One more reason to vote for Obama

[Stella_Omega]

Those cars you sell, Joe-- are they imports?

Our handling of our dirty laundry might have more of an effect on your livelihood than you think.

 

[S-Des]

I'd love whoever gets in to hold the right person responsible for outing Valerie Plame, among all the other Bush stuff.

Um, that would be Richard Armitage (telling Bob Novak). The prosecutor knew about it at the very beginning of the investigation. I never fail to be amused at the conspiracy theories that flow around this case. Fitzgerald knew the entire time who outed her, and never prosecuted him. Yet it still remains a rallying cry for those that believe everything is Bush's fault.

 

[slyc_willie]

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

I find the whole thing curious, and more than a little sensational. First is the assumption that war crimes were committed.

Second is whether or not waterboarding was used, or even if it classified as torture. Yes, I read the accompanying articles. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that anyone views waterboarding as torture, but there is the usual tip-toeing around the daisies on the issue. But if it is torture, Obama would have his attorney general investigate it. If it isn't . . . expect a quite fade-away and a jump to the next scandal du jour.

Would it lead to any indictments? Highly unlikely. Would such an investigation amount to anything? Beyond giving the media something else to salivate over, again, highly unlikely.

I don't care for Bush, never have. I've agreed with some of his administration's policies, and disagreed with others. Having a military background, I can understand and even support a lot of what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to gathering intelligence. Some of it just ain't pretty, and it makes people cringe. That's why it's behind the scenes. You don't ask a butcher how the cow was killed when you're eating a hamburger, do you? You probably wouldn't have much of an appetite if you did.

That's a simple analogy, and I'm sure someone will take issue with it. But the bottom line, I feel, is that there things done by the military and government that the public shouldn't really want to know, unless you just want to satisfy your own sense of morbid curiosity. Morality and ethics are always pushed to the wayside when it comes to defending your way of life. The majority of people will do what they need to -- not what they're comfortable contemplaying doing when calm and rational -- in order to safeguard themselves and their loved ones. The savage animal has never left humanity. It's just a little more complex.

As far as Obama being worthy of a vote . . . I'm still thinking about that one.

 

[JagFarlane]

Honestly...the competition between Obama and Clinton...the things they've said, the dirty stunts both have pulled...push me more towards McCain. I hate the breakdown of lies and racism...but if something isn't done fast...those two are going to tear apart, what shoulda been an easy election for a Democrat

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm quite familiar with the First Amendment but, just as the amendment does not extend to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, there ought to be some limitation on the press. They can criticize the government all they want, and I am all for that idea, The shield laws are supposed to protect sources from retribution; they are not intended to protect the powerful.

Suppose in 1944, a journalist had learned when and where D-Day was going to be. Suppose he had splashed that info all over the newspapers the day before, causing the whole attack to be scrubbed, or launched with even greater loss of allied forces? What should have happened to that journalist. That would have been a more extreme case than this one, but it is the same sort of thing.

There are limitations on the press. You'll recall, Judith Miller spent a few months at Club Fed, until Scooter's mash note freed her 'conscience' and she sang her dissonant tune.

What you keep failing to acknowledge (or understand?) is that Cheney, in all but provable-in-a-court-of-law certainty, deliberately directed Plame's name to be given to the press in an effort to discredit a non-journalist dissenter/whistle-blower. The only reason that isn't provable in a court of law is that Libby committed (and was convicted of) perjury. Then he was pardoned (excuse me, his sentence was 'commuted', though he never served a day of it) by the very Executive whose malfeasance he was shielding.

If you're going to be outraged by treason, point your outrage where it belongs: Bush and Cheney.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

honey, if you hadn't noticed... the world-wide depression is NOW.

Yes - the anamoly of a low-to-mid single digit unemployment rate for years on end, and rising real incomes for going on five years (now threatened by inflation generated by excessive money creation) is highly noticeable.

You confuse the zits on the face of this or any economy with the whole of the thing. Statements such as the one you just made indicate an absence of perspective. Or perhaps it's just political bias.

The inflation/dollar decline/energy price increase (all different faces of the same phenomenon - the Fed printing too many dollars for too long) is not a good thing, but (absent further policy blunders) this too will pass.

The really scary thing is the worldwide depression that will occurr if HilBama keep their promise to Union bosses to end the era of free trade expansion that for 20 years has been one of the primary causes of an unprecedented increase in prosperity in the US and all over the world. Standards of living have never been higher than they are today, here and most other places in the world.

So why all the whining? People feel more insecure as a result of changes in the economy. Some of these are related to the same free trade regime that has generated the prosperity, but much of it is due to massive increases in productivity (generated by technology and innovation) that are steadily reducing the number of manufacturing jobs not just in the US, but everywhere (including China). The world in which a high school grad (or less) could get a factory job and make $50K/year and more are gone.

There are new challenges and risks, but they should not blind us to the unprecedented advances of the past 25 years. It would be a tragedy to return to the dismal stagflation and shortages of the 1970s, and yet US politicians are rushing to adopt the very public policies that brought that about. Sadly, a new generation may have to learn the price of folly.

 

[S-Des]

I find the whole thing curious, and more than a little sensational. First is the assumption that war crimes were committed.

Agreed. While it has been the rallying cry of the Left for years, Bill Clinton came to the same conclusions with the same intel. I kept hearing that Bush "cherry picked" intel or outright hid it from Congress, but that's just not true (it's usually accompanied by a suspicious lack of direct facts).

Second is whether or not waterboarding was used, or even if it classified as torture.

Another red herring. What you won't hear from the Dems is that several of the highest ranking members were informed from the beginning that this might be used and one Democratic Congressman actually attended the interrogation of one of the three guys this was actually used on. I'm glad they're moving to different, more effective methods of interrogation, but if you believe Obama is really going to have Bush charged with treason, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Or war crimes. I mean, WTF! We voted for him we must have wanted him to go destroy an entire country in our name!

He was re-elected in the middle of this war.

________

BTW, I had dinner recently with a Air Force Academy grad, class of 1974. As part of training for possible capture and interrogation, waterboarding was a standard practice in that era. I don't know what that kind of training involves today.

 

[S-Des]

What you keep failing to acknowledge (or understand?) is that Cheney, in all but provable-in-a-court-of-law certainty, deliberately directed Plame's name to be given to the press in an effort to discredit a non-journalist dissenter/whistle-blower.

Wow, that may be the most sternly worded non-accusation I've ever heard. If that's the new standard of proof, then I guess Obama is a Muslim (and he plays tiddlywinks with terrorists).

 

[Huckleman2000]

He was re-elected in the middle of this war.

That isn't a license to break domestic laws and international treaties.

Even fearful, delusional voters must have the assumption that the person they elect will follow the law.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Declaring war on Iraq is a war crime. Period.

 

[S-Des]

Declaring war on Iraq is a war crime. Period.

Actually, it's only a crime if he's convicted of anything. Otherwise it's just an accusation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, it's only a crime if he's convicted of anything. Otherwise it's just an accusation.

Thus sayeth all war criminals.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Wow, that may be the most sternly worded non-accusation I've ever heard. If that's the new standard of proof, then I guess Obama is a Muslim (and he plays tiddlywinks with terrorists).

Oh please....
That accusation isn't mine - it's implicit in the prosecutor's public comments, a prosecutor who was appointed by Republicans, (iirc) was a registered Republican, and who has the reputation among his colleagues as the straightest shooter they know.

Don't pretend to be unbiased if you can't see and acknowledge your own biases, Des.

 

[S-Des]

Thus sayeth all war criminals.

I won't argue with that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Declaring war on Iraq is a war crime. Period.

The actions at the time were approved by a majority of Congress.

I'm perfectly willing to join you in a call to return to the Constitition's exclusive grant of war-declaring power to Congress. That train left the station a long time ago, however, and it wasn't this prez who was playing conductor. But if you want to roll it back, I'm in.

 

[slyc_willie]

Agreed. While it has been the rallying cry of the Left for years, Bill Clinton came to the same conclusions with the same intel. I kept hearing that Bush "cherry picked" intel or outright hid it from Congress, but that's just not true (it's usually accompanied by a suspicious lack of direct facts).



Another red herring. What you won't hear from the Dems is that several of the highest ranking members were informed from the beginning that this might be used and one Democratic Congressman actually attended the interrogation of one of the three guys this was actually used on. I'm glad they're moving to different, more effective methods of interrogation, but if you believe Obama is really going to have Bush charged with treason, I've got a bridge to sell you.

It's always the same old game. Every administration has to deal with facts and circumstances that would distress the public. And, every administration has to make choices, that, no matter what, someone is going to find distasteful and criminal. And that is because the average person just does not think enough to consider all the ramifications of said choices. Instead, most people latch onto something they find disgusting and offensive and naturally apply those feelings across the board. It's a defense mechanism.

Declaring war on Iraq is a war crime. Period.

I disagree.

But I don't think that the way it was done was right. The Bush administration used a convenient excuse to invade a region that has been a hotbed for anti-American sentiment for decades. The reasons were right. the methods weren't.

 

[S-Des]

Oh please....
That accusation isn't mine - it's implicit in the prosecutor's public comments, a prosecutor who was appointed by Republicans, (iirc) was a registered Republican, and who has the reputation among his colleagues as the straightest shooter they know.

Don't pretend to be unbiased if you can't see and acknowledge your own biases, Des.

OK, so he never charged the person who did it with a crime, but hinted (implicitly, mind you) that Cheney was completely guilty (in a non-convictable kind of way). Yes Huck, I'm the one who's biased.

 

[S-Des]

It's a defense mechanism.

And that's not a bad thing, by any standards. What people on the Right don't get is that without the screaming from the Left, things do get out of control. They'll find out really soon, because if we have a Democratic President and Congress, they'll be the ones doing all the shouting. Loud dissent is a good thing.

 

[slyc_willie]

And that's not a bad thing, by any standards. What people on the Right don't get is that without the screaming from the Left, things do get out of control. They'll find out really soon, because if we have a Democratic President and Congress, they'll be the ones doing all the shouting. Loud dissent is a good thing.

And vice-versa. There are no good or bad guys when it comes to speaking of the Left and the Right. They're just opposite sides of the same coin, and both get flipped equally. You might say they both suck.

The hallmark of American politics has always been the attack of one group upon another. That has always been the driving force that gets things done. Personally, I think this country would stagnate if everyone became moderate.

 

[S-Des]

You might say they both suck.

Actually, I would say that. Remember, I'm an Independent.

 

[slyc_willie]

Actually, I would say that. Remember, I'm an Independent.

Well, then, you suck too

 

[DeeZire]

Yes - the anamoly of a low-to-mid single digit unemployment rate for years on end, and rising real incomes for going on five years..

Excuse me. Rising real incomes for the top one percent, falling real incomes for everyone else. Not to mention all the people who can't get health insurance. That number gets bigger every year. And I seem to recall the unemployment numbers spiking during these last couple of weeks.

Is the glass half-empty, or half-full? I think that depends on whether your glass is fine crystal or a dixie cup.

 

[Huckleman2000]

OK, so he never charged the person who did it with a crime, but hinted (implicitly, mind you) that Cheney was completely guilty (in a non-convictable kind of way). Yes Huck, I'm the one who's biased.

Those charged with the administration of Justice sometimes do what they can when what is possible isn't just.
Fitz didn't overstep any laws, he didn't (and hasn't...) say anything he couldn't prove, and he's refused to testify before Congress about it. He's done everything 'by-the-book'.

You can decide how you're going to assign credibility for yourself.

 

[S-Des]

Well, then, you suck too

I would never claim any different.