You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 01:27:41 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #225 on: February 16, 2008, 04:47:31 AM »
Elvi...

The very thing that came to mind was how often some of those 935 statements was a repeat of a false statement from before... but that isn't really the important thing as I look through the website. I have no doubt that there were statements made that proved to be false... after all there are no WMDs. But the question is, were they flat out lies or did they have faulty intelligence, or was it a mixture of both? A false statement is not the same as a lie.

It does appear to be a very good resource. I'm trying to learn a bit more about them atm, but it doesn't appear that the site as is will allow me to do that. I don't tend to trust a lot of internet resources, but the very fact that this is a .org makes it considerably more believable. However, all the links to learn who these people are lead to the same page... and that page tells me absolutely nothing about this organization. I could give you a ton of links from very professional-looking sites that are also .orgs but I wouldn't trust simply because of party affiliation.

I'm not saying straight up that I refuse to believe what they say... but I do want to know who these people are and what their credentials are. If the site wants to be considered a reliable source of information, they need to fix it so that people like me can get that information.  Amazingly, I could likely post a website that counters that one entirely and have very real-looking information. It's all about how you twist the fact for your story. Which one do we believe? Personally, I would trust neither until I knew who they were.

Ah, wait (I'll leave what I've already written for the sake that such sites do exist, and I have yet to really understand who the individuals responsible for this report are)... but I finally have the names and some of their credentials. My research leans toward this being a left-wing site, so I would expect a lot of what they say, but I have to take it with a grain of salt, same as I would take what I would "learn" from a right-wing source.

Whether or not we were lied to, removing Saddam from office was still an important thing for us to do, IMO. It's disgusting that the Executive branch may have had to take such tactics to get it done, but getting that regime out of the way is a little good to be taken from it. Doesn't mean that I at all appreciate how it went down, though. The point is I would have supported going into Iraq regardless of the situation. I still do. It's just an all-around disgusting necessity IMO that had to happen one way or the other.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #226 on: February 16, 2008, 04:58:14 AM »
Here are some quotes that might be of interest:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.  He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

“Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
 -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
 -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...”
 -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #227 on: February 16, 2008, 05:43:14 AM »
Rainshadow, I think that the above post (addressed to myself), should have been addressed to Rydia?

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #228 on: February 16, 2008, 05:48:07 AM »
I'm assuming you meant to address your reply to me, not Elvi.

Edit:  Elvi beat me to it.

The organization in question, the Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to producing investigative reporting on public officials, government policy and the interests that compete for influence.

Topics they investigate include the financing of political campaigns, the stewardship of public institutions by governing officials, the influence private interests wield in federal and state government, and the ultimate results of public policy.

The Center releases its reports via its web site, press releases and traditional book publishing. The information it collects and analyzes often reaches the public secondhand through coverage in conventional news mediums like television and newsprint.  The Center also collects and organizes the public records it gathers into online databases so that other reporters and the public have access to the information. In 2006, Slate media critic Jack Shafer described the Center as having "broken as many stories as almost any big-city daily in the last couple of decades."

As for as the Center being "left wing" or "right wing," your implication is that their ideology influences their reporting, and that by extension, we should be skeptical of what they have to say.  Not quite an ad hominem argument, but I'm not sure how it directly relates to the content of the 935 Iraq Mistatements report.

Offline Humble Scribe

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #229 on: February 16, 2008, 06:04:49 AM »
As usual Ruby, you conveniently forget the rest of the world

With the best will in the world, Elvi, 4 police instructors or 35 clerks can't be regarded as anything more than a token gesture. Most of these countries forbid their troops to do anything other than back office work. I count 168,000 Americans, 5,000 British (due to be halved this year) and about 4,500 others. Blackwater Inc probably has more troops in-theatre than most of these countries. Some of these countries may provide a diplomatic fig-leaf for the Bush administration, but this was always an Anglo-American operation, and the British government is clearly signalling that it is on its way out, wanting to give a higher priority to Afghanistan, where the situation may still be salvageable. Our troops are no longer patrolling in Iraq, they are largely confined to a fortified barracks area outside Basra.

In any event, the question is really whether the presence of foreign troops is now a stabilising or destabilising factor. Bomb attacks dropped 90% in Basra once the British stopped patrolling, because 90% of the attacks are directed at the foreign troops. If the foreign troops are mainly providing target practice and recruitment propaganda for the various insurgent groups, can they be said to be actually helping things?

When our country joined this 'war', we all knew we were in for the long haul, which is why British troops may decrease in numbers, but the expertease that is needed will be there for one hell of a long time.

When our country joined the war, it was in the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear and chemical weapons. The operation lacked legitimacy in international law, which is why it has been such an own goal as regards Western-Islamic relations. I don't think that there is a good solution any more, but I don't think doggedly maintaining troops there in the face of resistance by all sectors of the populace is the answer.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Pelosi Warns Superdelegates
« Reply #230 on: February 16, 2008, 06:08:55 AM »
On an unrelated note, I read this article with interest this morning.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080215_pelosi_warns_superdelegates/

Nancy Pelosi, who is not only one of the highest-ranking members of the Democratic Party but the chair of its approaching national convention, has weighed in on two of the most controversial issues looming over the presidential nomination. Superdelegates, Pelosi said, should not overrule the will of the voters, and the disputed delegations from Michigan and Florida “can’t make the difference because then we would have no rules.”

From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Quote
“I do think that they have a respect—it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

That message will be music to the ears of Barack Obama, who’s building a lead in pledged delegates and is urging the super delegates to follow the voters. He now leads 1,133 to 996 in pledged delegates, while Hillary Clinton has a 242-163 edge among super delegates, according to the latest tally by RealClearPolitics. Obama holds the overall edge, 1296-1238.

Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination.

“Well, I don’t think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can’t make the difference because then we would have no rules,” she said.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #231 on: February 16, 2008, 06:22:48 AM »
Scribe,
You make it sound as though that is the sum total of other countries input.

There are 6448 other nation's troops (not counting the UK and the US), not that Ruby actually even counted the UK in the first place.

No, these are not all front line troops.
They are bomb disposal experts, medical, training/inteligence officers, engineers, there to protect essential services, transport and logistics experts as well as those who deal with communications and administration.
These are the people who are going to help sort out this sorry mess and actually do something constructive with what is left of this country.

Then again, how many of the US troops are in fact front line troops?

As for your second point, this is not the place to debate it (infact in answering you, I have again derailed the topic), however, if you really believe that is why we went into this war, then I'm afraid that you must be rather nieve, or I am just far too Jaded....
 

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #232 on: February 16, 2008, 11:56:44 AM »
Just to derail this a bit further for a minute, did anyone else see that Daily Show bit where the guy went to Iceland to try and convince them to send their troop back to Iraq? (And I say troop, because just like in the story, Iceland sent ONE soldier) It was pretty funny so you should watch it if you all missed it. It's probably on the Daily Show website.

Anyway, back to your normal topic.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #233 on: February 16, 2008, 05:02:13 PM »
I'm assuming you meant to address your reply to me, not Elvi.

Edit:  Elvi beat me to it.

The organization in question, the Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to producing investigative reporting on public officials, government policy and the interests that compete for influence.

Topics they investigate include the financing of political campaigns, the stewardship of public institutions by governing officials, the influence private interests wield in federal and state government, and the ultimate results of public policy.

The Center releases its reports via its web site, press releases and traditional book publishing. The information it collects and analyzes often reaches the public secondhand through coverage in conventional news mediums like television and newsprint.  The Center also collects and organizes the public records it gathers into online databases so that other reporters and the public have access to the information. In 2006, Slate media critic Jack Shafer described the Center as having "broken as many stories as almost any big-city daily in the last couple of decades."

As for as the Center being "left wing" or "right wing," your implication is that their ideology influences their reporting, and that by extension, we should be skeptical of what they have to say.  Not quite an ad hominem argument, but I'm not sure how it directly relates to the content of the 935 Iraq Mistatements report.

My apologies for misdirecting my comments. :)

Rydia... do you know who gives most funds to the Center of Public Integrity? I do. George Soros, a huge liberal and anti-Bush nut. Others include Bill Moyers and the Schumann Foundation, Supporters of Legal Restrictions on Campaign Finance. Not exactly a non-partisan group there.

Here's a response to that report by the CPI from newsbusters.org:

Quote
The Latest Media Scam
By Seton Motley
Created 2008-01-24 18:17
Left wing think tank hatchet reporting

 
The Establishment Media's Weapon of Choice
And you thought only the New York Times was engaged in not-for-profit journalism.
Behold the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) [1], who on Wednesday made headlines across the nation with their report -- co-authored with the Fund for Independence in Journalism (FIJ) [2] -- entitled "Iraq - The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War [3]".

The Establishment Media hailed the study's lead "finding" -- 935 false statements by Bush Administration officials in the two-year period leading up to the launch of the War. The Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and -- of course -- the New York Times were all exhilarated to once again climb aboard the "Bush Lied - People Died" Express.

Most of these news outlets referred to the report's author organizations simply as "non-profit groups." The New York Times described CPI as a "research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy".

MSNBC's Dan Abrams went one step further, referring to CPI as a "non-profit, non-partisan investigative journalism group". Dan Froomkin in his WashingtonPost.com blog hailed the "non-profit group pursuing old-fashioned accountability journalism".

When we at the Media Research Center are referenced by the Legacy Press, the descriptions run like this: in 2006, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann referred to us as a "rabid right-wing spin group." On Wednesday night, however, Olbermann referred to CPI and FIJ merely as "two non-profit groups."

(We, of course, thoroughly documented all of this and more in our CyberAlert [4], on our NewsBusters.org [4] blog [here too [4]] and in our Grey Lady sentinel, TimesWatch.org [5].)

Why all of this analysis of the media's ideological-free descriptions of CPI and FIJ? Because they are both anything but ideology-free.

"They," in fact, are really much closer to being an "It". William Buzenberg is the Executive Director of the CPI -- he is also on the Board of Directors of FIJ. Bevis Longstreth is Chairman of the Board of Directors of FIJ -- and on the Board of Directors of CPI.

But where the lines on the graph really come together is on one Charles Lewis. From 1977 through 1988, Lewis was an investigative reporter at ABC News, after which he moved on to CBS News to serve as a producer for senior correspondent Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.

Lewis then founded CPI in 1989, and served as its Executive Director until December of 2004. FIJ was founded in 2003 by -- Charles Lewis, while he was still serving as CPI's Executive Director.

We are sure Lewis and the media felt that two organizations working in tandem would give the report the appearance of greater intellectual heft than just one toiling alone. Which would be true, were the entities in question not joined at the hip.

This bit of disingenuousness on the part of Lewis and his twin spinners is only the beginning of what you were not told by the media.

Recall if you will the myriad nondescript adjectives used to describe CPI and FIJ in print and by the Talking Heads on television. But if you look at the donor page and see who kicks in for this "non-partisan" pursuit of "old-fashioned accountability journalism", it is difficult to reach their nondescript conclusion.

A prominent contributor to CPI is a foundation you may not know -- the Open Society Institute. Its founder, and funder, you most certainly do know -- left-wing mega-mogul George Soros, the godfather of a great many liberal institutions, most notably Media Matters for America and MoveOn.org. Soros may be most famous for spending roughly $40 million in his attempt to get Senator John Kerry elected President in 2004.

Speaking of Kerry, another CPI donor is the Heinz Endowments, a philanthropy run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, the formerly-prospective First Lady. Also in the money mix is the Streisand Foundation, run by the fabulously liberal Barbra Streisand.

In fact, their Supporters Page is a veritable Socialist, Anti-Bush, Anti-War What's What and Who's Who.

Now that we have established the bias of the organization(s), and the media reporting their (it's) efforts, let us look at what this bias produced.

President Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq immediately prior to our invading Mesopotamia. Saddam Hussein indeed at one point had them -- we know this because he had used them, twice, on the Iranians and the Kurds. His every move right up to the moment we went in was calculated to foster the appearance that he had them still, lest his neighbors think him weak and vulnerable.

But in we went, and we found nothing. We had the wrong information. This is not a lie -- this is an error of fact.

But the media has never made this distinction. On Wednesday night, MSNBC's Olbermann bannered "935 LIES" on screen atop a picture of Bush, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, with "BUSH LIES BY THE NUMBERS: IRAQ UNTRUTHS TALLIED UP" beneath. To which he added his own drivel:

"So much for the theory of the administration's countless lies about Iraq: Two non-profit groups have done the algebra and show their math: 935 between 2001 and 2003, 935 false statements to the American people about the threat from Iraq."
According to the CPI-FIJ study itself, at least 532 of the "false statements" cited -- more than half the grand total -- had to do with assertions that Iraq indeed had these weapons.

So let us trip down memory lane and revisit some other "false statements" on the subject made at the very same time as those made by the Bush Administration, by non-Bush Administration individuals.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002."We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
Could it be that the media has a double standard in place and in play here? It seems neither they nor their non-profit sources are non-partisan these days.
Like I said... for every site you link you can find something on the opposite side of the fence. Who do you believe? Take everything you read with a grain of salt, because they usually have an agenda outside of journalism. They use facts, but they also leave out facts in order to twist the truth to their agenda.

The quotes should look familiar. I posted them before. I ask you this... if these people are saying the same thing that Bush said, I have to wonder why. It's one of two obvious solutions: 1) Bush lied or 2) there was faulty information. If the former is true these people quoted are either a) ignorant, lazy, and stupid for not checking the facts (hell, they said the exact same thing Bush's admin said!) or b) they are also telling lies (and if this is the case our problems lie somewhat deeper than the administration). They saw the exact same intelligence that Bush saw... if you want to believe Bush's people manipulated the evidence, the more power to you. The problem is that that would be an impeachable offense, and if that were the case, you would see much more come of this than "news" sources pointing fingers. That both parties were repeated the same thing over and over again makes me think #2 is a more likely scenario.

And something more: Why isn't Obama using Hillary's quote as saying she also lied back in 2002? Well, it's because that if you dig deeper into the truth, there is no leg to stand on. If Obama were to try to derail Hillary using that tactic, the media's perception on the truth would come crumbling down around itself. You hear all this stuff in the media but it never sees light in political reality because it's all a big twist on the facts. People will believe what the want to believe, but if there was really any truth to the theory that Bush blatantly lied to get us into Iraq... that would be an impeachable offense, and we have never had a hint of even the possibility of impeachment.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #234 on: February 16, 2008, 05:33:34 PM »
Isn't spin fascinating?  I pine for a media source that simply presents facts and data and lets me, a relatively intelligent woman, make up my own damned mind.  That's part of the reason I like procon.org.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #235 on: February 16, 2008, 07:39:52 PM »
Rydia... do you know who gives most funds to the Center of Public Integrity? I do. George Soros, a huge liberal and anti-Bush nut. Others include Bill Moyers and the Schumann Foundation, Supporters of Legal Restrictions on Campaign Finance. Not exactly a non-partisan group there.

Regardless of Soros' political affiliations, it has nothing to do with whether or not a nonprofit journalistic organization he happens to give money to has done a fair and accurate job in tabulating mistatements made by this administration.  For you to suggest that it does is to make an argument from association logical fallacy.  What is contained in the CPI report needs to be evaluated on its own strengths and merits, and not on the ideology of the people that contribute to it.

And something more: You hear all this stuff in the media but it never sees light in political reality because it's all a big twist on the facts. People will believe what the want to believe, but if there was really any truth to the theory that Bush blatantly lied to get us into Iraq... that would be an impeachable offense, and we have never had a hint of even the possibility of impeachment.

That's because for the first six years of this administration, his own party controlled both houses of Congress, and was unwilling to perform its oversight role.  As of 2007, the Democratic party has been attempting to perform its oversight function, but has been thwarted by the White House and Justice Department in securing documents, subpoenaing witnesses, and conducting investigations.

An actual impeachment effort would be incredibly difficult given the slim majorities the party enjoys in Congress, politically inadvisable as it would give the opposition party a point to rally around, and the general unwillingness of the Senate to demonstrate independence from the White House.


Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #236 on: February 17, 2008, 01:35:37 AM »
Regardless of Soros' political affiliations, it has nothing to do with whether or not a nonprofit journalistic organization he happens to give money to has done a fair and accurate job in tabulating mistatements made by this administration.  For you to suggest that it does is to make an argument from association logical fallacy.  What is contained in the CPI report needs to be evaluated on its own strengths and merits, and not on the ideology of the people that contribute to it.

 Actually, it does have to be taken into consideration. The people who fund sites and organizations like that do it for fairly specific reasons. They have an agenda and it has to be met or the funding dries up. If the CPI is filled with left leaning liberals that only take one view of things, the report isn't valid because it does not look at the other side. Did they look at ALL of the politicians in Washington? Republican and Democrat? If not, then the report is suspect at best.

 
That's because for the first six years of this administration, his own party controlled both houses of Congress, and was unwilling to perform its oversight role.  As of 2007, the Democratic party has been attempting to perform its oversight function, but has been thwarted by the White House and Justice Department in securing documents, subpoenaing witnesses, and conducting investigations.

An actual impeachment effort would be incredibly difficult given the slim majorities the party enjoys in Congress, politically inadvisable as it would give the opposition party a point to rally around, and the general unwillingness of the Senate to demonstrate independence from the White House.

 And they have seen their popularity take a dive down the crapper. It's way lower than bush's popularity. Something like 11%.  A large part is because all they have tried to do is attack the President at every turn.  One example is the attorney firings. That isn't anything the Congress needs to look into. Those attorneys work for one person only. The President, and he can fire them at anytime, for any reason.

 The Senate has tried to be independent of the President, but they do not have the margin to do it, and they do have some wariness of being labeled obstructionists if they block some legislation.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #237 on: February 17, 2008, 06:13:31 AM »
Did they look at ALL of the politicians in Washington? Republican and Democrat? If not, then the report is suspect at best.

Perhaps you would care to read the report before we discuss its methods and scope.  As I said before, the report was limited to statements made by officials in the White House, Vice President's Office, State Department, Justice Department, and a few other executive branch offices specifically regarding the justification for the invasion of Iraq in the two years following September 11th, 2001.

Suggesting that the CPI limited the range of their investigation because of partisan interests is to miss the point of the report.  It's perfectly legitimate journalism to examine public records for statements made by certain officials and compare the veracity of those statements with other government reports.

Finally, regarding Soros, the CPI's willingness to take his money certainly did not stop them from publishing a report in 2004 regarding his political donations during the elections as a part of its "Silent Partners" project, which won an Online Journalism Association award for its reporting on 527 groups that bypassed campaign finance disclosure regulations to funnel millions of dollars to both candidates.
 
One example is the attorney firings. That isn't anything the Congress needs to look into. Those attorneys work for one person only. The President, and he can fire them at anytime, for any reason.

That's not entirely correct.  The President can dismiss them for no reason.  The President cannot dismiss them for any reason he likes, however.  There are laws in place, for instance, that would prohibit the President from firing them on the basis of race or sex or for any other discriminatory reason.

That's not necessarily the case here, but it bears mentioning that the premise is flawed.  The attorney firing incident in 2006 created controversy for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, they were replaced by interm replacements that would have been de facto permanent replacements because of a provision of the Patriot Act, which took away from the Senate their advice and consent function described in the Constitution. 

Investigations into the matter have focused on whether or not the Department of Justice and the White House dismissed the attorneys inappropriately. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.  I'm no lawyer, but, if true, that sounds suspiciously like obstruction of justice to me.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html

Finally, Congress began investigating the matter because the reason for the dismissals were given as contradictory, vague, and elusive.  Several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents requested or formally subpoenaed by Congressional committees and subsequently made public.

Regarding that the attorneys were dismissed for poor job performance:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509_pf.html

Regarding the role played by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the firings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900352_pf.html

Regarding whether or not the attorneys' political affiliations were:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/goodling.testimony/index.html

If the White House and/or the Department of Justice lied to Congress about the matter, it is certainly the role of Congress to investigate this and take any appropriate actions.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #238 on: February 17, 2008, 06:26:38 AM »
Actually, it does have to be taken into consideration. The people who fund sites and organizations like that do it for fairly specific reasons. They have an agenda and it has to be met or the funding dries up. If the CPI is filled with left leaning liberals that only take one view of things, the report isn't valid because it does not look at the other side. Did they look at ALL of the politicians in Washington? Republican and Democrat? If not, then the report is suspect at best.
I could not have said it better myself. Based on their own report, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, and Byrd are all guilty of "false statements" along with the administration. Spin indeed.

FYI, I'm not defending Bush. I'm not defending the conservative viewpoint. I saw a similar report by a conservative website that concluded that Hillary is a socialist. Well, yes, she has some ideas that come from socialism, but that does not make her a socialist. It was just a conservative spin on the facts. That's the point of my argument: there is a media bias, and it goes both ways depending on where you get your news.

The reason these sites aren't sued for libel is because they very carefully word what they write. Read the article that CPI, frankly, it's all true, in theory. But it's only a half-truth because they are only revealing evidence they want the reader to see. They use the word "false statements" as opposed to "lie" because to lie implies a blatant act to make a false statement, whereas a false statement in and of itself can be made with honest intentions.

That's because for the first six years of this administration, his own party controlled both houses of Congress, and was unwilling to perform its oversight role.  As of 2007, the Democratic party has been attempting to perform its oversight function, but has been thwarted by the White House and Justice Department in securing documents, subpoenaing witnesses, and conducting investigations.

An actual impeachment effort would be incredibly difficult given the slim majorities the party enjoys in Congress, politically inadvisable as it would give the opposition party a point to rally around, and the general unwillingness of the Senate to demonstrate independence from the White House.
I don't buy that argument at all. The fact remains that if there were an impeachable offense in all that "mumbo-jumbo"... you would at least hear the Democrats in high positions going on and on and on about it, but to be completely honest, it's pretty much a dead issue outside of the media spin. I've heard suggestions (terms like "illegal war") but that's as far as it gets when the Democrats discuss Bush and the war in Iraq as far as this matter goes. They don't go into details! That's the beauty of politics, my friend. Stay vague and use pretty words, and you can win over supporters.

Quote
Perhaps you would care to read the report before we discuss its methods and scope.  As I said before, the report was limited to statements made by officials in the White House, Vice President's Office, State Department, Justice Department, and a few other executive branch offices specifically regarding the justification for the invasion of Iraq in the two years following September 11th, 2001.

Suggesting that the CPI limited the range of their investigation because of partisan interests is to miss the point of the report.  It's perfectly legitimate journalism to examine public records for statements made by certain officials and compare the veracity of those statements with other government reports.
Like I said, they don't exactly tell any lies, but what they are suggesting is entirely obvious and it's simply not the whole truth, but a specific half-truth. Nobody's denying that what the administration said in the months and years after 9/11 is not true... that does not make it a lie, which is exactly what that article is trying to suggest, even if it doesn't come right out and blatantly say it.

And, as I have said more than once in this thread... if Bush lied, how do explain those statements Democrats made following 9/11 when they saw the very same intel as Bush?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 06:31:51 AM by rainshadow »

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #239 on: February 17, 2008, 07:00:49 AM »
I don't buy that argument at all. The fact remains that if there were an impeachable offense in all that "mumbo-jumbo"... you would at least hear the Democrats in high positions going on and on and on about it, but to be completely honest, it's pretty much a dead issue outside of the media spin.

Not necessarily.  First of all, you do hear some members of Congress making noises in that direction:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051220-033748-2122r

And secondly, there are procedural reasons why impeachment has not happened.  Specifically, the person whose job it is whether or not to consider bringing motions of impeachment to the proper committees in the house has said that will not happen:

Pelosi:  Impeachment 'Off the table.'"

And, as I have said more than once in this thread... if Bush lied, how do explain those statements Democrats made following 9/11 when they saw the very same intel as Bush?

Here's how:  It's not true.  Not that the statements weren't made, but that Congress had access to the same intel as the President.  The Downing Street memo other documents strongly suggest that such intelligence was fixed. 

*Several intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program said not one of them informed Congress of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intelligence community debate.

*Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller: “People say, ‘Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an administration which tends not to release — not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have:  http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0114/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt

*The claim that the White House and Congress saw the ’same intelligence’ on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administration’s use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defense’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi:  http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006

*In the October 27, 2003, edition of The New Yorker, journalist Seymour M. Hersh described the administration's swift distribution of INC intelligence, as well as the White House's efforts to conceal the intelligence community's doubts about these reports.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #240 on: February 17, 2008, 07:21:33 AM »
Quote
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This was a British memo, correct? What do you know about British English? I know that "fixed" isn't British for "manipulated." It means "based on." The very word "fixed" is one that confuse a lot of Americans when they look at that memo.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 07:23:01 AM by rainshadow »

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #241 on: February 17, 2008, 07:46:54 AM »
This was a British memo, correct? What do you know about British English? I know that "fixed" isn't British for "manipulated." It means "based on." The very word "fixed" is one that confuse a lot of Americans when they look at that memo.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell I was trying to say with my last post, knowing that I was completely wrong. I'd seen this information through wiki before and I was incorrectly stating information that I saw. This argument over the word "fixed" has several sides and I should probably just keep my mouth shut.

The point is that memo is considered a smoking gun by a lot of people and really it doesn't say anything we didn't already know at the time. I'll let this commentary state my case, and accept the verbal bashing I'm going to recieve for my previous post, because, you know... I was being an idiot. :P

http://www.slate.com/id/2120886

At the same time, what you have reinformed me that what the WH saw was different from what Congress saw. I'm willing to accept that as true, because it only makes sense.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 07:52:39 AM by rainshadow »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #242 on: February 17, 2008, 12:32:38 PM »
 
Quote
Perhaps you would care to read the report before we discuss its methods and scope.  As I said before, the report was limited to statements made by officials in the White House, Vice President's Office, State Department, Justice Department, and a few other executive branch offices specifically regarding the justification for the invasion of Iraq in the two years following September 11th, 2001.

Suggesting that the CPI limited the range of their investigation because of partisan interests is to miss the point of the report.  It's perfectly legitimate journalism to examine public records for statements made by certain officials and compare the veracity of those statements with other government reports.

 I will read the report when I can, but it is already suspect since it IS from a left funded group. They have a bias to slant the report they give.  The light on the 'lies' that the President said and such, is never turned to the Democrats. They had the same, if not very similar evidence and intelligence to look at, but their words, FOR the war, are rarely if ever picked up by the media. If they had any doubts, then they should have voted no. I know one or two did vote no, but I'm talking about the ones who voted Yes, and now say no.

 
Quote
Finally, regarding Soros, the CPI's willingness to take his money certainly did not stop them from publishing a report in 2004 regarding his political donations during the elections as a part of its "Silent Partners" project, which won an Online Journalism Association award for its reporting on 527 groups that bypassed campaign finance disclosure regulations to funnel millions of dollars to both candidates.

 To a point. Most paper and TV media is heavily or severely left leaning, so they generally cover their own butts on many things. There have been some differing opinions, but over all, they stick together and are dedicated to bringing down anything the President and his administration, does. The Soros funded groups do mainly what Soros wants, because if they didn't, he'd pull his funding of them. They do not like to slap the hand that feeds them.

 
Quote
That's not entirely correct.  The President can dismiss them for no reason.  The President cannot dismiss them for any reason he likes, however.  There are laws in place, for instance, that would prohibit the President from firing them on the basis of race or sex or for any other discriminatory reason.

 By any reason, I meant the legal reasons.
 
 
Quote
That's not necessarily the case here, but it bears mentioning that the premise is flawed.  The attorney firing incident in 2006 created controversy for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, they were replaced by interm replacements that would have been de facto permanent replacements because of a provision of the Patriot Act, which took away from the Senate their advice and consent function described in the Constitution.

Investigations into the matter have focused on whether or not the Department of Justice and the White House dismissed the attorneys inappropriately. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.  I'm no lawyer, but, if true, that sounds suspiciously like obstruction of justice to me.

 So what? They do not work for the Congress, but the President. He can fire them anytime he wishes. Clinton fired every single one when he took office. Right in the middle of their times of service. It simply is not the perview of congress to question or hold hearing on it. Separation of powers.

Now, as to their replacement, he can I think appoint temporary replacements until confirmed, but I am not sure if Congress has a role in that. If they do not, then they have nothing to stand on.

 The Advise and consent is mainly for Judges and Department heads. 

Offline Humble Scribe

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #243 on: February 17, 2008, 01:24:02 PM »
This was a British memo, correct? What do you know about British English? I know that "fixed" isn't British for "manipulated." It means "based on." The very word "fixed" is one that confuse a lot of Americans when they look at that memo.

We use both meanings as a matter of fact - a lot of Americanisms have crept into British English. But in the context it's pretty clear he means that intelligence was being used selectively (i.e. intelligence that supported the WMD position was being given prominence, and any contra-indications were being ignored). That may not be manipulation, but it is 'spin'.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #244 on: February 17, 2008, 05:00:37 PM »
Now, as to their replacement, he can I think appoint temporary replacements until confirmed, but I am not sure if Congress has a role in that. If they do not, then they have nothing to stand on.

The Advise and consent is mainly for Judges and Department heads. 

Absolutely incorrect.  According to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the President shall appoint "public Ministers and Consuls" and "all other Officers of the United States."

US Attorneys most definately have their appointments confirmed by the Senate, up until March 7, 2007, when the relevant provision of the Patriot Act took effect.

So what? They do not work for the Congress, but the President.

No.  They work for the people of the United States.

He can fire them anytime he wishes. Clinton fired every single one when he took office. Right in the middle of their times of service.

It is one thing for a newly elected chief executive to create and fill vacancies in the roster of appointed officials.  It is quite another to dismiss officials for either conducting investigations into the affairs of prominent members of one's own political party, or for failure to investigate members of the opposition.  If that is indeed what has happened, and please, notice the if, it is most certainly inappropriate and possibly illegal.

It simply is not the perview of congress to question or hold hearing on it. Separation of powers.

You and I disagree.  I believe that Congress has both the power and the responsibility to check and balance the activities of the executive branch.  I would prefer to err on the side of giving Congress too much power to hold oversight functions than too little.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #245 on: February 17, 2008, 07:14:45 PM »
We use both meanings as a matter of fact - a lot of Americanisms have crept into British English. But in the context it's pretty clear he means that intelligence was being used selectively (i.e. intelligence that supported the WMD position was being given prominence, and any contra-indications were being ignored). That may not be manipulation, but it is 'spin'.
Well of course it is. And spin is politics. There is spin everywhere, including our highest offices. Spin's what makes politics go round. It's an aspect I don't like but it exists. To base an entire theory that the administration manipulated on a three sentence passage in a memo (which also clearly indicates in other passages that the administration believed the weapons were there, btw) that isn't entirely clear is spin at it's finest.

I think it's pretty obvious we never had direct evidence of WMDs... because we know now the WMDs had been destroyed according to ordinances years ago. But that doesn't mean the government didn't have reason to believe the weapons were there. We've suspected for years that Saddam still had his stockpile (including through the Clinton years). We were just wrong. A massive mistake, but one of the consequences of being wrong was that we got rid of an evil regime, something that was a necessity, IMO.

Hopefully we figure out a way to bring stability to the region, before it is all said and done. I don't know if that's even a remote possibility. One thing I know for sure: if we pack up our bags and leave now, all hope is lost.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #246 on: February 18, 2008, 05:45:23 AM »
A massive mistake, but one of the consequences of being wrong was that we got rid of an evil regime, something that was a necessity, IMO.

I'm glad you still have the clarity of vision to see the world as made up of either "good" governments or "evil" ones.  It makes me wonder, however, if removing "evil" dictators is so beneficial, why is it that there are some we tolerate, and some we are hell-bent on toppling?

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, the House of Saud, Pinochet of Chile until 1990, the Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, the royal line of Nepal, Col. Banzer of Bolivia, Mobutu of Zaire...oh yes, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  To paraphrase John Kerry, "We were for Saddam before we were against him."  Clearly, the administration is operating on a paradigm that goes beyond mere consideration of whether a regime is good or evil in shaping our foreign policy.

I think we can move beyond simplistic discussions of good and evil in international relations.  The US has recognized a tangible benefit in propping up the regimes of brutal, oppressive dictators.  In terms of cost benefits, how has the trillions of dollars spent, the thousands of lives lost, and the incalculable value of international cooperation and goodwill in the time following September 11th are all figures that go in the minus column of the equation.  What's in the positive?

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #247 on: February 18, 2008, 10:52:02 AM »
Absolutely incorrect.  According to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the President shall appoint "public Ministers and Consuls" and "all other Officers of the United States."

US Attorneys most definately have their appointments confirmed by the Senate, up until March 7, 2007, when the relevant provision of the Patriot Act took effect.

 Don't forget he can recess appoint judges. It says nothing about dismissing of them.

No.  They work for the people of the United States.

 The President is elected by the people, who therefor nominates or dismisses those in his administration. Therefore they work for the President, since he can fire them. You and I will have to agree to disagree on that.

It is one thing for a newly elected chief executive to create and fill vacancies in the roster of appointed officials.  It is quite another to dismiss officials for either conducting investigations into the affairs of prominent members of one's own political party, or for failure to investigate members of the opposition.  If that is indeed what has happened, and please, notice the if, it is most certainly inappropriate and possibly illegal.

You and I disagree.  I believe that Congress has both the power and the responsibility to check and balance the activities of the executive branch.  I would prefer to err on the side of giving Congress too much power to hold oversight functions than too little.

 You don't think those lawyers which Clinton fired were working on important things when he kicked them out of their offices? The congress has NO reason to question the President in this matter. They have no basis to investigate what is a Executive Branch affair. New appointments, yes, but not the firing of them, if it's not done for sexual/religious/racial discriminatory fashion. He simply might not have liked the person. Which is legal grounds to fire someone.

 I think the Congress is trying to usurp powers from the Executive Branch, by their constant supenaing(sp) of records in nearly everything the Executive Branch does. The War for example, trying to put a time table for withdrawals on the spending budgets. This is not Congress's to mes with. All they can do is declare war(which they essentially did when they gave the President the power to attack Al Queda) and fund/not fund the Department of Defense.

 There is only one Commander in chief, not 100 that live in the Senate. they cannot stipulate how fast troops are to be taken out or where they can go. If they had the guts, they'd vote to pull funding. There have been several attempts, but every single one has failed badly. They do not have the courage of their convictions.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #248 on: February 18, 2008, 10:56:35 AM »
I'm glad you still have the clarity of vision to see the world as made up of either "good" governments or "evil" ones.  It makes me wonder, however, if removing "evil" dictators is so beneficial, why is it that there are some we tolerate, and some we are hell-bent on toppling?

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, the House of Saud, Pinochet of Chile until 1990, the Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, the royal line of Nepal, Col. Banzer of Bolivia, Mobutu of Zaire...oh yes, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  To paraphrase John Kerry, "We were for Saddam before we were against him."  Clearly, the administration is operating on a paradigm that goes beyond mere consideration of whether a regime is good or evil in shaping our foreign policy.

I think we can move beyond simplistic discussions of good and evil in international relations.  The US has recognized a tangible benefit in propping up the regimes of brutal, oppressive dictators.  In terms of cost benefits, how has the trillions of dollars spent, the thousands of lives lost, and the incalculable value of international cooperation and goodwill in the time following September 11th are all figures that go in the minus column of the equation.  What's in the positive?

 It's called real politick. Sometimes deals must be made with dictatorial regimes, against a worse foe. WWII is the best example. Sometimes the situation changes, with a new administration or world politics and something must happen. At the time, it was beneficial for the US to ally with that country, even if it was the lesser of two evils.

 By what you are saying, it seems to me, it's not worth taking out evil regimes because we might not succeed? Sometimes the right thing is not the easiest thing to do. Because it might be hard, should never be a reason to not do anything.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #249 on: February 18, 2008, 11:18:33 AM »
Quote
Sometimes the right thing is not the easiest thing to do. Because it might be hard, should never be a reason to not do anything.

*forcibly muzzling myself*