The Decider

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

It was not OK when Clinton lied! He got impeached & was dis-barred. What more do you want - cruxification perhaps? <!–QuoteBegin> Quote No, you just don’t like being challenged on your own biases and close-mindedness. That’s BS. I’ll have a debate with anyone who is fair and open minded. I’ll also admit when I’m wrong. I can present hard facts to you & you’ll spin your own way, witness what you said about Robert Novak’s article on Valerie Plame/Wilson.

Specifically what part do you have a problem with?? You didn’t present anything.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

There are other examples.

Feel free to share and let’s see if you have a legitimate complaint.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote Earlier, I looked at something you posted about the RNC and agreed with you that it looked fishy. Was I being close-minded and biased when I did that? No you were not, but you never really agreed with me that the Republicans do the same thing as the Democrat’s.

If you think they’re both the same, what criteria do you use to pick sides??

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote Malkin challenged the facts and corrected what she got wrong. How is that spin or smear?? It was the derogatory way that she did it that was smear.

How so?? What derogatory words did she use?? She said that Harman’s claim was bogus, which means nothing more than false. That’s much more civil than the “Bush lied and people died” nonsense spouted by liberals.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote If that’s the case, then everything you say about me or conservatives fits your definition of smear. I only say that about right-wing Wacko conservatives (like you). There are lot’s of conservatives that aren’t right-wing Wacko’s.

You have no reason to expect conservatives or Republicans to respect or listen to your viewpoint when you label them (and myself) as wackos. It’s the tawdry last resort of those who are unable to present a rational argument and it reinforces my observation in Page 1 that liberals are dividers. Thanks once again for making my point for me.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote And that’s bad because Democrats should be untouchable?? Of course not, but the right-wing will attack Democrat’s on anything they do. Malkin never really admitted that she was wrong either.

Wait a minute. Earlier you said she did admit it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,18:03)

Now Malkin got caught spewing falsehoods on this one & was forced to admit that she made a mistake - Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology, however, this is exactly how the spin/smear starts, i.e., with someone like Malkin.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote Nonsense. Here’s she’s taking Dick Cheney to task for using the F-word. Oh yeah - this is taking Cheney to task.<!–QuoteBegin> Quote He shouldn’t have said it. He had a bad day. He lost his cool… Malkin was very forgiving of Cheney. She’s not forgiving at all to Democrat’s.

She said he was wrong to do it. What more do you expect?? Plus, what is she supposed to forgive Democrats for when she’s pointing out Cheney’s mistake??

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

Where are Malkin’s articles about Duke Cunningham, Abramoff, James Tobin, etc.?

You need to ask her, not me. I’m not Malkin’s agent or publicist. She did call Abramoff a sleazebag. Did you actually check her Web site before you made this inaccurate accusation??

JACK ABRAMOFF: SLEAZEBAG

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote You’re doing your best to smear Malkin. I guess you find her threatening because she makes sense. <!–QuoteBegin> Quote Are you saying that you don’t believe that these talking points & issues spread through the right-wing media? No - I think I already said that they do, but that doesn’t mean all of them do. If the Harmon stuck, it would have been all over talk radio & it would have made it to FOX.

If the right-wing “attack machine” really existed in the manner that you’ve proposed, there wouldn’t be any ifs about the alleged Harman smear getting picked up by talk radio and Fox. Obviously your theory is nonsense.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

Franken doesn’t look at mainstream media (as much) - that’s not his mission. His mission is to expose right-wing lies which he usually does quite effectively, although not always.

You’ve exposed another double standard by being a Franken apologist and ignoring that he’s as one-sided or more so than what you’ve accused Michelle Malkin of being. Having such a one-sided mission makes him a typical liberal divider.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

<!–QuoteBegin> Quote I did already. But if you want more, look at the new statement from the Mediamatters CEO. They’ve completely adopted the “Snow is a lying Bush crony” (my paraphrase) stance of the DNC and dropped the “Snow criticized Bush and should be questioned” (same) stance of yesterday. So if 2 sources come to the same conclusion, then that’s prove they are in coordination with each other? Maybe but maybe not.

You’ve made accusations that right-wingers do nothing but run talking points but haven’t shown proof. Mediamatters ran DNC talking points and dropped their own. That’s rather compelling evidence of coordination. If they had any integrity, they would explain why they dropped their original strategy to smear Tony Snow.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,13:48)

Having said that, I do believe that liberals & Democrat’s have adopted the talking points strategy of the Republicans. Witness www.TalkingPointsMemo.com.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be looking for on the link you provided. It doesn’t establish who started the strategy of using talking points.

[system]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074809990023&_ccc=3&cid=842

KF

[Bubbagump]

How did I miss this whole debacle? I miss out on all the fun.

[KingFish]

Quote (Guest @ April 28 2006,03:13)

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074809990023&_ccc=3&cid=842 KF

Sorry, I wasn't logged on.

Here's the link

KF

[ksdb]

Quote (kymarcus @ April 28 2006,14:53)

yeah I’d actually like to see the current mob held to a higher standard than Clinton got held to. It would be fine with me for all elected officials to be held to the ‘100% honesty’ test. But, to be fair, just holding them to the same standard as Clinton would suffice. At least then it would be consistent. Of course, it won’t happen with the GOP controlling both houses. If the same standard did apply, the current crop could only hope it stopped at impeachment. Cheney knows it too, and that’s why he’ll start a war this year, to make sure the GOP retains both houses. to: ksdb and anybody else still inclined to defend the Bush mob: Y’know it’s fine to have a conservative personal philosophy and all that. It balances out nicely with all the people who have a liberal personal philosophy. The balance is best for everybody. But, for everybodys sake, including your own, stop trying to defend the Bush gang. Free yourself of the burden. They’re actually not even pretending to defend YOUR interests anymore. The lies have been exposed beyond a doubt and you don’t need an impeachment to see it. Just because you stop defending the Bush gang doesn’t mean you have to abandon your conservative philosophy. I guess a lot of people just can’t bear to admit they made an error of judgement in the past. Last I heard, 32% of Americans are still not able to do it.

There appears to be a bitter chip on your shoulder. First you explain that you have a double standard. Then you pretend it’s fine to have a conservative viewpoint, but that an opinion poll validates or proves unsubstantied accusations about the Bush Administration. If you have a cogent point, start by bringing in facts instead of generalizations and nonsense claims that others can’t admit errors. Such comments are extremely pretentious and divisive (as I’ve pointed out several times in this thread).

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,15:46)

phoo - the Clinton impeachment was more than just a blowjob in the oval office. It’s been a while since I looked at it, and I’m simplifying here, but basically they impeached him because his alledged lying obstructed justice, i.e., Paula Jone’s justice.

Mike, I’m really proud to see you admit this in public. Very few liberals have the integrity to do so. This is a great start.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,15:46)

IMO this was not an impeachable offense because Clinton didn’t lied to subvert government or the functioning of government, like Nixon did.

But IFP Clinton could have done the right thing, like Nixon did, and resign to show that he had some personal integrity.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,15:46)

However, the Republican’s held Clinton to the highest standard, i.e., if you commit perjury then you are not fit to be President. The appropriate course would have been to censure him & let him be disbarred.

… and get kicked out of office. Porn stars and prostitutes are the only people I know who have sex in the workplace without losing their jobs.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,15:46)

Now of course, Bush originally said he would hold his staff to the highest standard in the Valerie Plame case, i.e., if they were involved they would be gone. Then he changed that to: if they committed a crime then they would be gone.

No, Bush actually said that from the start. You really need to pay closer to attention to his actual words and not the misleading summations of left-wing pundits and unethical reporters.

[ksdb]

Quote (KingFish @ April 28 2006,16:14)

Quote (Guest @ April 28 2006,03:13) http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074809990023&_ccc=3&cid=842 KF Sorry, I wasn't logged on. Here's the link KF

Did you have an opinion on this story??

[KingFish]

Quote (ksdb @ April 28 2006,03:25)

Quote (KingFish @ April 28 2006,16:14) Quote (Guest @ April 28 2006,03:13) http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074809990023&_ccc=3&cid=842 KF Sorry, I wasn’t logged on. Here’s the link KF Did you have an opinion on this story??

Yes. I think it’s an excellent idea.

KF

[MidnightToker]

ksdb - you misunderstand me, I always seek the truth.

However, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t think Clinton should have been impeached. And I don’t necessarily believe that Paula Jone’s justice was impuned, but I’m just recounting what the impeachment was about. As I said, I don’t recall all the details, but one of the articles of impeachment didn’t pass and I recall that was critical to the entire allegation.

There’s no question Clinton lied on several occasions. In the grand jury testimony and public statements, he was squirming around and trying not to perjure himself, i.e., that’s why he kept bringing up the term “sexual relations” and not using just the word “sex”.

Yes - Clinton could have resigned and yes it might have been better, but Clinton was not a quitter. Plus, the right-wing had been hunting him for 10 odd years. I’m mixed on whether I think he should have resigned because I’m glad he fought it & won. However, if he had resigned, maybe Gore would have won in 2000, and given what I know today, that eventually would be desirable.

When I said Bush, I should have said Bush admin. Here’s what McCellan said on September 29, 2003:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Here’s what Bush said the following day:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. … I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action."

These mean different things to be. Was McCellen mis-speaking or was Bush lowering the bar?

And now we find out that Bush and/or Cheney declassified info to be given to the press, regarding to the Wilson/Iraq affair. It’s not a leak when the President declassifies information, however, was Valerie Plame’s name part of that declassified doc? That’s still not clear to me.

[system]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12528891/

Mississippi governor helped implicated firm
GOP Marketplace allegedly involved in political dirty tricks

Seems relevant, again.

[MidnightToker]

ksdb - I’ve had several problems with your interpretations of things, the most notable being the Novak’s articles on Joe Wilson in TownHall. I think you COMPLETELY mis-interpreted & spun them to the point of being absurd.

Malkin never really apologized for her attack on Harmon, and she continued her bogus claim.

Right-wing talking points spread all the time. An example was Malkin’s article on Franken & Gloria Wise. That got to all kinds of news outlets. I’m not sure if it made it to FOX. In any event, it was bogus. I studied & debated it carefully & it was BOGUS.

Show me what liberal sources make it to mainstream media? The only one I’m aware of was the Jeff Gannon thing in the White House, i.e., that made it to National news. Having said that, bloggers are definitely having more power, on both sides.

Not all right-wingers are wacko’s but people like Rush & Ann Coulter & Malkin are.

I stand correct on Malkin - I didn’t realize that she wrote on Abarmoff.

However, my main point is that right-wing media sources like FOX distort and/or lie WAY more than so-called “liberal” sources. That’s what Media Matters is all about - correcting the right when it lies. Having said that, mainstream media gets it wrong too & when they do it’s usually BIG - witness CBS and memogate (big screwup).

I’ve heard Franken correct mainstream media on occasion.

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,17:26)

ksdb - you misunderstand me, I always seek the truth. However, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t think Clinton should have been impeached. And I don’t necessarily believe that Paula Jone’s justice was impuned, but I’m just recounting what the impeachment was about. As I said, I don’t recall all the details, but one of the articles of impeachment didn’t pass and I recall that was critical to the entire allegation. There’s no question Clinton lied on several occasions. In the grand jury testimony and public statements, he was squirming around and trying not to perjure himself, i.e., that’s why he kept bringing up the term “sexual relations” and not using just the word “sex”. Yes - Clinton could have resigned and yes it might have been better, but Clinton was not a quitter. Plus, the right-wing had been hunting him for 10 odd years. I’m mixed on whether I think he should have resigned because I’m glad he fought it & won. However, if he had resigned, maybe Gore would have won in 2000, and given what I know today, that eventually would be desirable.

IFP Clinton’s refusal to step down probably hurt Gore’s election chances. Gore could have become president immediately without trying to force pointless recounts in Florida and he would have had a stronger chance to stay in the office in 2000.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,17:26)

When I said Bush, I should have said Bush admin. Here’s what McCellan said on September 29, 2003: <!–QuoteBegin> Quote The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

I notice you left out the many previous quotes from the same press conference where McClellan said it was up to the Justice Department to do an investigation to determine an actual leak of classified information.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

"If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so."

The point is, that wrongdoing needed to be determined and that the President wasn’t going to remove anyone based only on speculation of involvement.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,17:26)

Here’s what Bush said the following day:

And I’ve highlighted the part that always gets overlooked two and a half years later:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. … I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action."

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,17:26)

These mean different things to be. Was McCellen mis-speaking or was Bush lowering the bar?

Neither. They were consistent with one another. Taking quotes out of the full context changes the meaning entirely.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,17:26)

And now we find out that Bush and/or Cheney declassified info to be given to the press, regarding to the Wilson/Iraq affair. It’s not a leak when the President declassifies information, however, was Valerie Plame’s name part of that declassified doc? That’s still not clear to me.

There are a few problems. If Plame had a sensitive position, she should never have been involved with bringing her husband in to do a job for the CIA, regardless of how little she may or may not have helped. Second, it probably wasn’t smart for the CIA to mention her name in a memo about Wilson’s mission, especially if she had a sensitive position and limited involvement as she claimed. Third, there’s no indication that the memo was specifically marked in a way that her identity or role needed to be safeguarded. Fourth, Wilson led people to believe that he was working directly for Cheney, which put Cheney in a position of having to clarify the situation. You have to remember that Cheney had no idea that Wilson had been sent on the mission until seeing Wilson’s ridiculous op-ed piece that was published two months after the war was under way. Obviously they wanted to clarify that bit of misinformation and did nothing more than try to explain to the LMSM who it was that got Wilson the job.

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

ksdb - I’ve had several problems with your interpretations of things, the most notable being the Novak’s articles on Joe Wilson in TownHall. I think you COMPLETELY mis-interpreted & spun them to the point of being absurd.

Prove it instead of making baseless dismissals.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

Malkin never really apologized for her attack on Harmon, and she continued her bogus claim.

Take it up with Malkin. You claimed that Democrats get automatically smeared by the “right-wing attack machine” or whatever you call it for speaking out, but the only evidence you have in this instance is ONE blogger. You said she admitted the mistake but for some reason you’re trying to raise the bar to include an apology.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

Right-wing talking points spread all the time. An example was Malkin’s article on Franken & Gloria Wise. That got to all kinds of news outlets.

I don’t follow every conspiracy that you buy into. If you’re going to spew examples, you should back it up with a link or something.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

I’m not sure if it made it to FOX. In any event, it was bogus. I studied & debated it carefully & it was BOGUS.

Well, good for you.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

Show me what liberal sources make it to mainstream media?

Actually, your comments about Bush mysteriously promising to fire anyone for being suspected of the Plame leak. Also, the Mediamatters stuff about Tony Snow seems to have made it.

Fox News’s Snow Tells Associates He’s Taking White House Job

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

On his radio show, Snow has voiced strong opinions on a range of topics in a tone that contrasts with the measured approach traditionally taken by White House press secretaries. He also has occasionally criticized Bush.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

The only one I’m aware of was the Jeff Gannon thing in the White House, i.e., that made it to National news. Having said that, bloggers are definitely having more power, on both sides. Not all right-wingers are wacko’s but people like Rush & Ann Coulter & Malkin are.

Coulter is a nut; Malkin has her moments.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

I stand correct on Malkin - I didn’t realize that she wrote on Abarmoff.

You stand corrected, not correct.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:05)

However, my main point is that right-wing media sources like FOX distort and/or lie WAY more than so-called “liberal” sources. That’s what Media Matters is all about - correcting the right when it lies. Having said that, mainstream media gets it wrong too & when they do it’s usually BIG - witness CBS and memogate (big screwup). I’ve heard Franken correct mainstream media on occasion.

How about correcting himself??

[MidnightToker]

I didn’t intentionally leave out anything - here’s a link to the actual press conference - Press Briefing by Scott McClellan.

Words mean something:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Bush didn’t need to wait for any investigation. He simply had to ask Rove, Libbey, etc., if they were somehow involved in the Valerie Plame leak. We have to assume that he did ask them, and they either said they weren’t involved or they were involved and lied about it. McCellan certainly confirms that he later talked to them about it and that they were not involved.

We know know that both Rove & Libbery were “involved”. Libbey had been indicted on serious charges. Rove is “Official A” in the indictment. He was “involved” in some way.

Franken corrects himself all the time.

[MidnightToker]

HOT NEWS - apparently Rush has just been arrested on perscription drug fraud charges!!!

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:28)

HOT NEWS - apparently Rush has just been arrested on perscription drug fraud charges!!!

I saw that. Should be interesting. Too bad it happened on the same day he was raising money for Leukemia and Lymphoma.

[ksdb]

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:24)

I didn’t intentionally leave out anything - here’s a link to the actual press conference - Press Briefing by Scott McClellan. Words mean something: <!–QuoteBegin> Quote The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. Bush didn’t need to wait for any investigation. He simply had to ask Rove, Libbey, etc., if they were somehow involved in the Valerie Plame leak. We have to assume that he did ask them, and they either said they weren’t involved or they were involved and lied about it. McCellan certainly confirms that he later talked to them about it and that they were not involved. We know know that both Rove & Libbery were “involved”. Libbey had been indicted on serious charges. Rove is “Official A” in the indictment. He was “involved” in some way.

At this point, they were only involved in clarifying Wilson’s false information with declassified information. No one said they would be fired for that. There’s no evidence yet that indicates that Libby or Rove specifically leaked Plame’s name.

Quote (Mr Soul @ April 28 2006,18:24)

Franken corrects himself all the time.

Out of necessity I’m sure — and as you say — ALL the time.

[MidnightToker]

I didn’t say that there is evidence. However, Bush could have made brought his guys in, questioned them & made a statement himself. That’s what the highest standard should be, i.e., that there wasn’t even an appearance of problems, which there definitely is now.

[system]

The problem with THAT whole thing is that Bush said that whoever leaked the information would be fired, then it was changed to whoever broke the law. At the point of those comments all Bush has to do was say that there was no leak and that there was no law broken because “I declassified the information myself”. (after all, that’s what he’s saying now) Case closed months ago. It’s all the stuff that’s been kicked around and said and NOT said that make the whole Plame thing seem like a political scheme to discredit her husband (who incidentally got the intelligence correct) and then to cover-up or, at least, sweep under the rug a scheme that got exposed (a bit Nixonesque). Did Bush or did not Bush declassify that information when he supposedly did (or “didn’t know he did” a la Reagan)? Either way it seems suspicious when you look at everything all together.

[ksdb]

Quote (phoo @ April 28 2006,20:10)

The problem with THAT whole thing is that Bush said that whoever leaked the information would be fired, then it was changed to whoever broke the law.

The problem is that he NEVER changed it. The media misreported (purposely IMO) what was actually said.

Quote (phoo @ April 28 2006,20:10)

At the point of those comments all Bush has to do was say that there was no leak and that there was no law broken because “I declassified the information myself”. (after all, that’s what he’s saying now) Case closed months ago. It’s all the stuff that’s been kicked around and said and NOT said that make the whole Plame thing seem like a political scheme to discredit her husband (who incidentally got the intelligence correct) and then to cover-up or, at least, sweep under the rug a scheme that got exposed (a bit Nixonesque). Did Bush or did not Bush declassify that information when he supposedly did (or “didn’t know he did” a la Reagan)? Either way it seems suspicious when you look at everything all together.

Wilson didn’t find anything particularly useful or helpful. If he actually had significant information, he should have gone public immediately after Bush’s SOTU speech and not wait until we were already at war. He was specifically trying to make the Bush look bad and got caught for being a political hack.