Text 8892, 614 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 11:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9389.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <o739h2tadqarqhu08sjn6s4abbb0h8fdek@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<1155690632.218605.182870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><v4CdnZAimscq5n_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com><m5k3h2ln2kncl361i2e

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
>news:31m8h2pio2ejiahp5gclbgak2gvgcaa1sj@4ax.com...
>
>>>> You seem to have been reading a different Times than I was. The Time=
s
>>>> was full of nonstop scandal accusations against Clinton, who was
>>>> accused by the Republicans of everything from tying up an airport to
>>>> get a haircut to trashing the White House to rape -- I wish I could
>>>> say I was joking, but that's the literal truth. Comparable (except
>>>> insofar as they were a lot less likely to be baseless) accusations
>>>> against Bush received little if any coverage -- his illegal stock sa=
le
>>>> (cf. Whitewater), for example, or his cheating during the Presidenti=
al
>>>> debate.
>>>
>>>The MSM repoted Repulican allegations, sure.  That's what it's suppose=
d to
>>>do.  And the R's went after Clinton with a vengeance because of the wa=
y
>>>Reagan and Bush the Elder were treated.  Payback was a (mostly impoten=
t)
>>>bitch.  I wasn't particularly thrilled with the continual Republican=20
>>>attacks
>>>on Clinton.  As with the Democrats and Bush, any minor misstep is=20
>>>ampliefied
>>>into a -gate.
>>
>> The problem is, the Dems didn't go after Reagan and Bush I
>> gratuitously -- they went after a wrong that had /actually been
>> committed,/ viz., the in-your-face illegal Iran-Contra operation.
>>
>> In a nation of laws, one does not use investigations as a bludgeon --
>> one investigates when there's just cause to do so. Or at least that's
>> how I see it. Had the Republicans merely set out to investigate actual
>> wrongdoing, I would have supported them, and I think much of the
>> nation is with me on that.
>
>Iran-Contra was a legitimate scandal.  The Reagan Admin was wrong in eve=
ry=20
>respect.
>
>Not everything the Democrats threw at Reagan was this cut and dried.
>
>You are leaning very close to insiting on the severity of every issue ra=
ised=20
>about a republican and dismissing or diminishing every issue reaised abo=
ut a=20
>democrat.

Always a risk, and I don't mean to imply that all Democratic
allegations have been warranted and Republican not, but I think it's
pretty clear that there has been a large disjunction between the
behavior of the two national parties in this regard -- hell, at times
an extreme disjunction -- Where are the Democratic equivalents of the
accusations of rape and murder? Of the impeachment affair? Of the
illegal and unpunished Lewinsky taping by a former Nixon operative? Of
the Swift Boating? Of the Gore telephone nonsense? Put them in two
columns, and one will be a lot longer than the other.

>>>The MSM did not participate in the attacks on Clinton.  They did not
>>>research or question why the Clintons kept FBI files on their (the
>>>Clintons') opponents for so long or why they culdn't accout for the fi=
les'
>>>hereabouts until they suddenly materialized on a random table somewher=
e.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>
>Memory.  IIRC the story put out y the Clinton White House was that they=20
>found the missing files (after several weeks of uproar) on a table=20
>(presumably also in the white house).  I use the word "random" because I=
=20
>don't believe a word of such a lame explanation.

I wasn't referring to the missing FBI files, about which I have no
opinion, but to the assertion that the press didn't research or
question their absence. In fact, I can't imagine that they didn't. But
there's only so much they can get if no one is willing to talk -- or
if there's no real story to talk /about./

>>>The exception was the Lewenski affair where the MSM did involve itself
>>>directly.  Ratings greed overcame politics at that point.
>>
>> The press (I dislike the term "media," which was a cynical Agnewism
>> calculated to replace a revered term -- "press" -- with a vaguely
>> sinister one) issued a constant stream of reports on the Clinton
>> allegations, from rape to stolen ashtrays. When I compare
>> point-for-point the coverage of the Clinton allegations vs. comparable
>> Bush allegations, it becomes clear that as Amy pointed out the former
>> received much more attention. Compare, for example, two roughly
>> comparable allegations, Bush's illegal insider stock sale and
>> Whitewater.
>
>You're comparing individual issues.  I am comparing overall treatment.  =
With=20
>a noted exception or two, Clinton got a pass.

I just don't see that. They trashed him for two years. It was only
after Gringrich came online that they gave him a pass, Gringrich being
much scarier and a much juicier subject. After Gringrich, Clinton
could do no wrong. Which is in keeping with my original assertion --
that the bias exhibited by the press is not partisan in nature, except
insofar as they are sometimes scared of Republicans or overcompensate
in an attempt to be even-handed. To paraphrase what an editor at the
Times said a few weeks back, they receive constant criticism from both
sides; it seems inconceivable to partisans that some people might
simply be interested in reporting the facts.

>But if you want to talk specifics, what investigation DID the MSM do int=
o=20
>whitewater?  IIRC they pretty much took Ms. Clinton's word at face value.

>I draw a distinction between reporting what someone else says and diggin=
g=20
>for onr's own information.  I don't remember the MSM being very interest=
ed=20
>in digging into whitewater.  It was simply something that dogged the=20
>clintons and wouldn't go away.

The press investigated Whitewater to death.

>>>OTOH, the MSM has spearheded and supported the drumbeat of allegations
>>>agianst the GW Bush Admin.  The Times demanded an investigation into w=
ho
>>>leaked Valerie Plame's name.
>>
>> The disclosure of a deep cover CIA agent is a very serious act --
>> don't let Bush Administration propaganda fool you into thinking
>> otherwise, the CIA was furious -- and in some cases seriously illegal.
>
>Not illegal in this case, as Patrick Fitgerald announced quite a while a=
go.

Yes, but that was not apparent at the time, and the likelihood of
illegality made it a proper subject for investigation and coverage.
Hell, it would have been even  had it not been illegal.

>It was merely a case of Richard Armitage being a gossip and Bob Novak=20
>connecting the dots.

I don't believe that. At least two other people in the Adminstration
disclosed her name -- Libby and Rove.

>I'm sure the CIA was furious.  At least those who allowed a Bush Admin f=
oe=20
>(Joe Wilson) to go to Niger.

That, I think, is an unworthy partisan slur.

They are furious because of what the Bushies did to Mrs. Wilson and
her contacts.

>> A respected former ambassador claimed that the Administration had
>> harmed national security and possibly broken the law to gain revenge
>> against someone who had gone public with information that harmed the
>> Administration's case to go to war in Iraq -- information that was
>> absolutely correct. A newspaper that didn't report on that would be
>> guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
>
>You HAVE been following the news, right?
>
>Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name to Bob Novak and Armitage is no Bus=
h=20
>Admin loyalist.  To repeat the tired, old--and refted by evidence--reven=
ge=20
>charge is pretty pointless and not worth further discussion.

Novak's spin on it. The fact that at least two others disclosed the
info to just about every reporter in Washington suggests otherwise.

>> That being said, how could the /news pages/ demand an investigation?
>> The editorialists possibly did, but editorials are not supposed to be
>> unbiased -- they're opinion pieces.
>
>Did I *say* the Times news page demanded anything?  I don't recall being=
=20
>specific.
>
>That said, the Times' news page made a good deal out of what has turned =
out=20
>to be nothing, devoting many headlines to every turn of the case.  You w=
ant=20
>a case of investigative reporting with nothing to show for it, look no=20
>further.  Rove, Cheney and Bush are in the clear because they always wer=
e.=20
>The times though they had the goods.

You seem to hold them to different standards in the Whitewater case.
That investigation yielded less than the Plame leak did -- absolutely
nothing -- yet it was reported and investigated exhaustively, much
more extensively than the Plame case.

It is the job of reporters to investigate and report. They would not
be doing their job if they did not do so. And a story that involves
the disclosure of a deep-cover CIA agent by at least three high
government officials, the incarceration of two prominent reporters, a
criminal investigation, the deposition of a president, the indictment
and resignation of the Vice President's chief of staff, the President
being caught in a lie and his administration being caught in many, at
least three in the Bush Administration disclosing classified
information to the press, a respected former ambassador making (still)
credible claims of retaliation -- such a story is to say the least big
news and can hardly be ignored.

>>>They revealed the names of countries ading the
>>>US by allowing  us to hold important detainees.
>>
>> So?
>
>It's a direct attempt to undermine the Bush Admin's conduct of the war o=
n=20
>terror.  It's information nobody needs to know, except that it makes the=
=20
>Bush admin appear bad.

It's just the news -- information that's of use to the voting public.

>>>CBS presented false memoes
>>>pretaining to Bush's national guard service in the midst of a presiden=
tial
>>>election.
>>
>> CBS made an error. When it was shown to be an error, they retracted it
>> and their anchor resigned in disgrace. So?
>
>They tried to influence the outcome of a presidential election by report=
ing=20
>a gross falshood as fact.

What you've done here and above is to invent nefarious motives and
accusations when you have no evidence whatsoever that the people
involved had such motives. This is precisely the sort of Republican
behavior of which I've been complaining.

I know some of these people, some of the people in the press, at the
Times, at CBS. They are honest and they are dedicated to their craft
and they know damn well that if for some crazy reason they make things
up they will eventually get caught and their careers will be ruined.
Which is to say that they are not in the least like the lying
sleazeballs in the White House.=20

I am so tired of this crap, of the excuses made for people who have
been shown to have lied again and again and again, and the attacks on
those who ferret out the truth. It's grotesque.

>>>>>This topic is about the coming election and influences on it.  When=20
>>>>>trying
>>>>>to get into the mind of the electorate as a whole, nuance and divers=
ity
>>>>>are
>>>>>lost and a simplified view of a group's POV is the rule of the day. =
 If
>>>>>you
>>>>>think that Democrats are viewed differently than what I'm putting=20
>>>>>forward,
>>>>>please offer your pwn reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take an inventory of recent leftist rhetoric from the point of view =
of a
>>>>>casual news-consumer.  What I come up with is: The democrats want ou=
t of
>>>>>Iraq yeaterday.  The democrats are complaining about US treatment of
>>>>>detainees at guantanamo, opposing coercive interrogation techniques =
that
>>>>>don't sound a whole lot like "torture" and oppose Bush admin wiretap=
s of
>>>>>convos between known terrorists and parties inside the US.  The
>>>>>alternative
>>>>>to Bush's dogged and tired "stay the course" is an unappealing mishm=
ash=20
>>>>>of
>>>>>"consultation and coordination with US allies" but no distinct plan =
to
>>>>>consult and coordinate *around*.  Individuals may have ideas but as =
a
>>>>>group
>>>>>the democrats appear vague and antagonistic
>>>>>
>>>>>What I take from that is much concern for the rights of the bad guys=
 and
>>>>>no
>>>>>concern for actually winning the war that has been thrust on the US.=
  I
>>>>>recognize the possibility that my own opinion is biasing but it's wh=
at I
>>>>>see, as should you.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'd have to ask how making someone stand chained naked for 4=
0
>>>> hours in a cold cell while being doused by ice water or waterboardin=
g
>>>> don't constitute torture.
>>>
>>>Beause they aren't life or body threatening.  The people in the cold r=
oom
>>>aren't freezing fingers or toes off.  Nor are the waterboarded people
>>>actually suffocating.  They are being made very, very uncomfortable.
>>
>> The definition of "torture" is not "life threatening." Indeed, it is
>> not in the interest of the torturer to kill his victim if he wants
>> information.
>
>"Life-threateneing" was only part of my reply.

No, you also called torture "very, very uncomfortable." And I think
that whitewash speaks volumes.

>>>This contrasts with being whipped, beaten, red-hot pokers, pulling out
>>>people's fingernails...
>>
>> And that is torture too.
>
>Damage, often permant damage is being inflicted on people.  There is a=20
>difference.

A DEADLY INTERROGATION
Can the C.I.A. legally kill a prisoner?
by JANE MAYER

'Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi
prisoner in [CIA operative] Swanner=92s custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died
during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag,
and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his
ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have
examined the case, he asphyxiated. In a subsequent internal
investigation, United States government authorities classified
Jamadi=92s death as a =93homicide,=94 meaning that it resulted from
unnatural causes. Swanner has not been charged with a crime and
continues to work for the agency.'

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact

I suppose you'll now say that the fellow who died was merely very,
very indisposed, and that death by hot poker is deader than death by
asphyxiation, and that the New Yorker should not have investigated
because they're aiding and abetting our enemies.

>>>If we caught Osma bin laden tomorrow, I'd sign the order to waterboard=
 him
>>>if I had the authority and the experts concluded it was the proper
>>>technique.
>>>
>>>There would be a temptation to waterboard him just because he's Osama =
and
>>>that would still be wrong.
>>
>> If we caught Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, I would give him a fair trial,
>> confident in my belief that in doing so we would do far more good for
>> our country, and achieve a far greater victory, than we would by
>> obtaining questionable confessions through the utilization of morally
>> repugnant techniques associated with tyrants, thugs, and dictators.
>
>...and by asking with nothing more aggressive than "pretty please with s=
ugar=20
>on top" you'll get nothing actionable, and the open-court trial will ens=
ure=20
>that the intelligence methods used to capture him will be useless in the=
=20
>future, with the alternative being releasing bin laden for lack of evide=
nce=20
>should your administration want to keep methods that work secret.
>
>This is a war, not a criminal matter.  Harsher rules apply.  Trying bin=20
>laden is not a tenth as important as taking his organization apart.  You=
=20
>place too much important on the tiral and too little on what's needed to=
=20
>win.

Even war has rules. The Bush Administration has merely chosen to
ignore them. I'll let an eminent Republican and military man say the
rest:

Dear Senator McCain,

I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in
Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do
not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the
McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one my
[sic] distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and tint his
powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of
our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to
those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It
was written after all the horrors of World War II and General George
C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and
to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those
in our custody.

Sincerely,

Colin Powell

>>>> As to Iraq, there's no clear Democratic solution because there's no
>>>> good solution. Bush has bequeathed the Administration a mess from
>>>> which there's no nice exit, no good solution. As in Vietnam, the bes=
t
>>>> we can hope to do is minimize the damage in the face of the
>>>> understandable reluctance of our allies to take on directly the
>>>> burdens of a mess we made for ourselves, despite their opposition in
>>>> the face of Bush's bullying. (They have been helping us out, but the
>>>> help has been subtler, e.g., by helping in Afghanistan and taking on
>>>> the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.)
>>>
>>>I am unimpressed by 100 (200?) engineers France volunteered for Lebano=
n.
>>
>> So was everybody. They upped it to 2000.
>
>2000 engineers or combat troops?  If it's engineers, I'm still unimpress=
ed.
>
>Has anybody else signed on?

Yes.
>
>
>>>The Democrats have ever stuck to the simplication of Iraq =3D Viet Nam=
=20
>>>because
>>>they wanted Bush =3D LBJ.
>>
>> That sounds like a tendentious fantasy to me. To the extent that some
>> Dems have made that comparison it's because it's the obvious one to
>> make. In the beginning, it seemed to me overblown. Now it does not.
>
>I admit some parallels now and still consider it overblown and convienen=
t.
>
>But then I knew this would be a tough slog from day 1 and wouldn't have=20
>expected the job to be done by now anyway.

Then perhaps you should have been president rather than Dubya, who
announced that victory had been achieved and supported Rumsfeld's
decision to commit an inadequate number of troops.

>>>> For some reason, they haven't done a very good job of getting a
>>>> platform out. It's there -- Pelosi for one has spoken about it -- bu=
t
>>>> they do need a Democratic version of the Contract, particularly sinc=
e
>>>> if as seems likely they gain control of the house the GOP will attem=
pt
>>>> to blame them for the failings of the next two years -- a strategy
>>>> which hasn't been working for them lately because most voters can se=
e
>>>> that the Dems currently have no power.
>>>
>>>When any senator can put a "hold" on legislation he doesn't like, that=
's=20
>>>an
>>>over simplification.
>>
>> In what significant way has the Bush Administration's agenda been
>> blocked by the Dems? They've won victories only when the Adminstration
>> proposed something so outlandish that Republicans crossed the aisle,
>> e.g., the dead out of the cradle Social Security proposal, or they
>> threatened a filibuster. But that's not much. The pres has gotten most
>> of what he wanted, more than most presidents have. And the results
>> speak for themselves.
>
>Bush hasn't asked for much.  The fact is that most of his domestic agend=
a=20
>has been shot down.

That's not true. He got just about everything he asked for -- No
School Left Unpunished, tax cuts for the rich, more tax cuts for the
rich, the Bar Seniors From Buying Cheap Drugs in Canada Act. Didn't
get the Social Security plan, but that was so unworkable even his own
party wouldn't go for it.

>Up until recently he was untouchable in foreign=20
>affairs, but all he's asked for is money to continue the War on terror.
>
>My point isn't that the democrats have a lot of power, but to say that t=
hey=20
>aren't completely impotent as you suggest they are.  Just as the pre-199=
4=20
>minority Republicans weren't completely impotent.

The out-of-power party never is, and of course the in-power party gets
some of the blame for that. But I don't think you can lay much of this
on the Democrats, except to the extent that they assented. They would
have done things differently. And from the perspective of the public,
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the argument that the
country's failures are the Dems responsibility, with the possible
exception of Iraq, for which many of them did vote (trusted Bush, and
now look where it's got them).

>>>> The Gringrich strategy -- less the bellicosity, extremism, posturing=
,
>>>> corruption, callousness, and so forth -- could serve them well: pass=
 a
>>>> laundry list of major democratic initiatives -- energy impendence,
>>>> protection for the American worker, border security, health care,
>>>> fiscal responsibility, defense against terror, honesty in government=
,
>>>> what have you -- and then let the Republicans reject them as they
>>>> surely would. That would show the public clearly where the Dems stan=
d
>>>> and defuse the no doubt Karl Rovian nonsense about the Dems not
>>>> standing for anything (What do you do when your party has fucked
>>>> things up royally? Claim that the other side can't do better.)
>>>
>>>And when the other side is preoccupied with hatred nstead of policy, i=
t
>>>plays in Peoria.
>>
>> More Roveian rubbish. There is much more bellicosity from the
>> Republican side, and has been for years. Or can you show me Democratic
>> legislators accusing President Bush of rape?
>
>That's because "appetite" is Cinton's fatal flaw and isn't Bush's.

Awe, c'mon. Bush was a druggie. Where are the Democratic allegations
that as governor he sold crack to schoolchildren? That would be about
the equivalent of the Clinton rape rubbish.

>And the Republican claim that the other side can't do better IS effectiv=
e.

Yes. It merely isn't true. Kind of a familiar pattern here.

>It is effective because the democrats have limited themselves to carping=
 and=20
>complaining, obstructing and undermining.  Now a genuine opportunity to=20
>reverse their fortunes comes along and they can't exploit it, because=20
>exploiting it would require substance that they haven't been putting out=
=20
>there.

Bull fucking shit:

'In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday,
Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said
Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs
overseas.

'She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to
organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as
the CWA.

'To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are
"fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep.
George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of
workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi
said.

'Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi,
describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used
Wal-Mart to make her point:

' "I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or
her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in
two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite
-- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of
a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must
change that in our country," she said.

'Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain
America's leadership role in the global economy.

[. . . ]

'Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care
for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no
privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.'

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=3D%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C20=
0603%5CPOL20060315b.html

The claim that the Democrats have no agenda or positive proposals is
just another example of the Republican's "lie enough and half the
country will come to believe you" philosophy.

>Most of the elements of the 1994 Contract with America were out there we=
ll=20
>before the election.  So with the democrat  bile and ire against Bush an=
d=20
>republicans.

Clinton was accused of /Rape and murder/ and you accuse the Dems of
bile and ire against Bush and the Republicans? Too much.

--=20
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [.=
..]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he dep=
arted.

- The Gospel of Judas
                               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)