Re: Attention liberals, the rgp regulars


"FL Turbo" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2a203pec24dobqjq91np4cdh7ojd5tsod@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:26:08 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
<jhankins5@xxxxxxx[no spam]> wrote:



The long running Plame kerfuffle is a case in point.
There was just no "there" there.



Really? The Chief of Staff of the Republican Vice-President is a
convicted
felon on his way to federal prison. That is newsworthy. Fitzgerald said
Libby's obstruction prevented him from properly investigating the leak in
the Plame case. You seem to quibble over the nuances of the issue, but
seem
to ignore the big picture that a very high official of the Bush
administration is a convicted criminal and affirmatively obfuscated the
investigation into the Plame matter. Some of the usual liberal suspects
here have got some of the details wrong, but the VRWC crowd just looks
silly
making small points in the face of criminality at the highest levels of
the
Bush administration.


Just take a little time from hyperventilating over the Eeevil Bush
Regime.

The whole shitstorm started when Novak published the Name Plame in a
news column.

Who outed Plame?

Fitzgerald knew early on in his investigation that it was Richard
Armitage who was the source for Novak.

How did Fitzgerald find that out?
Beats me.
Maybe Novak told him?
Interesting question, eh?

In any event, Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with a crime for
revealing the Name of Plame.

As you probably know, the law making it a crime to reveal the identity
of a "covert" CIA Agent has never been tested in court.

IMHO, Fitzgerald knew full well that trying to prosecute Armitage
under that law would raise a whole can of worms that he did not want
to open.
Not to mention that he was a State Department official working for
Colin Powell.

Now fast forward to the Libby trial.
As you know, the entire issue of Outing Plame was off the table.
(It was kinda like putting the elephant in the next room --- Whatever
you do, don't open that door !!!)

As far as I can glean, Libby was convicted of lying to investigators
about what he said to journalists A, B, C, and D.

Do you really want to hyperventilate about lying to a court about
something where there was no underlying criminal charge?

You may do so if you wish.

I would just tell you that it is a huge leap to go from that to waxing
highly indignant about "criminality at the highest levels of the Bush
administration".

It makes me wonder if you haven't been down in the Moonbat Conspiracy
Cave drinking their KoolAid.


The former Chief of Staff for the Vice President is on his way to federal
prison for lying during an investigation and Fitzgerald says he
affirmatively obstructed the investigation. You can pooh-pooh that all you
like but when you do so it makes you look like a Kool-Aid drinker.

How many of your friends have been to federal prison? When you are the
Chief of Staff for the Vice President and an attorney it should be pretty
easy to avoid being a criminal but Scooter managed it. It's not
insignficant.

Just think back to how you felt when Clinton was being impeached for similar
conduct.



The long running Bush Lied meme is another case.
If you can pin one of those mantra chanters down on just exactly what
were those lies were about, it boils down to WMDs and the "18 words".


Even a justified war in Iraq exhibits a collosal failure of leadership and
extraordinarily poor judgment. The President has expended this countries
resources and young men and women in the most reckless way imaginable.
You
can snipe at whether he lied or not but that's rearranging chairs on the
Titanic.


Hey, don't blame me for "sniping".
It's the Moonbats that keep chanting the Bush Lied mantra.

The arguments purely on the pros and cons of the Iraq invasions are a
topic for an entire thread.


That's not even to mention the idiotic 911 Conspiracy Theorists.
Pointing out that such a vast conspiracy would also have to involve
leftover Clintonistas in the government gets a shocked reaction.
"Oh no, it's only Bushitler and Cheney and Rove and Halliburton".
(Ok, so maybe I exaggerated just a little.)


I agree that the 9/11 kooks are kooks.


This President has been a disaster. Surely you can sense it and I think
the
American public is sensing it as well. He has virtually no refuge from
the
attacks and no positive aspect of his Presidency to which he can point
and
take credit for doing something good for this country. The chickens are
coming home to roost and we're all losers in the end.


I sense a mob mentality that wouldn't give him credit for
single-handedly finding a cure for cancer.


That is simply incorrect. He hasn't done anything remotely noteworthy
that
exhibits mature, statesmanlike leadership befitting the office of
President
of the United States. He would get credit if he actually did something
consistent with the stature of the Presidency. It's not a mob mentality
because it's not just moonbats piling on now. It's a legitimate
recognition
that this man has damaged the United States in profound ways; and it makes
people angy.


When I look around at the part of the world I live in, I see things
moving right along as well as they ever have.

How about your part of the country?
Do you have starving orphans and widows on every other street corner?


C'mon. There has not been a collapse of the social structue in the U.S.
but
surely you can feel confidence in the leadership of the country slipping
in
the view of the average American, can you not?


Of course.
Bush is well into his Lame Duckhood status.

Repos and Demos alike are looking beyond, to the '08 elections.
Can't really blame either of them for going along with the mob.

The Demos have already regained control of Congress.
Why so glum?
Don't worry, be happy.

They'll start to fix things, won't they?


Have you heard of libraries invaded by swat teams demanding to see
their patron's reading lists?

Have you heard of mass arrests of people under the dreaded Patriot
Act?

Do you see any reluctance at all for entertainment and media people to
say whatever they want?

Despite all the bloviating coming from Demos and the Moonbats to the
left of them, free speech in this country is thriving.

So what have we lost besides any sense of civility in political
posturing?


Well, for starters, we've lost several thousand lives of young American
servicemen and women in a middle-eastern shithole that will be no better
once we leave. You and I pay for that and it's billions of dollars. I
know
quite a few people in my city affected directly by the war in Iraq. I
feel
it myself when gas goes up to $3 gallon. There's also a brand new federal
bureacracy called the Department of Homeland Security that we pay for to
the
tune of billions of dollars and the only thing we get from it is
color-coded
bull***.


Of course.
Most everyone is frustrated by the lack of progress in Iraq.

You don't have to convince me that the DHS is a giant Federal
boondoggle.

I thought that Liberals would be delighted to see the price of gas go
up so that alternative fuel sources would be more viable.
What's the problem?

We've lost an incredibly large amount of stature and good will in the
world.
It is telling when guys like Trump come out so critical of the President.
American companies suffer directly on the bottom line as a result.


Trump is a media whore, just like his friend Rosie.
But you're not even looking at it like you should. It's not about what
we've lost, it's about what we should have gained by a responsible
President.


You mean like Jon Carry?
Are you in great anticipation for Hillary?



The most hateful people you will find in this country are on the
political left.


Incorrect. That would be the religious right, populated mostly by
conservative Republicans. Hands down, no debate.


I guess you haven't been paying attention to the rhetoric coming from
the Moonbat faction of the Demo Party.

Go read the Huffington blog for a good sampling.

Ever read some of the commenters there on the subject of Cheney's
health?

I would be surprised if you could find anything that hateful coming
from the religious right.

They would probably tell you that you are going straight to Hell, but
that's about it.

Furthermore, it is God that will do it all, and not someone "fragging
the CIC" as some Moonbat in RGP has so quaintly put it.


Maybe it's only because I'm such an ornery, contrary, cantankerous
***, but I will not march along with the mob that is telling us
how damn bad things are.



Things aren't "bad" in the way you seem to think, i.e. the country is not
on
the verge of collapse. Things are "bad" because the President is supposed
to be the mature leader of this country and the person in that position is
doing such a poor job in terms of formulating policy and making decisions
that it's odd to see you guys try to defend it.

We've gotten so accustomed to poor leadership in this country that if we
get
someone that just doesn't *** things up we think he's great. That's not
what the President should be. That position should be the strongest, most
intelligent and wise leader out of the 300 million citizens we have. The
current President is so far removed from that it just can't be defended
anymore.


So then tell me.
Who do you see on the horizon that will provide that wonderful
leadership that you crave?

It's less than 2 years away, ya know.

Care to put up a name or two?
There is no lack of contenders.



I like Rudy Guiliani right now because he seems to have that combination of
social liberalism (doesn't hate gays, pro-choice, doesn't try to legislate
morality for everyone) and fiscal conservatism, plus he's just the strong
alpha male leader that we need.

I can't think of any Democrat I'd vote for over him at the moment. McCain
is viable for similar reasons but he's done some flaky stuff like crusade
against The Ultimate Fighting Championship and stuff like that, things the
federal government just shouldn't be involved in. I remember seeing him
debate this on television years ago. He called the UFC "human cockfighting"
and acted indignant about it, but when he was heckled with "You're in the
United States congress. Balance the budget, Senator! Why are you wasting
time on this issue?" he seemed embarrassed and had no comment. He's shown a
willingness to have the federal government regulate things that indicate to
me he's not really a strong "small government" guy.

The Democrats will, of course, run Hillary and Obama, neither of whom have a
chance in hell to win. I like John Edwards but he's a dead man walking,
too. Typical politics. The Democrats have the Republicans on the ropes
with two blackened, swelling eyes and will be unable to muster a viable
candidate for President. What else is new?


.

Loading