Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.

First up - Social Security.

I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"

SO:

I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.

Well? Agree? Disagree?

Hey, Tally. The CrooksAndLiars links you always post send you directly to their.homepage, regardless of the destination. Their servers don't accept referrers. Not that it matters or anything, but hey.

Might it be time to shift this discussion back over to the "Thanks Republicans" thread? From my perspective, there's a lot to be thankful for recently.

Should 'self destruct' have a hyphen?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/14.html#a5366
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/13.html#a5361
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/13.html#a5359
try dat one, not dat you will. Not dat you brain jar ain't hermetically sealed. Not dat you didn't use up all the super-glue and rusted bolts, staples and bubble gum locking in your prejudices.

Hey fellas - hope you're enjoying the show up in DC. Ali ain't the only one that knows "the rope-a-dope."

At least that's my opinion. Miers will withdraw her name at some point in the near future....and then someone y'all are gonna absolutely adore will get the nod.

And, alas...the Dems will be boxed in - on public record this time.

Errrrrr, nice theory, columbo.
who do you suggest this adored person will be ?

Who ended Gujuboy's ss benefits?
Republicans..
why?
spent too much on a useless war
how?
convincing dumb republicans that there are nukes in iraq.
.........
I want to know this from a TRUE Republican...
how did u feel when u found out NO nukes were found in iraq? And what was ur first reaction? Also were u happy that ur money supported this mistake? Please only a true republican should answer this..

Thats not me then.

Chief: I suppose its human nature that when we see one of our personal heroes getting the shit beat out of him that we begin to hope the ass kicking is actually a trap being set. 9 times out of 10 it turns out to just be a straight up ass kicking.

My two bits: miers nomination withdrawn. Team bush gets the old play book back, nominates a well qualified, hightly conservative judge, and relishes the opportunity to finally have a discussion about whether or not america is ready to rejoin the dark ages. Unfortunately, the QB, rove, won't be able to call the shots from his jail cell.

Question is, can the democrats capitalize on the opportunity to reconnect america to the 21st century, or do they continue to serve corporate masters and limp along they way they have for 30 years?

Guju: theres a lot more to pissed off about other than your SS dollars. Which by the way, you haven't contributed to much yet anyhow. Go to truthout.com and read about why you should really hate republicans. There's lots of reasons. Environmnetal, labor, women/minority rights, science, education, integrity, equality, justice, culture of corruption...yada yada yada.

Bottom line: republicanism should only be espoused by the rich, those that really want to be rich, and conservative christians. No one else is served by these corporate whores as our current political/social/economic situations ILLUSTRATES BEYOND DOUBT!

Thx stink, since I'll be fresh out of college I want to know if this is legal. The idea is to set up a website which will serve as a bridge to outside medicine, for cheap. Anyone will be able to come online and send in their prescription and a qualified doctor will order either same or better medicine from canada or any other country for a real cheap price. I dont know if anyone has done this before but I think through this we can save people ALOT of money. Again this is through online. Anyone?

Thx
guju

Ya people are payin to much keep it cheep plz B)

@ da Ho

My money's on Gonzalez.

@ guju

Oh, if life were as simple as you see it....

This isn't a flame...just a nod to your youth.

Alas, I can't answer your question as I'm not a true Republican.

@ Stinky

I'm starting to see your point regarding the religious right, though I'm coming at it from another direction (agnostic vs. Catholic). Whodathunkit.

By the way, the Plame Blame Game seems to be heating up. Did anyone catch that "Fitzgerald knows who the primary source of the leak is....and it ain't in the White House?" I read it earlier on Google news....

Chief: link? I can't find it. Is that wishful thinking? C'mon, you know those weasles aren't above this business.

And whatchamean about catholic vs agnostic? I donna follow.

And rabbit: how come when I posed you this humdinger:

"Which of course begs the question: if you've rejected macro-evolution on the basis of rigorous scientific scrutiny, or even of logical scrutiny...how is it that that same scrutiny has spared some of the seemingly fantastic, miraculous happenings of the bible?

How do you explain this blatant incongruity, oh mr rabbit?"

You run oft?

Last edited: Monday, October 17, 2005 at 8:58:58 AM

Gonzalez might have a hard time with that whole torture thing. Await an answers to the paradox above I do.

@ Stink

I'm referring to this whole Miers thing....an obvious nod to the religious right. And, I also agree that any of the politico power boys are capable of smearing someone from the other side of the aisle as political payback. I just don't think that's what took place here....and not just because these guys are who they are. I just don't think anyone at that level of the game is that "stoopid". I'd be saying the same thing about Carville or another Dem operative.

I'm Catholic and I just assumed from some of your prior posts that you were agnostic. If I'm offbase I apologize in advance.

@ da Ho

I'm saying this due to hie being Hispanic and a former TX judge (why am I thinking he was on the state supreme court?).

Check.
I don't think they're that stupid either. But overconfident? Yes, I think rove figured that since they've been getting away with all the other "pranks" that they would be able to pull that one off as well. Remember that when this was first being investigated, ashcroft was in charge. Rove and ashcroft were pals so I'm sure rove felt that his back was covered when he lied to the fbi. Suddenly, its fitzpatrick's investigation, and rove can't explain his ashcroft era fibs? Voila, fourth sit down under oath. He had some splaining to do.

Why is it that you catholics, once the primary source of fire and brimstone, are more likely to be the moderate, rationale religious folks these days? Isn't that telling? I mean, the world over, catholicism is considered a very conserative religion, but everything is relative I guess. Next to these bull goose looney evangelicals, you guys look positively humanist. More power to you.

The miers thing is a freaking carnival. Full of code to conservatives, which at first was too covert for them, now that code has been translated into a nod from dobson, which has got democrats and rational republicans freaking out. Maddening the supreme court issue has to be dumbed down to this level.

Agree with t ho on gonzales and the torture thing. Thanks to john mccain for making a principled stand against torture...something I can't believe took this long. Torture is unamerican.

Chief, BlueState is not a checkbox world, man. Is it in RedState?
Hispanic + Judge = Qualified ?

Nah. The torture issue aside for a second - Gonzalez is the next logical choice (from Bush's standpoint)...the standpoint being someone from the innercircle. Minority, judicial track record (TX supreme court?), longtime FOW (friend of W)....

It's not really a checkbox kinda thing on my guessing - to me it's the same as figuring out who's coming off the bench next in sports. But, then again, the Reps never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

If not Gonzales then who?

LOL

I hear Jenna Bush is taking a pre-law course over the Internet.

Maybe she'll post some pics (hopefully not of her wife).

Hey Flea!

Good seeing you. I'm mobile at the moment so I can't post the whole article, but here's the link:

Www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5350688,00.html

This ties into the article I told Stinky I read last night.

Will post the rest after I check in.

Hear-hear flea.

Hey, it looks like we really are succeeding in bringing an american style democracy to iraq!...well, at least florida style, or ohio style.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101705Q.shtml

What do you expect?

Wow, Flea! What a hop!

Pretty soon you'll be telling us that we deserved Pearl Harbor because of what we did to Hiroshima? <-----You'll get it, think about it...

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Or, as Keith Oberfest of MSNBC might say after his line-up of alert warnings against bad White House news the other day:

And again:

Thank you, KO. Finally some truth.

There is an interesting article in the Wash Post that describes how feeling align with your argument on Plamegate.

After Judy's notes came out this weekend, it is clear that there was a cat fight between the CIA and the White House over Wilson's "stories." The cold truth is that both sides got angry at one another.

The anger descended into nose-pulling and eye-gouging in the form of leaks from the CIA and grumbling and snarling and hinting from the White House staff.

Please note, and there is no denying this, that Joe Wilson chucked the first rock by telling enormous whoopers about his trip.

That Valerie was a CIA covert stealth agent with a special decoder ring out of the CIA breakfast cereal box is a hoot. Although this may be nothing to the legal types.

Keep in mind one important thing: All is not what it appears to be!

But I digress, because all this will amount to how Fitzgerald handles the law. (Which law? Is a good one to wonder about.) If he snaps the leash on all the leaking, I expect the CIA and Libby and Rove will get cracked.

How hard they get cracked will depend on whether they can prove any of this in court.

Which if you think about it means this affair could drag on for months when the trial opens. Or not.

Wait until Friday or Monday, the date of the end of the grand jury!

Last edited: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 7:16:00 AM

Humor? Sarcasm?
Enquiring minds... Aren't all that interested.
Olbermann was actually pretty compelling, or did you only read the first paragraph ?
Thirteen incidents of A then B events is noteworthy repetition, unless I guess you're the CEO of walmart.
"Please note, and there is no denying this, that Joe Wilson chucked the first rock by telling enormous whoopers about his trip."
Please explain.

"Please note, and there is no denying this, that Joe Wilson chucked the first rock by telling enormous whoopers about his trip."

Or, please don't bother to explain. I certainly have no interest in the way in which you co-mingle words to echo party line.

But here -- since his writing is deliberately obfuscatory and convoluted -- here's a link to the source of everything he ever "thought."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Why read JJ's stupid prose when rush is so much more straightforward in his crapola/government shilling/blatant lying/ propaganda?

Last edited: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 10:26:49 AM

@JJ

What you fail to realize is that existing is being unique. Existence, reality, essence, cause, or truth is uniqueness. The geometric point in the center of the sphere is nature’s symbol of the immeasurable uniqueness within its measurable effect. A center is always unique; otherwise it would not be a center. Because uniqueness is reality, or that which makes a thing what it is, everything that is real is based on a centralization and therefore unique and clearly conservative.

You'll get it...think about it.

Pop quiz JJ: what do you call someone who deflects every criticism of the administration, fabricates stories to explain away incongrueties, attempts to obfuscate issues, uses convoluted rhetorical formulas to undermine attempts to afix blame, and above all stays on message while the ship is sinking?

A white house press secretary. Dude, you've got the goods....all that plus, and this is a biggie -- you've got to have no sense of intellectual integrity! Huh! You're a sure thing! See? Your instinct to side with power on every single issue -- well, lets just say, there's a place for that after all. Between you and me, I think mcclellen is about to pull an ari fleischer, so....seize the day, oh king of sychophants! Courtier to corruption! Ideological gasbag!

Hey, watch this daily show clip, and see if its your thing or not. Mcclellen comes in about half way. Its a scream!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5429

Press Secretary JJ?

Helen Thomas would finally keel over and David Gregory would get physical. Too bad Gannon's gone.

!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5437
Clooney on Charlie Rose. Interesting stuff, worth watching.
Does OReilly have the nads? OReilly does not have the nads.
I'm taking odds.

I'll take "Iraqi Justice" for $1000 Alex.

RE: The Plame Blame Game

Interestingly enough, the (likely) forthcoming charges revolve around the investigation itself, and have nothing to do with "008".

@ Stink

You didn't get all shook up this am did you? Are the doorways tall enough for you to get under over there?

^It's a Double Jeopardy!

(Place your wager.)

"This man claimed to have the legitimate right to be President of his county which was decided in a kangaroo court."

(Answer)

Who is...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/19.html#a5449
amusing.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5443
all oreilly, all the time.

Chief: thankfully back in the united states of canada! (province of oregon). No shaky shaky.
t: o reilly had the balls to go on the daily show at least. Funny, he thinks that he has balls. Maybe he does, but my guess is that they're too old, shriveled and ugly to nut up to a beau-hunk like clooney. Btw, did you all see the colbert take on o'reilly? There's a clip at crooksandlliars. Hi-larious!

Nothing but silence from the reality-challenged rabban and jj. Go figure. Must be hard seeing the lipstick come off your pigs.

Whats with this show up, make some unsubstantiated claim, and then limp off thing you do?

Rabban: you take a shot at macro-evolution...saying in effect that it doesn't meet your standard for burden of proof. I asked you why it is that you don't apply that same standard to your religion. The silence is deafening and telling.

Jj: you make some cockamamie claim that wilson lied and that that is part of this plamegate debacle (implying that he deserves what he got...which seems like a willingness to excuse treason so long as the perpetraitors are on your side). What lies? I know integrity free members of the press have made similar claims, but I haven't seen anything of the sort substantiated. I read this piece where the author looks at the claims, then looks at what wilson actually said. Makes the accusers look stupid http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/19/142419/59

One thing you're not taking into account is this whole thing is about attempting to crush dissent. And you may recall that what wilson was doing was questioning WH claims that iraq was seeking WMDs. Further, you may recall that no WMDs were ever found in iraq. Your side was very, very wrong. The consequences are catastrophic as many of the daily reminders make plain. Not the least of which is the GOPs plummeting favorability ratings.

But, why do I bother? What is the value of dissent to you? What does it matter that powerful people use the press to punish their detractors? These are undemocractic activities...but its not like any of that matters to you. I mean, its not like you cared at all about the voter disenfranchizement in ohio and florida, or the diebold debacle...and freedom to vote is about the most core democratic concept there is.

If you've got anything to say that isn't just pure bullshit, ideology, or media echo, chime in. Otherwise you're just one more of hundreds of partisan dipshits saturating media channels with your partisan horseshit. This isn't about protecting the priviledged few so that they can make america an even better place for themselves. This is about making america a better place for all americans. Quit siding with power. Or if you do, justify with reason, not obfuscated, quasi satirical banter.

The powerful don't need you. They've bought and paid for all the help they need. Quit volunteering.

Last edited: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 2:17:49 PM

I wish you'd stop sugar coating things Stink and say what you really mean.

Whoppers...

Ok, let's split a few hairs.

Over at the Cafe , it says "he led people to believe, he said publicly, that he had been dispatched by the vice president."

In a June '03 column, the NYT's Nick Kristoff tells us : "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

That "person involved in the Niger caper" was in fact Wilson, reporting to Kristoff on himself.

That's close to saying "dispatched by the vice president." It almost also looks like a leak of a CIA mission as well.

Well, there is no mention of the CIA, but Wilson did jump to the task. Later we learn it is CIA.

Who recommended it?

You can check out the Senate report on pre-war intelligence that includes a question or two on who sent Wilson:

In a letter of challenging that ^, Wilson responds:

First conclusion [by the Senators]: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

[Wilson responds:] That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says "my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts) both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip

BTW, "anodyne" means "calming." (?)

However, during a interview on PBS Wilson says: "I have not seen the memo. I don't know what transpired, if her supervisor asked her to list my qualifications."

(Additionally, in his book, he says his wife "had nothing to do with the matter.")

Watch the dates on these remarks: The Senate report was released on July 9. Wilson's response to the Senate report around July 19. The PBS interview on July 20. Watch the references to "memo" throughout... Miller memory?

Here's another hair to split, old one too:

Also from the Senate report, challenging Wilson's evaluations on Niger and some comments that he makes on documents that come into the CIA hands alleging a yellow-cake deal :

That reporter that he talked to was Wash Post's Walter Pincus. . Here's Pincus' quote from Wilson: "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. Government official said."

Wilson made his report to the CIA on March 2002 about his trip. He says: While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

More forceful was a May 2003 column also by Nick Kristoff. "In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. And State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

But the forged documents did not get to the CIA until October of 2002, six months later.

In the meantime, Wilson is connected with John Kerry and his presidential bid.

Sounds like some leak from the CIA?

From Miller's first-hand report this weekend, she mentions that Libby was upset about the leaks, which all happened before Robert Novak wrote about Plame.

But let it pass...

Let's move on to present time.

I quote today's Kos :

All that ^ is build on DeFrank's few words, with no details? I am ahead of you this time. Here it is:

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Jump with incomplete Wilson facts, jump with this?

If the center is reality, then the tangential remark is not. See the 44's proof.

Last edited: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 9:44:30 PM

PS: Stinker stop attacking me. My ankles are getting irritated...

Was that "Air Jordan" or was that "Air JJ"???

Who was that masked man????

Last edited: Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 2:08:09 AM

Wow, good points JJ.

I just got a few easy questions.

Tell me, did that "Senate" committee contain any partisan Republican members? (Na, probably all liberal Demos.)

Was whoever wrote that memo about Wilson being tapped for the job actually at the meeting?

Also which "reports" about the yellowcake are you referring to? Perhaps it's the one authored by Andrew Card and Karl Rove. You know them, they are a couple of guys currently trying to stay out of prison.

And I find it EXTREMELY interesting that NOW you feel the report Wilson was sent to investigate were indeed forgeries. You know, the report that Bush used to bolster his now obvious and illegal work-up to go to WAR at the 2003 State of The Union Address.

Hmm... So now we got the President, Vice President and all their closest buddies talking and talking about Wilson and the Mrs. Now if all they do is talk I guess no harm there. But what if they accidently started a smear campaign and got the CIA involved too. Is that legal?

Inquiring minds...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/19.html#a5458
All Christ Matthews, all the time.
Disagrees with JJ, btw.

@ Flea

Bottom line - bad initial intelligence.

^Does repeating that over and over at night help you sleep?

One critical question to the whole issue...

Did the administration, (A) make the case for war based on arguements they knew , at the time, were bogus....or, (B) were they innocently misled by bad intelligence?

Chief believes the latter. PlameGate, so far, is strongly suggesting the former.

My prediction for next week? The indictments will make an extremely strong case that this administration knowingly and deliberately conspired to mislead the world about the rationalle for war.

Last edited: Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 5:11:47 AM

You summed it up my misguided lesbodian friend.....that be the pinnacle question.

I really think it will go the other way...for the single reason that I believe that Wilson set this whole thing upsimply because he was against invading Iraq (inconsiderate of the evidence - the guy is just anti-war).

JJ's hit the nail on the head with Wilson trying to bullshit the Senate Intel Comm (I believe that was the one he admitted to lying in front of). I have previously posted about it somewhere in here....will go find it.

That statement is going to bite you. I'm too busy (and my teeth aren't as sharp as stink's or flea's) to do the chomping. Beware what's coming...or edit now.

Welll....I'm man enough to stand by my statement and see what happens as the clock ticks on Fitzy.

Hell at this point he's almost GOT to indict someone - lest the public see him pissing away public funds ala' Ronnie Earle.

Who in their right mind isn't?

Finally, some substance outta jj. Well, it looks like substance. Some kinda substance.

The gesture is appreciated. If your gonna shill for the government, give us some rational shilling, that's all I'm asking.

If your gonna fight for the man, construct a real argument with a reference or two for good measure. At least gives us a chance to consider what you say, rather than just blow you off...

Ok, out comes the scalpel:

"I'm told by a person..." -- this is a third person making a claim about what the "first" person said. It is hearsay.
"more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation" - true, they did, as they should have.
"so" -- wrong coordinating conjunction, eh? Makes you think that the following assertion is causally linked to the first. And it isn't. And it led to confusion. And it is the third person reporting it, not the first person wilson saying it.

Regarding who/why wilson was choosen: I suppose why this matters is because it gets at motive? Or are you saying that since plame recommended him, she is fair game in the outing? For the life of me, I don't see the relevance. Help me.

Regarding forged documents and fuzzy timelines. Again...relevance? If your intent is to cast doubt on Wilson's integrity, you make a good point. He seemed to be overstating and making exagerated claims if your timeline is right.
but then in the end, it turns out: THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE INDEED FORGED.
ergo: questionable motive, but accurate assessment. Still, wilson looks fishy...he's fucking up timelines, can't get his details right.

Regarding the daily news piece: does anyone actually take that piece at face value? It was alleged to have originated by some bush insider. I doubt it. I doubt the whole thing. It could very well have resulted from decontextualized misunderstanding or deliberate misconstrueing. What's its relevance to your argument? Got nothing to do with it. Subterfuge.

Regarding cia leaks: you seem to be suggesting that the Cia leaked a great deal of information and that Wilson is a partisan hack. Your facts give support to both assertions. I assume than that you draw attention to this to build justification for the reprisals from the WH to discredit his wife. Wilson seemed to know information before the cia officially knew...so someone was leaking it to him.

Are suggesting tit for tat? One leak begets another? Anyway...

So: 1) partisan hack wilson asks to go on a mission with the purpose of descrediting the WH, is recommended by his wife a CIA operative, makes over-exagerated claims, makes confusing statements, turns out to be right anyway, and joins the kerry campain. 2) pissed off WH, which built a rationale for war based on false documents (connected to chalabi and a cia operative) retaliates for being made to look stupid in front of the UN and american populace by outting the zealot wilson's CIA wife (who aint looking so virtuous herself). Is that about it?

Taking your argument at face value (which could be a stretch), here's what I got:

1. Wilson is a hack.
2. So is his wife
3. Wilson made misleading, over-exagerated statements. But his principle assertion was proven.
4. WH relied on forged documents to build a case for war
5. WH outted a CIA operative because her husband discredited their war rationale.
6. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq. Over 200 b $ pissed away with no end in sight. Nearly 2000 dead americans.
7. The war was/is a collosal failure and is mostly responsible for emptying american coffers.

Some "whoppers" you've "demystified" there. Fine job. I see why you are so pissed off. Because the world listened to wilson, we didn't go to war with iraq and kerry took the whitehouse. Keep up the eagle-eyed focus...on the rich and powerful. The truly powerful, like a former ambassador, his wife, and a crappy democratic candidate. Always fighting the good fight eh?

"where's the outrage?" chuckle.

Last edited: Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 10:03:42 AM

And chief: to answer your question, I think that was spud webb.
considering all the sound and fury, perhaps a bit of denis rodman as well. But it all distills down to some petty little shit. Like spud webb.

Wilson exagerated and lied, but was right. Result: WH looks like stupid liars.
wh: lied, based claims on forged info, and outted a cia operative and were wrong. Result: 200 billion tax dollars pissed away, along with the lives of 2000 of your countrymen.

Now you see why spud is so pissed off, so outraged. Outraged in the o'reilly sense of the word.

Last edited: Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 5:20:37 PM