OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....

Where is the slime job? That's just a dumbass spouting off dumb rhetoric. I could give you two Ann Coulter's for every Paul Begala.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Where is the slime job? That's just a dumbass spouting off dumb rhetoric. I could give you two Ann Coulter's for every Paul Begala.

So you don't think that's extremism at its best? Why the double standard?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So you don't think that's extremism at its best? Why the double standard?

I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.

[Arles]

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.

Only if you want to hear it a certain way. Imagine if Rove or someone like said the same thing, it would be blasted as the most extremist statement ever made. If you think Coulter is spouting anything else but dumb rhetoric just like Begala, then you just don't want to hear it. Besides, I think if you were add up all of the rhetoric and noise, it would come out even. It all stinks.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.

Not one slime job in that whole post.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Only if you want to hear it a certain way. Imagine if Rove or someone like said the same thing, it would be blasted as the most extremist statement ever made.

You mean, if Rove said something like:

Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If you think Coulter is spouting anything else but dumb rhetoric just like Begala, then you just don't want to hear it.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.

you and America must require more!! dont stand for mediocrity or lowered standards!!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language could see that he was not calling American soldiers Nazi's, and I'm insulted that that point is even up for debate. Reasonable people can disagree on some points, but misconstruing Durbin's words is just a partisan attack.

Well, though I know you will find it incomprehensible, there are indeed some people with more than a rudimentary grasp of the English language who can and do disagree with your position on Durbin. I did not misconstrue his words, and he apologized for them in Congress. He could have made his point without those unfortunate comparisons. This, too, is a point reasonable people can disagree on.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.

This slime job debate is quite amusing. And I really have no heart for it, since I think both the Clinton and Bush administrations and both sides in Congress have engaged in 'slime jobs' quite relentlessly over the past dozen years or so. It seems to be the way things are done in DC now. So you will get no more argument from me over whether Clinton-Carville was worse than Bush-Rove. A plague on both their houses.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

Quite. As Karl Rove himself told us, professionals compare Democrats to terrorists.

[flere-imsaho]

My conclusions as of today:

1. We will find out that technically, no crime was committed.

2. The press & democratic partisans (myself included - the latter) who jumped on this have been seriously undermined by Wilson & Plame misrepresenting themselves & their story.

3. It should be clear that those who leaked the information did so to discredit the messenger (Wilson) in order to discredit the message (no Iraq-Niger connection). It would be refreshing to see Prosecutor Fitzgerald rebuke everyone involved, on both sides, for being so cavalier with things like the truth, our country's intelligence apparatus, etc... for the sake of political gain.

4. On the "I will fire anyone involved" issue (see below), Bush will continue to stall until he names a SC nominee, after which the story will die under that avalanche.

Yes, I wanted Rove to be caught red-handed and sent to jail. But now that more actual information has come out in the past two weeks, I'm forced to conclude that the evidence that he or Libby committed an actual crime is just too weak. As someone who feels this Administration is filled with very misguided and dangerous individuals, this is very frustrating.


As for Bush The Flip-Flopper:

9/29/03: McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

9/30/03: Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

7/18/05: Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My conclusions as of today:

1. We will find out that technically, no crime was committed.

2. The press & democratic partisans (myself included - the latter) who jumped on this have been seriously undermined by Wilson & Plame misrepresenting themselves & their story.

3. It should be clear that those who leaked the information did so to discredit the messenger (Wilson) in order to discredit the message (no Iraq-Niger connection). It would be refreshing to see Prosecutor Fitzgerald rebuke everyone involved, on both sides, for being so cavalier with things like the truth, our country's intelligence apparatus, etc... for the sake of political gain.

4. On the "I will fire anyone involved" issue (see below), Bush will continue to stall until he names a SC nominee, after which the story will die under that avalanche.

Yes, I wanted Rove to be caught red-handed and sent to jail. But now that more actual information has come out in the past two weeks, I'm forced to conclude that the evidence that he or Libby committed an actual crime is just too weak. As someone who feels this Administration is filled with very misguided and dangerous individuals, this is very frustrating.


As for Bush The Flip-Flopper:

9/29/03: McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

9/30/03: Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

7/18/05: Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

I think you are right on all counts. However, I still think the investigation might hold some surprises. I am of the opinion, for example, that the CIA is full of leaks and leakers, both pro and anti-administration.

BTW, here is a succinct* summary of the whole affair as it stands today from Slate magazine.

http://www.slate.com/id/2122963/

*I use the word 'succinct' with trepidation, since both you and Mr. Bigglesworth have pointed out that my command of the English language is substandard.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

I think you are right on all counts. However, I still think the investigation might hold some surprises.

I agree with you that this is a possibility. It will be interesting to see the final report, especially as I have a pretty high regard for Fitzgerald (who is also in the process of dismantling Daley's administration in Chicago).

*I use the word 'succinct' with trepidation, since both you and Mr. Bigglesworth have pointed out that my command of the English language is substandard.

I usually take "succinct" to mean "short and to the point". While the article is short, it's more just a rehashing of various commentary which is, at this point, being beaten to death. But that's OK, I'm not going to beat you up over it.

One angle I haven't seen anyone take is the idea that the CIA has been trying to be difficult in this, and other, cases, for the Bush Admin. There is some evidence to indicate that the rank-and-file at the CIA have been unhappy with the administration and were downright livid over the appointment of Porter Goss, for instance. I can't say it makes me happy to see that agency so politicized.

Having said that, and on yet another point, I'm more and more of the opinion that we have too many disparate intelligence agencies, from the CIA to the FBI to the NSA to the intelligence parts of the various Armed Forces. It would be nice if this was addressed by some Administration at some point.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....

I'm such and idiot, I took a Republican source at face value. Serves me right for giving them some credit. Here is the full quote:

BEGALA: ...we sit back and allow George W. Bush and our Republican friends to pull out 9/11 like a cheap handgun in a bar fight. Okay? "9/11." There's a drought in the Midwest. "9/11." The deficit's up. "9/11" You know? But, I think we need to fight them on that. I think, frankly they did a piss-poor job of defending us, and their strategy was always "we'll fight them over there so we don't fight them here." Well guess what, bin Laden didn't get the memo. He wants to fight us here as well as we saw in London last week. And so, the- their theory is, "we can't really do everything to protect our country because we have to cut taxes for the rich." And so, it... they want to kill us- particularly this city and New York and some other places. I was driving past the pentagon when that plane hit. I had friends on that plane, this is deadly serious to me- they want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit. You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that.

To anyone with a fundamental grasp of the English language, it is clear that he is saying that terrorists want to kill us. Which really isn't an outrageous statement.

So, in summary, not only could nobody provide any recent Dem slime jobs, but the rhetoric provided was, like the Durbin quote, completely made up. This is why it is impossible to have any kind of decent conversation. The right lies, plain and simple, whether it be Schiavo, SS, Iraq, or even a speech by Paul Begala. It's impossible to wade through the bullshit.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm such and idiot, I took a Republican source at face value. Serves me right for giving them some credit. Here is the full quote:


To anyone with a fundamental grasp of the English language, it is clear that he is saying that terrorists want to kill us. Which really isn't an outrageous statement.

So, in summary, not only could nobody provide any recent Dem slime jobs, but the rhetoric provided was, like the Durbin quote, completely made up. This is why it is impossible to have any kind of decent conversation. The right lies, plain and simple, whether it be Schiavo, SS, Iraq, or even a speech by Paul Begala. It's impossible to wade through the bullshit.

I am glad to know that you are the only one here with a fundamental grasp of the English language.

However, I think you need to take a close look at Begala's use of the personal pronoun "they" in the context of his remarks. The antecedent of "they" is not nearly so clear as you argue. There is a clear trail from "they want to kill us" straight to the Republicans. Let's follow the pronoun, starting with "they want to kill us".

"they want to kill us"
"they want to kill me and my children"
"they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit"

Nowhere does Mr. Begala indicate that the antecedent of "they" has changed. He just asserts that "they" want to kill him and comfort his children with a lower death tax.

Note also that in your citation, Mr. Begala refers to Bin Laden initially in the singular, and Republicans initially in the plural.

So I might ask this: Where precisely does the antecedent of "they" change? Show it where I can see it, not where you assume it is.

But perhaps Mr. Begala was foaming at the mouth by this time and in a fit of Democratic fervor, so maybe his wording was unclear.

[BrianD]

I think you have to go with fervor and unclear wording. In this sentence:

But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit.

It seems pretty clear that the meaning of 'they' has changed. It doesn't make sense that 'they' would try to kill his children and then want to comfort the children if 'they' fail. It sounds like 'they' is supposed to be the terrorists until 'they' (republicans) want his children comforted.

The wording was terrible since the ideas don't make sense if the meaning of 'they' doesn't change.

[JW]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think you have to go with fervor and unclear wording. In this sentence:

It seems pretty clear that the meaning of 'they' has changed. It doesn't make sense that 'they' would try to kill his children and then want to comfort the children if 'they' fail. It sounds like 'they' is supposed to be the terrorists until 'they' (republicans) want his children comforted.

The wording was terrible since the ideas don't make sense if the meaning of 'they' doesn't change.

Lol, but I think you have to look at the conditional "if" here. He says THEY want to kill his children. But then he says IF THEY don't kill his children, then THEY will comfort his children with tax breaks. After all, earlier, he said THEY did a poor job of defending him. So I think it can be argued either way. If he is arguing that Republicans actions in the war on terror place him and his children in danger, then it does make sense.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JW

Lol, but I think you have to look at the conditional "if" here. He says THEY want to kill his children. But then he says IF THEY don't kill his children, then THEY will comfort his children with tax breaks. After all, earlier, he said THEY did a poor job of defending him. So I think it can be argued either way. If he is arguing that Republicans actions in the war on terror place him and his children in danger, then it does make sense.

I don't think you can argue conditional logic here. He was on a roll with his speech, and he sounds like he wasn't being that careful in his word choice.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

I am glad to know that you are the only one here with a fundamental grasp of the English language.

However, I think you need to take a close look at Begala's use of the personal pronoun "they" in the context of his remarks. The antecedent of "they" is not nearly so clear as you argue. There is a clear trail from "they want to kill us" straight to the Republicans. Let's follow the pronoun, starting with "they want to kill us".

"they want to kill us"
"they want to kill me and my children"
"they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit"

Nowhere does Mr. Begala indicate that the antecedent of "they" has changed. He just asserts that "they" want to kill him and comfort his children with a lower death tax.

Note also that in your citation, Mr. Begala refers to Bin Laden initially in the singular, and Republicans initially in the plural.

So I might ask this: Where precisely does the antecedent of "they" change? Show it where I can see it, not where you assume it is.

But perhaps Mr. Begala was foaming at the mouth by this time and in a fit of Democratic fervor, so maybe his wording was unclear.

Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. It says that the simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Here, JW is attempting to prove that the charred tree is the result of an alien landing. He expects me to believe that Begala was accusing the Republicans of trying to kill him and fly planes into buildings, and not terrorists, even though Begala, while having a partisan history, has no record of incendiary comments. It would be much more respectable to just admit that he fell for the right wing ruse the same as I did, and admit that he was as wrong as I was.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. It says that the simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Here, JW is attempting to prove that the charred tree is the result of an alien landing. He expects me to believe that Begala was accusing the Republicans of trying to kill him and fly planes into buildings, and not terrorists, even though Begala, while having a partisan history, has no record of incendiary comments. It would be much more respectable to just admit that he fell for the right wing ruse the same as I did, and admit that he was as wrong as I was.

To use one of Mr. Bigglesworth's tactics and include a condescending insult in my post: Here is Mr. Bigglesworth trying to twist Begala's very clear words to put a square peg into a round hole. I'm just using Begala's own words. Occam's Razor is on my side here. You are the one having to interpret his words. I am giving the simplest explanation, which is that he meant exactly what he said. With your explanation, we have to rely as a matter of faith that WHAT HE REALLY MEANT was what you are saying. Let's take a look at what he actually said again.

"But if THEY just kill me and not my children, THEY want my children to be comforted that while THEY didn't protect me because THEY cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money THEY inherit."

Let's see. He uses THEY five times in the same sentence. It is clear that the last four uses refer to Republicans. Yet you want us to believe that the first use refers to the terrorists, even though Begala gives us no clue at all in the sentence that this is what he meant.

I am very surprised that someone with such wonderous command of the English language as compared to, for example, mine, has such a hard time understanding such a simple idea. THEY are evil. Who is evil? The Republicans.

And look at the very next sentence: "You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that."

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JW

To use one of Mr. Bigglesworth's tactics and include a condescending insult in my post: Here is Mr. Bigglesworth trying to twist Begala's very clear words to put a square peg into a round hole. I'm just using Begala's own words. Occam's Razor is on my side here. You are the one having to interpret his words. I am giving the simplest explanation, which is that he meant exactly what he said. With your explanation, we have to rely as a matter of faith that WHAT HE REALLY MEANT was what you are saying. Let's take a look at what he actually said again.

"But if THEY just kill me and not my children, THEY want my children to be comforted that while THEY didn't protect me because THEY cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money THEY inherit."

Let's see. He uses THEY five times in the same sentence. It is clear that the last four uses refer to Republicans. Yet you want us to believe that the first use refers to the terrorists, even though Begala gives us no clue at all in the sentence that this is what he meant.

I am very surprised that someone with such wonderous command of the English language as compared to, for example, mine, has such a hard time understanding such a simple idea. THEY are evil. Who is evil? The Republicans.

And look at the very next sentence: "You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that."

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?

I have to ask....do you really believe everything you just wrote?

[JW]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I have to ask....do you really believe everything you just wrote?

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game. I believe Begala mispoke in the heat of the moment. I do, however, think it could be argued that perhaps this was a Freudian slip, that he said what he really feels, but that he didn't really mean to say it that way.

I also believe anyone hearing what he said or reading it later could have reasonably come to the conclusion that he was saying Republicans want to kill him. The wording is that unclear. And I believe Bigglesworth is wrong in that respect, that this is not an attempt to put words into his mouth, but an example of him speaking so unclearly that his meaning is unclear and open to various interpretations. This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.

I think it would be interesting to hear Begala clarify his words. I haven't heard of a clarification yet, though that doesn't mean he hasn't done so.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?

That is a completely different statement. I agree that GOP policy is more likely to get me killed, that doesn't mean that I think they are trying to kill me.

Originally Posted by JW

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game.

You posted something obviously false, pointing out that it was a lie is not playing any kind of game, it's telling the truth, and I don't think there should be disdain for the truth.

Originally Posted by JW

This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.

Drudge and the Washington Times, no agendas there.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That is a completely different statement. I agree that GOP policy is more likely to get me killed, that doesn't mean that I think they are trying to kill me.


You posted something obviously false, pointing out that it was a lie is not playing any kind of game, it's telling the truth, and I don't think there should be disdain for the truth.


Drudge and the Washington Times, no agendas there.

Goodness, chill. This is an internet forum, and you like to play games on it. And I didn't post a lie. Begala said what he said, and what he said is open to interpretation. I think his muddled words revealed his heart. You pointed out no lie, just that your interpretation of his confused words is different from other interpretations by people who apparently don't understand English as well as you do. I would like to hear his clarification of his remarks.

[MrBigglesworth]

George W Bush said that Democrats are holding terrorists, and that if they don't give them up he will kill them all!!!

Originally Posted by GWB

They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

hxxp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

JW, please don't play any games and deny that he said that.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

George W Bush said that Democrats are holding terrorists, and that if they don't give them up he will kill them all!!!

hxxp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

JW, please don't play any games and deny that he said that.

Tit, tat, tit, tat. Begala's "they" is still unclear. Show me again, based on his words, how we can be absolutely certain that your interpretation of his words is correct. Show me how you arrive at an antecedent of the first "they" (in the sentence with five "they's") that is not "Republicans". Diagram that sentence for me.

BTW, I don't deny that Bush said what you quote him as saying. Happy?

Finally, I did a thorough internet search on Begala's speech, and all I can come up with are people arguing over what Begal meant. I found a very good discussion of his vague pronoun antecedents at one site that basically paralleled mine. The best that can be said is that his words were confusing. You are 100% wrong in supposing that it is perfectly clear what he meant. Nevertheless, I just think he went off the deep end for a minute and just spluttered, which comes out very poorly when you read it or hear it. During my own days of speaking to the media, I sometimes had to go back and look at the tape to see if I actually said what I meant to say, lol.

We can keep at this all night. (Well, no, because I have other things to do, like sleep.) But if you can agree that Begala's words were terribly unclear and can be interpreted by reasonable people in several ways as spoken, then I will agree that he doesn't really think Republicans want to kill him.

[MrBigglesworth]

He mentioned that 'they' were flying planes into buildings, intent on attacking NY and DC, and wanting to kill us. That sounds more like terrorists to me than GOP, but according to you reasonable people may differ. Perhaps you hold the GOP in that low esteem, but I don't think Begala is that insane.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Originally Posted by John Galt
I am not in anyway a "partisan" lefty. I just happen to be intellectually honest.

OK, you got me here. Where's the smiley?

I am certainly willing to admit I am partisan to the right. I find it quite humerous that you feel you are non-partisan. But don't let me rain on your parade.

Unlike you, Arles, I actually have some knowledge and appreciation of history. I opposed ridiculous foreign interventions when they were the democrats pipe dream for changing the world. I supported free trade and engagement as strategies for dealing with "rogue" regimes when it used to be the GOP strategy. I have voted for the GOP, libertarian party, and the Dems for President. I generally support a split government because I believe government functions best when it is not run by ideologues (like you and Bush).

I know your narrow worldview requires you to pigeonhole me in a little box, but I am no "lefty" and many views I have do not belong in your silly categorization system.

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.

[KWhit]

Ouch.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

He mentioned that 'they' were flying planes into buildings, intent on attacking NY and DC, and wanting to kill us. That sounds more like terrorists to me than GOP, but according to you reasonable people may differ. Perhaps you hold the GOP in that low esteem, but I don't think Begala is that insane.

I think Begala got so worked up with hatred for the right that he became nearly incomprehensible, leaving others on the left to explain what he apparently really meant.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Unlike you, Arles, I actually have some knowledge and appreciation of history. I opposed ridiculous foreign interventions when they were the democrats pipe dream for changing the world. I supported free trade and engagement as strategies for dealing with "rogue" regimes when it used to be the GOP strategy. I have voted for the GOP, libertarian party, and the Dems for President.

I have voted for both Clinton and George W. Bush. In fact, I served on the Clinton campaign in 1996. Not sure how that makes me any less conservative now or partisan on certain issues. People change, John, and it's obvious to anyone caring to read these threads that a vast majority of anything stated by this administration or justices like Thomas and Scalia will be subject to criticism by yourself. I know it upsets you to think that you may not be completely non-partisan on every issue, but the reality is that you are not. And, quite honestly, neither am I.

The difference is I openly admit it and try to take that inheirant bias into account when making decisions, whereas you completely ignore it hoping if you don't acknowledge it that it will not exist.

I know your narrow worldview requires you to pigeonhole me in a little box, but I am no "lefty" and many views I have do not belong in your silly categorization system.

John, I think your comments and first response of slinging personal insults show that you do, in fact, belong in a "silly categorization system" - despite how much you wish it was not the case.

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.

Yeah, John, you are nothing like I explained above

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

I have voted for both Clinton and George W. Bush. In fact, I served on the Clinton campaign in 1996. Not sure how that makes me any less conservative now or partisan on certain issues. People change, John, and it's obvious to anyone caring to read these threads that a vast majority of anything stated by this administration or justices like Thomas and Scalia will be subject to criticism by yourself. I know it upsets you to think that you may not be completely non-partisan on every issue, but the reality is that you are not. And, quite honestly, neither am I.

The difference is I openly admit it and try to take that inheirant bias into account when making decisions, whereas you completely ignore it hoping if you don't acknowledge it that it will not exist.


John, I think your comments and first response of slinging personal insults show that you do, in fact, belong in a "silly categorization system" - despite how much you wish it was not the case.


Yeah, John, you are nothing like I explained above

And yet again, you don't get it. I oppose ideologues with power. If Chubby ran the USA, I would be horribly opposed to him. It has nothing to do with "left" or "right." It has to do with power and those who exercise it without wisdom. My "party" is anti-ideology. Your "party" is blindly parroting whatever the day's right-wing talking points are. If JoninmiddleGA is fascist (of which there can be little doubt), then you are proto-fascist (even though you disagree with Jon). You make evil possible by having no ability to differentiate "truth" from "falsehood." You and Jon are just two variations on what is ruining this country and I oppose you both for it.

[Arles]

For someone who disdains being placed in a "silly categorization system", you certainly have no problem doing the same to others. John, if you want to think you are some crusading "anti-idealogue" who is able to look at all situations with a completely open mind, then far be it for me to burst your bubble.

Just remember, your actions dictate how people view you much more than any statements you make regarding how you would like people to view you. But, then again, for a sell-professed anti-ideologue, anyone who doesn't view you in the above terms you setup for yourself must be blindly partisan, right?

[Glengoyne]

I'm surprised this thread is still around, It was a number of pages back when I left for vacation. I haven't read it all, but I'm hoping the last five pages aren't just filled the type of bickering at the top of this page.

As for my position on Rove and the "leaking" of a CIA operative's name. I think the ship has pretty well sailed on any realistic thoughts of that particular charge being brought.

As for the motivation behind the leak. It seems to me that the details that have been released indicate he was connecting the dots for the reporter. The wife's CIA affiliation was only used to show how she was part of the chain of events that sent Wilson to Africa. It certainly doesn't seem to have been done in retribution.

I still don't think it is clear exactly how covert Plame/Wilson was. There have been some reports that those who knew her knew where she went to work, and others that maintain that she was covert. As for the CIA's request for an investigation, that is apparently their standard procedure when one of their employee's affiliation is revealed. I read one article indicatint that those requests come at the rate of about one a week. I don't think that is quite as damning as some have suggested.

As for this last page. I think JW was one of the more cogent posters earlier in the thread, but he is hurting himself by holding Begala's comments to his narrow interpretation.

Oh and John. Face it, you are a partisan lefty. You wear it on your sleeve. You aren't helping your intellectual integrity rating by maintaining otherwise. You might be an independent thinker, and sometimes disagree with the left or agree with the right, but that doesn't make you independent. If we held a poll on your left/right/center affiliation, the trout would get more votes than the center, and the right column would be extraneous. Being partisan isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm considered quite partisan to the right here on this board, eventhough I often take positions contrary to the Republican party in general. My family considers me a right wing whacko, my wife's family think I'm a closet liberal. Go figure. The thing that shouldn't really be in dispute is that your image here is one of a raging liberal.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by John Galt

If Chubby ran the USA, I would be horribly opposed to him.

What do you mean "if"? I did for 8 years, you voted for me. Traitor...

[JW]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for this last page. I think JW was one of the more cogent posters earlier in the thread, but he is hurting himself by holding Begala's comments to his narrow interpretation.

Well, if you read the thread you will see I was only holding Begala to the narrow interpretation for Mr. Bigglesworth, and not for everyone else. I just decided since Mr. B chose to question my command of the English language, that he and I could have some fun on unclear pronoun antecedents. I do feel Begala's comments were so muddled that reasonable people can (and still are, if you do a google search) arguing about what he really meant. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt, except where Mr. B is concerned.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JW

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game. I believe Begala mispoke in the heat of the moment. I do, however, think it could be argued that perhaps this was a Freudian slip, that he said what he really feels, but that he didn't really mean to say it that way.

I also believe anyone hearing what he said or reading it later could have reasonably come to the conclusion that he was saying Republicans want to kill him. The wording is that unclear. And I believe Bigglesworth is wrong in that respect, that this is not an attempt to put words into his mouth, but an example of him speaking so unclearly that his meaning is unclear and open to various interpretations. This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.

I think it would be interesting to hear Begala clarify his words. I haven't heard of a clarification yet, though that doesn't mean he hasn't done so.

Considering the Dems liked to say the Republicans wanted to "starve our kids" during budget debates over school lunch programs, I don't think it is such a reach to conclude that Begala wants people to think that the GOP wants to kill him.

Of course, we are talking about DC and DC insiders. Only in DC is a budget cut considered a cut in the rate of growth from one year to the next.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Oh and John. Face it, you are a partisan lefty. You wear it on your sleeve. You aren't helping your intellectual integrity rating by maintaining otherwise. You might be an independent thinker, and sometimes disagree with the left or agree with the right, but that doesn't make you independent. If we held a poll on your left/right/center affiliation, the trout would get more votes than the center, and the right column would be extraneous. Being partisan isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm considered quite partisan to the right here on this board, eventhough I often take positions contrary to the Republican party in general. My family considers me a right wing whacko, my wife's family think I'm a closet liberal. Go figure. The thing that shouldn't really be in dispute is that your image here is one of a raging liberal.

The simple test for me is that while I am heavily critical of the GOP (mostly because they have become the party of idealogues), I would be equally afraid if Ted Kennedy were running this country. Bill Clinton was far from a "good" president in my mind and I think he is roughly the equivalent of Bush I in terms of ideologue-ness. Dubya, on the other hand, is the most ideological president the U.S. has had since F.D.R. (maybe Kennedy).

I hold many views (tolerance, valuing diversity, respect for individualism) that have become part of what people consider "leftist." However, I am in way committed to the values of a "partisan left." I don't believe anything the Dems talking points say. I don't hold any leftist politician in particularly high regard. And I don't really care for any left-wing organization. So, how I am a "partisan" lefty is really beyond me. It conflates someone with values on the left with someone who is committed to a party and its politicians. There is a BIG difference.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The simple test for me is that while I am heavily critical of the GOP (mostly because they have become the party of idealogues), I would be equally afraid if Ted Kennedy were running this country. Bill Clinton was far from a "good" president in my mind and I think he is roughly the equivalent of Bush I in terms of ideologue-ness. Dubya, on the other hand, is the most ideological president the U.S. has had since F.D.R. (maybe Kennedy).

I hold many views (tolerance, valuing diversity, respect for individualism) that have become part of what people consider "leftist." However, I am in way committed to the values of a "partisan left." I don't believe anything the Dems talking points say. I don't hold any leftist politician in particularly high regard. And I don't really care for any left-wing organization. So, how I am a "partisan" lefty is really beyond me. It conflates someone with values on the left with someone who is committed to a party and its politicians. There is a BIG difference.

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from, and understand that. I was just stating that perception is reality, and that your perception of yourself differs from the perception I believe most here have of you.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem, JW, is that you're talking about a transcript, which mean's Begala's words have been stripped of any non-word communication (i.e. inflection, body language, etc...). While I can see your point based on a very narrow reading of the actual words, it looks to me to be too big of a leap to make when, in hearing, it may have sounded (and been meant), very, very differently.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from, and understand that. I was just stating that perception is reality, and that your perception of yourself differs from the perception I believe most here have of you.

I'm not going to disagree with you on this. You are 100% right.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The problem, JW, is that you're talking about a transcript, which mean's Begala's words have been stripped of any non-word communication (i.e. inflection, body language, etc...). While I can see your point based on a very narrow reading of the actual words, it looks to me to be too big of a leap to make when, in hearing, it may have sounded (and been meant), very, very differently.

I agree.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

After reading the last couple of pages: JW and credibility, never the twain shall meet.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

After reading the last couple of pages: JW and credibility, never the twain shall meet.

If you say so, and I have no fundamental grasp of the English language either.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.

I'd have to tend to agree. Arles has turned into the Bubba Wheels Republican on this board.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Hmm....that 'S' could stand for anything!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002517_pf.html

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

[Flasch186]

ouch...that S stands for scandalous behavior regardless of whether Rove broke the "law". He needs to have a higher moral set.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

He needs to have a higher moral set.

Not in the Bush White House, who's 'bringing dignity back' campaign is now a strict 'no felons'* policy.

*Does not apply to incidents related to Watergate, Iran-Contra