan. This ridiculous statement shows you've swallowed Marshall's pill.

[Hank Chinaski]

Some of you posted sound bytes from Imperial Hubris, mostly ones that say Bush was dumb for invading Iraq. I've read more by the guy, and that's really not a good summary. He seems to be saying we have to invade, and invade with a "raze to the ground" mindset, just not Iraq. I'm not as clear that he says where we should invade. Paki/Afghan border maybe, Iran. (Has anyone read it?)
Wherever it is, he certainly isn'y against attacking. In fact he seems to advocate almost a racial war. My darkest fears go there, I'm certainly not ready to agree with him. But if you can't agree with the main point, as I'm sure most of you can't, isn't it a little silly to gloat about some policy opinion?

Finally, he claims to be the first head of the OBL desk at CIA. How is he Anon?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Some of you posted sound bytes from Imperial Hubris, mostly ones that say Bush was dumb for invading Iraq. I've read more by the guy, and that's really not a good summary. He seems to be saying we have to invade, and invade with a "raze to the ground" mindset, just not Iraq. I'm not as clear that he says where we should invade. Paki/Afghan border maybe, Iran. (Has anyone read it?)

I've not, but the above is consistent with what I've read about him. He's hardcore.

Wherever it is, he certainly isn'y against attacking. In fact he seems to advocate almost a racial war. My darkest fears go there, I'm certainly not ready to agree with him. But if you can't agree with the main point, as I'm sure most of you can't, isn't it a little silly to gloat about some policy opinion?

Though I've quoted an excerpt from the book, it wasn't one to proclaim Bush as stupid for invading, so I'm assuming you're not talking about me. For that matter, I'm not sure anyone has so quoted him, though I could be wrong. Personally, I'm still trying to get a handle on someone at CIA whose worldview is "Kill Em All." Sounds like the a Cheney/Perle lovechild.

Finally, he claims to be the first head of the OBL desk at CIA. How is he Anon?

I think other posts have mentioned that the Anon was to help get it published without dozens of layers of gov't prescreening, and that he didn't really care about being subsequently identified as anon.

Gattigap

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
It's cute how liberals complain about disregard of the law -- only when their faves are disregarded. Just you wait till some liberal judge pisses off the republicans so bad that they disregard the filibuster rule, and start confirming judges in the face of filibusters.

Liberal judges are big boys. If they want to stick their dicks into light sockets, they assume certain risks.

Sorry, bucko. Hank's put me on to you, so I'm not gonna fall for it.

Hoo boy! Your "conservative" act sure had me fooled for a minute there -- especially the "dicks in light sockets" part. That's what makes it art.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'd be a bit hard-pressed myself. But I can't help but think that you are deliberately talking past me with the use of the "or" so that you can include the coke thing in there.

I personally don't think I know anyone who fits:
that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g) or (i) sodomized hundreds of young children,

I personally don't think I know anyone who fits:
that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g) or (i) sodomized hundreds of young children or (j) being felched by or a felching a priest.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You should be a bit more careful tossing around terms like "criminal record" when you mean "serious questions."

You should also stop using "aiding and abetting" so freely.

To my sensibilities if the Clintons, or either of them, had the criminal record that actually reflected the criminal acts that they have committed and/or aided and abetted, there would be at least two more residents in maximum security federal prisons. Or at least a state one.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Classic GOP for you -- this party can have a big "sex scandal" where the participants are married to each other and the sex never happened. Talk about uptight. geez.


S_A_M

A prior history of drug use and evasion of national service should not be a prerequisite for our nation's highest office.

Ftr, fwiw, fyi, let me take a public stand here and now and before I launch my inevitable campaign for public office:

-I have never evaded military service and if called to serve I would gladly go.

-I have never tested positive for illicit substances.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Remember how we Republicans joke around that we are not the party that reads daily polls to find out what positions we should take? Well, just on the off-chance that you or someone else here didn't get it, its supposed to pose a complete contrast between our solid law-abiding moral stance as a party and the shifty murky lie-when-you-can-get-away-with-it and there-is-no-such-thing-as-morality stance of the Clinton era.

In other words, Clinton did whatever the polls said to do, and that ain't us. See where I'm going now? If the polls told Clinton to eliminate the war on drugs entirely, he would at least have raised the idea. Instead, he didn't touch it with a ten foot stick. Nor has any other mainstream party leader.

This was not a poll. It was a vote, put to the great people of California (i.e., should mj be legal for medicinal purposes). The great people of CA said yes.

But there is no way that doing drugs can be described as "moral"; so if its against the law to do drugs, I'm pretty content thinking that its moral to obey the law and not-moral not to. And Republicans, Democrats, martians or anybody else better think long-and-hard before giving a blanket pass to lawbreakers, particularly when the lawbreaking activity does not provide any documented positive effect to society. Sitting at the front of the bus this is not, and I'd hate to think that you or any other solid rightist would argue that merely-self-gratifying (but illegal) behavior should not be counted as a strike against a candidate for our nation's leadership.

Or do you (or anyone else here) see this as something other than merely-self-gratifying behavior? Do junkies provide some societal benefit of which I'm not aware?

Hello

I don't think its either moral or immoral, it just is. What is immoral about the act of doing drugs? Why is it different than alcohol, or prescription drugs for that matter. Your argument seems to be that it is illegal ergo immoral, but there is really no rhyme or reason as to why certain drugs are legal and others not, and it is certainly not based on any concept of morality.

Now, it is certainly true that certain actions taken by drug users are immoral. But that is a far cry from saying that the act of taken drugs themselves is immoral.

[Atticus Grinch]

SAM
A prior history of drug use and evasion of national service should not be a prerequisite for our nation's highest office.

Slave
Nor - in this day and age - should either be a disqualifier.

"This day and age" means the one we live in, right? Play out the tape.

"People of America, I have used illegal drugs. They were illegal when I used them. But I have no criminal record. Why is this so? I wasn't arrested, so I wasn't convicted.

"Presently, federal judges are sentencing people like myself, committing no crime I myself haven't committed, to prison sentences ranging from 18 months to 50 years.

"I would now like to introduce my drug czar and my new drug policy . . . [drumroll] . . . ."

What on earth could such a person say, other than that he was legalizing drugs? If 43 admitted to doing coke tomorrow, how could he possibly maintain leadership over a system that puts coke users and traffickers in prison, and often deprives them of their right to vote or hold office?

43 can't even say, "I did drugs, and it was wrong and I'm sorry" at the same time people are sitting in federal prisons for dealing and doing coke.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I do not know a single soul between the ages of 16 and 45 that has not experienced, at least once, with (a) coke, (b) mj, (c) hash, (d) mushrooms, (e) meth, (f) acid, (g) E or (h) any number of (a)-(g).

Your sample is biased. It's not indicative of anything that a man such as yourself has only "known" women who have done those things.