Thankful Alberto Gonzales resigned
We can all be thankful that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has finally decided to resign, but if my true feelings were known I wish everyone in the Senior Administration of Bush Administration were also gone today.
Vice President Dick Cheney has always touted as pushed the neo-con agenda for President Bush. We will only be safe as a Nation when he is gone.
Even if there are 511 days left in this Administration, they can still do too much damage in the MidEast and elsewhere. Personally, sometime I worry that they will still attack Iran?? We don’t need any fear in the homeland — that’s exactly what they want to see happen to supposely ensure the White House in 2008 elections. Vice President Dick Cheney would be blowing his horn the loudest for attack on Iran — we cannot take that chance of escalating the mideast any more —-
This letter has not been edited.
As long as there is a sizeable portion of our country susceptible to the fearmongering tactics of Bush and Cheney, we'll never be truly safe. Just another name and face will take their place.
I mean, does anyone honestly think Bush will now appoint someone truly impartial and fair in place of Gonzales?
Anyway, I predicted months ago that Bush would hang Gonzales out to dry. He was the fall guy for an apparently untouchable Rove, who is really the one behind the firings, just as Libby was Rove's fallguy, who was really behind outing a COVERT, YES, COVERT CIA agent, not Richard Armitage.
Posted by mytwosense on September 4, 2007 03:04 PMThe problem with Bush leaving is that it would create a power vacuum. Bush's authoritarian style of rule is the only thing keeping this fragmented country together. Without his brutal (dictatorial?) style, the two warring factions (conservatives and liberals) of this nation would plunge us into civil war, and it would be decades before the damage was undone.
Posted by Grog on September 4, 2007 03:22 PMmytwosene[less]
Plame was about as covert as you are nonpartisan..both are an extreme stretch of imagination or truth. Plame was a bimbo home office employee who looked for fame and fortune by screaming foul since nobody watched her driving into and out of the CIA Hdqtrs everyday. You're so far left of realism that you pull poster keith into center position as being open and objective.
and that's my two sense worth...
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:51 PMGrog, very good. That one is a keeper. Yes she was covert, the CIA said so, nah nah nah, so there.
Post a name, or would we recognize it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 04:10 PMcindy and the rest of you meatballs have to get off the dope.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 04:20 PMnow who would the dums recommend for a judge? I bet it would be someone who would make new laws that they cant pass in congress.
sharon you must think the world of yourself. the only undercover work plame has done in 10 years was with clinton or her husband.
and when you grow up to the ripe age of 3 please let us know.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:29 PMIf the roles were reversed and a Democrat were President while all of this was happening the Republicans would be screaming for impeachment. Plame would have been a breach of national security and they would be screaming for us to get out of the quagmire in Iraq and hang the traitors that outed her. Of course on the other side people would be defending the Democrat held responsible as well. The division is what keeps them in power and in control. I have tried many times to have rational interaction with some people here but it is impossible with people like Keith and those who refer to those they disagree with by calling them defeatocrats, liberal cowards etc. However there are some who can interact and that is hopeful. We need to get past the party line or we are really in trouble.
Posted by Mike D. on September 4, 2007 05:59 PMMike D
Good luck on your quest to get folks to quit parroting party lines and realize that both parties are at fault for the steady decline and mounting problems in our society. They are both beholden to the same special interests and power brokers and seeking the same thing -- power.
They parrot differences and how one stands for all good in the world and the other is the antithesis of all good. But they both throw the citizens under the bus whenever politically expedient.
As long as we keep sending people back to office who while talking a good game don't have a track record to substantiate the talk, we will continue to yell at each other and give the politicians a pass.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 06:23 PMmike d.,After reading your post I know why we can't interact.I'm too smart for you.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 06:25 PM"Yes she was covert, the CIA.."
Yeah. That's why she drove in and out of Langley every day where she was obviously under observation (all of this oxymoron intelligence agencies monitor each other), and her name was listed on the lobby directory -- where only about 1/8th of the people in the Agency have a listed name. She was one of those listed so everyone would know she wasn't there but was covert in cloak and dagger work.
She was a freakin' second level administrator.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 06:45 PMKeith,
You make your point about how smart you are everytime you post. I know why you like Bush so much, neither one of you can talk, spell or put a coherent sentence together. I've read all of your posts and I believe you really have shown how smart you are....
Posted by Mike D. on September 4, 2007 07:16 PMhe dont forget obama said he would invade Pakistan when he becomes president. sure seems like a lot of the cut and run dums are now flexing like the hero they wish they could be.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 07:57 PMmytwosense joins in Cindy's foolishness and adds ;
"As long as there is a sizeable portion of our country susceptible to the fearmongering tactics of Bush and Cheney, we'll never be truly safe."
These people actually believe the real enemy to our country is our own President and not Radical Islam.
Unbelievable.
Posted by Get Real on September 4, 2007 08:26 PMPoster or is that Poser at 05:29PM, your senario would not be worse than what is going on now. That is that whatever Bush cannot get approved by the Congress, he establishes by Executive Order and some ot it is not good. Maybe lyou should wake up and look at what is really going on.
Posted by A True American on September 4, 2007 08:36 PM3:51 asserts: "Plame was about as covert as you are nonpartisan..both are an extreme stretch of imagination or truth. Plame was a bimbo home office employee who looked for fame and fortune by screaming foul since nobody watched her driving into and out of the CIA Hdqtrs everyday..."
...and 6:45 claims since Plame was listed in the CIA directory and drove herself to work, "She was a freakin' second level administrator.."
Perhaps you both are right, and its the CIA who is lying. I don't know why that would be, though. To this day, they state Valerie Plame was a covert agent.
In fact, you can read current CIA Director General Hayden's affirmative comment on the matter by visiting the CIA's website: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/transcript-of-general-haydens-interview-with-wtop.html
The link is to a pretty recent radio interview transcript, from earlier this summer. The interviewer asked him: "Do you have anything to say at all about the way the Valerie Plame situation, and the trial, turned out? Did it set an example? Did it send a message about the importance of the integrity of your people -- covert people?"
To which General Hayden replied: "I’m not comfortable talking a great deal about it. But let me share with you something I shared with the members of the House of Representatives as they were about to hold open hearings a month or two ago. And that’s simply this: The people in our Agency are either not undercover or they are undercover, they are either overt or covert. And then that’s a binary choice for us. And there isn’t a whole lot more to be said once someone has been identified as one or the other category. That is the role the Agency played in this whole national debate, and I’ll let all of the other elements about that…I’ll let other people talk about that. The role of this Agency was simply saying that Ms. Plame’s relationship with this Agency, as a covert CIA officer, was a classified piece of information. "
Posted by mytwosense on September 4, 2007 09:29 PMMy vast intellect
Easily beats your small brain.
Find out the facts first.
--a haiku from...
Posted by the anti-Keith on September 4, 2007 09:32 PMmytwosense 9:29-
I missed your outrage when our national security was actually compromised;
The New York Times disclosing the SWIFT monitoring program and the Clinton created , CIA rendition flights.
But I understand your need to blame the Bush adm. endlessly.
Posted by Get Real on September 4, 2007 10:26 PMDo any of you nut jobs even realize who supposedly "outed" Ms. Plame? Until you can grasp that fact you should shut up on these posts about it being Bush or Cheney or Rove.
Lies all Lies right?
anti-keith=anti-fact.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 08:46 AMkeith-I've seen enough of your intellect to know you wouldn't know a fact if you had to unzip your trousers to get at it. And yet here you are flattering yourself about your perspicacity which actually consists of nothing more than your willingness and ability to endlessly and mindlessly parrot the latest wingnut blathering points.All in all pretty typical wingnut behavior.
Posted by patrick on September 5, 2007 09:17 AMpatty,I present facts,it's dumb-asses like you who repeat liberal lies.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 12:52 PMGet Real, just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I give a free pass to liberal politicians when they let this country down.
While I'm not familiar with the CIA rendition flights you mention - and I'd be happy to look into that - the truth is, I was never a big Clinton supporter. (Granted, when he was in office almost a decade ago, I didn't have the interest level in politics that I have now, being a bit older and less apathetic.) So, your implication that I turn a blind eye towards wrongs done by so-called liberal politicians - and I would hesitate before I'd call Bill Clinton a true liberal - is, in my opinion, incorrect.
I was talking about a specific happening in this country, and did not resort to name calling and hysterical proclamations, unlike a couple of posters who opposed what I had to say. In return, I merely pasted what the CIA said about Plame's covert status. It would seem to me they'd be the most direct source.
As for if it was right or wrong that she was outed, don't you at least take into consideration Bush's initial statement - that whoever was behind it would be fired - seems to acknowledge that even he believed it was wrong?
It's the talk radio windbags who have convoluted and twisted this issue so much, that words directly from the president and the CIA aren't even paid attention to at this point. That just seems odd to me. The information is out there, if people would only look for it. Instead, it seems people would rather listen to and form their conclusions from shrill pundits.
If people truly care about this country and want to see it united again, I would strongly suggest we stop doing the latter, or at least balance it out with finding information on our own.
Posted by mytwosense on September 5, 2007 02:25 PMKeith: "anti-keith=anti-fact"
I am the upgrade.
I am like you, but better:
I can speak English.
--a haiku from...
Posted by the anti-Keith on September 5, 2007 04:04 PMmytwosense-
You are wrong,it was the DEMOCRATS windbags who have convoluted and twisted the issue.
Patrick Fitzgerald discovered early on it was Richard Armitage,a frequent Bush critic and Clinton holdover who "outed" Plame.
End of story for any clear thinking,rational person.
Posted by Get Real on September 5, 2007 07:48 PMThe thing is, Get Real - you don't really come across as "clear thinking and rational." Instead, you always sound highly agitated, pissed off, and incapable of calm, respectful discourse. I've made a couple of attempts to do both with you, but it's clear this is beyond your capabilities at this point.
If you were really so sure of your position, you wouldn't have to take such a bull charging in a china shop stance all the time. You remind me of Sean Hannity...his idea of "debate" is talking over anyone who disagrees with him. It's rude, but what's more, shows how insecure one really is about their point of view and position.
Posted by mytwosense on September 5, 2007 09:36 PMGet Real said:
"Patrick Fitzgerald discovered early on it was Richard Armitage,a frequent Bush critic and Clinton holdover who "outed" Plame."
And was he the only one Get Real?
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 07:43 AMmytwosense-
How can you talk over someone on line?
And could you specifically point out where I have been disrespectful, or where my posts are irrational?
Charles-
Once you are outed you can be re-outed?
Posted by Get Real on September 6, 2007 06:25 PMGet Real asked:
"Once you are outed you can be re-outed?"
He wasn't "outed" until Novak's story hit the wire.
Who confirmed Plame's CIA status according to Novak?
Hint: It wasn't Armitage.