Novak names names in Plame leak case

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 1:05pm

Do you mean that you’ve read critical comments about Lieberman on those blogs? I read Huffingtonpost occasionally, DU never, and firedoglake, thenexthurrah, and dailykos regularly. I’ve seen plenty of negative comments about Lieberman there, and have made a few myself. Criticism doesn’t constitute meanness or an “inquisition.” You’ve critized Bush yourself; do you call that being mean?

Some of the posters at those places, particularly DU are VERY mean in my opinion. Jewish remarks, nazi remarks, etc. Just really mean. I’m not talking about the democratic establishment and I think I did make that clear. I do, however, think that LIeberman’s “hawkishness” has cost him dearly.

I didn’t see the post about republicans and don’t know what the DHS thread is. I thought the list about progressives was lame.

It’s the Homeland Security thread on this forum (something like “now I feel safe.”) That’s ok. I think the list about progressives was absolutely hilarious and some of it was pretty much true. As were some of the things said about republicans.

I do, however, think you’re taking something that was intended to be light-hearted way too seriously.

browninfall · July 13, 2006, 1:12pm

Try googling “lieberman scumbag” or “lieberman slimy”, or even better “lieberman sh**”. Lots of polite and respectful criticism out there in the blogosphere.

razorsharp · July 13, 2006, 1:25pm

If Wilson is going to lie about something as simple as who sent him on the trip, why would anyone believe he was telling the truth about what he found. After the number of lies Wilson has told and especially about things he did not need to lie about, Wilson has no crediblity left. The only people who believe him are the ones who want to believe him because they like his big lie.

OpiefromMayberry · July 13, 2006, 1:32pm

Zoosermom,

You asked if Iraq would be better off with Sadam still in power? The answer is “yes”. While there still would be a body count, it would be far far lower than what it has been in the last few years (50,000+ Iraqis) and around 25,000 US soldiers would neither be dead or wounded. Iraq would function and the oil would flow.

Many of true Bushies fail to use logic in their arguements about this conflict. Place yourself in Sadam’s situation… WMD? Sure I’ve got em, I have “hidden” them around my country.

(have you ever thought for 10 seconds he was bluffing? Not so much as to scare the US, but his neighbor to the southeast (Iran) which a while ago was engaged in a long bloody conflict. Think of it as a beware of Dog sign. My dog may be the size of a rat, but I can make you “think” it’s dangerous to enter my yard???)

What happened when we proved no WDM’s, Iranian’s now cross the border and stir unrest and commit terrorist acts in Iraq. We can’t tell em apart.

Sadam is one of many evil men in power. Why just take him? Why not the others? If you feel strongly that this war is just, why stop there? Why not invade EVERY country that we disagree with? What made him so special? Was he the only guy jailing, torturing, killing or starving his people?

Where was Sadam going?
GWB sr and Clinton figured it out (praise of both parties…darn go figure that one) Keep Sadam in a box (no fly zone, military presence over the horizon, an occasional cruise missle or two) Keep the region STABLE politically and productivity wise. That could have gone on for another 50 years easily with limited loss of US lives. Both these Presidents KNEW a ground level occupation would have the results it has had.

Junior had a different idea and motivation…

I do think GW Jr. figured out his dad’s real problem back then, the economy. Dad kicked Sadam’s butt quickly and decisively. He controlled Iraqi airspace and effectively kicked out an invading army…Then with no war to fight American’s focus shifted to the economy and…no relection.

Junior figured it out, keep us in a constant state of war and ensure party control. American’s historically have supported the parties in power in times of war and this time was no different.

This politically speaking, was a stroke of genius. We’re in a state of “war” without tax increases to pay for the costs, without a large body count on the nightly news and without americans having to ration anything to support the war effort and an ememy we can’t clearly point out so the mystery continues.

citygirlsmom · July 13, 2006, 1:34pm

razorsharp…wow, show me the LIES…or are you just regurtitaing limbaugh and oreilly, who gee never lie

His report was accurate…but ignore that why don’t you

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 1:55pm

Zoosermom,

You asked if Iraq would be better off with Sadam still in power? The answer is “yes”. While there still would be a body count, it would be far far lower than what it has been in the last few years (50,000+ Iraqis) and around 25,000 US soldiers would neither be dead or wounded. Iraq would function and the oil would flow.

You are entitled to hold that view. On balance I’m not completely sure that I disagree.

Many of true Bushies fail to use logic in their arguements about this conflict. Place yourself in Sadam’s situation… WMD? Sure I’ve got em, I have “hidden” them around my country.

Like the stuff found hidden in the garden?

(have you ever thought for 10 seconds he was bluffing? Not so much as to scare the US, but his neighbor to the southeast (Iran) which a while ago was engaged in a long bloody conflict. Think of it as a beware of Dog sign. My dog may be the size of a rat, but I can make you “think” it’s dangerous to enter my yard???)

I would have considered that if WMDs hadn’t been found and I do think it was a motivating factor – but not the whole story.

What happened when we proved no WDM’s, Iranian’s now cross the border and stir unrest and commit terrorist acts in Iraq. We can’t tell em apart.

I respectfully disagree with the first part of that statement and agree with teh second part. But doesn’t that reflect on the fact that Iran is, in fact, an aggressive exporter of terror?

Sadam is one of many evil men in power. Why just take him? Why not the others? If you feel strongly that this war is just, why stop there? Why not invade EVERY country that we disagree with? What made him so special? Was he the only guy jailing, torturing, killing or starving his people?

Again, respectfully, I don’t think the inspections were working, I do think sanctions were eroding, and I do think that Saddam was attempting to recreate his WMD programs. I sincerely believe that, if left in power, Saddam would have had those programs fully operational by now. You can disagree, but it’s a question of how much risk one is prepared to assume.

Where was Sadam going?
GWB sr and Clinton figured it out (praise of both parties…darn go figure that one) Keep Sadam in a box (no fly zone, military presence over the horizon, an occasional cruise missle or two) Keep the region STABLE politically and productivity wise. That could have gone on for another 50 years easily with limited loss of US lives. Both these Presidents KNEW a ground level occupation would have the results it has had.

I respectfully submit that Saddam was not in a box at the time of the war. There is also the matter of the UN resolutions. I am of the school of thought that if someone tells you they are dangerous, you should err on the side of believing them. Just as I do with Iran threatening to destroy Israel.

Junior had a different idea and motivation…

I do think GW Jr. figured out his dad’s real problem back then, the economy. Dad kicked Sadam’s butt quickly and decisively. He controlled Iraqi airspace and effectively kicked out an invading army…Then with no war to fight American’s focus shifted to the economy and…no relection.

I would not presume to think that I know anyone’s motivation for anything. But I do think our economy is excellent right now.

Junior figured it out, keep us in a constant state of war and ensure party control. American’s historically have supported the parties in power in times of war and this time was no different.

This politically speaking, was a stroke of genius. We’re in a state of “war” without tax increases to pay for the costs, without a large body count on the nightly news and without americans having to ration anything to support the war effort and an ememy we can’t clearly point out so the mystery continues.

I do not think the administration has done the right thing in the post-war period and I think their PR has sucked big time, but I do think in the broader scheme of things it was necessary to remove Saddam from power. We don’t have to agree, but I do appreciate the courteous tone of your post.

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 1:57pm

razorsharp…wow, show me the LIES…or are you just regurtitaing limbaugh and oreilly, who gee never lie

His report was accurate…but ignore that why don’t you

Have you read Wilson’s report or the SIC report?

OpiefromMayberry · July 13, 2006, 2:40pm

zoos,

What WMD did we find? I am not aware of anything outside of large artillary shells and ammo bunkers? Can you reference exactly what was found?

I do agree that IRAN and Sadui Arabia are two of the biggest funders of terror against the rest of the world. Iraq just didn’t have the means to do anything other than police itself. Sadam was busy with his own people and keeping them inline.

I agree with the joke that Bush just missed a letter on who to invade.

Even if Sadam was trying to rearm, do you think that we wouldn’t have done the cocasional bombing or cruise missling to bring him back to reality? There were enough satellites and forces around Iraq that the guy couldn’t pass gas without someone knowing. The strategy was working very well. It was George Bush Srs. Idea and it was a good one. (just so you know I don’t hate repubs.)

Compared to Junior’s invasion four years ago, which policy has actually been more effective after 4 years?

This is also why it is so important to have different points of view in any discussion. When everybody thinks the same way we get what we have… They should have listened to those who disagreed with them rather than “retire” them. Unfortunately for America the current guys in power want everyone to be a “team” player at the loss of differing opinions. That is a big reason we have the problems we do.

I don’t know if the economy is better off yet, it depends where you are on the food chain.

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 2:47pm

zoos,

What WMD did we find? I am not aware of anything outside of large artillary shells and ammo bunkers? Can you reference exactly what was found?

Can I link you in a little while (I won’t forget, I promise) because I’m printing large reports at work today and just have time to do piddly things here on the forum while waiting.

I do agree that IRAN and Sadui Arabia are two of the biggest funders of terror against the rest of the world. Iraq just didn’t have the means to do anything other than police itself. Sadam was busy with his own people and keeping them inline.

How do you really know that Saddam wouldn’t have gone back to Kuwait and then on to Saudi?

I agree with the joke that Bush just missed a letter on who to invade.

Even if Sadam was trying to rearm, do you think that we wouldn’t have done the cocasional bombing or cruise missling to bring him back to reality? There were enough satellites and forces around Iraq that the guy couldn’t pass gas without someone knowing. The strategy was working very well. It was George Bush Srs. Idea and it was a good one. (just so you know I don’t hate repubs.)

I didn’t think you were a hater. It is possible that things would have worked the way you expected, but it is also possible that they wouldn’t. Personally, I think it was too great a risk, but it’s ok if you don’t feel the same way.

Compared to Junior’s invasion four years ago, which policy has actually been more effective after 4 years?

I would say that sanctions and containment were an utter failure but that W’s policy is still underway and it’s too soon to tell.

This is also why it is so important to have different points of view in any discussion. When everybody thinks the same way we get what we have… They should have listened to those who disagreed with them rather than “retire” them.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I very much enjoy “talking to you.”

Unfortunately for America the current guys in power want everyone to be a “team” player at the loss of differing opinions. That is a big reason we have the problems we do.

I’m ambivalent about that statement (is that cowardly?). I hope it isn’t true but I’m not entirely sure it’s false. I do know that the administration totally sucks at communicating and I do think that arrogance plays a part in that.

I don’t know if the economy is better off yet, it depends where you are on the food chain.

I’m a lowly administrator and hubby is a garbage man. But unemployment figures are excellent, the GDP is good, tax revenues are up. I like those things. Now if he would only FIND THE VETO PEN AND STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!!!

hoedown · July 13, 2006, 3:08pm

It isn’t clear to me how Paula Jones’ situation is damning evidence of the left “never having any interest in actual human beings.”

Her handling by the media was troubling, but I don’t find it a compelling, convincing example that proves your statement. Did I miss a joke?

Just as a humble request to posters–quote tags really help people follow the flow of a conversation. Failing that, quotation marks are also a help. Their absence is probably contributing to my confusion.

xiggi · July 13, 2006, 3:09pm

*“You asked if Iraq would be better off with Sadam still in power? The answer is “yes”. While there still would be a body count, it would be far far lower than what it has been in the last few years (50,000+ Iraqis) and around 25,000 US soldiers would neither be dead or wounded. Iraq would function and the oil would flow.” *

Since you seem to enjoy quoting numbers, any chance you may look up:

<ol>
<li>How many Iraqis were killed or vanished in the last ten or five years of Saddam’s reign? </li>
<li>How many Iraqis died because of the policies of the UN and Clinton/Albright? </li>
</ol>

I guess that as long as we could help the slaughter of innocents from a safe distance, not put our own men in danger, and ensure the flow of oil, some of us did find Iraq a better place.

kluge · July 13, 2006, 3:09pm

While I don’t read “Huffingtonpost” or any other blogs, I guess the fact that righties find this kind of stuff knee-slappingly hilarious:

… pretty much says it all for me about the balanced, sensible perspective the righties have about anyone left of Limbaugh - and their general ability to tell the difference between humor and name-calling.

Zoosermom, it would be extremely helpful if you adopted a method of indicating when you’re posting a copy of someone else’s comments and what is your own. If you put {quote] in front of the other people’s stuff, and {/quote} after it - only using the straight brackets - [ ] instead of the ones I used - { } you will put the stuff between the brackets in a grey box, like I did up there ^. As it is it’s really hard to follow your posts. Thanks.

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 3:14pm

“Since you seem to enjoy quoting numbers, any chance you may look up:”

Well looky at who just popped in.

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 3:16pm

“… pretty much says it all for me about the balanced, sensible perspective the righties have about anyone left of Limbaugh - and their general ability to tell the difference between humor and name-calling.”

As opposed to the post on the DHS thread about republicans?

“Zoosermom, it would be extremely helpful if you adopted a method of indicating when you’re posting a copy of someone else’s comments and what is your own. If you put {quote] in front of the other people’s stuff, and {/quote} after it - only using the straight brackets - instead of the ones I used - { } you will put the stuff between the brackets in a grey box, like I did up there ^. As it is it’s really hard to follow your posts. Thanks.”

No, but I will meticulously place quotes around that which I am quoting.

OpiefromMayberry · July 13, 2006, 3:20pm

xiggi,

“You asked if Iraq would be better off with Sadam still in power? The answer is “yes”. While there still would be a body count, it would be far far lower than what it has been in the last few years (50,000+ Iraqis) and around 25,000 US soldiers would neither be dead or wounded. Iraq would function and the oil would flow.”

Since you seem to enjoy quoting numbers, any chance you may look up:

<ol>
<li>How many Iraqis were killed or vanished in the last ten or five years of Saddam’s reign? </li>
<li>How many Iraqis died because of the policies of the UN and Clinton/Albright? </li>
</ol>

It does not get any simpler than that."

And what about China? or the rest of the world xiggie? Why stop at Iraq? Why not Africa? Since you want to simplify…

I’m not bleeding heart liberal. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY correct more iraqis would have died, more than 50,000+ not so sure. HOW many American Soldiers would have died or had limbs blown away?

You miss my point entirely, we haven’t changed anything except now some of our children are getting killed or maimed in the mix.

Yes Sadam is a bad man. the world is full of them, what people should we free next?

OpiefromMayberry · July 13, 2006, 3:43pm

zoos,

“Can I link you in a little while (I won’t forget, I promise) because I’m printing large reports at work today and just have time to do piddly things here on the forum while waiting.”

Wouldn’t that have made all the newservices? the networks etc… I guess it might depend on what definition applies to WMD. To me it would have to be something that would kill 10’s of thousands. We have conventional weapons that can cover alot of ground and kill alot of people, yet we don’t label them WMDs.

"How do you really know that Saddam wouldn’t have gone back to Kuwait and then on to Saudi? "

Well, we’re there right now with a military presence. So if he returned he would have been pounded pretty good before he crossed his border. As I said the guy couldn’t pass gas without a someone from our country picking it up.

“I would say that sanctions and containment were an utter failure but that W’s policy is still underway and it’s too soon to tell.”

How so? They were in effect for more than a decade, through two different presidents and would have continued on. We always reserved the right to lob a cruise or two into Iraq or to shoot down any plane we wanted to. We did not have to ask permission.

What changed was the information matrix leading up to the invasion. We were told it was failing by this administration to justify their actions. This is my point about applying common sense.

“I’m ambivalent about that statement (is that cowardly?). I hope it isn’t true but I’m not entirely sure it’s false. I do know that the administration totally sucks at communicating and I do think that arrogance plays a part in that.”

I find it fasinating that so many “stars” of the gop have fallen from grace with this administration when they disagree. Christine Whitman comes to mind. “Wow everybody isn’t Christine the bomb?” year or two later “Christine who” … the list goes on.

Bush would have benefited from having cabinet members who disagreed with him more often or at least considered the other side. However, at least until Nov, he has had the luxury of having no branch of government to disagree with him. I think that has lead to some unwise decisions, no buffer and it will probably cost the party this fall.

“I’m a lowly administrator and hubby is a garbage man. But unemployment figures are excellent, the GDP is good, tax revenues are up. I like those things. Now if he would only FIND THE VETO PEN AND STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!!!”

It’s that deficeit that bothers me and the fact that China is funding our war by buying up our debt. They are our largest creditor. We have sworn to help defend Tawian. What happens when our largest creditor invates our ally? Who do we owe?

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 3:56pm

Well the Plame lawsuit has been filed. I hope she and her loathsome husband get publicly humiliated in the process. I can’t wait to read the pleadings.

kluge · July 13, 2006, 3:57pm

Zoos - the only post I found in the DHS thread was about “Bushcronium” - is that the one you find offensive?

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 4:02pm

"Wouldn’t that have made all the newservices? the networks etc… I guess it might depend on what definition applies to WMD. To me it would have to be something that would kill 10’s of thousands. We have conventional weapons that can cover alot of ground and kill alot of people, yet we don’t label them WMDs. "

No I don’t think all the news services would possibly allow that to become public knowledge. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about the amount of stuff initially described by the Administration. I think that the stuff was there, the capability was there.

"How so? They were in effect for more than a decade, through two different presidents and would have continued on. We always reserved the right to lob a cruise or two into Iraq or to shoot down any plane we wanted to. We did not have to ask permission. "

I think it’s pretty clear, based on UN reports that sanctions were eroding pretty quickly. I also think that the Oil for Food scandal was a large cause of that. The UN simply can not be trusted with something this important.

“I’m ambivalent about that statement (is that cowardly?). I hope it isn’t true but I’m not entirely sure it’s false. I do know that the administration totally sucks at communicating and I do think that arrogance plays a part in that.”

“I find it fasinating that so many “stars” of the gop have fallen from grace with this administration when they disagree. Christine Whitman comes to mind. “Wow everybody isn’t Christine the bomb?” year or two later “Christine who” … the list goes on.”

I’m not even sure how Whitman hooked up with this administration in the first place. Perhaps because she’s a woman? She was always out of step with the administration. That relationship was always going to end badly.

“Bush would have benefited from having cabinet members who disagreed with him more often or at least considered the other side.”

Yes.

“it will probably cost the party this fall.”

Maybe, but the democrats have to step up.

“It’s that deficeit that bothers me and the fact that China is funding our war by buying up our debt. They are our largest creditor. We have sworn to help defend Tawian. What happens when our largest creditor invates our ally? Who do we owe?”

Brilliant question. You are quite the one for interesting and provocative questions.

zoosermom · July 13, 2006, 4:33pm

Here’s the complaint:

<a href=“http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/WilsonvLibby.pdf[/url]”>http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/WilsonvLibby.pdf</a>

Novak names names in Plame leak case

CONNECT WITH US