Scooter who? Yeah, that talking point is done - can't really get away with saying no one even knows who Scooter Libby is with numbers like this poll. Shame on Ann Coulter for fibbing. If people are still saying they don't know who Scooter is, they are either pathological liars or morons.
Posted by ann at November 3, 2005 08:22 AMAnn, I think you nailed Ann Coulter with "pathological liar" AND "moron."
And let's not forget that according to so many pundits just last year, 51% is a mandate. So I'd have to say that Fitzgerald has a mandate from the American people to forge right ahead.
It seems that, in the eyes of many, the judicial system is the single institution remaining with any integrity. An indictment is something to be trusted. Something to be understood and taken seriously. It has shifted the balance like no politician or media organiztion could do.
Democrats have to keep building on this foundation that has been laid.
Posted by Stevej at November 3, 2005 08:41 AMhttp://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051103/why_would_libby_lie.php
A key element in trying to prove a crime is showing why someone might have done something illegal. Lawyers call it proving motive. Evidence of motive is often the critical reason a prosecutor concludes that someone has committed a crime and a jury convicts someone of a crime.
Thus far, motive is the mystery in the CIA agent leak case that has rocked the White House. Why would so many of the most senior and seasoned White House officials, including apparently the vice president, engage in what appears to be a coordinated and comprehensive smear campaign that included the outing of an undercover CIA official? And why would anyone risk committing federal criminal felonies by lying about it?
I. Lewis Libby, as assistant to the president, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney and assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs, was indisputably one of the most powerful officials in the administration. By all accounts, he is a savvy, experienced and careful lawyer who sweated the details and was prudently risk-averse and wily in the ways of dealing with the media.
He has now resigned in disgrace and is charged with the crimes of obstructing justice by lying to the FBI and the grand jury. Prosecutor Fitzgerald has charged him with these crimes for allegedly falsely testifying that he learned of a CIA agent's identity from reporters rather than from the vice president and other senior administration officials.
If Libby lied, why would he? The prosecutor unknowingly answered that question at his press conference. He said, if the reporters testified when they were issued subpoenas in August 2004, "we would have been here [holding a press conference] in October 2004 instead of October 2005."
October 2004 was a mere month before the presidential election on November 2, 2004. Amazingly, in all the timelines of the leak investigations, there is no mention of the presidential election in November 2004 or that the basis for the war in Iraq was a key issue in that election.
Whether the charges in the indictment are true or not and whether Libby or anyone else is ever convicted or not, such a press conference on the eve of the presidential election in October 2004 would have dramatically affected that election. The reason that press conference was not held in October of 2004 is because the prosecutor had to waste a year fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to get information from reporters.
An October 2004 press conference summarizing the information in the indictment would have been explosive. If the prosecutor was in a position to know and disclose the information contained in the indictment in October 2004, it would have directly contradicted the White House's categorical denial that Libby and Rove "were not involved" in the disclosure of the agent's identity.
At that point, on the eve of the November 2004 election, the key question would have been, what did President Bush know and when did he know it. The answers to those questions would not have mattered: If he knew, he was in the middle of blowing the cover of a CIA agent; if he didn't know that his vice president and many of the most senior White House officials were involved in disclosing a CIA agent's identity to reporters, it would have confirmed many people's worst fears that he was dangerously detached.
Moreover, few would have believed that Libby, an extremely intelligent, careful lawyer with decades of experience, would have on his own and without the knowledge or approval of at least the vice president, if not the president, disclosed classified information and blown the cover of a CIA agent. Thus, the other key questions would have been: Who else knew, when did they know and how did they participate in blowing the CIA agent's cover?
So, if Libby lied, he likely did so to conceal the involvement of Cheney and others, to prevent a pre-election scandal and to protect the Bush/Cheney re-election.
How did Libby's alleged lies do this? The prosecutor unknowingly answered this question at his press conference as well. Libby isn't alleged to have told a little lie here or there. He is alleged to have fabricated elaborate stories including false dialogue, phony feelings and reactions with several reporters. As the prosecutor said, "it was a compelling story that would lead the FBI to go away."
Importantly, the FBI didn't just "go away" from Libby. They went "away" from Cheney and others in the White House involved in getting the information on Wilson and his CIA agent wife and toward reporters. If Libby told the truth as alleged by the prosecutor, the FBI would have gone directly to the vice president's office and the explosive information detailed above would have been uncovered.
Libby's alleged "compelling" lies likely also prevented the prosecutor from determining who, if anyone, broke the law by knowingly and intentionally disclosing the CIA agent's identity. In short, Libby's lies pointed the prosecutor "away" from the possible or probable criminals, "away" from the truth and toward reporters. This guaranteed months if not years of delays from battling over the First Amendment. That's why it's called obstruction of justice.
The prosecutor used a convoluted baseball metaphor to try to explain this. I propose a better one: You and three friends are standing on a street corner talking about doing something wrong. The discussion ends inconclusively and your friends leave, but you, with nothing to do, hang out at the corner alone. An hour later, your three friends come running by, looking scared and they duck into an ally behind you.
Two minutes later, cops come running over and ask if you saw three men running by. Without hesitating, you tell them that you did, that they almost knocked you over, that you twisted your knee, and that they ran down the street across the park from where you were standing. The cops go dashing off--in the wrong direction. Your friends sneak safely out of the ally and go to their homes and to work. A year later, the cops learn that you lied and try to head back in the right direction.
That's obstruction of justice and that's what Libby is accused of doing. That's what it means to tell "a compelling story" that leads "the FBI to go away."
Posted by FollowTheMoney at November 3, 2005 09:16 AMSomehow a campaign to get shrub on record that he'll not pardon Scooter or others in Plamegate should be created. Not that he could be trusted to keep his word; but it would rattle those in Fitzgerald's sights. Or shrub will look bad by not promising to not pardon; or perhaps get caught trying to reassure the Plamegate principles that a pardon is coming
Posted by Eric at November 3, 2005 09:31 AMSomehow a campaign to get shrub on record that he'll not pardon Scooter or others in Plamegate should be created.
Why bother? He's already on record that he'll fire anyone involved in leaking Plame's name and he hasn't done that.
Posted by ann at November 3, 2005 09:42 AMCan Scooter lose the crutches, please. A adult male who goes by the name of Scooter, then scoots around on crutches at his purjury hearing...ugh.
Posted by T2 at November 3, 2005 09:44 AMi wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of anyone in this administration..fucking liars..every fucking one of them ..they're up to their eyeballs in lies..it doesn't matter what any of them say..they have zero credibility..best to concentrate on how to remove them..and i would beat this plame drum til my hands fell off..it's a huge story lieing us into war..
Posted by dennis at November 3, 2005 10:30 AMPlease. The only people that care about this trumped up little scandal are you rabid partisans. It's a real turn off to people like me. Keep it up. You'll ensure that my new party will rule forever.
Posted by A Former Democrat at November 3, 2005 10:37 AMYou do realize that everyone's laughing at you, don't you?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 3, 2005 11:11 AMSo, Former Dem, you don't care that over 2000 Americans have been led to their deaths by lies, and an undercover CIA agent had her cover blown in retaliation for her husband trying to expose those lies? Gee, what an unpatriotic heartless bastard you are.
Posted by CapD at November 3, 2005 11:14 AMWow. AFD is one of the scary 12% who think Republican perjury is no biggie.
Posted by ann at November 3, 2005 11:19 AMCapD: Of course I care that 2000 heroic Americans have sacrificed their lives in Iraq to establish Democracy for the Iraqi people and deliver security for the American people. They should be proud. And we should be prepared to sacrifice 10 times that number to achieve these goals.
The question is: why don't most members of the democrat party?
The apparent answer is why I'm now a proud Republican.
The former Democrat and current dumbass is more concerned with the big wingnut scandal: oil for food. YAWN!
Oh by the way former, why aren't you in Iraq? Get going.
Posted by weinerdog43 at November 3, 2005 11:35 AMIt's the bragging about winning elections at all costs, even if you have to cheat and lie, that made me leave the Republic party. AFD you're pathetic.
Posted by a former republican at November 3, 2005 11:36 AMSo, AFD, have you volunteered for duty?
Who do you know that you would sacrifice?
Posted by Stevej at November 3, 2005 11:36 AMTo follow up on FollowTheMoney --
Somewhere else I read (don't remember where) another discussion of the "why" question: why did the Cheney/Libby axis go after Wilson/Plame so hard? I mean, why?
What I remember reading is, essentially, that they realized that Brewster Jennings (Valerie Plame's 'front' company) was too close to exposing the fact that the WMD pretext for war was a total sham and had to be shut down.
What better way to do that than disclose the identity of an employee who just happened to be Joe Wilson's wife?
. . . at least, that's what I remember reading.
Anyone else see this?
Posted by JB (not the U.N. John Bolton) at November 3, 2005 11:42 AMAFD is obviously here solely to incite people to respond to his/her inanity.
There's no there there.
Don't give 'em the pleasure.
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 11:58 AMformer democrat
go away..and take your fucking bullshit with you...only morons hang around where they are not welcome..
Posted by dennis at November 3, 2005 12:02 PMThe beauty of this case is that the 1st Amendment issue is not as complicated as it has been made out to be. Yes, it may be history (and legal precedent) in the making, but no, it is not complicated.
If you tell a reporter something and then you lie under oath about what you told the reporter, whatever confidentiality you had (about the lie) is lost. The reporter must be free to confirm or deny what you say under oath.
Posted by rasmus at November 3, 2005 12:44 PMOl' Scooter's gonna have a rough time of it in federal pound him in the ass penitentiary.
Couldn't happen to a nicer war criminal.
So whats the story of the crutches? Is it an old football injury?
Did they just appear recently? is there some long term injury?
I have my own theory about Libby's crutches and foot. I think Cheney did it to him:
[i]"This is a warning, you big-time, major league @$$hole. If you rat me out, next time it'll be your neck."[/i]
I am joking, of course, but anything's possible.
Broken bone in his foot. I'm sure he kicked a wall in his office in a fit of petulant rage once he realized he was soon to exchange his WH insider status for another type of, much less desireable, insider status.
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 01:34 PMWell when I had a broken fifth metatarsal (that's a very tiny bone of the foot), I had a friggin' cast from my knee to my toes. For six weeks. Where's Libby's? Mebbe it's really gout? Mebbe it's just more lies? You decide, but I've already made up my mind about it. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at November 3, 2005 03:14 PM"So, AFD, have you volunteered for duty?"
I love the chicken-hawk argument. Such a good chuckle.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 04:02 PMI love the chicken-hawk argument. Such a good chuckle.
Where I come from, people put their money (or ass) where their mouth is. In today's GOP, talking the talk is more importiant than walking the walk-and people are starting to see it.
Posted by argus at November 3, 2005 05:04 PMargus,
Well then, please do not comment on the abortion issue unless you are "in the stirrups."
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 05:18 PMBagley you ignorant slut. I'm pro choice, Y'm not trying to dictate a woman's choice. Your analogy is only valid against pro-lifers.
Posted by argus at November 3, 2005 05:27 PMJB, interesting post.
Posted by Judith at November 3, 2005 05:28 PM"Bagley you ignorant slut. I'm pro choice, Y'm not trying to dictate a woman's choice. Your analogy is only valid against pro-lifers."
Actually not, if you think about it...thinking, a stretch, I am sure.
The whole premise of the chicken-hawk argument is (that) a person cannot argue in favor of the war unless they are intimately involved in the war. That is, in danger of being shot (or, by limited extension, having a loved one shot).
This argument presupposes that only people intimately involved in the (subject) action can hold an opinion in favor of the action. As such, any opinion you may hold regarding abortion is only valid if you are, in the immediate sense, having an abortion or are intimately involved with someone that is having an abortion.
As to your statement that I am (an) "ignorant slut,"...wellit simply shows the paucity of your intellect. Unless, of course, you are confused and think that I am your last purchase.
:)
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 05:59 PMBagley you ignorant slut
They are so cute when they try a cartwheel...and end up busting their ass.
So we got pretzels and now bagels. What is this? A troll bakery?
Dont make me go low-carb on yer ass you facist clown-shoe.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 3, 2005 06:08 PM"Dont make me go low-carb on yer ass you facist clown-shoe."
Oh, what fun this would be. Such a brave person....or foolish.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 06:10 PMBagley,
A Former Democrat did not just express support for the war. He opined that "we should be prepared to sacrifice 10 times that number to achieve these goals.
Lead by example I always say.
But then again, AFD seems to have found his niche as a Republican. They prefer to let others do the sacrificing. Seems to be part of their credo.
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 06:23 PM"They prefer to let others do the sacrificing. Seems to be part of their credo."
Not simply limited to Republicans.
(And on a personal not, have I ever mentioned how much I hate being "on call.")
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 06:28 PMBagley,
My point, that you seemed to miss is that one should be willing to lead by wxample not by symbolism. Your analogy about abortion would be relivant if I were advocating for example higher taxes while at the same time paying no taxes. In that case, I would be no better than a chickenhawk, and that's pretty low.
Posted by atgus at November 3, 2005 06:30 PMDamn, my spelling is off tonight.
Posted by argus at November 3, 2005 06:36 PMNot simply limited to Republicans.
True. But they are so much more adept at it than anyone else.
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 06:42 PMBagely, you are not one to be pointing out the invalidity of someone else's arguments.
What you have done is take one point in a larger argument and then generalized it to your supposed advantage.
You must realize that the choice issue is all about privacy. Bagley, if you can control your body, what you do with your body and hmmm just in general what you care to do with your health and welfare . . . then you are a man. If you have to jump through hoops and navigate the judicial system (not to mention brave the screaming hoards of men against you) just to make your own medical decisions . . . then you are a woman.
Butt the hell out of my life, will you?
And thank you argus for your support of my right to do what is best for my body.
Bagley, go find some woman who will only listen to you. Poor girl. There are, unfortunately, far too many of them out there.
Posted by dorita at November 3, 2005 06:42 PM"... one should be willing to lead by wxample..."
No, it is not.
There are tens of thousands of troops in Iraq who "lead by example" and believe in what they are doing and re-enlist for -- what is known to be -- additional tours in a war zone. And the left denigrates their position by terming them facists, or by calling them dupes or by referencing them as stupid and ignorant and facists.
The analogy is correct: the chicken-hawk argument, as I posted, "presupposes that only people intimately involved in the (subject) action can hold an opinion in favor of the action."
(As an aside, why are 18 year old young men and women considered "kids" and incapable of making a rational decision, but 13 year old girls considered to be fully mature in making a decision regarding abortion...without parental notification?)
Have yoe read Heinlein?
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 06:44 PMdonita,
I am a supporter of a woman's "right to choose." However, I admit my hypocrisy...and it bothers me every moment. Unlike those on the left side of the argument, I do have a morality that (says) it is a life and not, simply, a mass of unwanted cells.
"Bagley, go find some woman who will only listen to you."
More insults....why is it that lefties always have to be insulting....without benefit of (logical) argumet.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 06:51 PMPersonally I can't wait until the Libby trial.
I can't wait until the defense gets a shot at some of the reporters that Libby talked too. Especially Andrea Mitchell who reported in 2003 that most reporters already knew Wilson's wife was CIA.
But what I'm most looking forward too is the day when Joe Wilson is exposed for the liar that he is. The Seante has already released a report which states that his wife was the one that sent him to Niger. And the 911 report also comfirmed that Iraq wqas indeed inquiring about buying yellow cake from Niger. It's just a matter of time before he is discredited publicly.
So go ahead and hang your hopes and dreams on Joseph Wilson. Just like you did on Bill Burkett, Richard Clarke, Cindy Sheehan etc. This will explode in your faces like every other one.
I predict that by this time next year Wilson will be another failed attempt to bring down Bush. In fact, there will probably be half a dozen other people you latch onto by next year's elections, only to fail and fail and fail again.
Posted by The Real Truth at November 3, 2005 06:54 PM
bagley, the left insults because they have nothing else. When they attack you this way, wear it as a badge of honor. You have won the argument.
Of course these days, any injection of facts into their fantasy world is cause for being attacked.
Personally, I find it amusing.
Posted by The Real Truth at November 3, 2005 06:56 PM"In fact, there will probably be half a dozen other people you latch onto by next year's elections, only to fail and fail and fail again."
Mother Sheehan is a perfect example.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 06:56 PM"presupposes that only people intimately involved in the (subject) action can hold an opinion in favor of the action."
No clownshoe, you and your ilk are entiltled to your opinion. The chickenhawk argument is built on the framework of your parties strawmen arguments.
I mean when you screech about how this little dust-up in the desert is the new and improved WW2, then anybody with any knowledge of the past wonders;where is the sacrifice? Go shopping?
So reseaonable people see young Republicans screeching like monkeys about the glorious cause, they wonder if said monkeys shouldnt go sacrifice a little for something they seem to love so much.
Long story short-you are free to have your opinion, and we are free to think you are a craven pants-wetting coward.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 3, 2005 06:58 PMWas that low-carb enough for ya bagel-boy?
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 3, 2005 06:59 PMHave yoe read Heinlein?
Ouch typos suck.
Bagley, please make the argument about the drinking age for me, a la old enough to serve but not old enough to drink.
What you miss in your excuse for an argument is what the hell situation exists that a 13 year old has to make that argument? Why should a 13 year old have less of a standing? Tell me Bagley. Is it because her life is worth less in your world than the unborn child? She's lost, but her child could be saved?
You will never love the mother more than the child. You love yourself more than your mom, admit it Bagley.
Posted by dorita at November 3, 2005 07:00 PMBagley,
The amusing thing about Sheehan is that this one insignificant woman (in the grand scheme of things) has managed to box in Hillary Clinton. If Clinton stands her ground and continues to support the Iraq war, then she loses the anti-war vote.
If she goes anto-war, there's no way she'll win the general election.
It's going to be so much fun watching Hillary do that tight wire act.
Posted by The Real Truth at November 3, 2005 07:00 PMI know you served Bagley. You remember I called you on questioning tempus. You gave him a pass.
You know I am female. Why do you feel you are hypocritical? It is my body, her body. Do you really think you would feel differently if your choice about your health was different from others? Can't a woman count? For something?
Posted by dorita at November 3, 2005 07:10 PMHello Snarkyshark,
Please do not worry..this will only hurt a little bit.
Shall we begin: oops, my bad. Nothing there. Darn!
"... please make the argument about the drinking age for me, a la old enough to serve but not old enough to drink. "
Easy enough, if you ARE old enough to serve then you ARE old enough to drink. (Somehow I think that abortion is a different argument than underage drinking...unless you consider the deaths attributed to underage drinking simply post-birth abortion.)
dorita,
Your post makes no sense. Huh?
The Real Truth,
Hillary is a red herring. She will not win the Democratic primary. She will never be President.
"You know I am female. Why do you feel you are hypocritical? It is my body, her body."
Yes, it is your body/her body, but it is part of me. I acquiesce to the murder of my progeny.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 07:19 PMAnd the left denigrates their position by terming them facists, or by calling them dupes or by referencing them as stupid and ignorant and facists.
Bagley,
Have you any proof of this? Every critic of the war I've heard cririzes the leadership not the troops. Peovide links not talking points.
I can't wait until the defense gets a shot at some of the reporters that Libby talked too. Especially Andrea Mitchell who reported in 2003 that most reporters already knew Wilson's wife was CIA.
Non Truth,
Regardless of what Mrs. Greenspan says, Fitzgearald plainly stated the Plame WAS undercover. Facts are a funny thing, they turn up when an independant investigator looks for them.
Hillary is a red herring. She will not win the Democratic primary.
Well, what do you know, Bagley got one right.
argus,
Representative Durban, he may not have called them facists or dupes, but he did reference them as Nazis.
Do you need a link?
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 07:39 PMOops, that should have been Senator Durban.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 07:41 PM"...Bagley got one right."
More than one.
Snarkyshark, where are you?
Perhaps this will clarify -- earlier on this thread you typed:
donita,
I am a supporter of a woman's "right to choose." However, I admit my hypocrisy...and it bothers me every moment. Unlike those on the left side of the argument, I do have a morality that (says) it is a life and not, simply, a mass of unwanted cells.
get it now?
Posted by dorita at November 3, 2005 07:53 PM...but he did reference them as Nazis.
Wrong.
What he did was describe some of the acts that had been committed and then point out that they were acts one does not commonly associate with the American military. They are acts one associates with navis. He was defending the historical integrity of the US military and calling for a condemnation of the heinous anomalous acts.
Why are you guys so intellectually dishonest about stuff like this?
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 08:00 PMI am done: eleven o'clock. Someone else in now "on call.'
(Strange, I own the company. Why am I on call?)
In any event, let me leave you with a report from Joe Biden (D - Delaware).
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=62627
"SEN. JOE BIDEN, D-Del., made some interesting comments during his Manchester stop Tuesday night. He said too many Democrats were elitist and even unpatriotic, and he blamed them for helping Republicans paint the entire party as out of touch with America. Biden noted that some Democrats had even questioned why he wore an American flag pin on his lapel. "
Think about it....
Thanks to the LeftCoaster for the bandwidth....
Cheers!
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 08:01 PMYes, it is your body/her body, but it is part of me. I acquiesce to the murder of my progeny.
If you had to take responsibility for the aim of another, would you really take responsibility for what it produced?
If more men could figure out that privacy is not just about women, maybe we could make progress as a nation.
Posted by dorita at November 3, 2005 08:03 PMYeah, and a lot of Republicans present themselves as racist mysoginists everytime they open their mouths. Sucks like that doesn't it?
Joe Biden should be smart enough to recognize that this country is made up of millions of very diverse people and they are all free to express their opinions. Opinions that no one but the opinion giver is liable for. If he wants to belong to a party where you are told what your opinion should be he can always switch to the Republican party.
Posted by snark at November 3, 2005 08:08 PMlast post this evening:
snark,
What you posted would be true if Mr. Durban had not extended the actual reality of what was happening in Gitmo into the fantasy of what he was sisjing happened in Gitmo. (Perhaps you should brush upon your history.)
May I assume that the last donita post (November 3, 2005 8:03PM0 was a spoof? It makes not sense.)
Bye-bye.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 08:12 PM"It makes not sense."
Sorry, when I am tired...English is not my first language.
Posted by Bagley at November 3, 2005 08:16 PMSorry, when I am tired...English is not my first language.
Hmmm, a tantlelizing clue. For a troll, I find you somewhat civilized.
Perhaps the troll quality is improving. Must be 41's guys moving in.
See ya around.
Posted by SnarkyShark at November 3, 2005 08:35 PMBagley,
What I think Dorita is trying to point out is that the right to privacy covers ANY type of protection the individual in America has beyond what is written word for word in the law. In other words, if an individual makes a choice, be it to have an abortion, go to a "sex" club, use medical marajuana for an illness or do anything else that is not a legally protected right, some legal thinkers, such as Robert Bork argue that they should be subject to arrest for the action.
Abortion is the most famous issue involving the right to privacy, but much of what adult men and women do in private falls within the question of do we Americans have a right to privacy? If more men understood that although the abortion issue will never affect them personally, the underlying issue impacts them everyday in ways that they never or rarely think about, then this issue would become settled law quickly in favor of a right to privacy.
"There are tens of thousands of troops in Iraq who "lead by example" and believe in what they are doing and re-enlist for -- what is known to be -- additional tours in a war zone. And the left denigrates their position by terming them facists, or by calling them dupes or by referencing them as stupid and ignorant and facists."
Baggy, you are full of crap. Where in the hell did you get that, over at Rush's place?
Posted by at November 3, 2005 11:23 PMBaggy and The Anti-Truth - 35%.
Posted by Judith at November 3, 2005 11:27 PMstep right this way, scooter, your cell in the new Neo-Con Prison and Rehabilitation Center is awaiting you
Posted by mjm72 at November 4, 2005 01:02 AMWhat you posted would be true if Mr. Durban had not extended the actual reality of what was happening in Gitmo into the fantasy of what he was sisjing happened in Gitmo. (Perhaps you should brush upon your history.)
Have you actually read Durbin's entire statement on the floor of the Senate that day? He spent the majority of the time speaking about the history of the United States as a moral force in the world even during times of war. He praised our history of humane treatment of prisioners. His comments regarding the treatment of prisioners at Gitmo were read directly from an email by an FBI agent who was discribing what he saw at Gitmo. After reading the agents description of the treatment of prisioners Durbin commented that if he read these words and didn't tell you when the events had occurred most would think it described the actions of nazis or Soviets in their gulags, not the actions of Americans. These comments came at the very end of a long statement. A statement that centered on a defense of the values of America. Values that Durbin believes are being eroded by the Bush administration.
You should read a little history yourself.
Again, a little intellectual honesty on your part would be a breath of fresh air. Trying to pervert Durbin's words into a condemnation of our men and women in uniform is a rationalization as tortured as the events Senator Durbin described. And proffering that as your evidence that the left portrays our armed forces as fascists or stupid or ignorant exposes your bullshit for what it is.
Posted by snark at November 4, 2005 06:45 AM