NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

Better said than anyone else could have...

Damn liberal press...


Sarcasm, for the painfully slow.

Damn liberal press...


Sarcasm, for the painfully slow.

They're just looking up a thesaurus for every known synonym for "Liberal Michael Moore Worshipping Moonbat."

:D

...plamegate...

Jesus Christ. Drop the fucking ‘gate’ shit already, it's fucking meaningless and in no way refers to political shenanigans in general. Just. Fucking. Stop.

Jesus Christ. Drop the fucking ‘gate’ shit already, it's fucking meaningless and in no way refers to political shenanigans in general. Just. Fucking. Stop.

On the other hand, the exposure does have some alliterations to Watergate:

1) Both scandals started to gain momentum in the second term of a Republican presidency.

2) Both involve secrecy around the actual details of who committed the crime.

3) Executive Privilige was used as a defense by the party in power.

4) The hits started off on the Vice-Presidential side of the Executive branch (Agnew, now Scooter Libby.)

Certainly more valid than Monica-gate.

Jesus Christ. Drop the fucking ‘gate’ shit already, it's fucking meaningless and in no way refers to political shenanigans in general. Just. Fucking. Stop.
Give it up--it's become ensconced in journalist-speak. Every scandal for the next twenty years will carry -gate as a tag, even if it's a non-scandal (remember Travel-gate?), mainly because it's the easiest way for a lazy editor to put across the notion of scandalous government behavior. Personally, I feel like you do--I hate it and don't use it, but that is the way it is.

In the days leading up to CIA-leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s announcement of his decision to indict the now-former vice presidential chief of staff, Lewis Libby, on perjury, obstruction and false-statements charges, the sense of anticipation among some Democrats was almost overpowering. In fact, if you were to read the posts on Democratic Underground, or here on NS General, you would think that some were anticipating the impeachment of the President.

The president’s adversaries were hoping for very, very big things. “At least three high-level Bush-administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high-level unindicted co-conspirators,” predicted former Democratic Hill aide-turned-Hollywood type Lawrence O’Donnell.

Many of you here on NS were expecting far more than a single aide charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, even though Myrmidonisia accurately predicted that this is exactly what would happen.

There was also talk of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy indictment, in which Vice President Cheney, Libby, presidential political adviser Karl Rove and maybe others would be charged in a scheme to lie the United States into war in Iraq. At the very least, I believe that some of you were expecting "unindicted co-conspirators" to be named, and you were really hoping that this would bring the impeachment of Bush. You were, in fact, expecting this grand jury investigation to be about Bush, and about the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

So you can imagine the crushing disappointment felt in some Democratic hearts when Fitzgerald took to the podium at the Justice Department to announce that just one person had been indicted. And then Fitzgerald said this:

“This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. ...

“The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.”

So what do those Democrats do now?

Well, act as if Fitzgerald never said what he said.

“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after Fitzgerald’s news conference. “It is how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.”

Other Democrats echoed Reid. Who cared what Fitzgerald said?

Now, it’s not that the Libby indictment isn’t a story — a high-ranking official facing criminal charges is very big news. It is that Democrats, after raising their own hopes so high, could not be satisfied with what actually happened.

After a weekend of talking, and the change-the-subject effect of the president’s announcement of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito on Monday, Reid & Co. had had enough. They had to do something.

But what? On Tuesday, Reid, working from an old playbook written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), came up with the answer: Blindside Republicans by forcing the Senate into secret session, and then demand that lawmakers talk about the subjects Fitzgerald avoided.

“Alito had his day,” a Democratic aide told The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. “We’re going back to our story.”

Playing into Democratic hands, Republican leaders blew their stacks and at the same time managed to appear whiny in impromptu press conferences.

“Since I’ve been majority leader ... [never] have I ever been slapped in the face with such an affront,” said Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

He and other GOP leaders called Reid’s maneuver a stunt — which, of course, it was.

But it worked, at least for a while. After about two hours behind closed doors, Democrats emerged with an agreement for a new redebate about prewar intelligence. And agree to a review of an investigation - a review and and investigation that were already under way and scheduled to come up for that bipartisan review next week.

It was an undeniable PR success for them, but it fell far short of what they really wanted, which was a series of high-profile indictments that in effect accused top administration officials of lying about the war.

Here's where they are -- I'm going to repeat it again because it bears repeating. The Democrats ran this country for 40 years. They had the House of Representatives for 40 uninterrupted years. For many of those same 40 years they controlled the Senate. The government and its control is their birthright. It is their entitlement. It is theirs. They own it. Nobody else can have any power in it. Whenever that happens, to them it's an aberration. Well, they lost that power. They lost that government -- their government! They think it's theirs personally. They lost it in '94. They haven't gotten it back. They haven't gotten close to getting it back, and they don't understand it, since it is a birthright, since it is an entitlement, since it is theirs -- and as I have told you, when this happens, they construct all kinds of theories to explain it. They do not look at themselves. They do not look inwardly and say, "What are we doing wrong, maybe? Is there something we're doing wrong?" What they instead do (including most of the Democratic Party posters on NS) is look at the voters and see stupidity, or they look at the voters and they see a bunch of people who are being persuaded by slick marketing and packaging. They then glom onto conspiracies to explain this. The election in 2000 was stolen from them. "Bush and the Supreme Court stole it," and they end up creating this alternative reality and living in it. It is not just rhetoric anymore. This is psychological now. It's not just rhetoric. They literally believe the election was stolen in 2000; they literally believe that voting machines in Ohio were tampered with and that Kerry was denied his birthright in 2004.
So they had two elections stolen from them. They then believe -- despite the fact that a majority of Democrats voted for the war, after receiving all the prewar intel that we have all been treated to since 1998 and 1999, they have created this alternative reality where they got lied to. They didn't vote for it. Nobody saw it. "It didn't exist! Bush lied! Bush made it up," and they can't let go of it, just like they couldn't let go of the story about Bush and the National Guard. So they have immersed themselves in this false reality, and it has become their world. They are living in and living a lie, a series of them, day in and day out. The problem with doing so is reality has a tendency to rear its head. They've created this fantasy world where none of the problems they have are of their own making, and yet reality sometimes rears its head and they can't bear to deal with that. When the reality that conflicts with their alternative reality shows it, such as the lack of any investigation by Fitzgerald into the reasons we went to war. No indictment of Rove; no trial on the "lying about the war". They can't deal with it. They have to go right back to their alternative realities so they invoke Rule 21 demanding an independent investigation. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Has the Silverman-Robb Commission not already investigated this? Didn't the Silverman-Robb Commission already conclude that there was no attempt to lie and make things up about the prewar intel?

Obsess much?

Obsess much?
Not anymore than you do.

I find that the longer my posts, the less likely people are to read them, and hence, the less likely to say, "OMFG, Sierra said something bad, so we should DEAT him! Call the mods!".

Short posts, like this one, are much more likely to engender that response.

Give it up--it's become ensconced in journalist-speak. Every scandal for the next twenty years will carry -gate as a tag, even if it's a non-scandal (remember Travel-gate?), mainly because it's the easiest way for a lazy editor to put across the notion of scandalous government behavior. Personally, I feel like you do--I hate it and don't use it, but that is the way it is.

Do you suppose that if the Democrats were staying at the fucking Motel 6 they would tack that shit onto every single political fuck-up over what... 30 years? :rolleyes:

Not anymore than you do.

I don't recall going around channeling Ted Kennedy or anyone else as you seem to be doing with Bill Frist and everyone.

I don't recall going around channeling Ted Kennedy or anyone else as you seem to be doing with Bill Frist and everyone.

No, I usually channel Newt Gingrich.

Do you suppose that if the Democrats were staying at the fucking Motel 6 they would tack that shit onto every single political fuck-up over what... 30 years? :rolleyes:Way to miss the point. Nearly every fucking scandal over the last thirty years from both parties has had the -gate tag applied to it at one point or another. The only exception I can remember offhand is the Iran-Contra affair. This isn't a partisan action--it's a lazy-fucking-editor problem. Get it?

Oh, and Sierra--the story isn't over just because Libby was the only one indicted this time around. Even Rove's lawyers are saying he's still in serious legal jeopardy, and it's very possible more indictments will follow. Remember--it took two years from the conviction of the Plumbers in the Watergate break-in for Nixon to go down. This is far from over.

Way to miss the point. Nearly every fucking scandal over the last thirty years from both parties has had the -gate tag applied to it at one point or another. The only exception I can remember offhand is the Iran-Contra affair. This isn't a partisan action--it's a lazy-fucking-editor problem. Get it?

Oh, and Sierra--the story isn't over just because Libby was the only one indicted this time around. Even Rove's lawyers are saying he's still in serious legal jeopardy, and it's very possible more indictments will follow. Remember--it took two years from the conviction of the Plumbers in the Watergate break-in for Nixon to go down. This is far from over.

It would be easy enough to stop.

All the President has to do is pardon Libby - and if Rove is indicted, pardon him too.

It would bring everything to a halt.

Way to miss the point. Nearly every fucking scandal over the last thirty years from both parties has had the -gate tag applied to it at one point or another. The only exception I can remember offhand is the Iran-Contra affair. This isn't a partisan action--it's a lazy-fucking-editor problem. Get it?

Never said it was partisan, I was equally pissed at the usage of the term when "Rather-gate" was going on... I just think that it's lame, unoriginal, and stupid. It's based on a hotel for Christ's sake!

William F. Buckley is still alive? Wow.

It would be easy enough to stop.

All the President has to do is pardon Libby - and if Rove is indicted, pardon him too.

It would bring everything to a halt.
Very true. It would also be political suicide. I can see the commercials now--any Republican who didn't disavow the action would be on the hook for it in the next election cycle. All Rove, all the time. Rove's no fool--he's not quite the genius a lot of people credit him with being, but he's no fool--he knows that if Bush does that, his own party would be out for blood. Now, a pardon after the November 2008 elections is another matter completely, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't happen.

Very true. It would also be political suicide. I can see the commercials now--any Republican who didn't disavow the action would be on the hook for it in the next election cycle. All Rove, all the time. Rove's no fool--he's not quite the genius a lot of people credit him with being, but he's no fool--he knows that if Bush does that, his own party would be out for blood. Now, a pardon after the November 2008 elections is another matter completely, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't happen.

If you consider that Nov 2008 is not that far away, and these investigations all proceed at a snail's pace (remember Iran-Contra and Whitewater?), this may come out exactly that way.

It was rather quiet, but about a week ago, the Cisneros investigation finished up. Remember that one?

If you consider that Nov 2008 is not that far away, and these investigations all proceed at a snail's pace (remember Iran-Contra and Whitewater?), this may come out exactly that way.

It was rather quiet, but about a week ago, the Cisneros investigation finished up. Remember that one?
Damn--that started back in what, 1997 or so? How did it end?

Damn--that started back in what, 1997 or so? How did it end?
No new indictments (you recall he pled guilty to perjury and obstruction and got off light). What's interesting is that the court sealed most of the final report from the public - citing a government interest in keeping it quiet.

Copies of the unsealed final report went to select members (Republican and Democrat) only.

If I read the logic correctly, anyone could use the same logic to keep any future reports sealed in the same manner.

No new indictments (you recall he pled guilty to perjury and obstruction and got off light). What's interesting is that the court sealed most of the final report from the public - citing a government interest in keeping it quiet.

Copies of the unsealed final report went to select members (Republican and Democrat) only.

If I read the logic correctly, anyone could use the same logic to keep any future reports sealed in the same manner.
Sure could. Wouldn't make it any more right, but it could sure be done.

Sure could. Wouldn't make it any more right, but it could sure be done.
It gave me the distinct impression that Republicans and Democrats don't have a problem covering each other's asses once the investigation is of no political value.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

Better said than anyone else could have...

I don't see what your quotes at the end have to do with the article, but I think everyone is opposed to war if it can at all be avoided, especially those who have to fight the wars. And yes, love is a good thing. I don't think you'll get any argument from anyone on that, either.

It would be easy enough to stop.

All the President has to do is pardon Libby - and if Rove is indicted, pardon him too.

It would bring everything to a halt.

True, but it would also be tantamount to an admission of guilt.