« Which Is Worse? | Home | Whose Court Is It Anyway? »
Dumbass Dean
By Matt Margolis | July 23, 2005
If there’s any issue the Democrats make themselves sound stupid over, it is abortion. Howard Dean proves my point:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.
“I think we need to talk about this issue differently,” said Dean. “The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don’t know anybody in America who is pro-abortion.”
I know people who are “pro-abortion…” The Democratic National Committee. Let’s face it, you either are in favor of abortion “rights” or against them. Howard Dean of all people should know that his party is indeed pro-abortion, he was a doctor for Planned Parenthood, who once caused controversy by offering “I had an abortion” t-shirts. Does Dean want to argue that the Planned Parenthood wing of the Democratic Party isn’t pro-abortion?
Adding to his own idiocy, Dean said “we [Democrats] believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them.”
Make up their own mind? Does Dean accuse the government of making up the minds of would-be murderers by keeping murder illegal? Does Dean accuse the government of making up the minds of would-be rapists by keeping rape illegal?
Of course, Howard Dean calls Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey opposition to abortion a “position of conscience” while any Republican’s opposition to abortion is “making up the minds of women..” I’ve met Senator Rick Santorum, and I can tell you, Senator Rick Santorum is a man of conscience… The only reason Howard Dean doesn’t think so is because Santorum is a Republican.
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
July 24th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Dean is insane. Thats been established many times. But could Dean actually help the republican party? If he continues to give these radical, crazy statements he may end up driving democrats away from the democratic party. Great Post!
July 25th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
If you take his words for what they are, I think it’s clear there’s been a (deliberate?) miscommunication of words. I think he meant he doesn’t know anyone who personally is all for killing a living human being, whatever the causes or reasons. Of course I could be wrong, and to be truthful I know next to nothing about this Dean guy except apparently he lost his nomination over some WWF-Type Hype Chanting or something. Actually, if anyone here has a link to a clip of it, I’d appreciate it a lot. I still haven’t seen or heard it.
July 25th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
todd. they’re playing with semantics so they can get way with saying they support abortion but they don’t support it. I’m sure even you can see that.
July 25th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Well taken. But I think it’s not much different from Bush or someone like him saying “I don’t know anyone who likes to go to war”. While pleasantly misleading, no blatant technical lie is produced. Kind of like Clinton’s definiton-dissections over the term ’sexual relations’.
July 25th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Clearly if you pay any attention at all to politcs you would know that everyone plays with semantics…
July 25th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
sorry for the double post but I wanted to add that sadly I’m affraid Dean isn’t hurting the democratinc party nearly as much as Bush is hurting the republican party….
July 25th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
It’s Rove that’s hurting the Republican party. It’s soooo un-American to leak the name of an undercover CIA agent, and if there’s one thing Republicans hate, it’s “un-Americanism.”
July 25th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
qt - Did Rove do that? What proof do you have outside some small number of carefully leaked facts? You don’t think that Wilson writing a crap report then going public with it while claiming the vice-presidents office sent him there had anything to do with it? He knew his wife had got him the job, yet publicly claimed Cheney had? Isn’t that baiting?
You don’t think that if your CIA wife (who ALL the neighbors knew was CIA) had gotten YOU a job and then you claimed (by lying) that the VP had gotten it for you – in an article where you attacked the President would draw some attention upon yourself????? Don’t you think that’s rather STUPID?
1. She was not “covert”.
2. There was no crime.
3. You all think Rove is the brains of the White House political machine and want him removed whether justified or not.
4. You don’t even have all the facts. Example, NYT reporter Judith Miller sits in jail refusing to name her source. Yet – Rove has said it’s OK to name him. Soooo, who was HER source? The NYT is having fun bashing Rove. Yet – has not said he was THEIR source. Who was?
5. And again – she was not covert, her husband brought this upon the family himself, and there was no crime.
Todd- Dean had all but lost the nomination before he did the “scream.” Though very charismatic, and certainly genuine in his outspoken liberal beliefs – he just seemed too, how to say it? LIBERAL – oops, bad word. PROGRESSIVE, well maybe not that either. How about, WACKO to win. Democrats were looking for someone who they thought could “beat Bush”. Unfortunately, they settled on a gold-digging extreme liberal with all the personality of a flat tire. He has STILL refused to release his military records. Which, at this point certainly gives credence to The Swift Boat Vets. And, he ran away from his own liberal agenda so fast it was dizzying. You guys (directed at all liberal Democrats) deserved to lose.
July 25th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
qt - Did Rove do that? What proof do you have outside some small number of carefully leaked facts? You don’t think that Wilson writing a crap report then going public with it while claiming the vice-presidents office sent him there had anything to do with it? He knew his wife had got him the job, yet publicly claimed Cheney had? Isn’t that baiting?
That is woefully inacurate. First, her neighbors have all said they thought she worked for some energy consulting firm… none know she was in the CIA. It is not my understanding that he calimed Cheney was the one who sent him. From what I understand he claimed the vice president asked the CIA to investigate further. Though this could misslead some to think he claimed chenny sent him,, so I can see where you are coming from on that one I guess…
1. She was not “covert”.
-actually she still had prtected status
2. There was no crime.
-while you may be right.. the jury is still out on that.. lets let them decide. Saying there was no crime is just as bad as saying rove is guilty at this point.
3. You all think Rove is the brains of the White House political machine and want him removed whether justified or not.
You clearly don’t understand the issue. If liberals want him gone by outing him they will be sorely dissapointed. Just because he wouldn’t be in the administration doesn’t mean he couldn’t still advise Bush so this is a moot point.
4. You don’t even have all the facts.
You CLEARLY don’t have all the facts either. though you also CLEARLY asumne you do.
Example, NYT reporter Judith Miller sits in jail refusing to name her source. Yet
– Rove has said it’s OK to name him. Soooo, who was HER source? The NYT is having fun bashing Rove. Yet – has not said he was THEIR source. Who was?
This is the tough question… This implies there is another source somewher ein the administration that has not yet been acoutned for… The reason so much is being directed at Rove, is the fault of the president for saying anyone “involed” will be fired. Rove was undoubtably invovled in the leak in some way(weather criminaly or not). So now they are coming at him. Had the pres. not made this foolish statement before knowing the facts Rove would be in no trouble.
The american people are having a hard time stomaching the fact that the pres. said one thing, then rove was implicated, then he chaged what he said. Now I’m sorry, but any reporter worth his salt is going to report that.
5. And again – she was not covert, her husband brought this upon the family himself, and there was no crime.
Again she was still considered under a protected status… The CIA would not have even asked for the investigation had this not been the case. What you are saying is that he should have know someone would leak his wifes identity… that is the only way he could possibly have “brought this on himself”.
It is a must for the republicans to realize the seriousness of this investigation. This prosicutor is still at it… if there was no crime the investigation would be over…and poor judith miller would not be sitting in a jail cell. You also admit there must be some other source… all this points to that there clearly are still reasons to belive that some crime has indeed been comitted by somebody.
July 26th, 2005 at 9:28 am
OKay, seriously… this post is not about Plame… which is the most ridiculous non-scandal yet the Democrats have tried to throw at Bush… There is so mcuh evidence supporting the fact that Plame was not covert at the time, had already been “outed” etc. etc. the fact the Dems keep talking about this is really really really sad..
July 26th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Ok, just one more thing…the Plame scandal is not about Bush…it’s about Rove and Libby (and any other source, yet to be identified).
As far as abortion goes, I don’t know why you can’t grasp that people are not pro-abortion. It’s not a hard concept! Almost everyone is anti-abortion, actually (except some wackos out there). What pro-CHOICE people believe is that women should not be forced to carry babies to term, when there are excruciating circumstances (i.e. rape, mother’s life is at stake, etc.). About 95% of people would love to ban abortion, except for unusual circumstances (so people wouldn’t use abortion as a form of birth control), but that is almost impossible to do, because there would obviously be loopholes.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
You are corret this is not about plame… but It is very clear and an undenyable fact that CIA conciderd her covert. Otherwise ther would be no ongoing investigation. IT is silly for them to blast rove when there is yet to be a ruling from the grand jury… but it very clearly ins’t a “non-scandal” like you put it. Besides the biggest true “non-scandal” I can ever remember was obviously the “clinton-lewinsky” thing which was brought on by republicans, and only supported by a third of the people in this country. This is a scandal the bush administration is going to have to get serious about or they are going to find themselves a a world of trouble.It’s not like democrates started the investigation. I can’t blame them for taking this opportunity to get thier shots. I know Republicans would do the exact same thing if the table were turned., as we have seen in the past.
I see, and understand the pro-life argument. If it is concived, it has started down the path to becoming a life. The fetus/embryo/zygote/ whatever, Is clearly guilty of no crime, so it’s hard to justify killing it. But there are also several circumstances where I can see the procedure should be an available option. My beilief is that there should be no abortions, but I’m not ready to support making it completely illegal. Thus I am lumped into the pro-choice catagory, by pro-lifers. Yet my view that there should be none clearly indicates that I am pro-life. I don’t think a woman should be able to choose at random when she wants to abort a fetus. But I can’t deny the fact that there are times this procedure is nessary. Just like I don’t ever want to see our country at war, yet there are clearly times the it is nessesary to kill another human being. Not just ones fighting the war, collateral damage is almost a certainty in war. But just because innocents are getting killed doesn’t mean we should never go to war. That’s just silly. It’s a very very complicated issue that at the heart lies ones core of beliefs.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
qt… in the last election, you either voted for Kerry, or you voted Bush… Kerry may not have been your #1 choice, but if you voted for him, you were supporting him, and wanting to get him elected. With abortion, you either support it as something women should be legally able to do, or do don’t. So, you are either pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. If you are pro-abortion, you support it being legal. that’s all their is to it. Don’t try to soften your position by saying you don’t support abortion when you do…
July 26th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
But I was not anti-Bush. I thought Kerry was a better candidate, but I never held the opinion that Kerry was all good and Bush was all bad. That would have been ridiculous!
You can’t boil everything down to such one-dimensional thinking, because people don’t think like that. Most of us have the ability to think on different levels. Yes…abortion is not a good thing…I, myself, will never have an abortion. However, there are some circumstances where abortions make more sense(like those mentioned above). To me, it’s just as horrible for children to be brought into this world to be neglected (or worse) by their parents.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
By the way, dingo has a very good example above of why one-dimensional thinking doesn’t work. No can argue that murder is bad. Of course it is…it’s illegal here in the U.S. However, no one questions it during the time of war. Because some circumstances call for certain actions. And in these situations, the actions are acceptable.
July 26th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
qt, if it is horrible to bring a child into this world to be neglected, does that mean it is an act of mercy to kill children who are victims of neglect?
I would assume you will say “of course not” thus proving your argument to be meaningless. If the potential for neglect is the justification for ending the life of a child before birth, it would have to be justifiable after birth in order for your point to be valid.
If you want to defend abortion, atleast tell me you dont’ believe life begins at conception, but rather at birth… anecdotal justifications are meaningless.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Through all this I have to wonder whether Matt would have any personal beliefs that doesn’t go along with Bush’s line. In other words, if Bush was all for abortion, Matt would be too. If Bush was all for stem cells, then Matt would be too. Right?
July 26th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Pro-choice does not nessesarily mean pro-abortion and here is why… I don’t think anyone NEEDS to have a gun in this country, so I am anti-gun. However, I feel very strongley that everyone has the right to own a gun, and would never try to do anything to stop someone from owning a gun. This stance doesn’t make me pro-gun, it just means I am pro-”your choice to have a gun”, or pro-gun-choice. It’s the same kind of thinking… I am against anyone having an abortion. But there are obviously situations where having an abortion perfomed is warranted. As I said before things aren’t always black and white in this world.
The man that was killed in London by the police is a great example… Clearly a case of murdering an inoccent, yet under the circumstances the act of murder had a perfectly logical excuse.
Since out-lawing abotion would hardly stop the problem. Women will be forced to take it “undergound” so to speak, not only endangering the life of the embryo, but the live of her as well. Thusly far fewer lives will lost by keeping it legal and safe, while at the same time focusing ones attention at making sure people don’t choose to have one… rather than focusing on making it illegal.
Let’s talk seirously now about making all abortions illegal… What kind of enforcement are we looking at? Are we going to arrest and throw in jail any mother who attempts one? Make her sit in a jail cell watching her every move to make sure she dosen’t attempt another… force her to have her baby in jail… what happens to the child? taken from her and placed in a foster home? What if she has other children at home would they take them away too? There is clearly situations where making abbortions illegal would cause way more “collateral damage” than keeping them legal and enforcing a policy of strong deturance…
July 26th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Todd, there are a number of things I disagree with George W. Bush on… so I can only guess that you are the one who who defines his views based on George W. Bush’s position.. If Bush opposes something, you’re for it… If Bush supports something, you’re against it…
July 26th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Dingo…
Pro-choice doesn’t mean anything.. it is a misnomer… Abortion has NOTHING to do with choice. In order to have an accurate, balanced, and fair discussion on abortion it must be discussed in terms of abortion… not this political buzzword “choice” There are an infinite number of “choices” people can make… defining choice as the decision whether or not to have an abortion is a gross distortion of the actual issue.
Does a woman have the right to do with her body as pleases? absolutely. she can pierce her ears, get tattooes, dye her hair… whatever she wants… but we’re not talking about her body… or her right to reproduce… we’re talking about whether or not a life she and the father created has a right to be born instead of being killed…
July 26th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Matt,
Ok, I don’t believe life begins at conception. 50% of conceptions result in miscarriage. And I don’t believe God is killing 50% of the lives he puts on this earth!
However, the issue here is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I’m surprised you’re not grasping it. It’s really not that hard of a concept. There is a difference between supporting an act and allowing others to choose that act. Here’s a third example for you. I am against obesity and anything that causes it. People should not be eating fast food more than once a month and they should all be exercising. In my opinion, there is no reason for the surge in weight in the country. However, I support giving people the choice to stop by a fast food place as often as they please. It’s their choice. See…there is a difference between what I believe and what rights I think others should have.
So…I may be against abortion, but I believe others should have their rights. That is the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.
July 26th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Dingo - DID the CIA request this “investigation”? Nope - the congress did. More specifically, it was the Dems who made a stink and the White House that started the investigation.
Plame had been back from overseas SIX years. The statute says FIVE. No crime. No crime. No crime. Stop trying to lower the standard. Where were you when the Sandy Berger – the Clinton National Security Advisor - actually stole Top Secret documents by shoving them down his pants? Your haste to protect things now – with no law and few facts makes this look like the witch hunt it is. Say, isn’t Massachusetts where the American witch-hunt originated? Interesting.
Was Rove involved? Maybe. But was anyone else? Who know? Not me - not you. And - didn’t Wilson knowingly making a false published claim about the VP’s office sending him on the trip set this whole thing up? You don’t think that he knew his wife’s identity would come out after propagating such a huge load of crap? Nope - you liberals are blinded by your hatred of Bush and Rove. You don’t have all the facts and it looks like there was no crime. You make up quotes and facts and act like they are real. Plame was “officially” not a publicly acknowledged CIA person. But many people knew. I live in Northern Virginia and it is not hard to pick out the neighbors who work for different agencies. They have parking stickers for one thing - as stupid as that is to believe.
And back to Dean. You libs are so full of crap. Pick a position one way or the other so we know what you stand for will ya? Dean was saying “reach out…” But you here still argue for the choice to murder. You are so ludicrous on his issue. But again, Dean says you aren’t for that choice at all. Or you are. Yyyyeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh!
July 26th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
qt,
All you are doing is trying to put your position, and generally speaking the pro-abortion position, in a politically convenient “make both sides happy” place.
Abortion is NOT about choice. If abortion is about choice, then murder is about choice, rape is about choice, etc. etc. Stop calling it pro-choice.
Now, this “i would never have an abortion, but wouldn’t stop others” crap is just a convenient position for people who are really pro-life but have become so brainwashed that abortion is some fundamental right that women have to kill their children just because they are inconvenient.
qt, if you think abortion should be legal, you support abortion. Get it? Whether or not you would have one yourself is irrelevant. If you were on the Supreme Court and you were the tie breaking vote in deciding if abortion should be kept legal or made illegal, you’d vote for the former… Your position would have a consequence. Your tolerance of abortion helps to maintain an environment where the act is kept legal. You wouldn’t say “well, I’m voting to keep abortion legal even though I’m against it.”
You can’t have it both ways.. you either support abortion, or you don’t… none of this yes/no/maybe/i do but i don’t crap.
July 26th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Matt, I totally agree wiht you that pro-choice is a missnomer… But pro-life, using the same rational, dosen’t make sence to me ether… How can a person be pro-life but still support war? or the death penelty.
God has told us all “thou shalt not kill” yet there are certainly circumstances in which we kill other humans on a daily basis. We try to justify why we kill in order to make ourselves feel better about it.
It is certainly hard to justify killing an inocent embryo… so believe me, I appreciate where you are coming from.
As I said before, I would never advocate, or suggest someone get an abortion. Unfortunately I can’t see how making them illegal is going to change anything.. It’s a good and noble problem to try and solve, but simply making them illegal isn’t going to do it, in fact it will make it significantly worse, as I pointed out in my last post.
That being said, Simply being aginst making it illegal, as I am, shouldn’t mean I am pro-abortion, but this is how I am labled by the pro-lifers… I think that is what Dean is talking about.
Being as it is you are able to realize that pro-choice is a politcal misnomer. I don’t see how you can’t understand that the term “pro-abortion” is also a political missnomer. there is a very clear diffrence between pro-choice and pro-abortion… I see how you are able to constrcut an argument that there isn’t a differance between the terms. It’s the whole, “if your not for it, your against it” but switched arround to, “if your not agaisnt it your for it”. Yet these black-or-white statements are hardley represetative of the way the real world works.
What seems to be the real issue to me is, at what point one desides to assign what value to a life.
Does a potential life gain this value at conception? in the zygote stage? in the embryo stage? in the foetus stage? or only after birth? and when does the needs of this life outway the needs of the mothers life? that is what is at the heart of the issue. not pro-life or pro-choice…
All that said, you have a wonderful blog site here! I am glad i stumbled upon it. Free and open disscusion of all of these issues is vital for us to understand eachothers points of view. It is important to be both respectful of others veiws and not to be overly bombarded with opinions from only one side of the argument, as many partisan blog sites tend to be. So far your site has offered all of that.
July 26th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
well kahn all I can say is… There are so many inaccuracys in what you are saying it isn’t really hard for me to understand that all your information is coming from the right… You’d be better served to survey all available information and make sure your facts are straight.. because everyone else here is…
Straight from wikipedia’s timeline:
“26 September 2003: At CIA Director George J. Tenet’s request, the Justice Department begins looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the identity of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, an aggravated felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_scandal_timeline
actually you should read up on the whoel situation… rather than continuing to regurgitate the far-rights talking points…
Anyway, your post is rife with assuption about me, and my position, You actually agreed with me whole heartedly last night about letting those prisoners who want to go on a hunger strike starve to death…
Where was I during the clinton thing you mentioned? I don’t know… probably busy earning my CS degree… not paying atteniton to politcs… what’s your point? If that person did that then that is bullshit and should have been investigated too…It’s the typical far-left way to asume that if I’m not supporting karl rove 100% I must be a crazy liberal… most people can detect this obvious flaw in your logic. I actually agreed he can’t be labled guilty, but he also can’t be completely absloved until the investigation is over, I’m not one of the kooks calling for his imediate ouster, nor have I said anything to make you believe I am… Your opinon may be that he didn’t break that perticular law… but just because you don’t think so, doesn’t mean there was no crime… that is why we have investigations. I highly doubt you understand the law anyway, being as it is that you have shown you know very little actual information about this case… I have no reason to Hate Rove, or to Hate Bush, and I ahve never ecpressed that I do. so I can thus not be as blinded by partisan politcs as you are…
July 26th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
i said far-left in my last paragraph I ment far-right…. sorry I didn’t check my post.. but it coudl be confusing if i didn’t add this note…
July 26th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
You can’t have it both ways.. you either support abortion, or you don’t… none of this yes/no/maybe/i do but i don’t crap.
I could easliy say you have to be either for or against murder too, yet this would be inacurate in the real world as there are isntances where murder is not only warrented but supported as I’ve shown in my prior posts. You most ceratinly can be for certain abortions, since every situation is differnt. I submit to you that perhaps you are continuing to maintain that this is a black-or-white issue (in the face of evedence that it clearly isn’t) because, this step of turning it to a balck-or-white issue is nessesary before one is able to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion.
July 26th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
dingo - I guess you are a wet behind the ears kid. You don’t know about Berger?
Officially - the CIA requested the investigation. But it was because the White House told them to. What are you. Like ten years old? Ever hear of the Chain-of-command? Interesting concept - read up on it.
Sooooo - lets assume that I’m way off.
1. What does the law say about defining a covert operative?
2. Has the law EVER been used before?
3. Did the person in question qualify under the law?
4. Who published the name first? (note, depending on the above answers this and the following questions are mute)
5. Has that person said Rove was the source?
6. Who was the NYT source? (why is Judith Miller still in jail?)
7. Who actually got Wilson the job - Cheney or Plame?
8. There is ample evidence that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Nigeria. Not by buying it, but by barter. Do you think that Wilson may have been a tad partisan when he made a big deal out of saying Iraq wasn’t trying to buy it?
9. What’s up with publishing a secret report in the NYT anyways - isn’t THAT a crime?
and - no free rides. You said my post was full of inaccuracies. Prove it. Name them. Otherwise you are full of crap and unable to do so.
7.
July 26th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Ok, so can we talk about the Plame scandal on this post or not?
So, Matt, using your logic above, you must be pro-murder, ’cause you support the war. Hmmm…interesting. It sounds to me like we have a bigger problem than we thought. I think being pro-murder is a lot worse than being “pro-abortion.”
July 26th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
qt - Religions in the Human Experience. Most fascinating course I took in college. The “Thou Shalt Not Kill” commandment believe it or not ONLY referred to other tribe or klan members. It did not extend outside that “family” unit.
War is awful and only a fool welcomes it. Yet, there are some really really bad people out there. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot are all good examples. But the common mistake now is to assume that these men alone were the root of evil in their countries. No – it was the system and the people who made up that system that were at fault. To be honest, if we were not stinging from Viet Nam – we should have interceded in Cambodia’s killing fields. Liberal thinking prevented the world from the state sponsored murder of millions.
An unborn baby is innocent. Murderers have thrown societies rules to the wind. The EARN their punishment. A baby has not knowingly hurt anyone. Suddenly, someone shoots it full of highly toxic saline solution and chops it to bits. Nice huh? That is the difference. War because sometimes we must fight for what is right and executions to remove anti-social cancers from our midst.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Liberal thinking prevented the world from STOPPING the state sponsored murder of millions.
July 26th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Kahn, that logic might work if no innocent people were killed during war. Remember that lots and lots of children and babies are killed when bombs are dropped.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:50 am
Ok… Inaccuracies. you asked for it here goes…. I started writing this in the blog space but it soon became clear there were far to many to keep track of accurately in the little space. So I actually had to open up a an open office document just to keep track of them all….
“Dingo - DID the CIA request this “investigation”? Nope “
This has already been proven wrong by me… you say the dems requested it initially, but what is your source for this information? I provided mine… Regardless of weather or not the initial request came from congress is irrelevant because the statement as it reads about is misleading and thus inaccurate.
“Plame had been back from overseas SIX years. The statute says FIVE. No crime. No crime. No crime.”
Your use of the phrase no crime over and over again, is also misleading. I can suppose (only because I understand the situation) from your stating Plame had been back for 6 years not 5 that you are referring to her covert status… and thus your use of “No crime.” you are referring to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.. this is a hard law to break… and most likely wasn’t broken, but saying there is No crime, without stating what crime you are referring too is misleading and thus inaccurate. .
“Stop trying to lower the standard. Where were you when the Sandy Berger – the Clinton National Security Advisor - actually stole Top Secret documents by shoving them down his pants? “
You have gone way out on a limb and assumed I would not have been behind the prosecution of Sandy Berger… you assume, incorrectly I might add, that I am a democrat, and wouldn’t do anything to hard a democrat, I suppose this is because you are too used to dealing with the normal partisan crowd… I am not a part of this crowd as you would understand if you really knew me.
“Your haste to protect things now“
I am always for protecting things, I can’t stand when people in gov’t use their power to usurp the law. It is absolutely wrong and one of my largest pet-peves. Clearly Clinton himself was a law breaker, I had absolutely no problem with his being impeached, even thought the whole issue was rather silly, he did in fact lie under oath.
“Was Rove involved? Maybe.”
He most certainly was “involved” there is no maybe about it… thus this statement is inaccurate.
“But was anyone else? Who know? Not me - not you.”
Actually, simple logic can prove there was someone else involved. Rove said he learned from a reporter, someone told that reporter, thus someone else is certainly involved. so this statement is also inaccurate.
“And - didn’t Wilson knowingly making a false published claim about the VP’s office sending him on the trip set this whole thing up?”
Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium to Iraq from Niger. From Wilson’s article:
“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,”
“Nope - you liberals are blinded by your hatred of Bush and Rove.”
again I don’t “hate” Bush or Rove… and I’ve given no indication that I do. another inaccuracy on your part. I’ve defended Rove in front of many people. I think it was absolutely wrong for democrats to call for his ouster at this point. But I really can’t fault them as much as I’d like on this one because the justification for calling for his removal came directly through Bushes careless, anyone who was involved will be removed statement.
“You don’t have all the facts and it looks like there was no crime.”
No one on the blog has ALL the facts. I think we’ve all done a good job so far of pointing that out to each other. But that’s what discussion is all about. It looks like there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, this doesn’t however mean there was no crime…
“You make up quotes and facts and act like they are real. “
I made up no quotes… I made up no facts… in fact I gave you a link to my source, which is actually a conglomeration of many sources… So this statement is yet again inaccurate on your part…
July 27th, 2005 at 9:46 am
I’m sure innocent people were killed during the Civil War, WWI, WII, etc. etc… so qt, is supporting those wars being pro-murder?
We’re having a discussion of on abortion and the terminology of ‘pro-abortion’… you then proceed to make a comparison between murder and war… which are two different things.
I could easily say to you that since you are anti-war that you suppory slavery and genocide because those are two things ears were fought to end… Using your logic, qt, you are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-fascism… etc. etc..
July 27th, 2005 at 10:32 am
I thought you boys could use two cents from somebody WHO IS ACTUALLY AFFECTED BY THE ISSUE (and yes, I know about father’s rights, but no man carries a baby into the world).
If you push this too far, you will lose most of the GOP women, including the Lt. Governor - who may be the gubanatorial candidate.
We DO want to make up our own minds. Many choose not to have an abortion, but to give the baby up for adoption. Many learn trough genetic testing that a baby has a disease like spina bifeda, and choose to terminate the pregnancy rather than bring a child in the world who will never walk or be out of pain. But WE WANT TO CHOOSE.
Hence, pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.
And pro-Bush, despite his ideas on one or two issues. Women tend to be less litmus-test than men; pity men fall into ideologial purity traps.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:59 am
No Matt, I’m using YOUR logic. I wasn’t alive, but if I was I’m sure I would’ve supported the earlier wars you mentioned. However, since I’m capable of thinking beyond one dimension, I realize this does not make me pro-murder, because you can be against murder, but still realize that some situations call for it.
Similarly, you can be against abortion, but realize that some situations call for it. That’s anti-abortion and pro-choice.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
qt, you equated war with murder… they are not the same thing.
once again, I will go back to the simple, easy to understand logic that if you belive abortion should be legal, you are pro-abortion. you dont’ have to have an abortion to be pro-abortion, but if you support it as a right that women should have, then you are pro abortion.
that being the case, another example woudl be that I’m pro-gun, but that doesn’t mean i own a gun, yet I support others’ right to own and carry.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
dingo - nice try but you didn’t really disprove anything. What crime exactly do you think Rove commited?
And - are you SURE he was the source? For which reporters and which stories? Not Millers apparently.
Do you disagree that this was really Wilsons fault - for lying about Cheney in a published article. All the while knowing his “covert” CIA wife got him the job? Didn’t he really invite this? I think it’s alot like someone throwing themselves in front of your car and then compaining when you hit them.
qt - I explained war and murder because you brought them up. You already know from other strings that I believe you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus is not a human being or has commited a capital crime.
GOP Woman. Who is affected more - the woman, or the little baby who is chopped to bits and sucked out with a shop-vac? “Fathers rights” - good dodge.
And finally - Thank you Governor Dean for continuuing to fire up the wacko Dem base and redemonstrating why your party can never be allowed to govern again. YYeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
July 29th, 2005 at 7:45 am
“Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are propaganda names chosen by their respective sides. Note that each side also has negative propaganda names it uses for the other side. “Anti-choice” and “pro-murder” anyone?
No, a pox on both houses. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Or, if you want to get really f’ing picky, pro-legalized-abortion, anti-legalized-abortion.
Most so-called “pro-life” people I know support the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Oops!
Most so-called “pro-choice” people I know are in favor of Social Security, against school choice, and pretty much against any sort of choice that doesn’t involve a vagina.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Mark J. - Point taken. Like I said, the Libertarians are about the only group consisten across the board. I looked at the choices and decided on the Republicans because they line up the closest with what i want and believe. But - it’s not a perfect match by any means. I think I’ve seen the same view expressed by several people here.
August 7th, 2005 at 10:08 am
If “there was no crime committed” and Plame wasn’t covert and Wilson went on a junket in Niger(?) and then lied about the yellowcake uranium as justification for it then all of that could have been said two years ago. Instead the right-wing media went silent on the whole issue until Rove distributed the talking points, which are the classic Rove strategy of shooting the messenger who bought the bad news.
But relax, Kahn. Bush has now changed his wording from “firing anybody involved” to “firing anyone who committed a crime”. It will take years for all of this to be hashed out in the courts and by then Bush will just pardon Rove at the last possible minute.
August 7th, 2005 at 10:21 am
The Democratic Party has no core philosophy anymore. The FDR pledge of a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot and good jobs at good wages has been replaced by a checklist of abortion, Blacks, immigrants environmentalism, gays, and labor as the only holdover from the FDR days. Whoever checks off the most gets the Dem nomination. The Republican Party doesn’t really stand for anything either, except for paying favors to rich corporate campaign donors, but they wrap themselves in God and the Flag to make it look like they do.
But hell, if the GOP really goes and pushes outlawing abortion watch the Dems rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Young single women, who normally don’t vote, will flock to the Democratic Party. Areas that could go blue (Ohio, Virginia) will go blue. The GOP will get painted (rightly or wrongly) as the party of bigoted misogynistic Bible-thumpers.
We all saw what happened in Bush’s miscalculation of the Terry Schiavo debacle. With outlawing abortion it would happen again.
August 7th, 2005 at 10:27 am
“actually you should read up on the whoel situation… rather than continuing to regurgitate the far-rights talking points…”
In all fairness to Kahn, even though he doesn’t like me, he is a bit more moderate than the typical far right types, and actually so is Matt. They don’t change their minds, but their positions are more grounded in reality than say, those who post on Hannity.com’s discussion boards.
For example, Kahn and Matt both knew the whole Terry Schiavo matter was a political hot potato best left untouched by politicians. Go on Hannity.com and those folks are still complaining about it, and wondering why Bush didn’t send in the National Guard to reinsert the feeding tube.
August 7th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Jay, here’s what Bush has actually said re: firing in the leak case.
Rove has not been charged with doing anything yet, and for anyone to suggest that unproven allegations are enough to justfying firing Rove is just ridiculous.
August 7th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Heck Matt - PROVEN allegations that Clinton lied under Oath were not enough to get HIM fired. This smells a lot like an anti-Rove witch hunt to me.
August 27th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
To Kahn, Matt,
Kahn you know you are full of shit and just like to argue-you don’t read and a sticker on the back of your gas guzzler isn’t going to help. You said you served in the military and you believe everything you read without investigating anything on your own or doing your own interviews -you are just as guilty of spreading propaganda as you accuse the left or right of reporting it. I remember when you were all suckered into an online conversation with characters that I made up, they didn’t even exist. You believed everything you read tghat I wrote as characters and you spent your time arguing back. In fact you tried to get me kicked off this site because you were fooled you were duped and you realized how gullible and stupid you were-good job whining to Matt to get me kicked off-run to mom while you can I came back and found the backdoor. You are still the fool because you refuse to think beyond the lines and lok for your own truths and you hide because it keeps you safe-because you need to feeel like you know about the world to feel safe. You know that if you were to step outside those of which you sided with be they left or right and think for yourself you might be left to think for yourself. And that is what you fear the most… to be alone. But in all your opinions do keep me entertained. Good going idiots.
All the best —oh yea kAHN LET’S SEE YOU GET MAD AND ANGRY AGAIN AND KICK ME OF THE SITE (BOOO-HOOOOO TO YOU FAT ASS)
mike
August 28th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
to KAHN and MATT
Also in your world of absolutes and views on Abortion-either you are supporting it or not you should apply to yourself-IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH AND HIS WARnTHEN YOU SHOULD VOLUNTEER IF YOU DON”T THEN YOU ARE ALSO JUST FULL OF SHIT AND YOU KNOW IT! and yes Kahn we know you served so sign up again.
mike
August 28th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
TRULY YOU ALL HAVE NOTHIING TO SAY YOUR WORDS MEAN NOTHING UNTIL YOU PUT AN ACTION BEHIND THEM-VOLUNTEER- I WOULD LOVE TO READ YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHY YOU DO NOT SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE!!