Geroge Bush must disclose his role in the leak of intelligence
Apr 12, 11:07 AM | Harry Reid
My letter to Preisdent Bush:
April 12, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I was deeply disturbed by your confirmation earlier this week that you and Vice President Cheney authorized the selective leaking of sensitive intelligence information in order to discredit those who raised legitimate questions about your Administration’s case for the war in Iraq. Just as troubling, when presented with opportunities to publicly explain your actions, you and other Administration officials have either issued more misleading statements or hidden behind legalistic defenses. I urge you to immediately heed bipartisan calls to publicly and fully explain to the American people your role in this selective leak of sensitive American intelligence for political purposes.
I regret that you and other Administration officials have had several opportunities over the past week to set the public record straight, but you have repeatedly chosen not to do so. You and your spokesperson have instead chosen to issue more misleading statements or to hide behind a legalistic defense that “ongoing legal proceedings” prevented you from talking about the matter. For example, at a recent press briefing, your spokesperson relied on the defense of “ongoing legal proceedings” sixteen times to avoid responding to reporters questions about this matter. Misleading statements and legalistic jargon are hardly appropriate responses for the Commander in Chief, especially when the questions involve whether the Administration manipulated intelligence information relied on by Congress and the American people to decide the proper course for Iraq.
As long as the defense of “ongoing legal proceedings” is used by the White House to deny critical facts to public, the American people will not “see the truth” you pledged to provide. In fact, the White House strategy only raises further questions. For example, in addition to Mr. Libby, have you directed anyone else in your Administration to disclose classified information to reporters? Was any other highly classified data, beyond that contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, selectively leaked to reporters or other persons outside of your Administration, and if so, why? And, why did you tell the American people on October 13, 2003, that you “don’t know of anybody in [your] administration who leaked classified information”?
These and other questions are best addressed by following the advice of the Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said that “there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the President said to him, and an explanation from the President as to what he said so that it can be evaluated.” A good interim step, if you are unwilling to come forward now, would be for you and the Vice President to immediately release the transcripts of your interviews with investigators. Perhaps this would give the American people some insight into your motivations until you and the Vice President are prepared to speak openly to the American people.
Immediate and full disclosure of your involvement in the manipulation and leaking of sensitive intelligence is the best way to address growing questions about your Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq as well as other critical national security decisions. For the sake of our troops and our security, I urge you to heed the bipartisan call to level with the American people.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid
Comment
- From my last comment on the previous post:
“It’s been reported today that Patrick Fitzgerald issued a correction to what he said last week regarding the NIE. Prior to the correction, Democrats and leftists tried to nail the administration due to Fitzgerald’s information from last week. The correction refutes everything that was claimed.
Anybody wanna guess when Reid is going to issue a correction from his previous post? Are we going to hold our breath (I wouldn’t recommend it)? Bueller? Bueller?”
We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Harry the Hypocrite decided to ignore today’s news and regurgitate the same ol’ crap. Instead of owning up to the fact that Fitzgerald manipulated information last week, Reid comes out and looks stupid.
And this is the Senate Minority Leader.
— Steve Apr 12, 11:32 AM # - Where was it reported? Please put a source up.
Patrick Fitzgerald’s federal investigation website contains no such correction.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html
— Ohiodem1 Apr 12, 11:40 AM # - Asserting hear-say and innuendo as fact has been par for the course for the rad-cons. Supporting documentation has been delivered by appologists in the media, was forged, or non-existant for the most part.
On that note, did you hear the latest from the Washington Post about those mobile bio-labs from Iraq?
“Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War – Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
Defend America
ask questions
QuestionItNow
— REB 84 Apr 12, 11:59 AM # - Harry keeps on proving to everyone that facts are meaningless to him.
— Kee Apr 12, 12:02 PM # - #2
From the New York Sun:
“However, the prosecutor’s revised account may disarm those who accused Messrs. Bush and Cheney of propagating a lie about the report’s findings. The now-withdrawn assertion that Mr. Libby was ordered to tell a reporter that a secondary and disputed finding in the report was, in fact, a “key judgment” was featured in the second paragraph of a front-page New York Times story on Sunday arguing that the leak to Ms. Miller was skewed.”
And when Reid says (above):
“You and your spokesperson have instead chosen to issue more misleading statements or to hide behind a legalistic defense that “ongoing legal proceedings” prevented you from talking about the matter.”
The article explains why:
“White House officials have declined to comment on the details of the declassification process, citing Mr. Fitzgerald’s request that witnesses in the case not speak publicly.”
Just because Reid and Specter want more information doesn’t mean their going to get it. If they got a problem with it, they should be talking to Fitzgerald. Maybe they should find out from Fitzgerald what role the liar Joe Wilson has factored in all of this.
— Steve Apr 12, 01:26 PM # - OT
In Reid’s previous post, he chastised Bush and Republicans for the failure of the Senate version of immigration reform. Some don’t see it that way:
“Too bad you can’t say the same for Democratic leader Harry Reid, who was the villain in this drama.
Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin-American Citizens, told me that he tried to impress upon Reid’s office that it was important to get immigration reform done.
“Apparently, it fell on deaf ears,” Flores said.
Reid claims it was GOP hard-liners who killed reform by running roughshod over Frist.
Baloney. The hard-liners had – by all accounts – no more than 30 votes, including those of conservative Democrats. On the other side, you had – according to McCain – as many as 70 votes.
A deal was at hand that would have offered legal status to some illegal immigrants. It would have made the GOP seem more Latino-friendly, but it would also have infuriated organized labor, which opposes something that was in the mix: guest workers.
After the Senate Judiciary Committee put out a guest-worker bill, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney issued a statement saying: “Guest-workers programs are a bad idea and harm all workers.”
That did it. Senate Democrats sided with labor and sold out Latinos. The deal came undone because Reid refused to allow the legislation to go through the amendment process. Republicans had come up with as many as 400 amendments but whittled the list to 20. Reid agreed to proceed with debate on just three.
It was a masterstroke by Democrats. Labor is happy. And while Latinos are angry, there’s always the chance that Democrats can fool them into channeling that anger toward Republicans.
Remarkably, it’s working.”
Later on, the article states:
“Even so, it looks like Reid and the Democrats orchestrated the perfect deception. Trouble is, they left fingerprints.
The Washington Post said in an editorial: “Democrats – whether their motive was partisan advantage or legitimate fear of a bad bill emerging from conference with the House – are the ones who refused, in the end, to proceed with debate on amendments, which is, after all, how legislation gets made.”
Frank Sharry, the executive director of the liberal National Immigration Forum, said in a statement: “We cannot escape the conclusion that the Democratic Senate leadership was more interested in keeping the immigration issue alive in the run-up to midterms than in enacting immigration reform legislation.”
And Sen. Kennedy told The Associated Press: “Politics got ahead of policy on this.” He then refused, according to the article, to defend Reid’s performance. The story noted that, “Outside the Senate, several Democratic strategists concluded that the best politics was to allow the bill to die.”
So the Senate Minority Leader, who says he wants bipartisanship, acted like the political hack he’s been. When do think Reid will issue a statement regarding his disgraceful behavior, and apologize for lying to the American people about it? Bueller? Bueller?
— Steve Apr 12, 01:43 PM # - And You Leftists, Dems, “Progressives”.....Want Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the “Worlds Most Deliberative Body”...The United States Senate….And Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of The House….As an Independent of Five and one-half years after being a Democrat for 35 Years, I say Yikes!!!
— Brad Apr 12, 02:00 PM # - I wonder what Reids poll ratings are?
— Kee Apr 12, 05:12 PM # - When I was in elementary school in the 1950’s we had to do nuclear bomb drills. It is time to re-learn this lesson.
The students were marched out into the hallways, then we were told to sit down facing the wall, then we put our head down on our laps or between our legs.
This was called the bend over and kiss your ass goodbye drill.
If Mr. Bush has his way, your kids will be doing that again.
— Ohiodem1 Apr 12, 05:57 PM # - #3
Hey REB, did’ya hear that the article is BS? Further down in it:
“Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. “It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.”
Including the two teams mentioned in the above paragraph, the anonymous sources were members of a third team. Three teams went to investigate, two said they were weapons labs, one didn’t. The Post reported only one side of the story in a very National Enquirer way. Pathetic.
— Steve Apr 12, 06:14 PM # - Here is a quote from “POWERLINE”
“Today’s Evans-Novak report analyzes the collapse of immigration legislation in the Senate, in the context of the current power struggles in that body:
The Washington Post was correct in editorializing that Democrats had killed the immigration bill, but not all Democrats were to blame. It was Reid who decided that immigration is better used as a political issue than a legislative one, hence his decision to block all amendments, leading to the bill’s death on the floor.”
— Kee Apr 12, 07:48 PM # - #9
“This was called the bend over and kiss your ass goodbye drill.
If Mr. Bush has his way, your kids will be doing that again.”
We’ve all been targets for terrorists since 1998 when bin Laden made it official and issued his declaration of war against the US. Your kind spends all of their time hating Bush, and I mean really hating Bush, ever since he got elected, and even before 9/11 happened. The only thing you’ve come up with are new ways to hate Bush, and you’re getting pandered to by most Democrats and the liberal media.
It’s a good thing we had two political parties willing to fight the enemy and for America in WWII. Otherwise, we’d be buying lampshades and soap made out of people. Or we would be these things.
— Steve Apr 12, 11:21 PM # - UNION-TRIBUNE
April 12, 2006
Who killed immigration reform? The autopsy shows it was Senate Democrats.
It’s tempting to put a pox on both parties. But it wouldn’t be fair. Republicans were tireless in search of comprehensive, and bipartisan, reform. Sen. John McCain of Arizona joined with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to draft the guest-worker legislation, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter made that legislation central to what his committee sent to the full Senate. Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas were vocal in their support. Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska offered a helpful compromise. And Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist showed leadership by reaching out to the other side.
*Too bad you can’t say the same for Democratic leader Harry Reid, who was the villain in this drama. *
Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin-American Citizens, told me that he tried to impress upon Reid’s office that it was important to get immigration reform done.
“Apparently, it fell on deaf ears,” Flores said.
*Reid claims it was GOP hard-liners who killed reform by running roughshod over Frist.
Baloney. The hard-liners had – by all accounts – no more than 30 votes, including those of conservative Democrats. On the other side, you had – according to McCain – as many as 70 votes.*
A deal was at hand that would have offered legal status to some illegal immigrants. It would have made the GOP seem more Latino-friendly, but it would also have infuriated organized labor, which opposes something that was in the mix: guest workers.
After the Senate Judiciary Committee put out a guest-worker bill, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney issued a statement saying: “Guest-workers programs are a bad idea and harm all workers.”
That did it. Senate Democrats sided with labor and sold out Latinos. The deal came undone because Reid refused to allow the legislation to go through the amendment process. Republicans had come up with as many as 400 amendments but whittled the list to 20. Reid agreed to proceed with debate on just three.
It was a masterstroke by Democrats. Labor is happy. And while Latinos are angry, there’s always the chance that Democrats can fool them into channeling that anger toward Republicans.
Remarkably, it’s working. At a protest in Washington Monday, one Latina held up a sign that read: “The GOP is losing my Latino vote.” At another protest in Dallas, someone handed out registration leaflets urging demonstrators to vote Democratic.
Some Latino leaders don’t think it’ll be that easy. Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, told me: “I don’t believe that it’s wise for Democrats to come to our community and ask for votes by saying: ‘Hey, we kept an immigration bill from going forward.’ ... People understand when they’re being used.”
Even so, it looks like Reid and the Democrats orchestrated the perfect deception. Trouble is, they left fingerprints.
The Washington Post said in an editorial: “Democrats – whether their motive was partisan advantage or legitimate fear of a bad bill emerging from conference with the House – are the ones who refused, in the end, to proceed with debate on amendments, which is, after all, how legislation gets made.”
Frank Sharry, the executive director of the liberal National Immigration Forum, said in a statement: “We cannot escape the conclusion that the Democratic Senate leadership was more interested in keeping the immigration issue alive in the run-up to midterms than in enacting immigration reform legislation.”
And Sen. Kennedy told The Associated Press: “Politics got ahead of policy on this.” He then refused, according to the article, to defend Reid’s performance. The story noted that, “Outside the Senate, several Democratic strategists concluded that the best politics was to allow the bill to die.”
The moral: Marches and Mexican flags don’t equal power. Labor uses millions of dollars in political contributions to take care of Democrats, and so Democrats take care of labor.
After the bill died, Democrats rubbed salt in the wound by insisting that Latinos had no choice but to stay on the liberal hacienda. Susan Estrich, who served as campaign manager for Michael Dukakis in 1988, told Fox News that Republicans had blown their chance to win Latino votes and predicted that Latino support would help Democrats win both houses of Congress.
You see, in a twist on the famous words of one of their icons, Democrats no longer ask what they can do for Latinos, only what Latinos can do for them.
Navarrette can reached via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.
— Harry is the Villain Apr 13, 03:43 AM # - #1 – I read the entire article, and the correction was technical, and the conclusion that the leak came from the White House did not change.
#3 – There are two sides to the immigration question. Reid says the Republicans broke the Thursday agreement by introducing over two dozen amendments, instead of the aggreed upon 8-10. The amendments were added in the dark of night, and the vote would have been with the amendments unread, and undebated.
If the Republicans had 70 votes, as McCain claimed, this was a filibuster proof majority, and Frist could have forced the issue if he had the votes. The fact that he did not do this begs the question “why not?”.
#5 – See number 1 above.
#6 – See number 3 above.
#7 – I cannot figure what you are talking about. I guess if you love America and its freedoms which are under attack, this makes you a leftist (read commie) or a progressive, or whatever. I believe in the Eisenhower doctrine of Peace through strength, balancing the budget, paying your bills, and war as a last, very last resort. If that makes me one of the folks described here, then I am proud of it.
#8 – Ask the people who voted for him.
#10 – The admin knew these were not weapons labs before the war started.
#11 – 3 Million Americans die each year, or about 1 per cent of the population. Since 1993, the year of the first WTC attack, 36 million Americans have died. 3,000 of these have been by terrorism. 40,000 die year in auto accidents, or 480,000 since 1993. 30,000 die from gun events, or 360,000 since 1993. Millions from Heart disease, millions from cancer, 400,000 each year from smoking related illness, or 12.8 million Americans. In addition to that terrible day on September 11, 2001, 168 were killed at Oklahoma City. There was the Olympic bombing. There have been bombings and shootings at abortion clinics. School shootings. Serial murders.
Do not interpret the above as as a political position on guns or abortion, it is not intended to be such. It is intended to make the point that the entire focus of our national life should not be exclusively devoted to terrorism.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998 by your post, I will accept this as fact. If this is true, why don’t we devote more resources to his capture or killing? We should up the reward to $1B if captured, and $500M if killed and the body returned for verification. This would be a lot cheaper than a war. This would be an efficient use of resources. I would even offer safe transit for the family of the person who collects the bounty.
The point is that in the last 12 years, 0.00083 per cent of all American deaths can be attributed to terrorism, and maybe the resources of the nation should be focused on other problems. Do not interpret this as a statement that I do not care about terrorism, but I think it should not be a national obsession.
And of course, do not think I do not grieve for all of the victims of terrorism. I do. Every day.
#12 – I don’t hate Bush. I hate what he and his people are doing to America, the nation I love.
In WWII, which cannot be in any way, shape or form be compared to the GWOT, which should be characterized as the Global War on Reality. WWII was precipitated by three industrial powers bent on taking control of all of the world’s natural resources to feed their military-industrial complex, and the subjugation of all the world’s people. They also almost had the means to do it. WWII was a war of national survival for all of the combatants. Terrorism may be characterized as a gnat on an elephant’s ass by comparison.
Comparing WWII to the GWOT is an insult to the million American casualties in WWII.
#13 – See number 3 above.
If # 14 or above came in while I was writing this, I didn’t see them.
I’m out.
— Ohiodem1 Apr 13, 10:28 AM # - We’ve currently got hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens marching in our streets, and you might hope that a U.S. Senator would be opposed to foreign citizens making a show of force and demanding that we give them what they want.
Of course, Harry Reid is on the side of those foreign citizens in this matter, and not on the side of the great majority of American citizens.
How low has this country sunk when a U.S. Senator finds it acceptable to put the wishes of foreign citizens ahead of the wishes of American citizens?
— HarryReidOnImmigration Apr 13, 12:10 PM # - They say Politics is the second oldest profession.
I wonder, not unlike purveyers of the oldest professon, it appears Reid will do anything for a vote.
One of my favorite talk show hosts calls people like that “political whores”.
— Kee Apr 13, 02:12 PM # - IMPEACH THE LYING CRIMINAL BUSH/CHENEY CABAL NOW!
— bill_o_carolina Apr 13, 04:51 PM # - #14
“I believe in the Eisenhower doctrine of Peace through strength, balancing the budget…”
The last two Democratic presidents managed to nearly ruin the military and the intelligence services. If the budget is to be balanced, then the primary areas responsible for defending the nation are not the places to cut in order to get a balanced budget. Take those long-term entitlement programs, and try to figure out a way with which they can be affordable in the private sector, and get them out of the hands of the government. This will balance the budget.
“WWII was precipitated by three industrial powers bent on taking control of all of the world’s natural resources to feed their military-industrial complex…”
I’m assuming you mean Germany, Italy, and Japan. You are now trying to use fear of the concept of the military-industrial complex without considering the form of government behind it. These three countries were absolute dictatorships, where the leaders were answerable to nobody. Here, the President is answerable to Congress, the Supreme Court, and to the people. Now, if you believe the Republicans in Congress, and the Supreme Court have been nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush, you haven’t followed the last five years close enough, and is your problem, and anybody else who believes this malarky.
“We should up the reward to $1B if captured, and $500M if killed and the body returned for verification. This would be a lot cheaper than a war.”
I agree. Along the same lines, if Bashar al-Assad and the members of the Syrian government are indicted by the Lebanese government for the murder of Rafik al-Hariri, and Assad doesn’t want to extradite himself for trial, what is to be done? Sanctions? The whiny “liberals” will complain that we are harming the population, just like they did with sanctions on Saddam Hussein. Bottom line, just because we offer a reward doesn’t mean someone will be able to or want to collect (although $1 billion may even make a terrorist blink).
“Comparing WWII to the GWOT is an insult to the million American casualties in WWII.”
You forget the main reason why. The Islamist governments have never reached the same state of industrialization that Germany needed in order to fight. And, they don’t need to. These governments deal with morons and criminals (terrorists) that usually don’t have direct ties to the government using them. Iran uses Hamas, Hizbollah, and Islamic Jihad in this way. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq used al Qaeda (Iraq also dealt with Hamas; Syria supports Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad; all of this is well documented; and no, I’m not forgetting Saudi Arabia and other terrorist sponsoring nations). Before 9/11, a terrorist group (with the backing of one of the above governments) would commit a terrorist act. When there was an attempt to punish those behind the acts, the terrorist groups and their sponsoring governments would whine to the cowards at the UN and nothing would get done. 9/11 was supposed to have changed all that. Unfortunately, the parasites that are the governments of Iran and Syria still whine to the cowards at the UN. Our only hope is that Iran is stopped before it approaches anything close to the military power of a Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons.
Bribery won’t work. As a historical reference, Clinton paid bribes to North Korea to keep them from creating nukes. They double-crossed the US government and did anyway. There’s no reason to believe the vermin Ahmadinejad (and the mullahs) wouldn’t double-cross us as well.
“Terrorism may be characterized as a gnat on an elephant’s ass by comparison.”
Tell that to the 3000 who died on 9/11. Your statement is infuriating, especially after reading the Flight 93 transcript from the Moussaui trial. These are evil people we are fighting, very much like the Nazis. And instead of worshipping a pagan god like Hitler, the Islamist terrorists and governments have hijacked a god and religion for their own sick agendas.
Yes, you hate George Bush. You don’t believe there’s a war, when there is more than enough evidence we’ve been at war since at least 1998. It isn’t a war like WWII, since the enemy doesn’t choose to target only our military. In fact, they intentionally target civilians since they know even a short firefight with our military would kill them. This enemy is as cowardly as any SS extermination camp guard.
This enemy is using our media as its propaganda department. The majority of US media reports deal with how many were killed in terrorist attacks. Without any context by our media, it appears that the terrorists are stronger than they truly are. The terrorists are successfully playing the media like puppets. The whole fake cartoons fiasco is proof enough of this.
A majority of the Congressional Democrats seem to be more interested in pandering to those groups that want more entitlement programs. As was shown by Clinton and Carter, Democrats will gut the federal government’s ability to protect the country rather than dump one of the existing and unnecessary programs. What Bush has done is added the defense spending without cutting these programs either, which is wrong as well. He ends up trying to do everything for everybody, something a government should never do. Fortunately, there are enough responsible Republicans who want to get the socialism and entitlement programs out in order to better spend the tax revenue and defend the nation. I only know of two Senate Democrats who closely agree (there could be a few in the House).
Lastly, Democrats are trying to get back at Republicans for impeaching Clinton. I was against that impeachment, but the behavior of Democrats being against everything Bush has done since the 2000 election is way over the top. Feingold’s censure resolution is so full of legal holes you couldn’t even use the logic to convict Osama bin Laden of spitting on the street. Then you have the resolutions of John Conyers. They too are a joke. If he truly thinks he can get these through when it turns out Hussein was involved with al Qaeda (and evidence supporting this is coming out regularly), I will encourage getting him laughed out of the House.
I don’t doubt that you love America. But if you support any of what these Democrats are doing, including Reid, then that is playing into the hands of the enemy. And because of that, then all I can do is believe that you hate Bush for the sake of hating Bush. You may not hate Bush as much as some who think he should be executed (Al Franken, Ben Affleck), but I don’t see it any other way.
— Steve Apr 13, 05:27 PM # - I’ve just started reading some of these posts for the first time.
Wow, Steve – you’ve got a dozen or so posts on every one of these boards. You sure have a lot of time on your hands.
Are you one of those closet conservative welfare queens or just born with a silver shoe in your mouth?
Go get a job and find out what Harry’s fighting for.
— Chris Apr 13, 05:41 PM # - Clinton’s military performed pretty well in combat – inspite of how poorly the PNAC inspired political hacks put them in harms way without adequate armor or troop strength.
— REB 84 Apr 13, 07:48 PM # - Wow, Steve – you’ve got a dozen or so posts on every one of these boards. You sure have a lot of time on your hands.
Are you one of those closet conservative welfare queens or just born with a silver shoe in your mouth?
Go get a job and find out what Harry’s fighting for.
— Chris Apr 13, 05:41 PM #
I suspect that Steve has been very prudent with his earnings and his career, and unlike many, does not rely on various education systems (taxpayers) to handle his finances.
— Kee Apr 13, 08:23 PM # - #19
That’s the best you can come up with? Ooh, I’m shaking in my boots.
#20
“Clinton’s military performed pretty well in combat…”
No arguing with you there.
”...inspite of how poorly the PNAC inspired political hacks put them in harms way without adequate armor or troop strength.”
Yep. Put them in 200 tons of body armor. Nothing will get to them. Of course, they won’t be able to move or be moved…
— Steve Apr 13, 10:11 PM # - Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Strategic Redeployment – A Progressive Plan
Too many neocon so called news people constantly ask the same old tired question:
“All the democrats want to do is bash the president. If they are so damn smart, why don’t they have a plan?”
Newsflash! Progressive do have a plan to win the global war on terror, and it is called Strategic Redployment.
Following is a two paragraph summary of this plan published on the Center for American Progress website (see link in title).
“The United States needs to pursue a plan of Strategic Redeployment. Strategic Redeployment is a threat-based strategy to target our efforts against global terrorist networks and bring greater stability to Iraq and its neighborhood. This approach will minimize the damage to the United States in the short term, mitigate the drawbacks of our eventual withdrawal from Iraq, and secure our interests in the long term. Strategic Redeployment differs from other plans for what to do in Iraq by recognizing that Iraq is now connected to a broader battle against global terrorist networks – even though it was not before the Bush administration’s invasion. Strategic Redeployment also means re-engaging our allies, building a platform for multilateral cooperation that counters the terrorist threats we face, rather than relying on ad-hoc “coalitions of the willing.”
Strategic Redeployment has four main components: military realignment that restores a realistic deployment policy for our active and reserve forces and moves troops to other hot spots in the struggle against global terrorist networks or brings them home to rebuild; a global communications campaign to counter misinformation and hateful ideologies; new regional diplomatic initiatives; and smarter support for Iraq’s renewal and reconstruction.
Date Created: 9/29/2005 2:14:14 PM”
The summary the Full Report is an 11 page PDF file. Pleae read it and let people know there is an intelligent alternative to “Stay the Course.”
QuestionItNow Blogs
posted by REB 84 at 11/30/2005 10:45:00 PM | 5 comments links to this
— REB 84 Apr 13, 10:24 PM # - #18 – Steve, you said:
“Terrorism may be characterized as a gnat on an elephant’s ass by comparison.”
Here is what I said:
”#11 – 3 Million Americans die each year, or about 1 per cent of the population. Since 1993, the year of the first WTC attack, 36 million Americans have died. 3,000 of these have been by terrorism. 40,000 die year in auto accidents, or 480,000 since 1993. 30,000 die from gun events, or 360,000 since 1993. Millions from Heart disease, millions from cancer, 400,000 each year from smoking related illness, or 12.8 million Americans. In addition to that terrible day on September 11, 2001, 168 were killed at Oklahoma City. There was the Olympic bombing. There have been bombings and shootings at abortion clinics. School shootings. Serial murders.
Do not interpret the above as as a political position on guns or abortion, it is not intended to be such. It is intended to make the point that the entire focus of our national life should not be exclusively devoted to terrorism.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998 by your post, I will accept this as fact. If this is true, why don’t we devote more resources to his capture or killing? We should up the reward to $1B if captured, and $500M if killed and the body returned for verification. This would be a lot cheaper than a war. This would be an efficient use of resources. I would even offer safe transit for the family of the person who collects the bounty.
The point is that in the last 12 years, 0.00083 per cent of all American deaths can be attributed to terrorism, and maybe the resources of the nation should be focused on other problems. Do not interpret this as a statement that I do not care about terrorism, but I think it should not be a national obsession.
And of course, do not think I do not grieve for all of the victims of terrorism. I do. Every day.
#12 – I don’t hate Bush. I hate what he and his people are doing to America, the nation I love.
In WWII, which cannot be in any way, shape or form be compared to the GWOT, which should be characterized as the Global War on Reality. WWII was precipitated by three industrial powers bent on taking control of all of the world’s natural resources to feed their military-industrial complex, and the subjugation of all the world’s people. They also almost had the means to do it. WWII was a war of national survival for all of the combatants. Terrorism may be characterized as a gnat on an elephant’s ass by comparison.
Comparing WWII to the GWOT is an insult to the million American casualties in WWII. ”
You took my comments out of context, failed to put in an ellipsis when you quoted only part of a paragraph, and by doing the quoting in this manner, you changed the meaning of my comments in the entire context. This is a dishonest rhetorical technique and you know it. If you want to engage in a discussion with me, it must be honest, and not engage in name calling. If we can agree to that, I will agree to visit and converse in this blog with you. If you choose to continue in the manner of your post above, it is not worth my time to engage in a fruitless debate.
I was introducing a broader concept to the discussion, and you chose to dismiss it and destroy the context.
One of the favorite propaganda methods of the Radio talkers is to introduce the concept of “Perspective”, as in (paraphrasing) ‘what we did at Abu Grahib is not as bad as what Saddam did there. It was just like college boys blowing off a little steam’. Perspective is good when a right wing radio talker uses it, but bad when anyone else uses it to broaden, or raise a new point in the national discusssion. That is dishonest.
It is just as dishonest as an effort to blame Clinton for something that did not happen on his watch. When a man becomes president, he is responsible. In the Navy, if the ship runs aground, the Officer of the Deck is the responsible party, not the OOD who was relieved 15 minutes prior. Mr. Bush is responsible for whatever happens on his watch. He assumed that responsibility when he asked for your vote, and most assuredly when he was sworn in as President.
OD1
— Ohiodem1 Apr 13, 11:22 PM # - Ohio Dem’s updated “How to Sell a War” is available at:
http://questionitnow.com/documents/How_to_sell_a_war.pdf
— REB 84 Apr 13, 11:39 PM # - By the way Harry, I don’t mean to nit-pick, but I hope you didn’t send your letter the way it appears on this blog. Bill Maher may have some fun at your expense:)
“My letter to Preisdent Bush” That’s right up there with NUCULAR.
I sure hope you didn’t mean Prescient Bush!
— REB 84 Apr 13, 11:44 PM # - #24
“You took my comments out of context, failed to put in an ellipsis when you quoted only part of a paragraph, and by doing the quoting in this manner, you changed the meaning of my comments in the entire context. This is a dishonest rhetorical technique and you know it. If you want to engage in a discussion with me, it must be honest, and not engage in name calling. If we can agree to that, I will agree to visit and converse in this blog with you. If you choose to continue in the manner of your post above, it is not worth my time to engage in a fruitless debate.
I was introducing a broader concept to the discussion, and you chose to dismiss it and destroy the context.”
First off, I agree on the no name calling.
You said I took all of what you said out of context by wrapping it up in the one sentence you highlight at the beginning of your comment. I don’t think so. You seemed to be attempting to assert that comparing WWII with the GWOT was an insult to American WWII casualties, when you’re “broader concept” was here [emphasis in italics are mine]:
“The point is that in the last 12 years, 0.00083 per cent of all American deaths can be attributed to terrorism, and maybe the resources of the nation should be focused on other problems. Do not interpret this as a statement that I do not care about terrorism, but I think it should not be a national obsession.”
and here [emphasis in italics are mine]:
“In WWII, which cannot be in any way, shape or form be compared to the GWOT, which should be characterized as the Global War on Reality. WWII was precipitated by three industrial powers bent on taking control of all of the world’s natural resources to feed their military-industrial complex, and the subjugation of all the world’s people. They also almost had the means to do it. WWII was a war of national survival for all of the combatants. Terrorism may be characterized as a gnat on an elephant’s ass by comparison.
You are correct that the strategy and tactics employed by the enemy are different from the Axis powers. The Nazis (and the others) did use massive industrialization to build armies of conquest. The governments of Taliban Afghanistan, Baathist Iraq, Iran under the mullahs, Syria, and any others I haven’t named, do not have the industrial capacity that Nazi Germany had from 1933 to 1939. They choose to insidiously use terrorist groups (one can almost think of them as hired mercenaries) to do the same at the small scale, and are willing to do this for decades until the will of who they are attacking breaks down, provided they don’t get caught and punished.
In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese government used a similar strategy by engaging in a guerilla war that the US government didn’t adjust to and wore down America’s resolve. When our troops were gone and Congress forced an end to the financial support for the South Vietnamese government, the North Vietnamese re-invaded and conquered the country. I am not making a political statement on whether or not the Vietnam War was right, I am just noting the military strategy employed.
The overall goals of our current enemy, the state sponsors of terror and the terrorist groups they use, are exactly the same as the Nazis, they’ve made them public, and you mention it: “the subjugation of all the world’s people”. This is the reality. George Bush made a mistake when he said the country should just move along while he and the government take care of the terrorists. The American people should have been asked to actively engage, in some manner, with supporting this war. Not on the scale that was done in WWII, but on some scale.
Another point is, these governments have (and do), in one form or another, violated the sovereignty of other nations, and then try to diplomatically hide behind the cowards at the UN. This should be an outrage to people who want us to be part of a civilized world, but the argument has always been twisted that civilized nations shouldn’t act in a barbaric fashion. That is as ridiculous an assertion now as it was in 1938. The point is that now, those governments that do engage in terrorism should not be allowed to get as strong as Nazi Germany was able to. Whether we do that by sanctions, blockades, inciting a rebellion, our outright invasion, these governments should not be allowed to get away with, literally, murder.
“It is just as dishonest as an effort to blame Clinton for something that did not happen on his watch. When a man becomes president, he is responsible. In the Navy, if the ship runs aground, the Officer of the Deck is the responsible party, not the OOD who was relieved 15 minutes prior. Mr. Bush is responsible for whatever happens on his watch. He assumed that responsibility when he asked for your vote, and most assuredly when he was sworn in as President.”
I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11. I definitely don’t blame Bush. I blame the terrorists. Does Bush deserve the blame for not being prepared well enough for the 9/11 attack? Yes, in a manner similar to FDR for not anticipating an attack on Pearl Harbor. In terms of overall strategy with regards to FDR, he was on his third term as President by the time Pearl Harbor happened, knew the US would get involved with the war, and had started getting the US on a war footing. Bush’s mistake was not recognizing how disastrous a situation Clinton left the military and intelligence services. Clinton didn’t seem to do any of those types of things FDR did to get us prepared for a fight, despite the fact that bin Laden had declared war on us in 1998, and Clinton knew it.
Were those holdovers from the Clinton administration forceful enough with Bush to stress the importance of being ready for a terrorist attack? If they say they were, then the question is, did they stress this with Clinton? I believe that is a fair question to ask.
— Steve Apr 14, 09:11 AM # - For the record, I don’t blame FDR for not anticipating the attack on Pearl Harbor. I blame the Japanese government entirely. The same goes for 9/11. It is ridiculous to blame either Bush or Clinton. The blame falls entirely on bin Laden and any government who supported him or al Qaeda. That would include Afghanistan and Iraq. Had Musharraf not decided to turn his back on the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Pakistani government could have fallen into this. And you can’t tie the Saudi government (at least not entirely) since bin Laden has been at war with them for longer than with the US.
As far as Iran, they have their own ties to terrorists. Allowing a government like this to have nukes would be irresponsible. I want the diplomatic efforts to succeed to avoid the misery of a war. But to think they are going to act in a responsible manner, when the entire 27-year history of the rule of the mullahs shows it hasn’t acted this way, is irresponsible on our part.
— Steve Apr 14, 09:29 AM # - Steve, thank you for the reasoned and polite response. We have different views, but can carry on a mutually respectful online conversation. Thank you.
Two things. I must leave for my day job now. Second, I have a static IP address that is somehow blocked an an alternate location. Therefore I cannot respond in detail until later today, probably this evening.
We both understand the rules of proper quoting and attribution. You know I will follow a source you provide, and I expect you will do the same. Therefore we both are looking for some unvarnished truth. If that is found, there is a possibility of agreement on some points. In fact that has already happened in a few cases, both ways.
I expect my political positions are less than one standard deviation to the left of center, and it seems that you are about the same distance right of center. Neither one of us is on the fringe, or at least I do not think that is the case.
We will disagree vigorously on some points, and never the twain shall meet. We should be able to come to agreement on some matters. On those points where we cannot agree, I hope we can mutually respect the views of the other. Neither one of us is a pushover, and I think that is good.
Finally, I have seen war up close and personal, and I do not think anyone with that experience can hold a position of being “pro war” just to be in favor of war. I do not believe any rational person can be “pro war” just for the sake of thinking sending our children off to war is a good thing. I have walked through two military hospitals during Vietnam, and no one who has seen that can be in favor of war for war’s sake. I am also not a pacificist. I believe in the doctrine of self defense, but I also believe in the concept of war as a last resort, the very last resort. That is the nature of my personal bias in all discussions of this type. I look forward to hearing yours.
Thank you, OD1
— Ohiodem1 Apr 14, 09:53 AM # - Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Company Key Nuclear Reactor Components, Sources Say
August 05, 2005
By: Jason Leopold
Independent Media TV
Scandal-plagued Halliburton—the oil services company once headed by Vice President Cheney—sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, say Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
Halliburton was secretly working at the time with one of Iran ’s top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and sold the components in April to the official’s oil development company, the sources said.
SNIP…
Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil and natural gas development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team and has been negotiating Iran ’s nuclear development issues with the European Union and at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
SNIP…
Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran ’s nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, Iranian government officials said. During the first round of interrogations in the judiciary, a huge network of oil mafia has been exposed, according to the IPS report.
CONTINUED…
http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?story…
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:10 AM # - http://nobravery.cf.huffingtonpost.com
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:11 AM # - Trading With The Enemy
Matthew Swibel
Forbes 04.19.04
If you want to get round export controls, just sell the product to a front company in Dubai. The middlemen will take it from there.
On paper the shipment was harmless enough. Sixty-six American-made spark gaps-high-speed electrical switches used in medical devices to break up kidney stonestraveled from the manufacturer in Salem, Massachusetts late last summer to a buyer in Secaucus, New Jersey. From there, according to the export declaration, they were to be shipped to their ultimate destination in Cape Town, South Africa. But these spark gaps can also be used to detonate nuclear bombs-and it turned out that the goods were aimed at an end user in Pakistan, with a stopover in Dubai. The commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates, where trading activity accounts for the biggest single chunk (16.5%) of a $20 billion economy, has become a favorite diversion point on the Persian Gulf for shady cargo. With no export controls and hardly any bureaucracy at ports, airports and free zones, this entrepôt provides stellar cover for smugglers hoping to bypass U.S. embargoes.
SNIP…
The open secret is that Dubai buys far more than it keeps. More than a quarter of its $23 billion in annual nonoil imports are reexported, and Iran gets the biggest share. Interviews with private businesspeople and U.S. officials, along with court documents, reveal a simple scheme. Companies located around the world sell goods-from cigarettes to medical devices and PCs-to buyers in the U.A.E. Dubai traders repackage the items and send them along by air or ship to agents in, say, Tehran, Pyongyang, Damascus or Islamabad.
SNIP…
Nevertheless, FORBES has obtained documents showing how Kala Ltd., the British arm of the National Iranian Oil Co., solicited at least 17 separate bids from the affiliate during 1997 and 1998 (when Vice President Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive). A few bids include handwritten notes that say “FOB Dubai Airport” or “FOB Dubai port”—meaning that the U.A.E. was just a way station between Halliburton and Tehran. Halliburton would not comment on the bids. In any event, earlier this year the Treasury Department reopened a 2001 inquiry into Halliburton’s Iran operations and its Dubai-based partner.
CONTINUED…
http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0419/041_print.html
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:12 AM # - A family tradition!?
snip/
Bush Property Seized—Trading with the Enemy
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.’s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny ‘’ Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:21 AM # - snip/
Such stories provoke the question: how could Iran have obtained nuclear capabilities? Surely, those irresponsible former Soviet scientists must have sold them the technology, a colleague guessed. “Those people would sell anything after the fall of the Soviet Union.”
Not quite! It was US policy, not anti-American Moslem fanaticism that led Iran directly into the nuclear age. In the late 1960s, Iran stood out as a model ally of the United States. After all, the ruling Shah owed the CIA after the Agency’s operatives ousted elected Premier Mossadegh’s government in 1953. CIA action followed Mossadegh’s declaration that he would nationalize foreign oil holdings. The Shah understood loyalty to those who reinstalled his “royal family” to dictatorial power.
His servility won him nuclear access. “The US and her allies were in fact the driving force behind the birth of Iran’s nuclear program in the late 1960s and early 1970s” (Mohammad Sahimi, Iran’s Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History October 2003). By 1974, the Shah, after consulting with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, boasted that nuclear power plants in Iran would soon produce more than 20,000 megawatts of energy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×928662
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:24 AM # - #29 OD1
And thanks for your response and am glad to have earned your respect, as you have earned mine.
I will also not be able to respond, after this, at least until the evening, and maybe not until morning.
— Steve Apr 14, 11:37 AM # - Halliburton Doing Business With the ‘Axis of Evil’
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com staff writer
Thursday, February 3, 2005; 8:00 AM
EXCERPT…
An Iranian government spokesman did not respond to the allegation but defended the contract saying Halliburton offered a good price and that the project “served the interests” of the Islamic state.
That probably did not please Cheney. On Inauguration Day, he told a nationwide talk radio audience that Iran was “right at the top of the list of potential trouble spots” facing the Bush administration. Many online pundits interpreted his remarks as a threat of military action against Iran. Cheney was not asked about Halliburton’s venture.
Two days later, American political analyst Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative advocate of ousting the government in Tehran, described Halliburton’s actions as “disgusting.” In a Jan. 23 online chat sponsored by the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Ledeen was asked about “secret business deals between some U.S. companies, like Halliburton, and the Islamic regime.”
“What has happened is against U.S. laws . . . and the people involved in this transaction must be put in jail, according to American law,” Ledeen replied.
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:38 AM # - EXCERPT…
If Edsel Ford violated federal laws by continuing to do business with the Nazis after Pearl Harbor, he was not alone. In a small box housed among the U.S. National Archives Trading With the Enemy files sits an explosive series of documents implicating another prominent American family in this serious crime. On October 20, 1942, ten months after the United States entered the Second World War, the U.S. Alien Property Custodian, Leo T Crowley, issued Vesting Order 248 under the Trading With the Enemy Act, seizing all assets of the Union Banking Corporation of New York, which was being operated as a front for “enemy nationals.” According to a federal government investigation, Union Banking was not a bank at all, but a cloak operation, laundering money for Germany’s powerful Thyssen family. The Thyssens were instrumental in financing Hitler’s rise to power and had supplied the Nazi regime with much of the steel it needed to prosecute the war.
One of the partners of the Union Banking Corporation, the man who oversaw all investments on behalf of the Nazi-affiliated owners, happened to be Prescott Bush, grandfather of the American president George W Bush. Through the connections of his father-in-law, Bert Walker (George W’s maternal great-grandfather), who has been described by a U.S. Justice Department investigator as “one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States. Prescott Bush specialized in managing the investments for a number of German companies, many with extensive Nazi ties. These included the North American operations of another Nazi front, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, which was directly linked to a network set up by IG Farben to smuggle agents, money and propaganda for Germany.’° According to a 1934 Congressional investigation, the Hamburg-Amerika line “subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States.” Both Walker and Bush were directors of a holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, that directly financed the line.
Shortly before the government seized the assets of the Union Banking Corporation, in fact, it had also seized American-held assets of the Hamburg-Amerika Line under the Trading With the Enemy Act. A few weeks after the government seized Bush’s shares in Union Banking, it seized the assets of three other Nazi front companies whose investments were handled by Bush-the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, and the Silesian-American Corporation. The paper trail indicated that the bulk of Prescott Bush’s financial empire was being operated on behalf of Nazi Germany.
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:42 AM # - MSNBC poll:
Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? * 246199 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
4.4%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
7.6%
I don’t know.
1.8%
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:48 AM # - http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_3641046
snip/
Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military’s elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for “Inside Delta Force” (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he’s doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for “The Unit,” CBS’ new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against “American Idol,” “The Unit” shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world’s most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration’s current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox’s News’ Bill O’Reilly). But he’s also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he’s privy to information denied the rest of us.
We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of “The Unit.”
Q: What’s your assessment of the war in Iraq?
A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and … pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That’s why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.
We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.
Q: What is the cost to our country?
A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say “we,” because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they’re going to have from now on.
Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat – thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn’t confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.
The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been
a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public’s attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it’s gonna fall apart. But somebody’s gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it’s done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:55 AM # - Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney …
A: (Interrupting) That’s Cheney’s pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It’s about vengeance, it’s about revenge, or it’s about cover-up. You don’t gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It’s worse than small-minded, and look what it does.
I’ve argued this on Bill O’Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He’s an employee of yours. It’s worse than ridiculous. It’s criminal; it’s utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I’m saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don’t do it. It’s an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, “Well, they do it to us.” Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what’s legal and what we believed in. Now we’re going to throw it away.
Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be …
A: It’s pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they’re starting to see what’s happening and the lies that have been told. We’re seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.
THE UNIT
What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 11:58 AM # - #39 – Bill ‘O – I see you are still very active.
For more on the cost of war see:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
— REB 84 Apr 14, 01:15 PM # - “President Bush has as much credibility on immigration as he does on Iraq and national security.”
Well said, Harry. Yet another gem.
— chris Apr 14, 05:06 PM # - Thank you Harry Reid for having the guts to stand up against George Bush.
— Linda Simard Apr 14, 05:59 PM # - Thank you Harry Reid for having the guts to stand up against George Bush.
— Linda Simard
And for making yourself appear the fool.
— Kee Apr 14, 08:22 PM # - By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – A batch of 278 e-mails between lobbyist Jack Abramoff
and a Bush administration official show a highly inappropriate relationship
where gifts and business interests mixed freely and frequently, federal
prosecutors said Friday.
The prosecutors hope to use the e-mails in the criminal case against David Safavian,
who is accused of lying and obstruction of justice in connection with investigations
of an Abramoff-sponsored golf outing to Scotland in August 2002.
The e-mails show that Abramoff and Safavian, then chief of staff at the General Services
Administration, were in frequent contact, played golf often and traded workplace gossip.
Abramoff showered Safavian with offers of meals, invitations to parties as well as the trip
to the fabled St. Andrew’s golf course in Scotland.
At the same time, Abramoff is peppering Safavian with questions and requests for his help
on a variety of projects, including obtaining parcels of federal land that were managed
by GSA for Abramoff’s charitable groups.
Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5756543…
— bill_o_carolina Apr 14, 09:59 PM # - #8
I wonder what Reids poll ratings are?
— Kee Apr 12, 05:12 PM #
According to the Nevada Poll reported last week, dropping like a rock and that was before his lies and flip-flopping on the immigration Bill.
— joro Apr 14, 10:06 PM # - Mrs. Bill Clinton did an immigration flip-flop that outdid the Flip-Flopper in Chief, Coward Kerry. If you want to hear this, Hannity has been playing it almost every day on his radio show. First he plays what Mrs. Bill Clinton said a year ago and then he plays her screaming speech she made last week at one of the Mexican marches organized by Commie Ramsey Clark. Mrs. Clinton even outdoes the lying flip flopper Harry Reid who waited almost 13 years to do his flip flopping on immigration.
Happy Easter.
— joro Apr 14, 10:15 PM # - Notice that Harry, who cannot even corrrectly spell the name of the state he is supposed to represent, does not know how to spell “President” either. Check his post above. Reid, please resign and stop embarrassing us Nevadans.
Happy Easter.
— joro Apr 14, 10:21 PM # - Should Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Face Criminal Charges For Hitting A Police Officer?
percent votes
YES! (10,297) (97%)
NO! (329) (3%)
Happy Easter
— joro Apr 14, 11:00 PM # - #45
A batch of 278 e-mails between lobbyist Jack Abramoff
That reminds me, has Harry Reid turned over to charity the almost $70,000 of Abramoff connected dirty money Reid took in?
Happy Easter
— joro Apr 14, 11:05 PM # - Nation/World
Conyers’ ex-aide arrested in Africa
Sentencing to be held in Detroit
January 4, 2006
Email this Print this BY DAVID ASHENFELTER and JOEL THURTELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
DeWayne Boyd was found after he failed to appear for sentencing in a fraud case.
A former aide to Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., was arrested in the west African nation of Ghana on Friday, eight months after he failed to show up for sentencing on charges of defrauding sponsors and vendors of a national conference for black farmers out of more than $150,000.
— joro Apr 14, 11:07 PM # - http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030106/news2.html
March 1, 2006
Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Two former aides to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules.
Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in Conyers’s Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memorandums and copies of e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.
— joro Apr 14, 11:09 PM # - http://accountability-international.blogspot.com/2005/06/detroit-us-congressman-john-conyers-jr.html
Detroit, US – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. – Missing Turkeys
When I saw Congessman Conyers, Jr. in the news this week outside the White House demanding an explanation from Presiden Bush, I recognized his name, but could not remember why. A quick search in Google reminded me: (Google: conyers turkeys)
— joro Apr 14, 11:11 PM # - http://prorev.com/china2.htm
The China Connection
From the Progressive Revew
WEN HO LEE
CHINA IN A BULL SHOP
CHINAPROP
LOOK WHO’S NOT
COMING FOR DINNER
FREE TRADE;
EXPENSIVE DEFENSE:
THE CHINA BLACK-OUT
PANAMA CANAL
CHINESE BOMBS AND BOMBSHELLS
Happy Easter
— joro Apr 14, 11:18 PM # - #39 #40
Apparently, Haney isn’t exactly well thought of by other former members of the Delta Force:
“Logan Fitch, Haney’s former Delta squadron commander, said Haney’s comments and conduct since he left the military more than a decade ago have earned him “persona non grata” status. He is banned from Delta facilities, reunions and commemorative events.
“I don’t know of any [ex-Delta troops] who are sympathetic to Haney,” said Fitch, who joined Delta shortly after Burruss did.
“I have no problem with him capitalizing on his experience, but he should be factual. I view him as a crass opportunist interested in personal gain,” he said.”
— Steve Apr 15, 09:56 AM # - BillO;
Thought I’d stop in for a visit to my old friends and adversaries on Harry’s blog, It is good to see some of you continue defending righteousness in the face of the troll’s idiocy.
I see we have some new confused neocons in the mix, some very good blogaters (blog debators), despite their brainwashing. I’ve missed the evolution of this blog lately, but have had other matters to attend to.
I would have stayed on board to help defend the progressive truth , but I got busy with local Kansas red district politics, like I advised everyone (including our trolls) to do in their home districts, instead of just wasting everyone’s time trying to convince us the Bush isn’t a jerk, which is a hopeless cause, as long as he appears in public now and then.
One volunteer moment led to another, and now I’m the manager of the John Doll for U.S. Congress campaign in Kansas’ Big First, a district that covers 69 western and central Kansas counties. It is geographically the 11th largest district in the nation, and it has been red as a cock cardinal for over a decade, our neocon-opponent actually ran unopposed the last few elections.
We don’t pretend we have the poll numbers, yet, but as each day goes by, it becomes more obvious that we do have the moral high ground, especially on immigration, Iraq and the culture of corruption.
The candidate I am working for is a bona fide progressive, yet at the same time he’s a real western Kansas fellow, with a Kansas twang and a local vernacular. He is a true populist, in the spirit of the non-partisan movement in the plains states back in the early 20th century. But he hasn’t gotten a lot of support from the “big guys.”
This is solely due to the David and Goliath nature of the race, and while I understand that our campaign resources should be spent on the races that we can win, I think it is a mistake to just ignore these dark-horse races. Dark horse Democratic candidates can win sometimes, just look at Tom Vilsack’s first win as Governor in Iowa in ‘98 and you see the proof of it.
If we can’t find a way to support every candidate who has the courage to stand up against the neocon totalists, then in the future it will be even harder to find quality candidates who can help us end this era of Republican neocon corruption.
John Dolls campaign website is at http://www.dollforcongress.org. I look forward to hearing from the good folks on this blog who are the advocates for truth, not adversaries of it.
And all of you self-righteous trolls need to remember, Harry’s blog lets you live in your ongoing delusions, without it you have nothing. It is apparently your purpose in life, trashing us. And always keep in mind that we can’t do it on your blogs, their administrators just don’t allow it.
So enjoy your freedom of speech as a gift from Harry and the Democrats, your Republican blogs are all fakes, and phonies, and you are all living under sad falsehoods, and if not for Harry’s blog, none of you would feel like you have a real purpose in life.
So be thankful for your blessings. If you want to prove yourselves to be the patriots you pretend, then go to a blue state or district and volunteer to help some rare red Republican David take on some big blue Democratic Goliath.
Its easy to sit at your keyboards and spout poison.
It is a wholly different thing to hit the streets and actually work for freedom and democracy.
HYPOCRITES!!
JEP
PS You neocon wannabe trolls need to learn what the word “totalist” means. Read some Robert Lifton and you might understand. But you won’t like it. Just remember, the truth only hurts when you refuse to believe it.
— John Patterson Apr 15, 10:33 AM # - LOL;
Joro misspelled “corrrectly” in his post criticizing Harry’s spelling. Was this intentional or just another cosmic proof of patent hypocrisy?
JEP
— John Patterson Apr 15, 10:42 AM # - Comment of the topic “Not a spokesman. Not a statement. George Bush must explain leak to the American people” has been closed, but this topic is very closely related, and Steve has been busy on this topic, so I would like to reply to his post #84 on the previous topic here.
Steve,
You are obviously an intelligent person. You can clearly think for yourself and are not just repeating a party line. I salute you for that. You are very good at picking up on some of the smaller points, but you are missing the larger points. The issue here is should we have a thorough and complete public disclosure and investigation of this whole sorry affair and would it be helpful in that context if the President were more forthcoming? The larger issue is about open government where arbitrary powers held by one man over classification and declassification can be used to beat the drums for war and undermine democracy. In this context, whether Ambassador Wilson or anyone else has or is alleged to have an “ethics problems” is a mere footnote. Even attacks on Senator Reid should be no more than a footnote.
I would let the whole matter drop were it not for the fact that Saddam was NOT buying yellow cake in Niger as we were told by the administration. I would let it drop if the whole WMD threat wasn’t wildly exaggerated. I would let it drop if the WMD threat wasn’t how this war was sold and originally justified. I would let it drop if the war wasn’t costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight. (When generals are calling for the Secretary of Defense to resign in the midst of a war, you know things are going badly.) I would let this drop if new revelations weren’t coming out daily.
Example:
“The President played the scoundrel…and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls “a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.”
“If not for the whistleblower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush’s falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed.
“On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department’s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the President followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us. The harsh truth is that this President cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the President and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a “mushroom cloud” over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the US nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd. “
Now back to Ambassador Wilson, if he has done anything illegal, let him be indicted! Let the attorney general do it or let a special prosecutor do it. If he has done anything unethical, let Congress hold hearings with full subpoena powers! But if he hasn’t done anything to merit that treatment, then he is not the problem.
As to the administration, we do have a special prosecutor hard at work, and one high official under indictment.
You are quite correct that the Wilson/Plame affair and the related declassification/leak were not at the height of the Presidential campaign. But this is not Britain where elections are held at irregular intervals. Presidential campaigns start at least two years before the election. The 2008 campaign will be well in progress in 2007. By 2003 it was clear that the Bush Presidency would be in serious trouble if the public came to believe we were taken to war under false pretenses. Not even Enron would defend itself by saying that its false statements were not part of a conspiracy to defraud the stockholders because the stockholder’s meeting was over a year away.
The attacks on Wilson might or might not be a smear, but they smell like one because the administration has a record of hitting its critics hard with the power of the Presidency and a majority political party and its media allies against one man at a time and because so many of the things this administration has told me have not held up in the light of recent history. They may not hold up in a court of law if we ever get there. After 9-11 I believed everything the President said. Now I doubt everything he says.
As for Senator Reid’s popularity, see http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=f5dde765-facf-4aaa-9cfd-50773f7d7983
As for President Bush’s low poll numbers, see the daily headlines. The President can only wish for Senator Reid’s numbers. Since he can’t get them, his supporters will attack Harry any way they can. Harry will take some hits, but he can stand the heat. Senator Reid is right in calling for the whole truth to come out. If we want a Congressional investigation we will need either the Senate or House to change hands in November. Harry Reid for majority leader!
— Leo Brown Apr 15, 10:52 AM # - Steve:
Bush was not elected to office either time! He was selected in the 2000 election Gore won the election! Daddy’s appointee’s had him installed regardless of whether he won or not! It wasn’t about who won the election it was about taking the opportunity and forcing a loser on the American’s people! He wasn’t elected in 2004 without a lot of behind the scene’s manipulating of the election by Republican’s in Florida and Ohio both to make certain King George stayed in office! So, Republican’s don’t have much to crow about! They have exactly what they put in office and no more! We Democrat’s do not hate Bush! We are terrified of him! He is bad news for this country! He is a loose cannon rolling around on a open deck! Just waiting to mow someone else down with his ignorance! He is obsessed with war and making a name for himself! He is out of control! He always has been! He doesn’t even have a good clear picture of what a terrorist is let alone where to find one! That is how bright he is! Could there be anything in this world more terrifying than a religious nut with his finger on a nuclear weapon’s trigger! I wouldn’t hire George W Bush to lead a troop of boy scouts let alone a country armed with nuclear weapons! He has started two wars now that he hasn’t even begun to finish or win! He has mucked them up so badly the next President will probably have to clean his messes up! He is hot to trot to start another one that will no doubt wind up in World War III! Even long time hard nosed Republican’s are starting to get terrified of him! Everyone in the world see’s George Bush as more of threat to peace than Islamic Fundamentalist’s! Republican’s like yourself need to start opening your eyes and take a real good look at this man! Why so called Patriot’s like yourself are not terrified of him only leaves one to wonder. If you honestly love this country as much as you do your political party! If you honestly care what happens to this country! He is bad news for the country! Everyone but a few myopic Republican’s know it!
— Flaming Liberal Apr 15, 11:04 AM # - “Everyone in the world see’s George Bush as more of threat to peace than Islamic Fundamentalist’s!”
Ann Coulter would have you strung up for that statement!
And while the word “everyone” may be overly-inclusive it is not inaccruate to say the vast majority of people in the world, and a majority of Americans, consider Bush a dangerous leader who is more concerned with creating future profitable wars than finding some personal humanitarian purpose in his life.
Most of us are appalled by this sad situation, but there is a group of rabid nationalists, most of them war profiteers, who believe that an endless war (so far they have just labeled it a “long” war) IS Bush’s humanitarian legacy.
As long as these people are in charge of our government, Peace as a humanitarian goal is not even possible.
JEP
— John Patterson Apr 15, 11:41 AM # - #58 Leo
Thank you for the kind words, and will respond respectfully.
“The larger issue is about open government where arbitrary powers held by one man over classification and declassification can be used to beat the drums for war and undermine democracy.”
I think you bring up an interesting point, but here’s what I believe makes this a problem. The Constitution authorizes the President to be the leader of not only the government, but of the running of the government, which includes all the departments that report to him. Congress’ role is only to make the laws that allow for this to occur; that is their mandate in Article I. Now, if they wanted to create legislation that will have certain congressional leaders involved in this process, they can do that anytime. Of course, any legislation that might become law would be subject to Constitutional muster from the Supreme Court, if the Executive branch challenges a change like this. And I have no idea how they’d rule. I’m not sure I’d be for this as it adds bureaucracy to the system when it could prove detrimental. And, we do elect the Congress to represent us, the people, and that means we are trusting someone to do the things we don’t have the time to do. In this regard, we gave the President this power by putting in people in Congress that created this power.
“I would let the whole matter drop were it not for the fact that Saddam was NOT buying yellow cake in Niger as we were told by the administration. I would let it drop if the whole WMD threat wasn’t wildly exaggerated. I would let it drop if the WMD threat wasn’t how this war was sold and originally justified. I would let it drop if the war wasn’t costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight.”
Unfortunately, even Wilson said that Hussein’s government did send someone to Niger in 1999. The CIA, British Intelligence, and French Intelligence still say this occurred. So does the man Wilson talked to, the former Prime Minister of Niger. Wilson said this when testifying in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) in 2004, and it is in their report. He also said the same in his book that came out in 2004. Wilson originally lied in his New York Times op-ed of July 6, 2003, by saying the Iraqi government didn’t send somebody to Niger. Therefore, it is Wilson who is doing the smearing of the President, and the declassification of that portion of the October, 2002 NIE was used to show that Hussein was looking to purchase uranium from Niger. It also means that the sixteen words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address was not a lie. Nobody said Hussein bought uranium, they have stated that he tried to. This is still believed in intelligence circles to this day.
The other thing is that Wilson initially lied about his wife’s involvement about this mess. He said that he was directed through Cheney’s office to go to Niger, when that is simply not true. Cheney went to the CIA, it went down the chain to lower levels within the CIA, and Valerie Plame made a recommendation that the CIA send Wilson as he had had experience in Niger before. This also came out in the SSCI report in 2004.
I’m frustrated as well that after three years, nobody knows what Fitzgerald is looking for. For some reason Fitzgerald only seems to be trying to justify his continued role as a special prosecutor until he finds this phantom “leaker” of
Valerie Plame’s name, and if it was done as part of an attempt to deliberately hurt her intelligence capabilities, which is a criminal offence. Unfortunately for those who think the administration did something illegal, it was Joe Wilson who started the ball rolling in this mess in the first place, as he leaked his story to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nick Kristoff of the New York Times before Wilson wrote his own op-ed in the Times . For one thing, he isn’t allowed under any statute or the Constitution to leak anything, especially since he isn’t an elected official. If anything, by telling his story, he managed to leak the name of his own wife (obviously not out of malice), along with information he had no business telling. Again, I don’t know what Fitzgerald is trying to prove, especially since Libby isn’t even charged with outing Plame, just lying about his role in the investigation.
Bottom line, the Bush administration was accused of doing something, and defended itself with the legal methods at its disposal. It is up to the prosecutor, and the accuser, Wilson, to prove the administration did something illegal, not for the administration to prove it did something legal. So in that regard, anybody (Reid included) demanding for the administration to “come clean” is doing this to make political points, not because they want justice done.
— Steve Apr 15, 06:15 PM # - #59
“Bush was not elected to office either time!”
Sure he was. Bush v. Gore confirmed it.
Democrats love spouting out the phrase stare decisis when it comes to judicial rulings citing Roe v. Wade to overturn abortion restriction laws. Well, stare decisis works in this case as well. George Bush was elected in 2000.
And as far as 2004, he most certainly was re-elected, and this time by a clear majority. Just because you don’t like the fact that Kerry didn’t challenge it isn’t my problem. Complain to him.
— Steve Apr 15, 06:21 PM # - I can’t get past this statement in that last post, and still attribute any real credibility to the poster.
“The Constitution authorizes the President to be the leader of not only the government, but of the running of the government, which includes all the departments that report to him.”
That is a mighty loose statement.
By “government” do you mean The Supreme Court and Congress and the Senate and state and local Government?
The constitution allows the President to ADMINISTRATE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, not “run the government! ”
That kind of easy interprtetation of a constitutoinal issue that real experts still won’t define so casually, causes many half-witted people fall into the trap of believing anyone who writes their personal opinion as if it is fact.
It is one of the basic tools of thought reform; speak the cult agenda as if it is the unquestionable truth. Then continue on as if no one will dispute it, making your argument based on an already flawed premise.
Weak minds simply aquiesce and mimic that agenda. Its all in the way you frame the issue.
Just ask Frank Luntz.
JEP
— John Patterson Apr 15, 06:32 PM # - #63
You bring a valid point, and I will correct it. What I should have said was that almost all government departments are run from the White House (through the Cabinet leaders) with the President as the Chief Executive. And the Cabinet leaders do report to the President.
— Steve Apr 15, 07:46 PM # - OT
Today marks the 141st year of the death of one of the greatest Presidents, and one of the greatest Americans, ever to have lived in the United States. And, of course, that great American was Abraham Lincoln. Not only did he die this day so many years ago, he died on the same day of the week. But, I do not say this to mourn his loss, but to have all Americans remember the words he is most famous for:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
— Steve Apr 15, 07:50 PM # - Hey Harry!
Get off your ass and ask about the MEK, the Iranian terrorist organization that your fucked-up government has coopted to run covert destabilizing operations in Iran.
Will you, idiots, ever learn from history?
We suported the Mujahideens in Afghanistan in their war against Russia? What happened? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda!
Your government is already running covert operations in Iran, and will likely escalate the rhetoric and start an attack in October, ahead of the elections, to keep the Republicans’ corrupt, greedy, hands on power.
So, when are you going to come out with a statement?
It is high time that we either get a third party in this country, or that we go to to a Parliamentary system, when The People can express their disgust for the current government and throw it out.
A pox on you, Harry Reid. A pox on all politicians. None of you—Republicans or Democrat s—is fit to represent us.
This former Republic is now a dictatorship. The Democratic party helped establish it.
Go to hell, Mr. Reid. I am moving my Ph.D. self out of this hellhole and so are my friends. The brain drain is going to be worse than your worst nightmare. No one with any living brain cell wants to live in the Fascist (Soviet—same difference) USA.
Have fun in your theocracy!
— Evil Progressive Apr 15, 11:00 PM # - #57
Joro misspelled “corrrectly”
JEP
— John Patterson Apr 15, 10:42 AM #
Patterson proves Democrats are all hypocrites. He jumps on me for a typo but lets Harry’s high paid illegal tax funded staff get away with spelling errors. I wonder if these staff members of Reid’s are illegals getting paid cents on the dollar with Harry diverting the rest of their salary or are they just our typical union educated students?
— joro Apr 16, 01:38 AM # - #56
And all of you self-righteous trolls need to remember, Harry’s blog lets you live in your ongoing delusions, without it you have nothing. It is apparently your purpose in life, trashing us. And always keep in mind that we can’t do it on your blogs, their administrators just don’t allow it.
So enjoy your freedom of speech as a gift from Harry and the Democrats, your Republican blogs are all fakes, and phonies, and you are all living under sad falsehoods, and if not for Harry’s blog, none of you would feel like you have a real purpose in life.
— John Patterson Apr 15, 10:33 AM #
John, wake up. This blog is funded by our tax dollars. Most of the so called Republican blogs are private operations so they can establish their own rules. We have no intention of trashing you…only pointing out the truth which is so seriously lacking by Democrats and Harry Reid who cannot tell the truth. Lets all be Americans first and forget our party affiliations. Much of the Clinton mess has been cleaned up by President George W. Bush but some serious problem remain. We must get Harry Reid to understand that his obstructionism and filibustering is bad not only for America but the Democrat Party which is on its death bed.
Happy Easter.
— joro Apr 16, 02:13 AM # - You prove the point that all bushies are hypocrites!
Just like you with a different twist I think this proves that you are all not worthly of anything but the same thing that happened to Nixon…
Disgrace and kicked out of office!
We will see in less then 7 months won’t we?
Your personal attacks on Reid are not going to work here in Nevada…
Your party is going down.
Jack Carter has already raised almost a million dollars and Ensign the little puppet is going down too…
In fact he is going down this year!
Reid just won the election with a super majority of voters voting for him when bush narrowly won the election here last time…
You win not stop us.
Nevadans are laughing they you know what off over you!
Silly loser!
Who are you going to run against Reid mr Big SHOT?
— Steve Apr 16, 02:15 AM # - #56
Patterson
LOL. Google the name of your candidate…John Doll. What does it cost to change a name? $35 in some states.
— joro Apr 16, 02:16 AM #