RoR: Forum

All right, all right! I can't take the suspense any longer! I've just got to spill the beans now ... it was Bush. That's right, Bush was the one with the most "high-ranking" (Cabinet?) departures linked to corruption. And THAT'S what is shared between the 4 NeoCons: Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz -- being charged with corruption.

Unless, of course, someone beat him at this? ...

Ed

Post 21

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 6:52pm

Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld is a neocon, and they have both served in previous administrations. Of course this administration has the most investigations, it is the most recent and the trend has been ever upwards since Watergate.

Compare what the investigations are for. How many FBI files did Laura Bush pore over? How many Rose law firm land sale and S&L scandals is she involved in? How many people has bush sodomized or felt up? How many people has Bush pardoned for a fee? How many times has he lied under oath?

What can you say? That Scooter Libby gave conflicting testimony about a non-crime?

Just say you don't like the man, or his policies.

What does any of this "investigating" prove, signify or import?

Nothing.

Post 22

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:58am

Dishonor Where Dishonor is Due

Just to clarify, lest I sound partisan, I absolutely loathed GHWB and Clinton, and am about as disappointed with GWB as you can be without hating the man. But there's no point in crediting people with virtues they don't have or smearing them for acts they didn't commit. Justice demands credit where credit id due and blame where blame is due but not demonization or making excuses. There wasn't a single Republican who ran in 2000 that I liked, Gore, of course, being about as attractive as the antiChrist. I was simply happy that MCain didn't get the nomination, and happily voted Ralph Nader to mess with the Dems. (Funny, living here in NY I knew that Bush wouldn't win the state, so I count as one of those traitorous Dems who let Nader spoil the election for Gore - Ha!)

In any case, whatever you think of Bush's policies, it's obvious the man has always acted in good faith, no matter how stupidly, ineptly or disastrously. Why not deride him for his trust of Putin or that woman he nominated to the supreme court (such a non-entity I'm not even going to google her to jog my memory for her name.) Reality is enough on which to judge the man. In Washington you can investigate a ham sandwich for partisan gain - it has nothing to do with existence outside the minds of the denizens of the beltway. If anything, GWB's dishonor is that he has allowed so many pointless witchhunts and fishing expeditions to go on. They didn't find Valerie Plame dead in a park near Washington. Scooter Libby should get a pardon in full, even Christopher "Shoot Kissinger at Dawn" Hitchens agrees.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/30, 11:00am)

Post 23

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 10:03am

But there's no point in crediting people with virtues they don't have or smearing them for acts they didn't commit. Justice demands credit where credit is due and blame where blame is due but not demonization or making excuses.

In any case, whatever you think of Bush's policies, it's obvious the man has always acted in good faith, no matter how stupidly, ineptly or disastrously.

Reality is enough on which to judge the man. (Ted Keer)

.

Amen.

Thank you, Ted.

Post 24

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:51pm

Ted,

I sanctioned post 22 because of how good you were at making your points (and also because most of them can be known to be true -- and likely are). The other points can't, but I looked the other way out of rhetorical generosity -- and just judged the whole post as a beautiful entity, warts and all.

Seriously, does anyone know how hard it would be to argue politics with ONLY statements that can really be known to be true? I mean, you couldn't say hardly anything about anybody -- with THAT high of a standard of debate! No, the best we have will be logical inferences, and noted outcomes -- and that is all that we will ever truly have in discussions of politics (everything else is really only mitigated mud-slinging and opinion-bashing). So, knowing what we can only ever truly have, we'll have to base our judgments on reference to the "best-explanation" and on the concrete outcomes.

Referencing to some of the best explanations for some of the things Bush has been involved with; simply just does not look too good for him (and outcomes paint a picture even blacker). You can bark all day with the mantras: "But do you REALLY know that?" or "He couldn't help it!" or "He was just trying to be the lesser evil. SURELY you aren't suggesting to put the g-damned DEMs in charge!" -- but all of that is just mitigated mud-slinging.

Judge Bush by the best explanations -- note: this doesn't mean "put him in the best light, first"; instead, "best" means 'most logical', not 'most generous' -- and by the noted outcomes of his policies (loss of economic and political freedom) and his procedures (loss of public trust in the Execute Branch).

Ed

Post 25

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 10:35pm

Ted,

Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld is a neocon ...

You can't prove they aren't. But, alas, as I was the one making this positive statement about them -- the burden of proof rests on my shoulders (perhaps I'll further examine the evidence for or against this).

Of course this administration has the most investigations, it is the most recent and the trend has been ever upwards since Watergate.

Is that a fact? It sure sounds true, but can it be known to be so?

What can you say? That Scooter Libby gave conflicting testimony about a non-crime?

I wouldn't put it so simply -- though I admit there's a reason to (either a logical reason to, or one that flows from an underlying agenda).

... Just say you don't like the man, or his policies.

All I know is I don't trust him. Be honest Ted (or anyone reading this), do you? Who here would consider Scooter Libby as a potential, personal friend?

What does any of this "investigating" prove, signify or import?

Nothing.

I wouldn't put it so simply -- though I admit there's a reason to (either a logical reason to, or one that flows from an underlying agenda).

Ed

Post 26

Saturday, September 1, 2007 - 9:29pm

Ed, that's a slimy thing to say about Libby. In so far as he is a politician, then I am suspicious of him. But the whole point is that it was Dick Armitage, a liberal GHWB type Republican, who opposed the war, who revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak. The prosecutor knew this, and knew it was not Libby who revealed her identity. And she wasn't undercover anyway. Libby talked to reporters to call him to ask about Plame who had sent her own husband, Wislon, to Africa to investigate Saddam's search for Uranium. We have the documents now that show that Saddam was indeed trying to get Uranium, but Wilson, who opposed going to war, said that there was no evidence against Saddam. So we have a political advisor who had testified ambiguously about to whom and when he talked about the fact that Plame who opposed the war had assigned her own husband (conflict of interest) to investigate the situation objectively. Libby was prosecuted politically for a non-crime and that's basically all any of us know about him. I can't judge on that basis whether that makes him a good person to with whom to be friends.

Libby will be tarred for life with this story, while "secret agent" Plame, who had outed herself on a magazine cover, will not be prosecuted for nepotism or conflict of interest. Who will take the time to understand this confusing story? Hitchens has, you can read him in detail, but if anything, I hope Libby has good friends, because he's going to need them. For the rest of his life, he'll be a convicted perjuror about no crime, and the butt of jokes of people who won't be able to explain why he deserves derision.

I pause to note Richard Jewell's passing, anyone remember him?

Ted Keer

Ted Keer

Post 27

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 8:51am

Who will take the time to understand this confusing story? Hitchens has, you can read him in detail, but if anything, I hope Libby has good friends, because he's going to need them. For the rest of his life, he'll be a convicted perjuror about no crime, and the butt of jokes of people who won't be able to explain why he deserves derision. (Ted Keer)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Ted!

I am so sick of hearing people comment on this story without having a clue as to what it's about. But Scooter Libby is much more than the butt of jokes, he is a "symbol of the corruption of the Bush Administration" for millions of clueless people.

I pause to note Richard Jewell's passing, anyone remember him?

Sure, the most famous wrongly accused person in recent memory. Was his story particularly significant to you, Ted?

Post 28

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 9:31am

Richard Jewell

I have no personal connection to the Richard Jewell case, but I do remember hearing a mocking reference made about him as recent as this year. The poor man was a hero, probably saving the lives of several people in 1996, his personal affairs were aired in the press after his home was invaded, and after 11 years of undeserved infamy, endless Letterman jokes, and no effective apology by anyone, he is dead in his mid-forties. He should be awarded the equivalent of a purple heart, a memorial in Atlanta, and the comedians who attacked him should make pilgrimages to his gravesite, and hefty donations to subsidize the education of his next of kin.

And what did he do? If you don't know, do him the honor of looking him up on google.

=====

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is what we have all too few of today, an actual investigative and analytical reporter. He is not a pretty face who reads press releases. He has a point of view - but he doesn't hide behind it. He lets you know his opinion and the facts (no matter how obscure and unknown to the anchor types reading cue cards) and he lets you know how the facts support his opinions. And he even proudly admits his own errors. Here is a link to an index of writings by and about him available on the web. "Free Scooter Libby" is about a dozen entries down.

Ted Keer

Post 29

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 6:43pm

Ted,

Ed, that's a slimy thing to say about Libby.

Agreed, but not retracted.

In so far as he is a politician, then I am suspicious of him.

So ... you would/wouldn't consider him a potential personal friend?

But the whole point is that it was Dick Armitage, a liberal GHWB type Republican, who opposed the war, who revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak.

That's the trouble with politics -- as I alluded to above. Ted, you're only one line into your post and you've already gone too far down the rabbit hole. As I said in post 24 (yet not in so many words), the: what, when, where, why, and how someone said something to somebody which somehow affected somebody else, is not an argument. When we're dealing with signed documents, fine -- let's argue the points rationally. When we're dealing with: he/said, she/said first, or: he/said, she/said in a more important way than others have -- we're engaged in mitigated mud-slinging. What did I say about that? Something about the debate participants not being much smarter than animals.

It devolves into a Team-Sport mentality, where there's been a call on a play, and the referee is charged by members from both sides -- one side yelling "fair" (as if yelling helps); and the other side yelling "foul." That's not an argument, it's an emotional tie, one often overwhelming logical capacities. The big picture understanding here -- that there's been tons of corruption recently (both legalized and covert) -- gets lost in the foray. Each point that must be conceded -- on pain of being called out as if in denial -- is rapidly swooshed aside and another, less-certain point of argument is immediately taken up (as if winning in a different point of argument somehow evens-out "the score" between the 2 sides in this "game").

"Let's argue about these details over here!" -- "No, let's argue about those details over there!"

How about we argue about whether this country, as a whole, has become less free since Bush took office? Isn't that what's most important anyway? Isn't that what it would be in our best interests to focus on? Isn't that the thing that matters most to our individual happinesses?

Ed
[it's easy to spot a "team player" -- and it's much harder to referee, than to "play" this public "game"]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/03, 6:54pm)

Post 30

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 9:59pm

Ed,

I am glad you did not take offense at "slimy." I tried to find a better word for your sake, but couldn't. My distrtust of politicos in general does not validate your calumny of this one in particular.

And how do I know you're not a paid operative of CAIR, for that matter? Look at the standard of guilt you used when you first mentioned him. To paraphrase Rand, on that basis, how do I know you're not a serial killer?

If you wish to argue that we are less free - then certainly you can do so. But you seem to be uninterested in the facts about Libby, while willing to repeat what I know, based on the facts, to be a smear.

I really don't care about this specific non-issue of libby enough to write more about it, unless you want to read that notorious marxist neocon-sympathizer Hitchens, and dispute his facts in print.

As for less free - that should be easy - point out some real abuses, like the 700 solely Republican FBI dossiers perused by Clinton, or JFK's surveillance of MLK. Just one actually and significantly harmed US innocent citizen not the victim of a good faith effort to protect our right to life during war - and then we'll have a subject for discussion.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/04, 7:28am)

Post 31

Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 1:20am

Ted, I disagree with your mode of operation.

Just one actually and significantly harmed US innocent citizen not the victim of a good faith effort to protect our right to life during war - and then we'll have a subject for discussion.

That kind of statement -- one which could have been successfully used by Hitler and Stalin (in the "beginning") -- gets mileage out of the fact not that folks have been hurt as they must've, but on the fact that it's hard for lay folk to track down and measure the harm. The incorrect thinking is that if you, as a layman, can't accurately measure the harm -- then you don't have the right to speak of it.

That's not intellectually honest.

Ed

Post 32

Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 6:17am

Oh, come on Ed. You are making a positive claim, for which I am asking just one unambiguous example, and it is I who am being intellectually dishonest? I could (if I cared to) list hundreds of American citizens whose right the Clintons violated, with those 700 FBI files being just the simplest example.

(And it's not as if Hitler and the communists hid their outright intent to seize dictatorial statist control or paid lip service to individual rights. Even Kerry and Gore have published their own leftist manifestos. Bush has said what that makeshim so threatening?)

The burden of proof is on you here. GWB's only abuse of power of which I am aware is his unwillingness to use his power as vigorously as he should.

We can drop this matter, if you like, but not on the claim that I am being dishonest. As I said - I will address any evidence you adduce.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/04, 7:32am)

Post 33

Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - 8:26pm

Ted,

Alright Ted, you've got a point. I made a positive statement ("Freedom's been lost"), so I've got to put some money where my mouth is (or shut up my mouth about it). I can't leave it so vague, that just won't do here. However, instead of naming a few people harmed by GW Bush, I'm going to single out a few who've been helped by him* -- at the expense of "Joe Ullyses.Scott. Taxpayer" (or Joe U.S. Taxpayer, for short).

Note that this is still a rights violation -- when a select few have been helped at everyone else's expense -- even if the expense is spread out to an average of only 5 cents per US taxpayer (all going for a few men's unearned benefit). Bush signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act ...

The initital outcome?
A 41% increase in government spending on the Agriculture Department. Needed? No. Harmful? Yes.

The final outcomes?
Ken Lay got $22,000 in farm subsidies. Needed? No.
Ted Turner got $491,000 in farm subsidies. Needed? No.
David Rockefeller got $524,000 in farm subsidies. Needed? Gimme' a fricken' break.
Fred Starrh, a California cotton-grower with 12,000 acres, got $3.5 Million (yes, a 3 and a 5, followed by 5 zero's).

Presidents willing to commit such redistributive atrocities against their own citizens should be blacklisted. GW Bush -- a president all too willing to commit such atrocities against his own people -- should be blacklisted. This is true because he earned that kind of a response from us citizens of the United States of America (and people should always get what they earn, never more nor less than that). The people run this country. Bush is only a public servant. He ought to be treated that way, too. He's in office because we allow him to be, and for no other reason. And he should be yanked from office for what he's done with the job so far.

GW Bush has been a bad president for our country, as is evidenced above (with the kind of specific example which you had requested of me, Ted).

I will address any evidence you adduce.

Please do.

Ed
[*adapted from Stossel's book about "Downright Stupidity" in this country)

Post 34

Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - 8:51pm

Hitchens/Paglia 2008!

Come on now, Ed. I don't support farm subsidies. Bush didn't invent farm subsidies. They've been around continuously since FDR and periodically even longer. They continue because the western states are overrepresented in the Senate. Of course Bush has been entirely derelict in his non-use of the veto power. If you want to know my idea of a good president, you should do a little research on Andrew Johnson and Grover Cleveland, two of the best we've had outside the well known ones. (I suggest this research seriously.)

And I believe Ted Koppel and Bobdole also do still get or have gotten farm subsidies. What of it? Even Reagan couldn't get rid of them, and he promised to do that and to get rid of the department of Education.

We should let the matter drop. I have only ever viewed Bush as at best a lesser evil. He has done one very good thing, very poorly, so far as I am concerned. When it gets down to Rudy vs. Hillary I'll be much more supportive of Rudy, whom I like as much as I like rabid pitbulls, than I ever have been of Bush. Then you can start blaming me for supporting a thrice-married, Miliken-bashing, loose-cannon Skeletor, as I predict the press will portray Rudy.

Heck, I'd vote Hitchens/Paglia if I could - and even they wouldn't be able to get rid of farm subsidies.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/06, 1:42pm)

Post 35

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 7:38am

Ted and Ed,

A president should not be judged as if he could start all anew from zero. Every president enters the stage in the ever-growing monster of bureaucracy that is already there. Those bureaucrats do the job of parasites. They will not just get away, because a new president says so and even a willing new president could not do it completely, unless he is willing to start nothing less then a revolution.

Whether or not to more appreciate then detest a new president should be measured against the monster he is facing. If a president succeeds in lowering the overall power and influence of bureaucrats then he is on the good side, more then on the evil side. You might even argue him being on the good side if he could only so much as slow down the continuing growth of bureaucracy.

Jan

Post 36

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 9:57am

Excellent point, Jan.

Post 37

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 9:09pm

Jan,

You might even argue him being on the good side if he could only so much as slow down the continuing growth of bureaucracy.

A fair point, but then so becomes this follow-up question: Which of the following is true of GW?

a) sped up the growth of bureaucracy (as related to growth in real GDP)
b) maintained the growth of bureaucracy (as related to growth in real GDP)
c) slowed down the growth of bureaucracy (as related to growth in real GDP)
d) stopped the growth of bureaucracy (as related to growth in real GDP)
e) shrunk bureaucracy (as related to growth in real GDP)

Note that one of the answers above has to be true (they can't all be false).

For example, take the 41% increase in spending on agriculture. Check it against the concurrent increases in real GDP. Make note of those same factors in the previous 5 presidential terms -- and then be prepared to Judge GW on what is found (rather than what is wished).

What is found?

Ed

Post 38

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 9:33pm

It has nothing to do with arms sales, Libby, or actual corruption in his cabinet (of which I am still unaware) but the metastatic growth of spending under GWB and his congresses has been a vicious disgrace, and the Republican's loss of majority in 2006 was well deserved.

Ted

Post 39

Sunday, September 9, 2007 - 11:10pm