Raving Conservative


Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The Democrat’s Secret Session

In yet another to criminalize the Bush administration the Democrats have been calling for the President to fire all of his staffers, and the same demand is placed on the Vice-President. They claim that since Scooter Libby leaked information about a CIA operative to the press that everyone is tainted and needs to go. Where does one start dismantling this piece of incorrect, convoluted, ignorant crappola?

For starters, nobody was indicted for leaking the identity of a covert operative. Not Scooter Libby, not Karl Rove, not anybody. By claiming that the rest of the Presidential staff is tainted by this crime is pure lunacy since the supposed crime doesn’t have enough evidence to even get an indictment. The indictments against Scooter Libby are for lying under oath, making false statements, perjury, and the like. He had the common decency to step down once he was indicted. Bill Clinton on the other hand was indicted for the much more serious crime of obstruction of justice. Not only did he not step down, the Democrats controlling the Senate at the time refused to boot him from office after the Congress impeached him, and they never called for mass firings claiming that his entire staff was tainted by his crimes. Do I smell hypocrisy?

Second, Scooter Libby is just on man. He acted in all likelihood without the knowledge of most if not all of the President’s and Vice-President’s staff. One man doing something wrong does not condemn the entire group. If this were true the why aren’t the Democrats calling for African-Americans t all go to prison since some of them commit crimes. Why aren’t they calling for every Italian-American to go to prison as members of organized crime? Why aren’t they calling for the deportation of every Mexican-American in America since some of them came here illegally? Oh yeah, because it offers them no political gain! It blows my mind that people who so sanctimoniously preach about the evils of prejudice would so willingly engage in prejudice against people just because they want to discredit the President. Sickening.

Now for the closed session. The Democrats pulled this silly stunt as yet another part of their unceasing attempts to criminalize George W. Bush for bringing us into the Iraq war. Conveniently ignoring their own part in this “crime” as they call it they are constantly screaming that Bush lied and so he is a crook. They have been doing this since the last Presidential election, and the fact that these people can’t get through their narrow little minds is that the majority of Americans just don’t buy it.

The Democrats are constantly haranguing the President about his promise to be a uniter, not a divider, but are absolutely blind to the fact that it is they who are the dividers. Like a child who does not get his way they have been kicking and screaming for six years now that they want tings done their way no matter what the rest of America thinks! If America wanted things done their way they would have the majority in Congress. They do not. By refusing to work with the Republicans on anything, and constantly goose-stepping to the march of far left special interests they are proving themselves to be nothing more than power hungry hypocrites who will do anything to gain control of America. Constant lockstep opposition to the President absolutely negates any chance of him being a uniter. It’s the Democrat’s fault there is so much partisanship, not the Republican’s.

Finally, a quick overview of how the Democrats are going about trying to criminalize their political adversaries. (Former) House Majority Leader Tom Delay is (baselessly) being indicted on money laundering charges with evidence so flimsy it will not stand up in court y a lawyer who also happens to be an activist for far left Democrat causes. The Judge that enabled this lawyer to engage in this silliness is also a biased supporter of the far-left group MoveOn.org. The Democrats want to have Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist investigated on charges of insider trading because the process for selling stocks for a Senator is so lengthy that it took months until just before the stocks he held in his brother’s business took a dive to finally complete the sale. They want to turn the entire war in Iraq into a crime so they can impeach President Bush, and possibly even Dick Cheney.

An interesting side note. If the Democrats get their way, and President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Frist all manage to get removed from office on various criminal charges the next man in line for the Presidency is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Now, we up here in the frozen north would love to see Ted Stevens as President. He has proven over three decades in the Senate that he is a strong, capable leader who is not afraid to fight. He has done great things for Alaska and is so beloved we call him Uncle Ted, and even named our airport Ted Stevens International Airport in his honor. He is also a big boogeyman for the Democrats. They generally dislike to hate him. So they better be careful what they ask for because they just might get it, and 8-10 years of Ted Stevens as President would make them yearn for the good old days of the Bush Presidency.

Another interesting side note is who the Democrats are emulating with their behavior. They are acting just like the two biggest boogeymen of all time as far as they are concerned; President Richard Nixon, and Congressman Newt Gingrich. President Nixon was all about looking into President Kennedy’s potentially criminal and almost certainly negligent actions during the Bay of Pigs and at the outset of the Vietnam War. The Democrats howled in protest against the investigations Richard Nixon wanted to instigate. Newt Gingrich led the charge with the investigation of the potentially criminal actions of President Bill Clinton, another action the Democrats protested loudly and emotionally.

So, judging by their actions the Democrats could most definitely be called deceitful, hypocritical, and generally untrustworthy. I know I certainly don’t trust them right now.


  • Obstruction of justice is the reason why the investigation lasted so long, and also the reason why no indictments were made on the underlying crime. That's why it's called obstruction of justice.

    By Blogger John Emerson, at 8:28 AM  

  • "Bill Clinton on the other hand was indicted for the much more serious crime of obstruction of justice."

    Actually one of Scooter Libby's five counts is for obstruction of justice as well.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 9:08 AM  

  • As far as the indictments go: If DeLay gets off, he comes out ahead. If Fitzgerald closes up shop and the administration is still standing, they come out ahead. But watching the Reeps spin like mad to call these charges baseless and partisan . . . why? Why now? What purpose does it serve?

    As to the closed session and Iraq intel, all that's being demanded is that the Senate complete the investigation. Dems signed off on the CIA report with the understanding that there would be another phase of the investigation covering the administration's handling of the intelligence it was given. That seems to have vanished the moment the election was over.

    If there's nothing there to hide, what good reason is there for the Senate Reeps not to finish what they started? If they'd done so in the first place, there'd be nothing for Reid to grandstand about.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 9:10 AM  

  • You said:
    "He acted in all likelihood without the knowledge of most if not all of the President’s and Vice-President’s staff."

    Just curious (and honestly not being sarcastic): Do you really believe this?

    You also said:
    "Now for the closed session. The Democrats pulled this silly stunt..."

    Could it also possibly be that they are representing the more than half of this country which have serious qualms about how we were dragged in to this war?

    Some of us think that it looks an awful lot like we were misguided in to an illegal war. The Congress gave approval for Bush to go ahead BASED UPON what Bush and his people were saying ("We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit...").

    If it turns out that they were misled, well that would be a serious thing and is worthy of an investigation. An investigation which the Republicans agreed to last year some time, right? The Dems have finally grown some backbone and are simply calling upon the Congress to live up to its duties.

    Some of us (I'd suggest more than half the country) are thankful to finally have some representation.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:51 AM  

  • In respone to allegation that the war in Iraq is illegal, this is false. It WOULD be illegal if it were not for the fact that Congress authorized. Had the President took us into this war without that approval then it would be illegal. However, since the Congress DID approve it it's legal under our Constitution. Now, if you want to impeach or prosecute all 80+ Senators who voted for the war as well, Democrats included I might be willing ot listen to illegal argument. But since it is all a one-sided excersize in power brokerage I really couldn't care less. All this "controversy" proves is that it's back to politics as usual in Washington. Damn, idiotic, partisan politics.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:14 AM  

  • I've posted an excerpt from the Senate Intel Report, where it explains what's not in it, because it's supposed to be in the report Reid was demanding an update on. See it here.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:21 AM  

  • BUT, IF it were approved based upon info provided by Team Bush and that info turns out to be tampered with, THEN it is a war started based upon lies (much like Viet Nam) which is a war crime, if I'm not mistaken.

    And how is it "politics as usual" if the Dems are representing those of us who want an investigation? Is that not part of the purpose of a Republic, ideally? To be able to hold our leaders accountable?

    As others have said, if there's no crimes or lies to conceal, then there's no harm done. If laws have been broken, then we all agree that we want those responsible held accountable, right?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 11:43 AM  

  • Sooo, let me get this straight, Kennedy lies to get us into Vietnam and the Democrats idolize him, but IF Bush lied to get us into Iraq the Democrats villify him? Like I said, politics as usual.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:59 AM  

  • I don't idolize Kennedy and it was Johnson that did the most well-documented lying to get us in to Nam (see Gulf of Tonkin stories in this week's news).

    Being a man of moral rectitude, I'd hope you'd join me in condemning Bush if he misled to get us in to this war, just as I condemn Clinton for his much smaller lie over infidelity.

    And since so many of your fellow countryfolk have questions about this war, I'd hope you'd respect us enough to support our desire for investigation.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 12:31 PM  

  • You've been invaded by moonbats, friend!

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 12:58 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:07 PM  

  • The definition of "moonbats" being "those who ask intelligent questions and make salient points..."?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:07 PM  

  • Dan, the problem here is that President Bush did not falsify intelligence to take us to war. It is a far stretch of the imagination to believe that this one man has the ability to get every intelligence agancy in the world to falsify intelligence just so he can take us to war, and an even bigger stretch of imagination to believe that the whole world would actually stay quiet about it if he did. Again, I repeat, we're just back to politics as usual.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:39 PM  

  • oh my gosh! when are people going to realize that lying is the crime that gets you in trouble? this whole republican/democrat thing is getting sickening!! both sides are pointing fingers (although, you all have to admit, the democrats are doing more of it!!)

    By Blogger Libby, at 3:24 PM  

  • Well, yeah, the Dems have more to point at than the Reeps do right now. It's harder to screw things up when you're not in charge of anything.


    I wanna start a "Throw the Bums Out Party" that always votes against incumbents.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 3:31 PM  

  • Well now, Catastrophile, That would certainly shake things up. Especially if it got big.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:51 PM  

  • This is truly a hilarious discussion! I'm from Canada, but the prospect of Democrats chasing their tales and shadows just is so entertaining. After 2 years of investigation Libby is charged with unrelated charges stemming from the investigation, but not related to the reasons for the investigation. He is to be charged with Lying... not even with original crime of outing a spy... and the prosecutor said, on live TV, that he wasn't even able to determine if Plaime was covert... sheesh you bone heads, come back when you have a real issue and are ready to play with the big kids. You're worked up into a froth for nothing; you are spending political capital and using it up before elections. I can just see the smug smile on Reeeeeeeep's faces, as they watch it all.

    For 5 years now you've been barking after shadows, creating desparate tales, and it has got you nowhere.

    And Bush, with his so called "bad" Iraq war polling... he is scoring better than any other President in the history of your great country who took you to war. Not even Roosevelt was doing as well when he died, and all the rest, from Nixon to Johnston on polled poorly after 2 years of war.

    By the way, even Winston Churchill got turfed by the public before the war ended... and he is an international icon.

    Bush is doing just fine when context is considered, when history is considered, and as soon as he goes back to good'al boy rightwing policies... his numbers will rebound.

    Add to this the fact that the American media has been ruthlessly been attacking Bush for everything from singlehandedly steering Katrina ashore in LA, to personally making sure that as many American's die in Iraq as is possible. By the way, you should immigrate to Canada, because you are sounding more and more like Canadian socialists.

    By Blogger Debris Trail, at 4:23 PM  

  • "And Bush, with his so called "bad" Iraq war polling... he is scoring better than any other President in the history of your great country who took you to war. Not even Roosevelt was doing as well when he died, and all the rest, from Nixon to Johnston on polled poorly after 2 years of war."

    I'd be interested to see the hard numbers on those Presidents and the years the polls were taken. As it stands, Bush's approval rating is at 35 percent according to the latest CBS poll. Congress's approval ratings are in the upper 20s. That's makes this about a lot more than partisan bickering.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 8:46 PM  

  • Either Steve the Pirate or Right Wing Nation posted these stats about 2 weeks ago. It was some really good research.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:15 PM  

  • A: I don't believe for a minute that a majority of people are against the Iraq war based on polls alone. Didn't you learn enough about polls during Election 2004?

    B: See Point A regarding President Bush's approval numbers.

    C: This is business as usual for the Democrats. The investigation into "false" intelligence has been ongoing for quite some time, without Reid's obstructionist tactics. Reid had to get Alito off the front pages and focus on the bogus indictments against Scooter Libby to keep that little spark alive that they may be able to usurp the President. This is nothing more than a big joke.

    Have fun with all the moonbats, Daniel!

    By Anonymous steve the pirate, at 10:35 PM  

  • Daniel said:
    " Dan, the problem here is that President Bush did not falsify intelligence to take us to war."

    Seems to me the problem is that a good number of US citizens believe that the evidence suggests that Bush did falsify evidence or otherwise mislead the Congress and the public. And said public has a voice in that behavior and we have a low tolerance for lying that leads to killing.

    Unfortunately, we're not willing to take your word for it that Bush did not mislead the public when, to us, clear evidence says otherwise.

    But to the original point: let the investigation begin! Clear the man's name or convict him. The remaining 35% who still trust this man don't get to make that call for the rest of us.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:37 AM  

  • "If you tell the same lie often enough, eventually it becomes the truth"
    Adolph Hitler

    The Democrats have been spreading the same unfounded, unprovable, imaginative lie for what, 2-1/2 years now? people have been hearing it so much that it is beginning to wear through their common sense.

    I repeat: there is no way Bush got EVERY INTELLIGENC AGENCY IN THE WORLD to lie for him for all these years. It's just not possible.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:15 AM  

  • I repeat: Do you mind if we'd like to have our investigation just the same, thank you?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 7:10 AM  

  • "Do you mind if we'd like to have our investigation just the same, thank you?"

    Yes, I mind very much, for several reasons. We're at war. Considering that those who are trying to sideswipe the nation by insisting on this "investigation" had access to the same intelligence and said the same things, they can shove their "investigation" right where the sun don't shine.

    And would this be an "investigation" like the 9/11 Commission, which ignored Able Danger? The "commission" which Gorlick sat on, that kind of "investigation"?

    Try to find new talking points. Better yet, try to come up with ideas, instead of relying on the same tired outdated FDR scam.

    I'm originally from Louisville. There's a good reason I moved away.

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 7:43 AM  

  • Rightwingprof said:
    "Yes, I mind very much, for several reasons. We're at war."

    Fortunately for the rest of us, sir, you do not get to decide whether or not there is an investigation. I'll hang on to the ragged threads of our democracy if it's all the same to you.

    Some of us don't let "we're at war" be the end all and be all of reasoning.

    Should you ever stop back in Louisville, I'll gladly treat you to a cup of coffee just the same.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:40 AM  

  • "Fortunately for the rest of us, sir, you do not get to decide whether or not there is an investigation."

    Well yes, we do. We won the election. And the one before that. And the one before that, and so on, all the way back to 94. And we found out what price was to be paid for listening to peaceniks in the 70s, when after we pulled out of Vietnam, those dominoes fell and 3 million people were slaughtered as a result.

    Your "investigation" is a sham, just as the 9/11 Commission was a sham, and you can't have it unless we let you have it.

    Btw, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic.

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 9:05 AM  

  • The Republicans are a majority party, they do not rule the country (as of yet). Yes, we are a Republic (as I noted earlier in this conversation), and as such, we have representatives speaking for us.

    Some of our representatives are speaking for the large number of us who believe an investigation is warranted. Therefore, once again I'll posit: Fortunately YOU do not get to make that decision.

    Does that satisfy your semantic pedantry?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:26 AM  

  • "there is no way Bush got EVERY INTELLIGENC AGENCY IN THE WORLD to lie for him for all these years."

    Of course not. What the administration did was take outdated or speculative assessments and present them as current and factual. The fact that they can still argue that everything was "technically true" even though none of it meant what they implied it meant is evidence in and of itself that their statements were constructed to deceive.

    We know already that the administration opened up the Office of Special Plans within the Pentagon specifically for the purpose of looking at intelligence collected through normal channels, but without the vetting process developed by the intelligence professionals. This is how assertions by crooks and drunkards like Chalabi and Curveball, and the many inaccurate statements about things like what those aluminum tubes were good for and what Saddam's stepson actually said, came to be repeated over and over -- and, as Daniel points out, accepted as truth -- by the administration.

    They're terrified by the prospect that people like Colonel Kwiatkowski will be given the opportunity to testify about what they witnessed in the OSP. They like the conventional wisdom that pins everything on the CIA, allowing them to shred the intelligence process that recognized the bad intelligence as bad intelligence in the first place, forcing Cheney, Libby and Bolton to pressure analysts to edit their statements to support the White House.

    Sure, the Dems are using this as a political maneuver, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there. If there was nothing there, they wouldn't have tried to quash the investigation in the first place.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 9:30 AM  

  • Would I mind an investigation? Now that depends.

    If the investigation is impartial and aimed only at gaining facts and figures that are beyond dispute for the purposes of vetting the process that took us to war then I don't mind at all.

    If the investigation is a partisan attempt at an unethical power grab by attempting to unethically criminalize the administration that will result in bised evidence, lies taken as truth, and other unethical shenanigans then I mind very much.

    Given the current political atmosphere I am convinced the truth of the matter is that the second scenario is the true one. Such an investigation will not provide the trut, rather it will muddle it. But then, that would be the point now, wouldn't it?

    This is what happens when partisanship gets out of control. Unfortunately it's par for the course in Washington right now.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:07 AM  

  • And so, should the good number (a majority, I suspect) of us who want an investigation be ignored because you fear it will be partisan?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:09 AM  

  • Not at all. I'm saying it should be neutral if you want the truth. Anything else would only be a disservice to the people who want an investigation.

    Do YOU trust the Democrats to be neutral? I don't.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:29 AM  

  • I suppose we could try to appoint a non-partisan investigator, but something tells me that would be opposed even more vehemently . . .

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 10:34 AM  

  • "Do YOU trust the Democrats to be neutral?"

    Not particularly (and certainly not the Republicans), but there are no fair-minded Green Party members in Congress... :)

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:59 AM  

  • Thursday, November 03, 2005
    In Case You Missed It: The Harry Da Reid Code

    From The New York Times

    By David Brooks
    November 3, 2005

    Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m., writing important notes in crayon on the outside of envelopes. It's been four weeks since he launched his personal investigation into the Republican plot to manipulate intelligence to trick the American people into believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

    Reid had heard of the secret G.O.P. cabal bent on global empire, but he had no idea that he would find a conspiracy so immense.

    Reid now knows that as far back as 1998, Karl Rove was beaming microwaves into Bill Clinton's fillings to get him to exaggerate the intelligence on Iraq. ...

    These comments were part of the Republican plot to manipulate intelligence on Iraq. ...

    In 1997 Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, went on national television and informed the American people that if Saddam has "as much VX in storage as the U.N. suspects" he would "be able to kill every human being on the face of the planet."

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright compared Saddam to Hitler and warned that he could "use his weapons of mass destruction" or "become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction."

    Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, warned that "Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. ...

    This is why in 2002 Al Gore declared that Saddam Hussein "has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." ...

    This is why the Clinton National Security Council staffer Kenneth Pollack has written, "The U.S. Intelligence Community's belief toward the end of the Clinton administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons."

    These assertions were all part of an elaborate Republican conspiracy to manipulate and exaggerate intelligence on Iraq. ...

    Reid realizes there is only one solution: "Must call a secret session of the Senate. Must expose global conspiracy to sap vital juices! Must expose Republican plot to manipulate intelligence!"

    Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m.

    For Entire Article Please Visit: http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/opinion/03brooks.html [Subscription Required]

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 11:35 AM  

  • Ah, Touche Prof!
    I had been leaving out that all of the intelligence Bush was using was exactly in line with what the Democrats were claiming based on the same intelligence. Maybe we should call a secret session of Congress to investigate Hillary Clinton's involvement in the conspiracy while she was the first lady.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:10 PM  

  • At the same time, not only did Reeps think that the whereabouts of Meat Stick One were more important than the Iraq "threat" during the Clinton administration, but Bush administration officials in 2001 repeatedly said that sanctions and inspections were working and Saddam was effectively contained.

    And, of course, by 2002, everybody who had access to Iraq intel had to go through the White House to get it, so an examination of how the White House handled that intel becomes all the more central, doesn't it?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:24 PM  

  • "Meat Stick One"
    Catastrophile, that's funny, biting, but funny.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:24 PM  

  • Daniel, you should keep an eye on Dan Trabue. Though he seems polite, he has been banned from Gayle's site recently for shillness of debate. My sister (Rebekah) disagreed with him on the issue of war and he and another blogger promptly called her a terrorist and fanatic. Just thought you should know.

    By Blogger Mary Ann, at 11:10 AM  

  • Mary Ann,

    I seem polite because I am polite. To a fault. But thanks for watching out for Daniel. We're cool, though. We Dans have to stick together.


    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 12:56 PM  

  • No comment.

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 3:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares