The Ford interview took place in July of 04.
If the Pardoner had set sail for Valhalla in October 04, would that slippery wascal Woodward have made it public for the benefit of the traditionally information challanged voters?
Would the Dems have done a little better?
Party first, people last. Thanks, Jerry.
Seven New Orleans police officers were indicted Thursday on murder or attempted murder charges in a pair of shootings (one of the victims was a retared man) on a bridge that left two people dead during the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
I have long said the void created by the the absence of a unified Federal presence in post-Katrina New Orleans laid the foundation for law enforcement excesses.
Katrina was and remains George Bush's finest hour.
Posted by Christopher at December 29, 2006 03:55 AMYes, Chris, I've always had a problem with a self-defense claim when the unarmed victim is shot 5 times in the back.
Will the defense team send divers under the bridge and come up with some weapons?
Stay tuned.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 29, 2006 04:18 AMMark you calendar. Tuesday at 8:00 or 9:00, PBS's Frontline is doing a piece entitled 'The Dark Side'. "Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet clash over the response to the war on terror.
Posted by Judith at December 29, 2006 04:40 AMJudith,
I believe that one is a repeat. Its pretty stunning. You can watch it, in full, here
Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by Simp at December 29, 2006 04:55 AMIf Gates is 'privately opposing' troop escalation in Iraq, and Bush sends 20,000 more troops and ignores a recommendation by Gates and General Casey (who has not asked for more troops), then what? Also, why hasn't Murtha been vocal on this issue?
Thanks Simp. It may be a repeat. I did not see it, but it certainly sounds informative.
Posted by Judith at December 29, 2006 04:58 AMI listened again to Ford's admonishment of Bush, and I do not understand why people, who's opinions mattered, refused to speak out against Bush and this war. While I know that nothing was going to stop Bush's thirst for blood and oil, anyone who was against the invasion and said nothing, is guilty for every death of every American and Iraqi. Maybe you all were right about Ford.
Posted by Judith at December 29, 2006 05:18 AMThere is an amusing side to arctic ice breaking off by the ton. A report today states that the Canadians have discovered a block of ice the size of 11,000 football fields has broken off of Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Actually, it broke off in 2005 and the news is about the report scientists spent a year preparing which CNN summarizes as--even though the globe is warming, the breaking of ice is not necessarily due to global warming. (Could it have been the herds of reindeer and polar bears running for their lives to get off the ice shelf? High winds and heavy seas---enough to cause the seismometers to register the break?) Anyway, the very last line of the CNN report was that this block could cause a real problem next year of the warming continues and it starts moving again into the adjacent shipping channel: could block the transport of----wait for it---OIL!
Now wouldn't that be an irony? Bush declares a national emergency on GLobal Warming because Oil is being blocked by terrorist ice.
Posted by gtash at December 29, 2006 05:21 AMOn G Ford--
President Ford was a caretaker President, un-elected for that office. He was a Congressman and I think he acted like one. Nixon laid waste to many things while in office--not unlike the current President--- and I am willing to cut Ford some slack on the lackluster performance in office. That he pardoned Nixon is not to my liking. From Nixon, thru Reagan to Bush to Bush--haven't we all heard an earful about "victim's rights" being equal to the rights of the criminal? So when a nation's citizens are victimized by aberrant leaders, are we not entitled to our day in court? Poli Sci majors say (as many lawyers), "No, politics isn't the law and elections and their quasi-judicial actions of impeachment are the only court you get--plus, the majority voted for the clown, so you got what you got. Period." I understand how Ford could have thought at the time--"enough is enough", let's get back to the work of the country and minimize the distractions. He was, after all, inexperienced as President and thinking like a Congressman. He was also a "friend" of Nixon's by his own estimation (if being a friend of Milhouse were even possible). Feeling overwhelmed and vulnerable and overmatched, he pardons. Not right, but I understand this.
Should be have kept silent on Iraq? No more or less than Presidents Clinton or Carter or Elder Bush. I think most Ex-Presidents feel they have done enough and are pretty happy to be done with president-ing. In the twilight years, no matter how much they care about the country, they still believe the voters gave allegiance to someone else for a change and "they got what they got". In the context of history and his friendship with Nixon, maybe Ford felt Bush can't be as awful as Nixon. Maybe he thought America was still vibrant and elastic enough to bounce back like it did after Nixon. Or maybe he was just thinking more about his next golf outing. I'll give the man a pass. But I am disappointed.
Posted by gtash at December 29, 2006 05:40 AMI do not understand why people, who's opinions mattered, refused to speak out against Bush and this war.
Judith,
Did you hear the roar coming from our house yesterday vis a vis not offending the Bush dynasty?
I think we frightened the entire eastern seaboard.
My partner and I listened to David Gergin on Tweety's show dancing around about how he was "certain, Ford didn't intend to insult the president while his poll numbers are down," and how "Ford was a big supporter of Bush senior, so he would never do anything to insult the 'family." We were screaming at the YV!
It was like a fucking episode of The Sopranos, where no one dared to insult Tony or Carmella or risk getting whacked.
Posted by Christopher at December 29, 2006 06:03 AMMeanwhile, the ultimate DINO, Joe Lieberman has a truly depraved, nauseating op-ed piece in today's WaPo, whoring why increasing troop levels in Iraq is the right thing to do.
This guy takes the prize as sickest SOB in the U.S. Senate. He needs to just get on with it and convert to Republican.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
Posted by Christopher at December 29, 2006 06:10 AMRiverbend posted. Her article is stunning!
My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn't look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?
h/t tempus
Clvr rs tht t bggl mnds wth hrsy f wht dd mn sppsdly sd nc, bng tht h cn n lngr cnfrm, dny r clrfy hs pstn. nd f h ddn't wnt t hv hs pnn md pblc nd hv t lv wth t, thn w r pntng hm cwrd. Sch n pnn plyd t th dtrmnt f th lvng nd th mmry f th dd s s fbl nd wrthlss nw s whn th lft frst nvntd t.
[Editor: ignore=off]benditto, the interview was taped.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 29, 2006 06:28 AMTo iamcoyote--
re: Bendito--
There is a line in "It Takes A Thief" (tv version) where Robert Wagner says to his boss 'Noah'--
"Noah, you cut me to the quick...and I have a very short quick."
Posted by gtash at December 29, 2006 07:13 AMbenditto, the interview was taped.
Bend-eato will reply that "We couldn't see if Woodward was holding a gun to Ford's head or not."
Riverbend posted. Her article is stunning!
And a hell of a post it is.
An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country's 'Golden Years'.
Posted by phidipides at December 29, 2006 07:33 AMthx for the head's up on the Riverbend post...must read blogging! Real time reactions/feelings of this human tragedy.
Posted by emal at December 29, 2006 08:22 AMI do not understand why people, who's opinions mattered, refused to speak out against Bush and this war.
Judith, did you want these people to speak out against the war? Here's what they were saying when "opinions mattered."
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I
saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the
inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) in April of 2003.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his
pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot
be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Ted Kennedy (D)
Sept 27, 2002.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore
(D) 2002.
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.
Good quotes, Mucky. There is hope for you yet.
However, I will remind you that the comments were based on information provided by the Decider's (Cheney's) administration, and were taken at face value. The administration of the US government is not supposed to blatantly lie to Congress and the people for political and financial gains.
Posted by tempus at December 29, 2006 10:15 AMMuck, as usual, you only give part of the story.
Hillary Clinton - Recants vote for Iraq war. Initial vote based on The Mad, idiot son of George, and his "evidence" of WMDs.
John Edwards - Recants his vote for Iraq war. Says it was based on flawed and manipulated data from the Mad King.
William Cohen - Who gives a rats ass. He is meaningless in the debate.
Ted Kennedy - Voted against Iraq war, and has always been a critic of this war. He also indicts the Mad King and his actions.
Al Gore - Did not support the Iraq War. Instead supported going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
John Kerry - Recants vote. Says it was based in manipulated intelligence from the Mad King.
Henry Waxman - Says the basis of his vote was flawed (more of that Mad King shitty intelligence). Claims the issue now is what the hell can be done about.
Now, tell us about the republi-cons that changed their mind about this fucked up mess in Iraq.
Puppy, and since then some of those have admitted it was a mistake... unlike the chimperor who proclaimed mission accomplished yet now says we aren't winning but will with more troops. But you knew that already...and beside remember that was before these totally souless and amoral lying sacks of shits were exposed as such.
It's the Big Lie ....a lie so big and so outrageous no one would ever think they would tell it or act upon it. Who knew at the time that Cheneyco was capable of actually doing the unthinkable, apparently from your insinuations you were on to it from the beginning, unlike these democratic congresscritters. And I'll admit I didn't think The Big Lie was possible to pull off in this day and age. But more likely and despite my own hardened and cyncial view of humanity , I didn't want or wasn't ready to believe, even though I was extremely skeptical of the gang and did have loads of questions, that people in such positions could be so damn evil and malicious...To say the least, I was naive and very wrong....Trust but verify, WAE!
Posted by emal at December 29, 2006 11:48 AMTempus I will remind you that the comments were based on information provided by the Decider's (Cheney's) administration, and were taken at face value. The administration of the US government is not supposed to blatantly lie to Congress and the people for political and financial gains.
Bzzt. Wrong. I have quotes from the 90's, too. Same information. Here are some more Democrats banging the war drums BEFORE the 2000 Presidential election! It begs the question of who was really leading us into war?
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to
all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.
"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), Feb
18, 1998.
Phidip, if the Democrats can backdate their opinions after the fact, can I go to the casino and change my last season's pick of the Seahawks to win the super bowl pick to the Steelers?
Nobody lied. Everybody had the same information at the time. Even your heroes in the Democratic party. The only difference is that your heroes are fooling you once, fooling you twice, and fooling you pretty much all the time. They were for the war before they were against it.
End of story.
Posted by muckdog at December 29, 2006 12:26 PMPhidip, if the Democrats can backdate their opinions after the fact, can I go to the casino and change my last season's pick of the Seahawks to win the super bowl pick to the Steelers?
No, you can only acknolwedge that your pick was stupid. Anyone can acknowledge they were wrong...except the Mad King, idiot son of George. He is averse to admitting his stupidity. Your conflation is failing you except for the mouth breathers in the republi-con party.
Posted by phidipides at December 29, 2006 12:40 PMThey were for the war before they were against it.
While I'm at it: 21 Demoratic Senators and 126 Democratic Reps voted against the resolution. Lot's of Dems thought Saddam was as fucked up as the Mad King, idiot son of George, but they voted against the resolution.
Now it's the end of the story. I hope your frontal lobe isn't too fucked up from the kick in the ass you just got.
Posted by phidipides at December 29, 2006 12:47 PMSigh, mucky must be doing a year-end retrospective of all the times he was wrong about the war. What a bore/boor.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 29, 2006 12:57 PMThe president and first lady were forced to take cover in an armored vehicle while tornado warnings were in effect for the Crawford area.
Is God trying to tell him something?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 29, 2006 02:17 PMAnd remember that the vote on the Iraq "force authorization" was presented to the Congress as an absolute necessity simply to help Bushco sell its position to the Security Council. It was not presented at all as an actual declaration of war.
After Powell made his lame-ass deceptive presentation, and the Security Council said "no dice" to a UN-sanctioned invasion, Bushco REFUSED Dem calls for a final Congressional vote on whether we should actually invade Iraq.
I always wonder how many Dems in Congress would have actually voted for an un-sanctioned, illegal war of aggression with basically no allies at our side. Not much of a surprise that KKKRover and Deadeye declared such a vote was "unnecessary".
Posted by euzoius at December 29, 2006 02:26 PMMuck,
It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. Too bad Republicans are so small and petty. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the Senate and the House had the same information that the President had? LOL! Dahling, I have some oceanfront property in AZ for you!