“I have a zero tolerance for sanctimonious morons who try to scare people.”
I wish I’d said that. Of course the sentiment has been central to my ranting for years, but that brings it to a sharp point.
I wish I had a dollar for every time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their entire cartel invoked fictional Iraqi “nukular” aluminum tubes, weapons programs and mushroom clouds. The scary fictional links between Saddam and al-Qaeda had most Americans thinking Iraq was in on 9-11 just before Bush launched his crusade for political power and cronies’ profit. Now that was successful fear-mongering.
I’m old enough to remember LBJ’s nuclear blast “Daisy ad”. Most politicians, and especially Republicans, have a long history of using fear to coerce gullible voters into supporting them. There were never any such things as “death taxes” and “death panels” until Republicans made them up. The myth of “government takeover” of health care turned many ill-informed folks against health care reform. The list goes on.
So I wish to thank the person responsible for the above quote. I embrace it.
Unfortunately this is a very isolated comment from this individual. When placed in context with certain other remarks it becomes hysterically hypocritical.
Let’s just sample a couple meteorological references by our hero for some comparison.
(Regarding his prayers to keep Hurricane Gloria away from Virginia Beach) It was 'extremely important because I felt that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation
I apologized and I said I will be praying for him, but one day we will be staring nuclear weapons and it won't be (Hurricane) Katrina facing New Orleans, it's going to be a Venezuelan nuke.
Yup. That was Pat (9/11-was-the-fault-of-the-gays) Robertson.
So even a broken clock is correct twice a day, I guess.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Gawd these rants get old. First, you're assuming motives. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate believed that Iraq had WMDs, as did the rest of the western world. They were not "trying to scare people;" they thought they were in possession of the truth.
Second, I can't believe you are unaware of Democrat scare tactics, like old people dying on hospital room floors, children drinking arsenic, and... oh yeah... catastrophic global warming and over population!
I don't believe you are unaware, so I'm forced to believe you are deliberately misleading because you're a partisan hack recycling your MSNBC Occupy Wall Street talking points.
(I hope you know I'm not leveling ad hominem attacks; I'm simply using your own debate tactic of associating someone you disagree with with other losers and their talking points. All in good fun.)
That's a great quote. Pat Robertson actually said it? For that matter, he also said marijuana penalties should be reduced (unless I'm thinking of a different rightwad).
Definitely a case of the broken clock being right twice a day.
Word verification: horsterd
Thank you for your quick response. I think you scanned my post a little too fast for comprehension. I actually mentioned a specific Democrat's scare tactic. And you're calling me a "partisan hack", Mr. Republican? Heh, heh.
Recycling MSNBC and OWS talking points? You mean like the "death panels" and "death taxes"?
Your "triumvirate" was very selective in their propaganda. They actively demonized dissent to the falsehoods they propagated. They went so far as to expose a covert operative because she was married to someone who called them out. Ask Rove, Cheney and Libby.
I was not fooled, and neither were the millions of people who demonstrated against the war, even including the Pope.
I see you have no criticism for Robertson, though. Gotta be lockstep faithful to a fellow Republican and all. Not that you're a partisan hack.
I suspect an "intelligent design" behind those word verifications. Funny serendipity at least.
Why do I have to criticize Robertson? As you said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yes, you included a single Democrat from how many decades back? I guess only Republicans use scare tactics in the modern era...
You're lying about selective propaganda. Do you really want this to turn into a comment thread that itemizes every world leader, every Republican, and every Democrat that supported the Iraq war and the intelligence that led us there? Can't we just stipulate and move on?
As for Valery Plame, that's another lie, unless you're woefully uninformed. She wasn't covert. And it wasn't Rove, Cheney, or Libby who exposed her. I believe it was Wolfowitz. And again, she wasn't covert, so exposing her wasn't a crime.
Nobody believes you.
Spineless me-too dems are not proof of Bush's truthfulness or honesty. I was not fooled. Neither were millions more. The "nukular" aluminum tubes were debunked before the invasion, as were most of the lies. "Biological labs" was a lie disproved shortly after it was uttered by the "decider". No evidence was presented, only assertions. The war was based on false assertions. Those who questioned those assertions were attacked and called unpatriotic. I was one of them.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
- Patrick Fitzgerald, Special Counsel
From Robert Novak the leaker: “Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.”
Covert or not so covert, splitting hairs or not, this was treasonous and criminal retribution by the Bush Cartel. I'll go with Hayden and Fitzgerald, a couple of Republicans.
This is all unpleasant history for Republicans to re-write. I know it's your job, but we don't buy it.
Still can’t say Robertson is a kook?
Well that settles it for me, Dave said you are wrong so you must be.
Facts can be your friend, Dave. You just have to let them in the door.
Bush Lied People Died: I won't argue this because you can't see from behind your partisan goggles. Reasonable people know there was no attempt to lie us into war.
Valerie Plame: I'm taking a risk, but I'll rely on a neutral non-partisan second-hand source we all know and love.
"1) Robert Novak was never approached by the Bush administration. 2) Valerie Plame drove to work/Langley in public view every day. 4) Plame was not covert as defined by the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982 (this, in that she hadn't been stationed overseas during the previous 5 years). 5) All that Robert Novak reported was that the wife of former Ambassador, Joe Wilson, is/was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction". Nothing was ever reported by Mr. Novak that Joe Wilson's wife was ever covert. 7) The first indication that Valerie Plame had ever been a covert operative came from a column by liberal ramrod, David Corn. 9) Mr. Corn's source? It had to have been Joe Wilson. I mean, he doesn't mention anybody else in the piece, does he? And being that Robert Novak never mentioned it. 14) Mr. Novak also points to sworn F.B.I. testimony which states that Mrs. Plame-Wilson's C.I.A. employment was common knowledge in Washington."
I have had it up to here (my hand is in the air) with something or other and I am very angry about this or that, and I don't think we should have to tolerate it because everything is just a mess, an awful mess, and O' God! and really, I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Either that, or I just want to subscribe to the post.
Defending Pat Robertson is indefensible. The man is a kook.
"Nukular" aluminum tubes was one lie. "Biological labs" was another lie. I could go on. And on.
Well, of course you believe Republicans over Fitzgerald and CIA director Hayden. You have no choice, do you? Republicans are always right and never lie. Not that you're a partisan hack.
But I'm the one who's fact impaired.
If you read the comments at that link, you can see the same unfounded assertions of Republican talking points that the writer made were debunked as well.
It all comes down to the word of Bush apologists and those who were charged with discovering the truth.
And as we all know, everybody lies, or is ignorant of the facts, but Republicans. Never mind Fitzgerald and Hayden are Republicans. They don't count.
So, did you happen to notice any hypocrisy or questionable sanity in Robertson?
How come no Rightie wants to address the content of my posts?
Say, is that a false dichotomy?
Ah, Free. Thank you.
Why do you keep talking about Pat Robertson?! You opened your post with an anonymous quote. You then leveled several accusations toward people who use scare tactics.
In the second to last line you attribute the first quote to Robertson followed by "even a stopped clock..." Saying "even a stopped clock..." is a way of saying that even idiots can spout the occasional truth.
I agreed with you. Yet you keep demanding that I denounce Pat Robertson?! What the f**k?
I haven't made a single statement of support for Robertson. I supported your support for his statement.
In the past month you have begun a descent down a hole of leftist ranting and I fear for your sanity.
I'm beginning to think you employ a "fake understanding" in order to distract from the subject. Either that or you don't want to read for comprehension, due to your assumption that whatever I say is wrong.
Nothing changes the fact that we beat the pants of Iraq in 1991 for good reason and they signed a surrender agreement they didn't even come close to living up to.
Hence, we finished kicking their ass. That's why we went to war, case closed.
Well there you go. That alone is good enough reason for the slaughter of untold thousands.
They deserved it.
And not to mention the war was a bargain for us and for our next generation. They will be happy to pay for the ongoing occupation, along with some expensive VA care for aging vets of the First Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Not to worry. They will be grateful. We saved them from nukular aluminum tubes.
Well they should thank us. Keeping world energy prices stable is a hard job.
... and their IPODs don't run on hope and change.
Just like you bitch about "corporatism" and then pull the lever for Wall Street darling Barak Obama, you'll bitch about war while you fill your car up for 3.20 a gallon vs Europe whose paying more like 8.00
Heathen Republican wrote "Reasonable people know there was no attempt to lie us into war."
Gullible and highly partisan neocon Republicans are the people who "know" that, just as they "know" trickle down is all the economic policy the U.S. needs because it always works.
George W. Bush came to the White House intending to get Saddam and bring down his regime. Saddam had tried to have his father murdered. What's more, George W. had been advised, probably by Rove or Cheney, that a nice, neat little war was a good way to ensure he'd be re-elected. That was something George W. was determined to do at any cost. He wasn't about to be a one-term president the way his father had been. (That also largely explains all those huge tax cuts.)
Cheney came to the White House intent on securing access on very favorable terms to Iraq's oil for the benefit of Halliburton and Big Oil.
Bush discussed getting Saddam and regime change for Iraq at his first Cabinet meeting. It wasn't a matter of should we, but rather of when and how. That's on the record from people at Bush's first Cabinet meeting.
There was plenty of uncertainty and disagreement in the intelligence community about what WMD's Saddam had, or if he even had any. Cheney made frequent trips to the offices of CIA analysts — something unheard of for a V.P. to do — to put his thumb on the scales by pressuring analysts to skew their analyses toward the story he and Bush wanted. He was criticized and made fun of after these visits for having yelled at analysts who didn't seem to get it that they were being told what to report.
Then, Heathen, there's this. Even if Saddam had possessed WMD's, his country was in a tight little box. He had a U.S. fleet off his coast. His country was under constant signals surveillance from the sea and land, and aerial surveillance by planes and satellites. The CIA almost certainly had informants inside the country as well.
Saddam's M.O. and mindset were entirely different from OBL and al Qaeda's. His history was that of using conventional forces, as in the eight-year war with Iran, not terrorist sneak attacks. What's more, Saddam ran a relatively secular regime. He considered religious zealots a threat to his power.
Finally, the 1990 Gulf War scared the crap out of Saddam. First, because a huge land force suddenly showed up from the far side of the world to turn back his Kuwait takeover. Secondly, because his forces were revealed to be utterly incapable against a first-rate opposition. Saddam's troops weren't just defeated; it was a rout. A humiliating rout.
In the aftermath, the U.N. demanded Saddam divest himself of all nuclear materials, tools and weapons. He was so scared that he did what he was told. He feared if he was caught making nukes, the West would be back, and the next time he'd be out of power. When he was ordered to turn over all nuke-related things in 2002, he sent some looseleaf notebooks stuffed with CD's. That's all that was left of his nuclear program, and it dated back to '91.
So, to recap, the intelligence about Iraq having WMD's was mixed and highly uncertain. Saddam had a military he knew was best suited to use against his own people, to keep him in power, because it was clearly no match for modern Western forces. He lacked control of the skies over his own country. He was operating in a veritable fishbowl. He kept terrorist groups and religious zealots at arm's length, and so wasn't likely to arm them with anything but a token money donation (which he did).
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were privy to all the above information. They had the option of continuing a policy of surveillance and containment. They chose a war made necessary only by their own agendas. Those agendas were not about the dangers posed by a highly doubtful WMD threat. They were about political advantage, a personal vendetta and pure, damned greed for oil and the money it brings.
Heathen Republican, your self-serving denials ring as hollow as Bush's lame exercise in circular reasoning when, for once, a reporter at a press conference really pressed Bush for a convincing, logical, factual explanation of the need to immediately invade Iraq. Bush didn't do that because could not do that. He simply didn't have the convincing evidence to make that logical, factual case, and it showed.
Saddam had tried to have his father murdered.
Call me crazy but in my book that's enough of a reason right there.
Bottom line, Saddam tried to steal 1/3 of the oil reserves of the world in 1990. That was totally intolerable, so we went to war. To keep from being ousted Saddam signed agreements he didn't even come close to living up to. Instead, he as you mentioned tried to assassinate our President, gave money to suicide bombers in Israel, and didn't cooperate with WMD inspections in the least. Because of this, we had to keep an entire Army group on his boarder and use our Air Force to stop him from murdering his own people. We had to bomb his country several times to force compliance with the cease fire. The burden of proof wasn't on US during the 90s and early 00s it was on Saddam. He didn't do it, so decisive action was taken.
None of this is in dispute, and for me it's enough. Certainly it's more reason than we had to go to war with Libya. It was originally enough for Democrats too, until it became clear is was a partisan means to attempt to bring down a President... a means that in 2004 failed and for good reason. American voters could smell the dishonesty of the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who were for the war before they were against it a mile away - and it still stinks today, even after we've won.
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.” Franklin D. Roosevelt – 1936 d4d
"Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate believed that Iraq had WMDs," they said they did. the people they hired backed them. all the people under them have said they kept telling them it was not so. even today the msm will not say what they said and are saying. Henry David Thoreau Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.—Richard Feynman
To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another. —John Burroughs
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.—Philip K. Dick, author
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.—Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 2003 d4d
Free0352 proudly said...
"Well they should thank us. Keeping world energy prices stable is a hard job."
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work? ;-)
Heathen, you claimed...
"As for Valery Plame, that's another lie, unless you're woefully uninformed. She wasn't covert."
From Merriam-Webster, the definition of Covert: 1: not openly shown, engaged in, or avowed : veiled.
Yeah, she was covert, alright. She was a NOC (non-official cover), which means an agent sent to spy on a foreign country, for instance, working as a businessperson or a worker for a non-profit organization, etc., and which is acknowledged.
Now, as for your claim that "she drove to work/Langley each day", and that her "C.I.A. employment was common knowledge in Washington", how is that even remotely provable? I'm more inclined to believe General Hayden, when he spilled the beans and said: "The role of this Agency was simply saying that Ms. Plame’s relationship with this Agency, as a covert CIA officer, was a classified piece of information."
I've noticed that you seem to have a problem with word meanings. Maybe you'd like Santa Claus to bring you a dictionary this year?
That was why they called FDR a "traitor to his class".
You notice the word change too? Yes, the warmongers never said they "believed", but asserted as fact, their lies about WMD's, "nukular" aluminum tubes, biological labs, connections to al-Qaeda, etc.
Then the lie turned into "everybody believed". Nope, we did not.
We are wasting time with them. It is religion to them. They only believe the GOP partisan line. A Republican CIA director does not count. A Republican special counsel does not count. The Bush Cheney defenders are their final authority.
The propaganda of FOX(R) and the RNC is their truth. They are as lock step in beliefs as Bush family friend, and fellow Republican, cult leader Sun Myung Moon's legion of true believers.
They also believe that Moon's cult wealth is taxed too much. The poor "job creator" and "savior" is punished and persecuted by that oppressive tax burden. Oh, the cruelty! The horror.
Let me start over. I do not like nor do I support Pat Robertson. I also don't like clocks.
Nonetheless, it is likely that Robertson has uttered at least one sentence in his lifetime that I can agree with. Similarly, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Hopefully I have established the minimum credentials to post a comment here as a Republican.
We went to war based on intelligence from multiple countries that believed Saddam had and was working on WMDs. For the most part, that intelligence was wrong. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Bush did not lie us into war; he was wrong, as were many Democrats and several other allied countries.
I say "for the most part" because WMDs were eventually found in Iraq, according to the Department of Defense.
Dave, your repeated use of the word "nukular" is uninteresting. Perhaps you're unaware, but that is a local coloquialism, not a Republican dialect. Democrats in Texas also say Nukular. So while you think you're making joke at the expense of Republicans, you're actually demonstrating a soft bigotry against southerners.
There is a reason that no one from the Bush administration have been charged with war crimes: they committed no war crimes. At this point, all you can offer are opinions and unfounded allegations. If any of your opinions about war crimes were true, someone would've prosecuted someone.
The same goes for Valery Plame. Jefferson, you rely too much on a dictionary (which is also an uninteresting tactic). In this case, we need to be concerned with the legal definition of "covert." Since Plame did not meet the legal definition of covert, no crime was committed.
Again, your opinions and unfounded allegations mean nothing. No one has been prosecuted for leaking her name because no crime was committed.
There are enough people at the U.N., at the Hague, and in the U.S. Justice Department that hated the Bush administration. If any crime was committed, it would've been prosecuted.
"Nukular" is how uneducated illiterates of both the north and south pronounce nuclear. Bush was born and "educated" in the North. He's the only one I am mocking because he's the first president to adopt the speech of illiterates over the educated. Who's fault is it if more Southerners than Northerners say it that way, if that is even the case? It would help explain why the South votes for Republicans, though.
Everyone knows war crimes are most often charged against the losers, not the winners of wars. Most of us have heard about the Malamady Massacre by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge. Not so many heard about the unprosecuted killings of unarmed Germans at Chenogne in retaliation.
I know you pay no heed to my words, but if you did, you may have just had a history lesson.
Ok, but for some reason I bet we shall not be seeing Dick Cheney, or the Shrub, as tourists in the Hague, though.
Pardon us for using accepted dictionary definitions over Right Wing spin. You have no choice, but the rest of us do.
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.
The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.
Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts. Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true.
Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.
~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf d4d
it's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' " Stockman explained, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down. ..." Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." See William Greider, The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans, rev. edn. (New York: New American Library, 1986). These quotes appear on pp. 47, 48, and 55.
....The substance of Stockman's story could hardly have been more devastating to the Reagan administration. He was saying that at base, the entire edifice was phony. There was no "there" there. Literally "no one" knew "what was going on with the numbers."
Robert Bartley, it should surprise no one, thinks the supply-side experiment turned out just fine. Bartley says he has learned to live with, if not quite love, the deficits, now approaching $350 billion a year. ... Third. rather than condemn the deficits and the interest payments they demand from the taxpayer Hartley -wants to know what those funds would have gone toward. "It's certainly true that the governmgrrt can sjpend money jo increase production or on defense which increases production. But, on the other hand if jt's going tospend if on increlsed transter payments I'd rather have th em~pay it out m in intrest and let the private economy use it."
What Bartley is in effect saying here, as Wannski puts it, is that "there are deficits and there are deficits." He would rather see Americans pay a healthy percentage of their taxes to the rich foreigners who hold our debt than have the money available for rebuilding our public infrastructure, cleaning our air and water, providing resources to keep our neighborhoods safe from drugs and crime, improving our national education system, and retraining our workers to compete in the global economy. This is, historically speaking, a respectable philosophical position within the conservative camp. But it is hardly one that the majority of the country can be expected to embrace.
"SOUND AND FURY" ERIC ALTERMAN
There's an original defense.
Heathen, you said...
"No one has been prosecuted for leaking her name because no crime was committed."
That's for a criminal court to decide, which one day may happen. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in maintaining that Valery Plame was not a covert agent. The former director of the CIA disagrees with you.
I think you owe Dave Dubya an apology.
"I think you owe Dave Dubya an apology. "
Sure Jefferson, as soon as I see an apology from you here, when you claimed I lied and couldn't back it up.
The legal definition of "covert" is not the same as the dictionary definition of "covert."
You said it yourself, "That's for a criminal court to decide, which one day may happen." In the U.S., one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So the appropriate response would be to say that no crimes have been committed until a court says otherwise.
If a conviction occurs in the future, I will renege and you can safely claim that crimes were committed.
Heathen Republican wrote: "I say 'for the most part' because WMDs were eventually found in Iraq, according to the Department of Defense."
Yes, the right-wing noise machine went into overdrive about that 2006 DoD press release. So did Rep. Pete Hoekstra and then Sen. Rick Santorum.
From Media Matters for America:
"As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, 'Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War-vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein.' The Washington Post also reported June 22 that '[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.' From the Post:
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
Iraq's caches of mustard gas and sarin-containing artillery shells represented an imminent threat to any of Saddam's ill-trained and badly led troops unlucky enough to be ordered to do anything with them. Those shells represented NO THREAT to the U.S. or any other country, much less an imminent threat with the specter of a mushroom cloud thrown in for dramatic effect.
Why do you suppose those shells were buried near the Iranian border instead of being used against Iran's forces in the Iran-Iraq War? I'll tell you why. It's because the Iraqis had learned the hard way those things often hurt and kill troops on both sides. Lessons learned from chemical warfare going back to World War I is that forces that use them never want to use them again.
The DoD press release's COYA statement about how chemical agents in the shells would be prized by and useful to terrorists is the tipoff about how and why the press release was issued. (I can just hear Deadeye Dick Cheney croaking into the phone, with Rumsfeld or some other Pentagon official on the other end, "You will find WMD's in Iraq and you will make what you find public.")
In fact, it would be safer to enter a Russian Roulette marathon than try to extract and reuse the chemicals from those shells. Even if done under ideal conditions, using special buildings, airtight chambers and robotic equipment,it would still be dangerous and prohibitively expensive. And, once extracted, those chemicals could very well be unsuitable for weaponizing.
Bottom line: the DoD could claim those old shells as WMD's technically. But it's a lame case to make. Like saying if some Iraqi kids were caught flying kites in 2001, they were in violation of No Fly Zone restrictions. Anyone with half a brain would say no to dispatching a squadron of F-18's to eliminate those kite flyers, to end the "threat" they posed.
Likewise, anyone with half a brain would reject the notion those old chemical-containing shells represented anything like the burgeoning, imminently dangerous-to-the-the U.S. threat Bush & Co. and the entire right-wing noise machine spent two years trying to whip up paranoia and hysteria about.
Skewing and cherry picking intel, then telling only the side of things they wanted the public to know was in fact deliberate deception on Bush's part, along with his administration and the right-wing noise machine. In short, Bush lied, people died.
Re: the matter of whether Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative.
Despite the political right's efforts to reduce Plame's status to that of a glorified office assistant, the woman was a contact and controller of field agents, which typically means spies.
Outing Plame for craven political purposes, to exact vengeance on her husband, ruining her career in the process, was cowardly, despicable thing to do. It was morally and ethically wrong. And for all the fiscal hawks out there, it wasted a bunch of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
But what really makes that very dirty trick a crime is that outing Plame could've cost some or all of her contacts their lives. At the least, it surely caused them to no longer be of use in gathering intelligence.
Bottom line: it takes more than applause lines and a shiny U.S. flag lapel pin to be a terrorist-crushing, patriotic superhero. Honesty, decency, ethics, conscience and common sense are required as well.
Bush and his crackpot crusaders failed that test on all counts.
Thanks, I think I'm going to use that quote to live by.
Anonymous who is not d4d,
You got me there... You're obviously too educated, too literate, and too intelligent for me to bother to respond to anymore.
Thanks, but HR owes me no apology for doing his job. I can appreciate his work. And I think our big lesson here is something like this: No crime can be committed until a court determines it has been committed.
That, and the former CIA director used the wrong dictionary, or something like that.
Thank you for spelling it out so eloquently, both the long and the short of it.
Hey, weren’t those kites called “unmanned aerial drones”? And that crazy, evil Saddam thought he could fool the Decider! Hah!
Time Magazine's Michael Ware was on Bill Mahar's show Friday and summed it up nicely. Bush's war on Iraq was won by Iran. And both our sworn enemies al-
Qaeda and "Axis of Evil" Iran were strengthened by our former president's actions.
Ware spent over seven years in Iraq. He was not one of the Green Zone stenographers.
Heathen, you incorrectly said...
"So the appropriate response would be to say that no crimes have been committed until a court says otherwise."
No, that's not how it works. Your logic would assume, in a case of homocide, for example, that no crime was committed until someone was prosecuted and convicted.
A crime was definitely committed. It just hasn't been prosecuted (yet).
Dave, you correctly observed...
"... the former CIA director used the wrong dictionary, or something like that."
I suppose. Maybe I'll buy the two-pack from Costco, and send the other one to Hayden.
Heathen, you also said...
"Sure Jefferson, as soon as I see an apology from you here [link to Dave's article from September], when you claimed I lied and couldn't back it up."
I call 'em as I see 'em. Get over it. I'm sure it won't be the last time I catch you "attempting to deceive". As Dave mentioned, you're just doing your job.
What does a scandal from many years ago have to do with problems we have today like winning the war in Afghanistan or our floundering economy?
I guess I'd want to change the subject too.
The subject hasn't changed. The perpetrators of the scandels also created the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires that contribute to the foundering of the economy. We are still paying for the tax cuts for the elites, scams of de-regulated predatory capitalism, rogue militarism, and corporatism.
And the unaccountability of political and economic elites continues.
Oh more propaganda. Why not stop showering and go smoke weed in a park in New York
When was the last time you were forced to buy something? If you want to talk bailouts, then fine - I'm against them. But that's crony capitalism- not capitalism at all really. Capitalism would never have bailed those banks out. Capitalism would have seen them go out of business.
But beyond that, predatory? HA! That's laughable. Look at all the "stuff" that is surrounding you from the four walls to the computer to the heat, and water. Nobody forced you to buy any of it. Quit being dramatic. In fact, you should thank them for building it and doing such a swell job at making it affordable enough for you. The computer you're reading this on is many times more advanced than that which was used on the first Shuttle missions, and yet those rotten corporations did such a good job now you have one in your house. The jerks. You likely work one of their jobs - and likely bitch to high heaven about it- when without it you'd be picking through a dumpster looking for food I throw away. Companies sell things, that's how they make money... duh! They aren't in it for the altruism, trust me. They're trying to get paid, and the vast majority of them do a right fine and honorable job at it. What's their thanks? They get called greedy scum bags, and called criminals. Fuck it, were I them I'd move my company to China too out of pure spite. After all, the Chinese actually want them there.
You know just a though, when the Communist Oligarchy that is China is treating our business better than we are... well that's a little red flag that we have a problem in this country with how we treat the JOB CREATORS.
Free0352, you've been stroked for so long by Adam Smith's "invisible hand", you've gone blind. ;-)
Please, spare us the parental "You don't know how good you've got it!" speech. It doesn't fly.
As far as your inane, "Why not stop showering and go smoke weed in a park...", remark, is that what you did while in Iraq?
I have not kept up with this thread, but something jumped out at me:
When was the last time you were forced to buy something?
I am annoyed by this, not the question, but the reality of the answer.
I just had to buy a hot water tank. Some would say it was not technically forced, but I am very cold and dirty.
I also had to purchase some car insurance this month.
I didn't technically have to, but I am not allowed to drive without it and I get very tired in my peripatetic endeavors.
I was forced to buy a war in Iraq.
I'm still lucky, though, I wasn't forced to lose a friend or family member like millions of other people.
I got a grin from noticing your opening and closing lines.
Oh more propagaganda. And how we treat the JOB CREATORS.
"Job creators" is the Right WIng propaganda term drafted to tag the economic elites, the spoiled aristocrats and off-shoring corporations. Most millionaires are not job creators, unless you count their servants and maybe a secretary. How we "treat them" is why our nation is screwed. We let them take over our government, deregulate Wall Street, and they get to pay the lowest tax rates in our lifetime.
Poor, poor oppressed babies.
Speaking of computers and job creators, Bill Gates told Christiane Amanpour Sunday that the rich should pay more taxes.
Why don't we listen to a real job creator? Oh, that's right. We're only supposed to listen to the aristocratic Republican "job creators" that inherited their wealth.
After all, it's our own damn fault we didn't inherit wealth like the Kochs.
I didn't technically have to
Exactly, lots of people in the world get by without cars and hot water. Companies have made it possible for you to have a choice.
I was forced to buy a war in Iraq.
By elected representatives. I thought you were oh such a fan of democracy?
I'm still lucky, though, I wasn't forced to lose a friend or family member like millions of other people.
Like I was. I've been wounded 3 times, and hit by 8 IEDs. I've had over 20 friends killed, and many more wounded. Don't worry about us, we volunteered. It was our choice, no one made us do it.
"Job creators" is the Right WIng propaganda term drafted to tag the economic elites,
It's still true. Middle class people don't create jobs. How many people do you employ? Zero? Why aren't you doing your fare share of employing people?
the spoiled aristocrats and off-shoring corporations
As opposed by whiney, spoiled looter-liberals who want money for free? If that was the thanks I got for hiring you, I'd move your job to China first chance I got.
Most millionaires are not job creators, unless you count their servants and maybe a secretary.
Yup that counts. How many poor people have paid your salary ever?
Poor, poor oppressed babies.
Yup, that's why more and more of them are outsourcing to China and paying zero taxes living in the Caymans. Atlas is indeed shrugging.
Bill Gates told Christiane Amanpour Sunday that the rich should pay more taxes.
He can make a donation to the IRS any time he wants. So can Warren Buffet. But they won't, because they own this administration and know they'll get the tax breaks while the IRS breaks off their competitors. Thats why I support a flat tax.
Why don't we listen to a real job creator?
Koch industries employs seven times as many people as Microsoft. Care to wager how many more people are employed by Exxon?
After all, it's our own damn fault we didn't inherit wealth like the Kochs.
I respect people a hell of a lot more who inherit than those who use government to take it. Last I checked, Kochs didn't get a bail out.
Well done! You’ve attacked every sentence you possibly could. Your masters would be proud.
Iraq War: Democracy was not part of the equation. Neocons, Corporatism, Spineless Dems and bought politicians forced us to buy the war.
Only those who volunteered after the invasion had a choice. I know some who had no choice. Again it was Bush/Cheney’s “choice”, not yours. We also have no choice but to pay for your medical care and survivor benefits.
“Job creators”, your new designated GOP talking point, produce nothing without help. Middle class people supply the labor for the elites’ profits. They cannot do it on their own, but act like it though.
“whiney, spoiled looter-liberals who want money for free?” Hardly, but a good example of propaganda. I’m not asking for anything free. Who’s whining about the lowest ever “oppressive taxes”? Rich crybabies and their dittohead dupes.
“How many poor people paying salaries?” Another good example of Republican propaganda. Reason enough to hand our government over to the rich, though, eh?
“Make a donation to the IRS” Another good example of Republican propaganda. You make a great parrot for a “free” thinker.
“I respect people a hell of a lot more who inherit than those who use government to take it. Last I checked, Kochs didn't get a bail out.”
I don’t know when you last you checked, but you missed the corporate welfare, corporate socialism, subsidies and bailouts the Kochs suck out of the US taxpayers.
Ah, your heroes the Kochs. We know their inheritance came about largely due to Russian oil fields. Thanks to Stalin.
Ever the hypocrites, and despite their work against Obama and his healthcare legislation, the Koch Industries applied for health reform subsidies made possible by the Obama administration.
Charles Koch portrayed himself in a Wall Street Journal opinion as simply an ideological advocate, and says his money to political groups is only meant to “enhance true economic freedom.” He chides special interests that have “successfully lobbied for special favors,” claiming “crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market.”
“Crony capitalism”. That’s a good one. Bush gave them Iraqi oil and the contract for the Strategic Oil Reserve.
In Alaska, blogger Andrew Halcro reported that a Koch subsidiary in Fairbanks asked Gov. Sarah Palin’s administration to use taxpayer money to bail out one of their failing refinery.
It turns out your revered Kochs are sucking more corporate welfare tax dollars than you’d like to admit.
No subsidies for their oil empire? You better check again.
There’s more for your “America last” greedheads.
Bought a ship they named after their mother from Communist Yugoslavia, thanks to Communism.
Partnered with the socialist government of Venezuela in fertilizer, thank to Chavez.
Through its Matador Cattle Company subsidiary, Koch Industries has been grazing cattle on 200,000 acres of public land. Thanks to the New Deal.
Logging public forests by use of public roads into the forests thanks to the US Forest Service.
Now sucking up subsidies for their new Ethanol facilities in Iowa. A “boondoggle” according to Cato: “the dizzying array of federal, state and local subsidies, preferences and mandates for ethanol fuel are a sad reflection of how a mix of cynical politics and we-can-do-anything American naiveté can cloud minds and distort markets.”
Last but not least, the Kochs have been profiting by their pipelines through “eminent domain”, hated by libertarians except when it makes them money.
Maybe you should check on your heroes again;
Your unquestioning loyalty to wealth and greed is something to behold.
"Your masters would be proud."...
Example of lid calling kettle black.
How long before Free will be banned from this sight for refusing to give in to Dave?
Your masters would be proud.
They trained me well at the brainwashing camp, after they attached the electrodes to my brain. / sarcasm
Democracy was not part of the equation. Neocons, Corporatism, Spineless Dems and bought politicians forced us to buy the war
Translation: When politicians vote the way I want, that's freedom and democracy. When the vote for things I don't like, it's "corporatism."
Only those who volunteered after the invasion had a choice.
Oh you again mean guys like me, who when the crossed the line of departure from Kuwait on March 20th 2003 were starting their second combat tour since we had just got home from Afghanistan? Yeah, half my platoon reenlisted just to get to invade Iraq. Not to mention, it was no secret prior to the war that when you joined the Marines you might have to... um... duh go to combat. If your "friends" were crying about it they were pussies, and I'd love to tell them that to their faces if that's the case. You join the service, your job is to fight. Even if you don't want to. I didn't like going to Kosovo much, but I never cried like a girl about it. I didn't agree with Libya all that much, but had I been asked to fight there I would have. I knew that might happen when I signed up, if your pals didn't they're either cowards or dumbasses or both. Sorry, just how it is.
We also have no choice but to pay for your medical care and survivor benefits.
I suppose you could vote for that Mr Civilian, but then we wouldn't fight for you, and not only would our economy die the next day, while you were starving to death we'd be invaded and destroyed. Good luck with that.
Middle class people supply the labor for the elites’ profits.
That's true, and more and more "elites" are choosing the Chinese middle class to provide that labor, mostly because our country treats them like shit and taxes the crap out of them.
I’m not asking for anything free.
Excellent, then you support paying the same percentage of income tax as everyone else? Lets say 9% or 20%? Oh? No? Ah, I see. It's not free, you're ENTITLED to free government cheese I got it. Lot of that mentality going around.
Another good example of Republican propaganda
Propaganda? Really? How many poor people are covering your paycheck then? What you call "propaganda" the rest of the species calls "common sense." Way to throw addhom attacks and not even touch the question. Weak.
I don’t know when you last you checked, but you missed the corporate welfare, corporate socialism, subsidies and bailouts the Kochs suck out of the US taxpayers
Someone has been reading Truthout.org- or your source is. How cute. Truth is a bit different from your misconception.
From the Wichita Eagle-
“Unfair programs that favor certain companies – such as the current well-intentioned but misguided suggestion that the natural-gas industry should receive enormous new subsidies – don’t just happen. They are promoted, in large part, by those seeking to profit politically, rather than by competing in a market where consumers vote with their wallets. Companies such as Koch Industries have long sought to eliminate such subsidy, and for the last 40 years have refused all government subsidy in all sectors.”
As for Exxon's subsidy, okay. Lets cut them off. Let's cut off every "green jobs" boondogle too while were at it. In fact, I'm for cutting off all welfare for everyone everywhere.
But you're not. You're for a government that chooses who the winners and losers in the private sector are, to a point where "private" gets removed from the equation all together. Talk about Propaganda, if your sources got anymore leftist you'd be siting Pravda. Forgive me if I just don't give them weight, and instead read my Koch Industries quarterly report.
Bought a ship they named after their mother from Communist Yugoslavia, thanks to Communism.
How did Communism in Yugoslavia end again? Oh, I mean the FORMER Yugoslavia. Yeah, it died and the country degenerated into civil war. Yay communism. I bet the Kochs got that boat cheap after that.
Partnered with the socialist government of Venezuela in fertilizer, thank to Chavez.
You're talking to the guy who thinks we should normalize relations with Burma, North Korea, and Cuba. Do you think I give a shit?
Through its Matador Cattle Company subsidiary, Koch Industries has been grazing cattle on 200,000 acres of public land. Thanks to the New Deal.
Then you must as I do support the federal government selling all that land? The United States government owns 1/3 of all land. If I had my way, they'd own .01% of it.
Good job as usual, Dave, and o so very true! FYI, my latest blogpost pver at http://jackjodell53.wordpress.com/ mentions your site very favorably. Keep up the good work!
I have seen the light! I'm voting for Obama and the most liberal person running for office that I can. I'm tired of working for the man at least 55 hours a week, for what?
It's time for the rich to be taxed more so I can get aid/help/ mortgage forgiveness and what ever else Obama is promising to give me if he's reelected. You liberals were correct all the time, government was created to take care of ME. And I think it's time to for me to cash in. Hurry up Nov 2013, I cant wait to start see what free stuff I can get after Obama is reelected.
I urge, no I beg, all who read this to help me out in getting more govt stuff by voting for the most liberal person you can and Obama in 2012. I'm counting on your deep sense of humanity to do so.
I'm going to work hard and try to get rich- but if I don't I won't blame anyone but myself. I won't ask anyone to take care of me- and Ill resent the people who want to force me to take care of others.
I must be the one percent
I see you both admit and deny corporate welfare for the Kochs. Perhaps it's best you just take their word for everything like you did Bush and Cheney. True believers are happy believers.
Meanwhile the Kock Kartel admits to taking handouts while "opposing" them.
Thank you for your kind words.
I see you both admit and deny corporate welfare for the Kochs.
Uh, no. I'm pretty sure I'm solidly in the DENY camp. I thought I made that clear. Are you clear on it now? Also, year you're right I am disinclined to take the word of your ultra left wing sources. I don't find them particularly credible as much as I do the company books.
I agree with the Koch brothers that we should end all subsidy to business. It's your side - NOT MINE - who fight for it tooth and nail. And we're the "corporatists?" HA! Now run along and go support Obama... who subsidized Wall Street... You can then become even more incomprehensible by supporting the biggest giver away of taxpayer dollars to wall street in human history and simultaneously protesting government conducting wealth transfer to wall street.
Doublethink: a word coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.
I guess you can't face the reality that eminent domain, public lands for grazing, and public lands for logging are for the exclusive private profits of your heroes. That’s corporate welfare, whether you or the Kochs deny it or not. As I said, true believers are happy believers.
Private profit at public expense is the guiding philosophy of so many of your beloved corporate bloodsuckers. You’d like us to forget your fearless leader and decider started TARP before Obama. He even had auto bailouts in mind before Obama. I bet you also forgot the market crashed during Bush’s administration.
"You're for a government that chooses who the winners and losers in the private sector are, to a point where "private" gets removed from the equation all together."
I'm always amused that Righties believe they know what I think more than I do. Arrogance becomes you.
Oh you read 1984, did you? Read it again. After I read it I watched it become a fulfilled prophecy, especially by Republicans.
You must have missed your own Decider's truly Orwellian proclamation.
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush
Beautiful, is it not? I have it on tape. We also remember Ari Fleischer condemned Bill Maher's irreverent comic response to 9/11 retaliation by reminding "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."
And let’s not forget the Big Neocon Dick himself with his ’04 election “advice”, "If we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again."
Be afraid, be very afraid. And we are the only ones who can protect you. How’s that for getting us back on to the original topic? And you wonder why we are forced to vote for Democrats...
Maybe the radical Right should just claim all the 1984 slogans. They fit the neocon authoritarian mold so well.
Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. We’ve always been at war with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Eastasia, Eurasia, etc.
The Tea Cult, FOX(R), Limbaugh and Beck have all certainly mastered the two-minute hate. It would seem the radical Right is using 1984 for an operators’ manual.
You guys even have Alinsky for your Goldstein. Perfect.
Fishing out that fine Bush quote shouldn’t be wasted on only his “war is peace” remark. Here’s a couple more favorites.
“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – George W. Bush 1999
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way..." – George W. Bush 4-20-04
“Stay the course.” “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course’.” - George W. Bush 2006
Miss him yet?
Well, it is hard to craze cows on land you can't own because the government stole it 100 years ago and won't sell it... but yet forces you to rent it.
Yeah, more socialism.
You’d like us to forget your fearless leader and decider started TARP before Obama.
um, left the Republican party over that one actually. I don't forget when Republicans like Romney listen to Keynesians like Obama does.
I bet you also forgot the market crashed during Bush’s administration.
No, a Keynesian model predictably bubbled and burst. I was blogging about it 3 years before it happened. It was that predictable. Yes Bill Clinton, and later GWB partnered very oddly with Barney Frank still passed laws that not only allowed but required banks to give bad loans. They thought "Everyone has a right to own a home." How did that turn out? The same way "Everyone has a right to insurance, a college education and a retirement" will turn out.
Government cannot provide, it only takes.
I'm always amused that Righties believe they know what I think more than I do.
You are the self proclaimed socialist. If you don't want people to think it of you, don't write it.
I watched it become a fulfilled prophecy, especially by Republicans.
Yes, because the Thought Police were constantly harassing you about your leftist blog right? How do you hide from the monitor in your room / sarcasm
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Look that one up. Wake up, we live in a violent world. It requires violent action to preserve our peace. America is a remarkably peaceful place because of our policy. The world didn't change on September 11th, many Americans simply woke up to how the world really is... well accept you liberal progressives. You remain willfully ignorant of reality regarding national defense. You get that convenience because of how good a job we do protecting you. You get the luxury of safety, something most human beings on Earth lack.
If we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again.
I agree with that statement, and I think Barak Obama was very wise to continue the Bush policy, verbatim.
Miss him yet?
I was hard on him during his Presidency, but after three years of Obama... yeah... kinda.
Not that there was a lot of differences. Same econ policy, same tax policy, pretty much the same foreign policy. Same tendency to compulsively borrow money. Medicare D vs Obamacare. Basically they were the same president, but Bush didn't put those stupid American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signs up everywhere on highways we fix every year like it was something new and wonderful.
Favorite Rightist GOP propaganda:
“land you can't own because the government stole it 100 years ago and won't sell it... but yet forces you to rent it.”
“a Keynesian model predictably bubbled and burst.”
They thought "Everyone has a right to own a home."
“required banks to give bad loans.”
Like the Thought Police, our NSA scoops up all electronic communications and the FBI gathers private information without warrants, contrary to your “decider’s” lie. They shredded the Fourth Amendment. Wake up.
“don't write it.” Funny. I very often don’t write the stuff you say I wrote.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Of course you would hold to the slogan of a dying empire, to justify protecting us from nukular aluminum tubes. You need to believe the military and Republicans are protecting us. I get that. Too bad nobody thought to protect us when Bush/Cheney decided al-Qaeda was of no big concern despite being warned by Richard Clarke. Oh, never mind, Clarke was a babbling fool leftover from the Clinton Administration who was kicked out of Bush’s cabinet.
And you agree with Cheney. That would be my point all along.
I want to see you libs put your money where your mouth is. If you're so against subsidy like I am - you'll copy and paste this letter I'm sending to the Federal Legislature and the President and tell them where you really stand.
Dear President Obama, Senators and Representatives,
Over the course of several years, concern has been growing among the American People about subsidies to private industry and the effects this has on both tax payers and our government. We think government intrusion into the economy has a toxic, corrupting effect on the decision making in Washington.
That is why we request you terminate all government subsidy and payments to private enterprise. Only a free market and prices will correct our damaged economy, and eliminate the toxic corruption we see daily from Government. This termination should include but not be limited to-
• The Finance Industry
• The Auto Industry
• The Insurance Industry
• The Health Care Industry
• The Agribusiness Industry
• The Energy Industry
• Transportation Industry
• Green Tech Industry
• Technology Industry.
Certainly Government must hire some contractors as well as purchase goods and services in order to function. We request this process become much more efficient and transparent – especially when concerning construction projects or military procurement.
In an era of ever increasing need for citizens to tighten our belts, and in consideration for ballooning budget deficits and debt, we think it only reasonable those in Government do the same. That is why we advocate the selling of at least 30% of Federal Public Land. Surely we can have national parks and military reservations, but you own much more. The profits of such a sale would go a long way to paying down our nation's debt.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, we await your action on this issue.
Just to repeat, so everyone understands, if you are sincere about anything you believe, you will send someone letters Free writes. I want to make that very clear, lest anyone get confused about how sincerity is maintained in America.
Free...John...I'll get on it today. Nothing is more important, in these depressed economic times, than selling off the commons and giving it away to corporate private interests.
I share some of Free's concerns and disdain for subsidies and corporate drain on public resources. In addition, I am concerned about the lack of constitutional regulation of commerce and corrupting influence of Big Money on government.
And in the fine liberatarian tradition of defending our Bill of Rights, I want disclosure of which corporate interests have been contracted to gain power of warrantless surveillance over Americans, both for govenment and private purposes. Let's see accountability for the billions of tax dollars awarded for the surveillance of American citizens.
What? You say it's way too late for anything like freedom and democracy to be of concern to our corporatized government?
Time for a new Constitutional Convention.
Let the investigations start here if you are really concerned about the corrupting influence of Big Money on government.
(Business Week) — New court documents show the founder and former CEO of solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. negotiated a severance package worth almost half a million dollars.
Documents the company filed in bankruptcy court in Delaware also show the executive, Chris Gronet, was terminated July 1, almost two months before Solyndra announced he was leaving.
The company received a $528 million federal loan and was touted by the Obama administration as a “green jobs” creator.
The documents, filed Monday, show Solyndra paid more than $17,000 to its bankruptcy law firm in early February. That was two weeks before finishing a loan restructuring in which some $70 million borrowed from private investors got priority for repayment over $385 million in taxpayer money.
Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection in September.
Since your article dump was at least relevant to the topic, I’ll respond.
First, you’re talking about what amounts to less than chump change compared to the Wall Street Banksters bonuses after scamming us out of trillions of dollars. Not one influential Republican has shown concern for that, or in regulating them.
Second, you’re late to the party. House Republicans have their House Energy and Commerce Committee working on issuing subpoenas to the White House on the Solyndra matter. You know about subpoenas, right? Those are what Republicans and the Bush White House ignored from Democrat led House committees.
Third, the White House has also launched an independent investigation.
Say, when did the Bush White House investigate Cheney’s dealings with Halliburton and their overbilling? When did Bush have to respond to his handing out sweetheart deals to his oily cronies?
So it's all about Bush again. Why didn't House when the Dems had the majority, investigate if they felt as you claim? Could it be there is no evidence to support your claim?
The latest is the White House is slow and incomplete in responding to the House Committee. Can you say dragging their feet ?
And finally we have the issues of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. The federal govt controlled mortgage monsters just reported another quarter of losses, this time it's $6 billion they need, that brings the amount of bail out money taxpayers have give the federal govt controlled giant to $175 billion. Maybe the OWS protesters should be marching against this bailout!
Why didn't House when the Dems had the majority, investigate if they felt as you claim?
This is the density of Right Think that I grow weary of from anonymous blockheads. I just mentioned how the Bush White House ignored Congressional subpoenas. You know, those little requests that investigative committees use to get information.
This person is definitley not grounded in reality. Big News.
//the selling of at least 30% of Federal Public Land.//
lessee... start with Mt Rushmore, Disney would be interested.
We could unload Lake Michigan.... it's just full of fish anyways..
And who really cares about the Grand Canyon? It's just a big goddam hole.
National Forests would really be much better off without all the stupid trees...I'm sure Georgia Pacific (Koch Ind) would want them......
Hey... let's sell North Dakota, too.... there ain't nutting there but flies and refugee Canucks.
Gees....what a dumb idea.
So let me get this strait liberals, The Federal Government owns about 650 million acres of land... or about 30% of the total surface area of the United States. The vast majority of that, are NOT parks or military bases. What is it used for? Who cares? Why on earth does government need to own so much land?
So to sum the argument up, when government owns land... that's freedom. When private citizens own land, or try to own government's land... that's slavery.
Ignorance really must be strength.
Also, funny how your hatred for government subsidy dries up worse than Betty White's snatch the second I mentioned cutting subsidy for traditionally liberal donating industries like Greentech or the Auto Industry.
Guess it's not corporatism you have a problem with, it's companies who back Republicans. You can cry about bail outs all you want... your party's actions speak much louder words. You can say you don't like it, but you still vote for it. Every goddamn time.
Makes me think of an old Indian proverb - You can't wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.
Don't be so dense, when Bush was out of the White House why didn't they investigate then the sweet heart oil deals?
One would have to be very dense to beleive that an internal investigation by this White House will come up with any thing but, nothing there, now lets talk about Bush, kind like your doing.
Tell us, what were the Congressional subpoenas about that Bush ignored? What did Halliburton over billing have to do with Cheney, can you prove anything or is just hear say, again?
How about saying on track about CURRENT EVENTS Dave, as opposed to using deflection for answers to CURRENT events?
There's four more questions from Just the Troll.
I addressed the current point and compared it to a past one. You deserve no more of my time by accusing me of not staying on track of a current issue, then immediately bringing up the older one. This is your distracting behavior again.
Your ignorance of the past and disinterest in research are poor reasons for me to answer what you can look up for yourself.
You just don't like the idea of public ownership of anything. I happen to love the federal lands that we all have available for hunting, fishing, camping and recreation. Why pay corporations for the use of what is ours? They get plenty of dirt cheap use of those lands without having to buy it, and you know that. They pay Civil War era fees for mining and other uses. And you whine about the poor, poor corporations getting abused by the big bad government. Sheesh.
We the people have been getting ripped off.
You asked the "toll" questions, whats the matter you above answering questions?
You just don't like the idea of public ownership of anything.
3 out of every 10 acres? That seems a bit excessive. And it's all localized, why the hell does the federal government own 84% of Utah, or a tad over 50% of Idaho? I think the people of Utah and Idaho have a right to own their own state's land. You think Government should be the major land owner.
Yeah, but I'm against freedom blah blah blah.
Why pay corporations for the use of what is ours?
It's not yours, it's government's. Of course if we made government sell some of it you could buy some of that land. Then it would be yours.
They get plenty of dirt cheap use of those lands without having to buy it,
So make em' buy it.
They pay Civil War era fees for mining and other uses
So make em' buy it.
And you whine about the poor, poor corporations getting abused by the big bad government.
According to you they have a pretty sweet deal now. I bet they'd rather pay dirt cheap civil war fees. I'd make them purchase the land. But I'm the corporatist.
We the people have been getting ripped off
Sounds like it. We should make them buy it or throw them off. Bet we could get back some of that bail out money that way. But what do I know, I'm the corporatist.
Now run along and go vote for civil war fees for corporations on federal land.
Free0352, you claim...
"It's not yours, it's government's."
As I've brought up many times previously, it's whose? I'll give you a hint: "We ___ ______".
(Personally, I believe all that "government land" should be returned to its rightful and original owners.)
//. We should make them buy it or throw them off. //
it's our land...we are the people...if corporations use it..as they do now... fair price for fair use. I would not trust corporations for fair use. It is why most of old growth forests are gone....gone..gone....take the top of a mountain...and it is gone forever....
As I've brought up many times previously, it's whose? I'll give you a hint: "We ___ ______".
No. It's. Not.
We live in a Republic. We have people represent us. When was the last time you held office, or ran a government agency? Yeah, you are not the government, and even though I work for it myself neither am I. You are a citizen, one that likes his masters in D.C. to compel him to rent land in states you'll likely never visit too for that matter.
It's more doublethink. First you liberals maintain that corporations and elites have hijacked the government. Then you maintain that these people you so dislike have sweet heart deals. In fact you complain about it. Then you vigorously defend the hijacked corporate government's right to own 650 million acres of land which it rents to citizens who by right should own it- when I suggest it be sold BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
You people talk in circles. Do you hear yourself.
Free0352, I was baiting you. Yes, we are a republic; a republican democracy -- at least by definition. But, in actuality, we've evolved into a corporacracy or oligarchy, or more appropriately, a hybrid of the two.
Yes, I know, we don't have direct democracy. I know that. But, what you fail to acknowledge is that the "definition" as described above, a republican democracy - and although not ideal - is a concept preferable to more people than a government run and controlled by special interests, i.e., wealth.
Oh please, our government runs exactly as it has since 1787. EXACTLY THE SAME.
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Every diminution of the public burdens arising from taxation gives to individual enterprise increased power and furnishes to all the members of our happy confederacy new motives for patriotic affection and support.
I have always been afraid of banks.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.
- James Garfield
It's the same old argument that's been going on in this country since
its founding. All this dramatic crap like these circumstances today are at all knew his for those totally and woefully ignorant of history.
The gospel left behind by [railroad magnate] Jay Gould is doing giant work in our days. Its message is 'get money. Get it quickly. Get it in abundance. Get it dishonestly, if you can, honestly if you must."
I could do this forever. However, I'll sum it up. For over 240 years you collectivists have been trying to "vote yourselves rich" in the words of Ben Franklin and we've been trying to stop you. We believe as James Madison said
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Sorry for the typos, f'n auto correct in blackburry!
Free0352, you said...
"I could do this forever."
You still fail to acknowledge that we've been overrun and overtaken by an oligarchy; more specifically, a corporacracy. You seem to be implying that we've always faced the challenges of the haves against the have-nots; the masses versus the rich, and that this is not any different. well, this is different -- a whole lot different. Unfortunately, you pander and cater to those who could care a less about you, your family, or your country. They only care about making themselves wealthier and wealthier, at your expense, and you are more than happy to lend them a hand.
That's the pathetic reality of it all.
"You people talk in circles. Do you hear yourself?'
And the answer is.............. no, they don't. But keep on trying Free0352, maybe you have a breakthrough one day.
You seem to be implying that we've always faced the challenges of the haves against the have-nots;
It's not a challenge, more of a law of nature. There are have-have-nots in communist dictatorships.
this is different -- a whole lot different.
you pander and cater to those who could care a less about you
How? I don't want government services beyond a some roads, a bridge or two, the courts and some cops/firemen. I want to be left alone, and I think everyone else has a right to be left alone. I don't care if they care about me or not. I just want everyone to go away and for government to leave us in peace to live our lives, succeed or fail, fly or fall on our own merit.
Also, if you think things are soooo bad today, try googling Tammany Hall or the administration of U.S. Grant.
It ain't new.
In fact, one of the worst periods in government corruption was the out of control war profiteering that took place during the Lincoln administration. Lincoln wasn't corrupt, but oh-mamma was the cabinet.
Post a Comment