How to Discuss American Politics without bashing America

[Kurashima]

The following BBC link (sponsored by Sunday8pm, as hes not posted one in ages, and id hate people to forget he existed) shows that 2 leading members of the Presidents backroom staff are about to be indited.

the opinions please from both sides , on what this shows with regards to the bush administration, without directly bashing upon the United States as a whole.

Lets see if we can have a debate here that doesnt dissolve into Anarchy

[Phang]

i think you mean 'indicted'.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Phang

i think you mean 'indicted'.

Yes I do.

Thank you for correcting me.

[Phil^]

it simply shows that they (those to be indicted) have a lack of a sense of morality, or at least a distorted one.
you cant just draw a conclusion on the rest that they also suffer from this lack, from two people.
however the fact they are so high up brings into question their ability to judge character

[Phang]

Anyway. Bush cabinet shown to have little regard for law, whether international, foreign or domestic. Millions stunned, non-Americans fail to bat eyelids.

[Deepflow]

I think it's safe to assume that even if they didn't leak it personally, they were behind it. So of course I think they should both go.

I'm not sure it's going to make me think the Bush administration is any more corrupt than I already think it is, but hopefully it will to plenty of others.

[Phang]

libby indicted.

[All Systems Go]

Bush is a nieve fool who lives in his own little world and doesn't realise he is surrounded by the forces of evil.

[Phil^]

naive, and yes. he does.
"god speaks to him" too

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Phil^

"god speaks to him" too

One day he'll realise it's just Dick Cheney on the intercom.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think I can offer rigorous condemnation of their supposed offences considering I lie pretty frequently as well, nor do I expect any country to have officials who do not lie through their teeth more often than not. Obviously in that delightful absolute sense where all bad things horrify us down to our very core I'll say "oh you bad bad (wo)men".

[dda]

It will be interesting to see what the actual allegations are.

Apparently, they were unable to connect Libby to the leak but are hopeful that they will be able to prove that he was lying when he said that he got the information from reporters when, they alledge, he actually got the information from Chaney.

Even the special prosecutor has termed Plame a classified employee and not a covert operative. If she was not a covert operative within the meaning of the statute then they are claiming he was lying to the FBI in an investigation of a crime which did not exist.

I heard an interview with the woman who wrote the legislation in question and she pointed out several reasons why the law was never intended to cover this situation.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think I can offer rigorous condemnation of their supposed offences considering I lie pretty frequently as well

I can't say I particularly give a shit about this case, but isn't the allegation that they lied to official inquiries / the grand jury or something?

I don't thing you can really compare that to various day-to-day lies about whether your girlfriends bum looks big or whatever.

[Phil^]

cue copy/pasted article from texan, sourced from $rand(rightwing_news_source) portraying libby as a martyr or some other silly position in 5...4...3...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I can't say I particularly give a shit about this case, but isn't the allegation that they lied to official inquiries / the grand jury or something?

I don't thing you can really compare that to various day-to-day lies about whether your girlfriends bum looks big or whatever.

Yeah but I've told some pretty serious lies.

There's no way the right wing can defend this. Martyr? C'mon. Look Libby, Chaney, Rove were all involved in leaking Valery Plame's name as political backlash againt Wilson's invalidation of the Yellow Cake Uranium niger claim. There is no way this isn't wrong. I just want to see Rove indicted for treason. Chaney too... but yeah I don't think that's going to happen, that's just my wet dream.

[Phil^]

you underestimate the right-wings ability to spew out utter nonsense in the belief that they are speaking the truth and anyone disagreeing with them needs to be nuked

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by dda

Even the special prosecutor has termed Plame a classified employee and not a covert operative. If she was not a covert operative within the meaning of the statute then they are claiming he was lying to the FBI in an investigation of a crime which did not exist.

Didn't they get Martha Stewart for that?

I find the whole thing baffling. The entire Washington establishment couldn't function without leaked information (they were even leaking the status of the grand jury's leak investigation ffs).

[dda]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Didn't they get Martha Stewart for that?

I find the whole thing baffling. The entire Washington establishment couldn't function without leaked information (they were even leaking the status of the grand jury's leak investigation ffs).

Yes. And it was even worse. She was prosecuted for saying that she didn't do anything. So, for proclaiming her innocence they prosecuted her for obstructing an investigation.

[lokken]

When will Texan post an article in this thread?

[MrL_JaKiri]

I don't really see why this matters in the slightest. It's Bush's second term, so it's not likely to affect him personally. Dick Cheney won't be running for president and time soon, and the only republican in Bush's cabinet that's widely expected to run for the Republican nomination as their presidential candidate is Conde Rice, who can be protected from this amazingly easily.
The republicans have a reasonable majority in both the house of representatives and the senate, so it's quite likely that, through the whips alone, he can force through legislation, especially given the increasingly partisan nature of congress. In any case, he won't get a rebellion of sufficient size to force anything past the presidential veto, so if nothing else he can effect a holding pattern irrespective of the public's perception.

[Paisley]

One thing political parties aren't short of is...would be fallguys for these kind of things.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by dda

Yes. And it was even worse. She was prosecuted for saying that she didn't do anything. So, for proclaiming her innocence they prosecuted her for obstructing an investigation.

How much sense does what you just said make? She was prosecuted for lying about specifics such as when she talked to her accomplice and what was said and why she sold her stock.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't really see why this matters in the slightest. It's Bush's second term, so it's not likely to affect him personally. Dick Cheney won't be running for president and time soon, and the only republican in Bush's cabinet that's widely expected to run for the Republican nomination as their presidential candidate is Conde Rice, who can be protected from this amazingly easily.
The republicans have a reasonable majority in both the house of representatives and the senate, so it's quite likely that, through the whips alone, he can force through legislation, especially given the increasingly partisan nature of congress. In any case, he won't get a rebellion of sufficient size to force anything past the presidential veto, so if nothing else he can effect a holding pattern irrespective of the public's perception.

I agree with your point, buf for a different reason altoghether. America has turned conservative. No amount of indictment or fraud at the White House, failure in Iraq, terrorist bombings, whatever is going to change the fact that most Americans sleep with a bible under their pillows and creationism in their hearts. It will take generations before things change. Democrats were in power for almost 50 years after the depression*. It will take that long, maybe longer.


*(Things started tilting when Nixon won the presidency - roughly - the country was in full conservative swing once RR won the election in 1980)

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by s|k

I agree with your point, buf for a different reason altoghether. America has turned conservative. No amount of indictment or fraud at the White House, failure in Iraq, terrorist bombings, whatever is going to change the fact that most Americans sleep with a bible under their pillows and creationism in their hearts. It will take generations before things change. Democrats were in power for almost 50 years after the depression*. It will take that long, maybe longer.


*(Things started tilting when Nixon won the presidency - roughly - the country was in full conservative swing once RR won the election in 1980)

If you look at the last 2 elections, the country was split down the middle. The conservatives do rule by a small majority but I think If americans as a whole took a greater interest in who is running the country (like it seems to me europeans do) Youd see alot more democratic turn out at the polling stations which would easily out number the conservitives. My opinion of course.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by buddies

One thing political parties aren't short of is...would be fallguys for these kind of things.

No kidding, I bet they have fall guy insurance. I mean have you ever heard of Libby before this week?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

I agree with your point, buf for a different reason altoghether. America has turned conservative. No amount of indictment or fraud at the White House, failure in Iraq, terrorist bombings, whatever is going to change the fact that most Americans sleep with a bible under their pillows and creationism in their hearts. It will take generations before things change. Democrats were in power for almost 50 years after the depression*. It will take that long, maybe longer.


*(Things started tilting when Nixon won the presidency - roughly - the country was in full conservative swing once RR won the election in 1980)

Yeah when I'm counting up to 50 I frequently get to 32 and just stop. Looking for repeating patterns in history kills braincells guys

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

If you look at the last 2 elections, the country was split down the middle. The conservatives do rule by a small majority but I think If americans as a whole took a greater interest in who is running the country (like it seems to me europeans do) Youd see alot more democratic turn out at the polling stations which would easily out number the conservitives. My opinion of course.

If they're split down the middle why do they control every branch of the government? Look, I see your point, but here's more evidence: Republicans reach out to the right wing during elections while Democrats try to distance themselves from liberals. One example of this, during the second debate in the 2004 elections both candidates were asked about abortion and John Kerry vacilated all over the place talking about 'it's a complex situation' while Bush just said 'I'm pro-life.'

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.



BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.

I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.

These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.

I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.

And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.

Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.

JK is catering to the conservative spirit of the country, by trying to create some kind of complex answer that hides his pro choice stance.

Bush just answers straight forwardly. The US is conservative, otherwise Kerry wouldn't be trying hide his liberalness and Bush wouldn't just announce his conservative stance on this issue so clearly and strongly.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah when I'm counting up to 50 I frequently get to 32 and just stop. Looking for repeating patterns in history kills braincells guys

I'm just saying there's a deep rooted mindset that will only go away when the brains with this \ mindset have been cremated, along witht he bodies, along with the bodies of the children of said bodies once they're not children anymore but have lived a full life with a passed downmindset in their bodies that are the ones that are also cremated in this horrible, horrible little shitty story I tried to concoct to make a point but miserably failed.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

If you look at the last 2 elections, the country was split down the middle. The conservatives do rule by a small majority but I think If americans as a whole took a greater interest in who is running the country (like it seems to me europeans do) Youd see alot more democratic turn out at the polling stations which would easily out number the conservitives. My opinion of course.

The conventional wisdom used to be that high voter turnout favored the Democrats, but the last Presidental election kind of blew that out of the water (voter turnout was the highest in 36 years).

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by s|k

If they're split down the middle why do they control every branch of the government? Look, I see your point, but here's more evidence: Republicans reach out to the right wing during elections while Democrats try to distance themselves from liberals. One example of this, during the second debate in the 2004 elections both candidates were asked about abortion and John Kerry vacilated all over the place talking about 'it's a complex situation' while Bush just said 'I'm pro-life.'

I agree with you 100% Kerry was a weak waffler. He claims to be a catholic in good standing yet goes against his religous doctrine and tries to appease the liberals.

I think think the abortion issue has drawn to many lines in the sand. Its almost like if you are republican, you are against it, and if a democrat you are for it. There needs to be a middle ground. Personally I am a Democrat who is against abortion but believe in a womans right to choose.

Anyway I have this undevelopped theory that conservitive minded people by and large feel a much stronger desire to direct the course this country is taking then a liberal minded person does. Hence they have a stronger voter turnout on election day. I reitterate my statement that if liberals would take more of an interest in this coutries direction, wed not see a a president win who courts the religious right.

Another problem is our lack of choices. In this last election, my mother who is a republican, was fed up with bush, but said shed "rather the idiot, she knows then one she doesnt".

I look towards the next election and dont see anyone of consequence coming out of the Democratic party, I do however very much like two republicans. Giuliani and Mccain. I lived under Giulianis Mayorship and he always struck me as a man of principle. What Ive seen of Mccain, I would have to say the same thing. It hasnt been since Jimmy Carter has a man of principle been president.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I agree with you 100% Kerry was a weak waffler. He claims to be a catholic in good standing yet goes against his religous doctrine and tries to appease the liberals.

I think think the abortion issue has drawn to many lines in the sand. Its almost like if you are republican, you are against it, and if a democrat you are for it. There needs to be a middle ground. Personally I am a Democrat who is against abortion but believe in a womans right to choose.

Anyway I have this undevelopped theory that conservitive minded people by and large feel a much stronger desire to direct the course this country is taking then a liberal minded person does. Hence they have a stronger voter turnout on election day. I reitterate my statement that if liberals would take more of an interest in this coutries direction, wed not see a a president win who courts the religious right.

Another problem is our lack of choices. In this last election, my mother who is a republican, was fed up with bush, but said shed "rather the idiot, she knows then one she doesnt".

I look towards the next election and dont see anyone of consequence coming out of the Democratic party, I do however very much like two republicans. Giuliani and Mccain. I lived under Giulianis Mayorship and he always struck me as a man of principle. What Ive seen of Mccain, I would have to say the same thing. It hasnt been since Jimmy Carter has a man of principle been president.

Here's what I want:

100% Universal Health Care Coverage for anyone within US borders, INCLUDING 'illegal' immigrants.

Decrease our military budget by 75%.

Switch to renewable energy sources.

Let a woman make decisions about her body.

Federalise the educational system, no more poor schools in minoirity areas, and rich schools in white areas, one budget, one equal alotment based on number of students, not the local tax base.

An end to capital punishment.

Campaign finance caps.

Progressive pay roll taxes, also capital gain taxes.

No more bailouts for shitty companies that can't stay out of bankruptcy.

Evolution taught in schools.

All removal of religious paraphanelia from government property.

Decriminalize drugs.

ETC

now some people say that makes me a liberal. but **** labels.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

(Things started tilting when Nixon won the presidency - roughly - the country was in full conservative swing once RR won the election in 1980)

Things started tilting with the Civil Rights Act. It lost the south for the democrats.

And they say the south isn't racist.

[edit]

I don't understand why "Liberal" has become such a vote-losing label in the US. Don't they know anything about their history?

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Phang

Anyway. Bush cabinet shown to have little regard for law, whether international, foreign or domestic. Millions stunned, non-Americans fail to bat eyelids.

I didn't realize Libby was a cabinet member. Did he get promoted?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Phang needs to watch more of The West Wing!

[Marilyn Manson]

'Special adviser' indicted for being a liar, millions unshocked.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Things started tilting with the Civil Rights Act.

Actually, things started moving politically in the South as early as 1948 - if not earlier - when Strom Thurmond ran against Truman on a Dixiecrat ticket, and managed to pick up four states. The fact that the Democrats weren't in the White House for most of the 50's helped keep the divisions under wraps to some extent, but Republican inroads were still made into states such as Texas and Louisiana, both of which went to Eisenhower in 1956, and had in previous decades - ever since reconstruction, in fact - been pretty solidly Democratic. By the sixties the process started up again, this time at full speed, and by the seventies the process was complete. The CRA was just the decisive episode in a realingment process which had begun much earlier.

(Waiting for Tactitus to nit-pick)

[midge5]

Originally Posted by s|k

JK is catering to the conservative spirit of the country, by trying to create some kind of complex answer that hides his pro choice stance.
.

I remember watching that with a few friends and we all thought it was actually quite a good answer.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by midge5

I remember watching that with a few friends and we all thought it was actually quite a good answer.

John Kerry violated the KISS* principle.


*Keep It Simple Stupid

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

John Kerry violated the KISS* principle.


*Keep It Simple Stupid

The great curse of man's quest for knowledge is that he believes eventually it'll all be summed up in one simple catchphrase.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Personally I am a Democrat who is against abortion but believe in a womans right to choose.

So you're pro-choice?

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So you're pro-choice?

Yes

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Yes

You're probably not the greatest example in the world against all republicans are pro-life and all democrats are pro-choice then.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by s|k

No kidding, I bet they have fall guy insurance. I mean have you ever heard of Libby before this week?

Can't say that I had heard of Libby, Join a political party haha you would be safer joining a skydiving group.
I have no sympathy for these muppets.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

If you look at the last 2 elections, the country was split down the middle. The conservatives do rule by a small majority but I think If americans as a whole took a greater interest in who is running the country (like it seems to me europeans do) Youd see alot more democratic turn out at the polling stations which would easily out number the conservitives. My opinion of course.

European voting levels are constantly dropping. In a few years we'll just have one old man who goes to the polling station and decides who'll run the country for the next 4 years. It'll happen accidently first time around but then it'll become a tradition like Groundhog Day.

It doesn't really matter though. Democrats are just slimey versions of Republicans who try todo pretty much the same things just in a more covert and diplomatic manner.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by s|k

If they're split down the middle why do they control every branch of the government? Look, I see your point, but here's more evidence: Republicans reach out to the right wing during elections while Democrats try to distance themselves from liberals. One example of this, during the second debate in the 2004 elections both candidates were asked about abortion and John Kerry vacilated all over the place talking about 'it's a complex situation' while Bush just said 'I'm pro-life.'

God forbid the leader of the only remaining superpower should have some type of reason for his policies that aren't handed down from God.

It was a good answer and explained his reasoning that even though he believes in God he isn't a religious nutcase.

the idea of leading based on personal belief seems kind of strange to me. Using your power to restrict the indivdual freedoms of people who don't agree with you is creepy. Although, on an issue lie abortion I can see his point as it is acomplex answer with no right or wrong answer.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm just saying there's a deep rooted mindset that will only go away when the brains with this \ mindset have been cremated, along witht he bodies, along with the bodies of the children of said bodies once they're not children anymore but have lived a full life with a passed downmindset in their bodies that are the ones that are also cremated in this horrible, horrible little shitty story I tried to concoct to make a point but miserably failed.

I'm afraid not. It's institutionalised. to remove it you would need to see the destruction of the state in a violent and humiliating way. there will always be people who try to make you afraid and subservant to the state. It was blacks then Communist, now terorrists, it'll never end.

[JonnyBGood]

States aren't about freedom. They're about a group of like-minded people banding together to keep out the dirty foreigners while randomly interpreting two thousand year old scrolls to come up with your laws. Lord knows we can't allow something like progress to interfer with the divine plans of the almighty.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I lived under Giulianis Mayorship and he always struck me as a man of principle. What Ive seen of Mccain, I would have to say the same thing. It hasnt been since Jimmy Carter has a man of principle been president.

Bush is a man of principle. that doesn't mean shit.

P.S. Sorry for all he replies in a row.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Personally I am a Democrat who is against abortion but believe in a womans right to choose.

This sort of terminology is a bit unclear though. I don't think many (outside the lunatic fringes of the environmental movement) are pro-Abortion as a matter of principle (i.e. they actively want women to have abortions). I favour the right to have abortions under almost any circumstances, yet I wouldn't say I actively want people to have abortions - that's entirely up to them. It's like saying you are for or against divorce. The issue is more about the "right to", not the actual act itself.

The only way you can be meaningfully "against abortion but for choice" is talking personally - i.e. if your spouse became pregnant then you'd like her to give birth and not terminate the pregnancy. But that seems a personal matter, and might depend anyway. A few years ago if I had got someone pregnant I would have wanted them to abort. But now my income is higher, and I'm a bit older I might not.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's like saying you are for or against divorce. The issue is more about the "right to", not the actual act itself.

that's an excellent analogy.

I hear often that America has turned very conservative, but I really don't see evidence. Perhaps we were farther to left inthe 60s, with huge lefty majorities everywhere (great society etc), but in 2000 Gore ran as a real lefty and Bush ran as a moderate, and Gore still picked up half a million more votes. The dem's real problem is the physical locations of their voters, not the lack of quantity: small states tend to lean red, and they get as many senators as big states, which tend blue. And are overrepresented in the electoral college. Another problem too: in other countries, people vote for parties, in America, people vote for individuals. And, in general, the recent individuals put up by the dems haven't been charismatic.


On the original topic, the reason there is no indictment for leaking is not that there were no criminal leaks, it is that the statute that makes leaking illegal sets a very difficult standard for prosecution (no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under it).

And I don't see how any sane human being can say she wasn't a field operative when even the specific case in question involves her getting sent into the field on an operation.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I find the whole thing baffling. The entire Washington establishment couldn't function without leaked information (they were even leaking the status of the grand jury's leak investigation ffs).

there is a specific law against leaking identities of our agents.

and there were almost no leaks about the grand jury investigation. lots of speculation, lots of 'grand jury met with X today, so lets go to our senior legal expert who will make some stuff up', and lots of stuff that just turned out to be wrong.