More Bush Religious BS

[strandinthewind]

June 25, 2008

Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

“Many qualified candidates” were rejected for the department’s honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, “constituted misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations.”

The shift began in 2002, when advisers to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale. While the recruitment was once controlled largely by career officials in each section who would review applications, political officials in the department began to assume more control, rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations “at a significantly higher rate” than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said.

The shift appeared to accelerate in 2006, under then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with two aides on the screening committee — Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald — singled out for particular criticism. The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who heads the House Judiciary Committee, saw the report as affirmation that the Justice Department had crossed the line in “putting politics where it doesn’t belong.”

“When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys,” Mr. Conyers said, “our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ‘’

The inspector general is still investigating other issues related to alleged politicization of the Justice Department, including the central question of why nine United States attorneys were fired in late 2006. Those findings have not been made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I mean WTF - fukc the law, we're doing Jesus' work. And -- if we can stack the deck for the Lords' Shepherds to make some cash - s0 be it.

These people make me sick. And, what makes me even sicker is that people in the US are too fukcing stupid to see this for exactly what it is

[estranged4life]

When I think of religion, the following comes to mind:

"George Carlin On Religion"

When it comes to bull****, big-time, major league bull****, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull**** story. Holy ****!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f*cked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of **** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever f*ck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a ****. Doesn't give a ****, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a ****, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to f*ck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f*ck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the **** bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't **** around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

(Copyright 1999 by George Carlin)

[vermicious knid]

I think their favorite university to hire from is Liberty University. The fact that it was founded by Jerry Falwell pretty much tells you all you need to know about what kind of school it is. It is considered a fourth tier school by US News and World Report, and yet it's graduates get scooped up left and right for jobs in the Bush administration. That is where that Monica Goodling came from, who testified to Congress, and said Alberto Gonzales was improperly trying to coach her in her testimony.

If they compile a department full of Bush cronies, they can do all sorts of nefarious deeds designed to ensure Republicans get elected to Congress. Have you heard of voter caging? That is where you send mail to someone you know will not be home. Then when it gets returned undelivered, you can claim that person doesn't exist and remove them from voting rolls. Republicans like to target Black college students who are away during the summer, and with a corrupt Justice Department, nothing gets done about this.

[mylittledemon]

June 25, 2008

Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

“Many qualified candidates” were rejected for the department’s honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, “constituted misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations.”

The shift began in 2002, when advisers to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale. While the recruitment was once controlled largely by career officials in each section who would review applications, political officials in the department began to assume more control, rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations “at a significantly higher rate” than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said.

The shift appeared to accelerate in 2006, under then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with two aides on the screening committee — Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald — singled out for particular criticism. The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who heads the House Judiciary Committee, saw the report as affirmation that the Justice Department had crossed the line in “putting politics where it doesn’t belong.”

“When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys,” Mr. Conyers said, “our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ‘’

The inspector general is still investigating other issues related to alleged politicization of the Justice Department, including the central question of why nine United States attorneys were fired in late 2006. Those findings have not been made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I mean WTF - fukc the law, we're doing Jesus' work. And -- if we can stack the deck for the Lords' Shepherds to make some cash - s0 be it.

These people make me sick. And, what makes me even sicker is that people in the US are too fukcing stupid to see this for exactly what it is


Where did religion come in to that piece at all? Did I miss something? Hell, I even read it twice.

[strandinthewind]

Where did religion come in to that piece at all? Did I miss something? Hell, I even read it twice.

It is in this sentence:

The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

They hired only right wing conservatives, which means religious conservatives in this day and age. This is important because the Dept. of Justice can be influenced by the religious crazies, e.g. those wanting to put gay (and straight people for that matter) in jail for consenual pre-marital sex and even marital sex if it involves fellatio -- which happened more than once over the last 20 or so years :shrug:

But, even taking out the religious angle, which most assuredly is there (The crazy right wing religious conservative Ashcroft spent thousands to cover the naked marble breasts of the statues in the Dept. of Justice building :rolleyes: ) -- it was illegal to do what they did. Yet, the rules, once again, do not apply to the Bush Administration.

[David]

Yet, the rules, once again, do not apply to the Bush Administration.Are you saying that President Bush is more Coriolan than Egmont?

[strandinthewind]

Are you saying that President Bush is more Coriolan than Egmont?

I wouldn't want to offend von Collin.

[David]

I wouldn't want to offend von Collin.You won't offend him. He's long dead.


"Any notion that I was distorting the Bible in that speech, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make that argument," Obama told reporters on board his press plane Tuesday night.

Obama had an expensive education, & a lengthy one. Can he speak grammatical English?

"It is a speech that affirms the role of faith not just in my life but in the life of the American people, that suggests that we make a mistake by trying to push faith out of the public square."

I guess not.

"I do make the argument that it's important for folks like myself, who think faith is important, that we try to translate some of our concerns into universal language so we can have open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us," Obama said.

No again.

[strandinthewind]

No again.

Isn't that "No[,] again" with some sort of punctuation :wavey:

[David]

Isn't that "No[,] again" with some sort of punctuation :wavey:How shall I put this? No.

There is no grammatical, rhetorical, or other reason that necessitates a comma in my adorable little elliptical phrase.

HURRY UP & RECORD WHAT YOU CAN OF EGMONT!!

[iamnotafraid]

June 25, 2008

Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.


These people make me sick. And, what makes me even sicker is that people in the US are too fukcing stupid to see this for exactly what it is


I'm sure glad the Democrats wouldn't do something like this. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

I'm sure glad the Democrats wouldn't do something like this. :confused:

Though the D's are jerks in many other ways, anectdotal evidence suggest they never did this. Clearly, the R's were bold about it in this and other areas - with gall I might add.

[SuzeQuze]

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I mean WTF - fukc the law, we're doing Jesus' work. And -- if we can stack the deck for the Lords' Shepherds to make some cash - s0 be it.

These people make me sick. And, what makes me even sicker is that people in the US are too fukcing stupid to see this for exactly what it is

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think they really feel that because they are "correct" they are above the law. It is the ultimate in arrogance.

[strandinthewind]

Well, here's the proof :shrug:

I have to wonder would any of the far right people on this board like it if they were treated this way at their jobs.

July 29, 2008
Report Faults Aides in Hiring at Justice Dept.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday.

A longtime prosecutor who drew rave reviews from his supervisors was passed over for an important counterterrorism slot because his wife was active in Democratic politics, and a much-less-experienced lawyer with Republican leanings got the job, the report said.

Another prosecutor was rejected for a job in part because she was thought to be a lesbian. And a Republican lawyer received high marks at his job interview because he was found to be sufficiently conservative on the core issues of “god, guns + gays.”

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, centered on the misconduct of a small circle of aides to Mr. Gonzales, including Monica Goodling, a former top adviser to the attorney general, and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff. It also found that White House officials were actively involved in some hiring decisions.

According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”

The report focused its sharpest criticism on Ms. Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly in the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

Before a crush of cameras, Ms. Goodling testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the uproar over the firings of nine United States attorneys, admitting that she may have “crossed the line” at times in using politics in hiring decisions. But Monday’s report catalogued an effort much more systematic than Ms. Goodling described, leading some Democrats to charge that she, Mr. Sampson and Mr. Gonzales should be investigated for perjury.

Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs.

The report released on Monday goes much further in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career positions, including immigration judges, assistant United States attorneys and even senior counterterrorism positions.

The pattern appeared most damaging in the hiring of immigration judges, as vacancies were allowed to go unfilled — and a backlog of deportation cases grew — while Mr. Gonzales’s aides looked for conservative lawyers to fill what were supposed to be apolitical jobs.

The inspector general’s investigation found that Ms. Goodling and a handful of other senior aides to Mr. Gonzales used in-person interviews and Internet searches to screen out candidates who might be too liberal and identify candidates seen as pro-Republican and supportive of President Bush.

One senior official, in describing Ms. Goodling’s strategy, likened it to a “farm system” used to fill temporary vacancies at the Justice Department with Republicans who could then move up.

The actions of Ms. Goodling, Mr. Sampson and other aides constituted official misconduct in violation of federal Civil Service laws and the department’s internal policies, the report concluded. Those who violated civil service laws cannot generally be prosecuted under criminal law.

All but one of the Justice Department officials cited in the report for misconduct have now left the department, meaning they are not subject to internal discipline. The report recommended that the Justice Department consider disciplinary action against the only remaining official, John Nowacki, who investigators found had drafted a statement to the news media concealing Ms. Goodling’s misconduct even though he knew the statement to be inaccurate.

Ms. Goodling and other lawyers named in the report could face disciplinary action from their local bar associations, including the possible loss of their bar licenses, officials said.

When interviewed by the inspector general, Mr. Gonzales said he was not aware that Ms. Goodling and other aides were using political criteria in their decisions for career positions. The report did not offer any direct evidence to contradict that assertion. Mr. Gonzales resigned last summer in the face of mounting accusations from Congressional Democrats that politics had corrupted the department.

His successor, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, said in a statement on Monday after the report’s release that he was “of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.” His statement included a vow to prevent such actions from happening again.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said of Monday’s report, “There really is not a lot new here.”

A lawyer for Ms. Goodling, John Dowd, said he had not had time to read through the report in detail and declined to comment on specific findings. Mr. Dowd rejected the suggestion from top Democrats, including Representative John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that the Justice Department investigate possible perjury charges against Ms. Goodling. “I think it’s outrageous what he said,” Mr. Dowd said. “There was no perjury here.”

Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Bradford Berenson, said that the report’s substance was consistent with what his client told Congress and that Mr. Sampson’s own role in using political considerations in hiring immigration lawyers stemmed from uncertainty about the law.

In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and nonpolitical career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run applicants at interviews through the same batch of questions, asking them about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants, the report found. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”

In Ms. Goodling’s notes from the interviews, she would give a shorthand assessment of how well they fared on threshold political issues, as in the notation for one candidate who she wrote was aptly conservative on “god, guns + gays.”

In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Ms. Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: “Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer.” Ms. Goodling interviewed the woman and wrote in her notes such phrases as “pro-God in public life,” and “pro-marriage, anti-civil union.” The woman was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.

Such consideration of political views would have been allowed in hiring candidates to political appointments, which make up a tiny part of the Justice Department’s 110,000 employees, but it was clearly banned under both Civil Service law and the Justice Department’s internal policies, the inspector general said.

The problem appears to have predated Ms. Goodling’s rise at the Justice Department. In one episode cited in 2004, when John Ashcroft was attorney general, Ms. Goodling’s predecessor as White House liaison, Susan Richmond, blocked the deputy attorney general’s office from extending the stint of one lawyer because she felt that the job should be filled by a political appointee loyal to Mr. Bush, the report said.

Stuart Levey, an aide in the deputy attorney general’s office, summed up his frustration in an e-mail message recounting his inability to keep the lawyer in his office. “I also probed whether there is something negative about him that I did not know,” Mr. Levey wrote. “Turns out there is: he is a registered Democrat,” he wrote, and Jan Williams, an official in the White House, “thinks everyone in the leadership offices should have some demonstrated loyalty to the President. She all but said that he should pack his bags and get out of Dodge by sunset.”

Such political consideration grew even more rampant when Ms. Goodling became White House liason in 2006. Ms. Goodling, with the apparent backing of Mr. Gonzales’ office, was able to override the wishes and recommendations of more experienced officials who far outranked her on paper. And her political influence in hiring decisions became so well known within the department that it generated complaints from senior officials who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy in 2007 following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington D.C. for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

In another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling blocked the appointment of a female prosecutor in Washington because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report. Ms. Goodling had heard unfounded rumors that the lawyer, Leslie Hagan, was having a relationship with her boss, Margaret Chiara, who was the United States attorney for the western district of Michigan, according to Ms. Hagan’s lawyer. Ms. Chiara was one of the nine United States attorneys fired from their posts for reasons that were never made clear to them. Some officials suggested that Ms. Chiara’s link to the case and Ms. Goodling’s objections may now explain her abrupt dismissal.

“There was no romantic relationship,” said Lisa Banks, the attorney for Ms. Hagan, “but the rumors were pernicious and grew legs, and it cost her the job.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washington/29justice.html?hp

[SuzeQuze]

Bummer they can't be prosecuted in criminal court. I hope they get disbarred. You can't fire someone for being gay or allegedly being gay. This is America for f*ck's sake!

[strandinthewind]

Bummer they can't be prosecuted in criminal court. I hope they get disbarred. You can't fire someone for being gay or allegedly being gay. This is America for f*ck's sake!

Actually, you can in the private sector in many states - Georgia, for example, is a fire at will state in the private sector. Note -- there are no EEO protections for gay people either.

Note - the Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting firing someone for that reason. W has not rescinded that order despite pressure to do so. This likely is the only area in gay rights that he can be praised for.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually, you can in the private sector in many states - Georgia, for example, is a fire at will state in the private sector. Note -- there are no EEO protections for gay people either.

Note - the Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting firing someone for that reason. W has not rescinded that order despite pressure to do so. This likely is the only area in gay rights that he can be praised for.

Personally, if someone only wants to hire left-handed clowns with red hair, they should be allowed to do so. If a business ONLY hires gays or crossdressers, I have no problem with that, or the converse. If a black guy doesn't want to hire white people, why not let him? Or conversely? We shouldn't force people to be enlightened. People should be as free to be as stupid and ignorant as they please. As long as the expectations are made clear from the beginning, I don't see an issue. However, once someone is hired, people should be free from harassment. I don't believe in forcing people to hire people that they don't want to hire. We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser. I have to give a drag queen the same consideration to come to work in women's clothing that I do if someone has a wheelchair, under my state's laws. That's a bit extreme. If there is a choice between two stores, where one I have to be checked out by a drag queen and another where I don't, I'm not sorry to go to the other store. I, as a consumer, shouldn't be forced into being made uncomfortable, nor should a business owner. We don't need the power of government to tell us how to run our lives or our businesses.

[ajmccarrell]

I'm sure glad the Democrats wouldn't do something like this. :confused:

It happens on both sides of the isle. Each side stacks the deck in their own favor. It's just the nature of politics. I mean, Nixon wasn't any more corrupt than anyone else, he just got caught and someone like Johnson didn't. Both political sides are guilty of corruption. Since the R's were in power until 2006, their dirty laundry is coming out. Give it a few years and you'll see the same thing on the D side too. There just hasn't been enough time to become equally as corrupt, since they've only been the majority party since 2006.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, here's the proof :shrug:

I have to wonder would any of the far right people on this board like it if they were treated this way at their jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washington/29justice.html?hp

Actually, I have been. I used to work for a very liberal guy and his son, who used to scream at me about the Iraq war, as if it was all my fault. My wife also worked for him and he would chew her out about what he assumed were her views, even though she actually would have agreed on some of the issues if he had bothered to listen to her. She stood up to him one day and was let go. I got left out of raises and other things, even though he said I deserved them. This same guy later on filed amended tax forms claiming I never worked for him and looted my social security. He also stuck me with one of his leases. I sued him over that one. I don't care so much about the discrimination part, I do care about his stealing the money he withheld from my paycheck. He sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard. He used to worship idols in the office too. He was just a creepy guy. I just see no reason to go running to the government over his behavior. I chose to work for him and I chose to leave.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I honestly do not know the answer in the private sector (the govt. is a different story). On the one hand, I think the laws disallowing discrimmination in hiring practices have had a profound effect on the advancement of educating people that minorities and women could succeed in the workplace. On the other hand, those same las get abused all the time. Are they worth it? I have to conclude yes they are.

As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, I have been. I used to work for a very liberal guy and his son, who used to scream at me about the Iraq war,

Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?

as if it was all my fault.

Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:

sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard.

:laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

I honestly do not know the answer in the private sector (the govt. is a different story). On the one hand, I think the laws disallowing discrimmination in hiring practices have had a profound effect on the advancement of educating people that minorities and women could succeed in the workplace. On the other hand, those same las get abused all the time. Are they worth it? I have to conclude yes they are.

As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot.


Actually, here is a link to an article on it. Gender Identity is clearly addressed in the bill. "Transgendered" covers people who dress as the other sex in the legislation.

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=1095

[ajmccarrell]

Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?



Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:



:laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh:

"Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?" I don't consider it appropriate work conversation. The guy was off his rocker. He would just walk around spouting this crap.

"Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:" The point is that I don't talk about it at work. Why should I have to deal with my voting habits with my boss? I thought you would be on the side of privacy here. I didn't bring any of this up with this guy or his nutty son. They brought it up to me.

":laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh" Uh, no they are not. You might listen for a week straight and you might be surprised. He mostly focuses on issues and some cheesy egomania. Occasionally, he may veer off into stories, like that guy who got killed in Enumclaw at the bestiality ranch, but everyone did when that happened . He's not crude or generally angry. Air America was a lot of angry people. Michael Savage is a different story, then again, I stopped listening to him years ago. I don't like angry or crude people on the radio.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, here is a link to an article on it. Gender Identity is clearly addressed in the bill. "Transgendered" covers people who dress as the other sex in the legislation.

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=1095

I thought you meant a Federal Law, that is what I was talking about. I do not know different states' laws.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Why should I have to deal with my voting habits with my boss? I thought you would be on the side of privacy here. I didn't bring any of this up with this guy or his nutty son. They brought it up to me . . . .

Did you feel compelled to respond past though the point of something like "I am not talking about this at work." If they kept at it, then they were/are a$$holes despite their political views.

[strandinthewind]

. . . So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh" Uh, no they are not. You might listen for a week straight and you might be surprised. He mostly focuses on issues and some cheesy egomania. Occasionally, he may veer off into stories, like that guy who got killed in Enumclaw at the bestiality ranch, but everyone did when that happened . He's not crude or generally angry. Air America was a lot of angry people. Michael Savage is a different story, then again, I stopped listening to him years ago. I don't like angry or crude people on the radio.

Here are some of Rush's better ones,

We have affectionately named a female-to-male sex-change operation the "add-a-dick-to-me," and we have news about "add-a-dick-to-mes" today…

Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters. Limbaugh then asked why Democrats don’t say “To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base.”

:shrug:

. . . . though he likely does not remember them giving that he had thousands of OxyC tablets, but felt persecuted by the law when they busted him like a common dealer/druggie, which he was and though he openly advocated for years against people just like himself, to wit:

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

What a fukcing hypocrite :rolleyes:

[ajmccarrell]

I thought you meant a Federal Law, that is what I was talking about. I do not know different states' laws.

Here is what you actually said, "As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot." I said Washington to begin with.

[ajmccarrell]

Here are some of Rush's better ones,

We have affectionately named a female-to-male sex-change operation the "add-a-dick-to-me," and we have news about "add-a-dick-to-mes" today…

Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters. Limbaugh then asked why Democrats don’t say “To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base.”

:shrug:

. . . . though he likely does not remember them giving that he had thousands of OxyC tablets, but felt persecuted by the law when they busted him like a common dealer/druggie, which he was and though he openly advocated for years against people just like himself, to wit:

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

What a fukcing hypocrite :rolleyes:

He acknowledged his hypocrisy and plead out. He did what he would have expected someone else to do. He never said he didn't do it, or that he changed his views. He said he was wrong and he was wrong. He's human. Unlike Obamessiah! :angel:

I did acknowledge he occasionally gets crude. He generally is not, he has moments here and there. He occasionally gets angry. Most of the time he's just being funny. The "addadickonme" stuff is supposed to be funny. Air America is crude ALL THE TIME and angry ALL THE TIME. I mean, Al Franken threw a folding chair at Michael Medved during a debate.

[strandinthewind]

Here is what you actually said, "As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot." I said Washington to begin with.

I was talking about Washington as in D.C. as demonstrated by the references to W and Clinton and the EEOC. I do not think I was unclear. But, if I was, now I am pretty sure I am clear :cool:

[strandinthewind]

He acknowledged his hypocrisy and plead out. He did what he would have expected someone else to do. He never said he didn't do it, or that he changed his views. He said he was wrong and he was wrong. He's human. Unlike Obamessiah! :angel:

He could have moved to Zurich and/or volunteered to serve the jail sentence he openly advocated for others just like him to serve.

And - he did not just plead that out. He used his cohorts in the media to try to save his face by acting like the state was persecuting him for being Rush L. never mind the thousands of tablets of hillbilly heroin he had. Mind you, he had to openly and knowingly violate about 100 federal and state laws regarding the distribution of controlled substances.

Defending him in any capacity on that point (much less the non sequitor bait and switch to Obama) is ridiculous.

[ajmccarrell]

He could have moved to Zurich and/or volunteered to serve the jail sentence he openly advocated for others just like him to serve.

And - he did not just plead that out. He used his cohorts in the media to try to save his face by acting like the state was persecuting him for being Rush L. never mind the thousands of tablets of hillbilly heroin he had. Mind you, he had to openly and knowingly violate about 100 federal and state laws regarding the distribution of controlled substances.

Defending him in any capacity on that point (much less the non sequitor bait and switch to Obama) is ridiculous.


I was trying to be funny about Obama. Anyway, the prosecutor DID violate his civil rights on some levels. Remember, even the ACLU decided to take up his case. Just because Limbaugh did wrong does not mean that everything the prosecution did was right. I'm not defending his drug use. I'm saying that he was honest about it. Remember the flap about the viagra he had on his vacation? Releasing that info was a violation of HIPAA law. The prosecution leaked that information and it was illegal. He doesn't have cronies in the media, remember he calls them all the "drive by" media. They don't like him at all.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

The ACLU had problems with the law enforcement exception of HIPPA, not really with Rush. I'd think you, based onb your previous posts, would support HIPPA's law enforcement exception. Interestestingly, I am sure Rush did in the context of the villified drug addicts prior to his arrests for the thousands of tablets :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . They don't like him at all.

Well, FOx sure defended him and he has appeared on FOx a few times.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, FOx sure defended him and he has appeared on FOx a few times.

That's different. Fox is actually neutral, the rest of the media just pretends to be. :lol:

Besides, Rush being an ex-junkie doesn't invalidate his opinions or make Air America any less abhorrent. You are employing ad homonym arguments to invalidate the guy instead of his opinions and how enjoyable his show might be. I mean, if we followed your train of thought there, we wouldn't watch anything or listen to anything because everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. I mean, we're supposed to listen to Alex Baldwin's opinion on world events, or Madonna's, and they have their faults too.

[strandinthewind]

That's different. Fox is actually neutral, the rest of the media just pretends to be. :lol:

Besides, Rush being an ex-junkie doesn't invalidate his opinions or make Air America any less abhorrent. You are employing ad homonym arguments to invalidate the guy instead of his opinions and how enjoyable his show might be. I mean, if we followed your train of thought there, we wouldn't watch anything or listen to anything because everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another.

Well, no I am not. I was responding to your statement "sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard." So, I pointed out that Rush could be as crude. Then, I thought we had moved on from Air America, which I never said was not crude. They most certainly were. I did not like them at all. But, they were no cruder on average than Rush L. I thought we were on a side topic about Rush and his dirty little problem.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, no I am not. I thought we had moved on from Air America, which I never said was not crude. They most certainly were. I did not like them at all.

OK cool, then we really don't disagree that much. I mean, Rush being a pill popper doesn't make him as bad as Air America is my point. I think his show CAN be crude and I've heard him lose his temper, just vastly less than Al Franken or Janeane Garafalo might.

[strandinthewind]

Besides, Rush being an ex-junkie doesn't invalidate his opinions . . . .

Umm - it does on his vitriole on drug addicts :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

Umm - it does on his vitriole on drug addicts :shrug:

You see, I don't see him as being vitriolic.

[strandinthewind]

You see, I don't see him as being vitriolic.

He openly persecuted and taunted drug addicts and with contempt. That is the definition of the word :shrug:

And, he was an addict all the while, which makes him a rank hypocrite.

Interestingly, many of the most self righteous of the R's seemingly fall big time on the same ****te they persecute.

[ajmccarrell]

He openly persecuted and taunted drug addicts and with contempt. That is the definition of the word :shrug:

And, he was an addict all the while, which makes him a rank hypocrite.

Interestingly, many of the most self righteous of the R's seemingly fall big time on the same ****te they persecute.

Still goes both ways. I mean, Congressman Jefferson?!

[strandinthewind]

Still goes both ways. I mean, Congressman Jefferson?!

When and Who did he persecute on any comparable level?

I think he is a jerk, but he is far less self righteous than, say, Strom Thurmond, the far right religious zealots, and, for that matter, Rush. Interstingly, he also did not lie to send thousands of innocent soldiers to their deaths based on what he knew was a lie. So, while what he allegedly did (has their been a verdict?) was a bad thing -- I suggest that it is slightly less egrigious than fostering hate in people against one certain type of people when you are doing that very thing :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

When and Who did he persecute on any comparable level?

I think he is a jerk, but he is far less self righteous than, say, Strom Thurmond, the far right religious zealots, and, for that matter, Rush. Interstingly, he also did not lie to send thousands of innocent soldiers to their deaths based on what he knew was a lie. So, while what he allegedly did (has their been a verdict?) was a bad thing -- I suggest that it is slightly less egrigious than fostering hate in people against one certain type of people when you are doing that very thing :shrug:

Oh, come on. How about Jack Murtha? Back in 1982, he was caught trying to take money for bribes. The only reason he wasn't put away with his other cronies is that he held out for more money, so he didn't actually TAKE any. He's the first guy to pounce on anyone else. Heck, the Keating 5, 4 of them were democrats. The Bouncing House Bank Transactions, all but one were democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, etc. Heck, Harry Reid and his land deals. Obama and his ties to Tony Rezco, etc. It happens everywhere and these people are the first to pounce on Republicans caught doing the same stuff.

The basic assumption that the WMD's was a lie is still highly questionable. No one knew there weren't any. Again, as has been pointed out, the Russians, French, British, Bill Clinton, and even Saddam's own generals believed he had the WMD's. No one lied, there is a difference between a lie and being wrong.

[strandinthewind]

The basic assumption that the WMD's was a lie is still highly questionable. No one knew there weren't any. Again, as has been pointed out, the Russians, French, British, Bill Clinton, and even Saddam's own generals believed he had the WMD's. No one lied, there is a difference between a lie and being wrong.

It is not the existence of WMD. I agree that the world unanimously thought SH had something or, at the least, needed to account for what he had in the past, which he was loathe to do. The issue arises with the exigency to invade. They had to sell that because the WMD excuse was not enough or else we would have invaded based on that alone.


So, W and his administration deliberately lied about the yellow cake. They needed to scare Americans and the world. There really is no disputing that.

Also, many of the larger players in that general fiasco as well as many Congressional and other investigations clearly demonstrate that W and his cronies also (on top of the lies) deliberatley manipulated the intelligence to the light most favorable for war.

What is confusing about that?

[ajmccarrell]

It is not the existence of WMD. It was the exigency to invade. They had to sell that because the WMD excuse was not enough.


So, W and his administration deliberately lied about the yellow cake. They needed to scare Americans and the world. There really is no disputing that.

Also, many of the larger players in that general fiasco as well as many Congressional and other investigations clearly demonstrate that W and his cronies also (on top of the lies) deliberatley manipulated the intelligence to the light most favorable for war.

What is confusing about that?


The confusing part about what you said is that it flat out isn't true. It's the stuff of the Huffington Post and other libby blogs.

[strandinthewind]

The confusing part about what you said is that it flat out isn't true. It's the stuff of the Huffington Post and other libby blogs.

Please find me anything that suports your proposition that W and his cronies did not lie about SH looking to procure the yellow cake.

[ajmccarrell]

Please find me anything that suports your proposition that W and his cronies did not lie about SH looking to procure the yellow cake.

The best thing to do would be to find something besides a liberal blog that says that they deliberately lied. Your question is a "when did you stop beating you wife" question that assumes a basis that cannot be assumed. It illustrates everything that is wrong with liberals today, which is "the seriousness of the charge" and the need to defend yourself against it, instead of whether or not the charges have any merit to begin with.

[strandinthewind]

The best thing to do would be to find something besides a liberal blog that says that they deliberately lied. Your question is a "when did you stop beating you wife" question that assumes a basis that cannot be assumed. It illustrates everything that is wrong with liberals today, which is "the seriousness of the charge" and the need to defend yourself against it, instead of whether or not the charges have any merit to begin with.

Um - what liberal blog did I cite to?

Once again, please show me the proof that W did not lie about the yellow cake - I suggest I'll be waiting for a long, long time :wavey:

But, here is well documented evidence from credible sources of W's lies http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_George_Bush_lie_about_the_WMDs_in_Iraq

[ajmccarrell]

Oh, wikipedia?! My professors wouldn't even let me use the site because of credibility issues. It's great for quick answers, but for all I know, you just wrote the article.

You will be waiting a long time. You missed my point entirely. Why defend a purely subjective accusation? You cannot prove or disprove intent. Your whole accusation and expectation of an answer is specious at best. Why defend against a bogus charge?

How about this. You defend Obama against the accusation that he raped my wife. It's the seriousness of the charge that matters and not the source or the merits of the charge, according to you.

[strandinthewind]

Oh, wikipedia?! My professors wouldn't even let me use the site because of credibility issues. It's great for quick answers, but for all I know, you just wrote the article.

You will be waiting a long time. You missed my point entirely. Why defend a purely subjective accusation? You cannot prove or disprove intent. Your whole accusation and expectation of an answer is specious at best. Why defend against a bogus charge?

How about this. You defend Obama against the accusation that he raped my wife. It's the seriousness of the charge that matters and not the source or the merits of the charge, according to you.


The only reason I cited to it was because it had all the quotes in one place. I think you have way too many issues with the source of things. For future reference, when I cite to something, it usually is for the quotes in it, not the spin put on it.

As for W, all your amateur logic is unconvincing in light of those quotes, which I urge you to read before your foot goes further into your mouth ;) I mean do you actually think every single person is wrong and W is right?

BTW - where is the evidence supporting the yellow cake issue :wavey: You and I both know it does not exist.

[ajmccarrell]

How could there be evidence for or against a made up charge? You are not understanding anything I said and are insulting me because you don't understand what I said. I'm SO done with you. Weren't you one of those guys who got banned a while back for being a general putz? :laugh: Leave me alone. I will not give you the power to ruin my day. Insult me all you like, lie about what I have said all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you are a jerk.

[strandinthewind]

How could there be evidence for or against a made up charge? You are not understanding anything I said and are insulting me because you don't understand what I said. I'm SO done with you. Weren't you one of those guys who got banned a while back for being a general putz? :laugh: Leave me alone. I will not give you the power to ruin my day. Insult me all you like, lie about what I have said all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you are a jerk.

I have never been banned, though I may be a putz.

But, here is the evidence that you are loathe to admit:

Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003

Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road

Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim — merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that "I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."

While the Bush administration may have been sweating, just a little during the past two months, over the absence of WMD finds in Iraq, a majority of Americans appear willing to believe that going to war was justified even if no such weapons are ever found. Across the Atlantic, however, Bush's closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being roasted daily by Britain's media and legislature, some of the fiercest attacks coming from within his own party. Just this week, a parliamentary inquiry exonerated Blair's government on the charge that it "sexed up" intelligence reports to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam's regime, but nonetheless remained deeply skeptical of the case made by Blair for going to war.

The fact that Blair's and Bush's governments face parallel but separate inquires from their own legislatures operates, in some ways, like the police tactic of interrogating suspects separately in the hope of finding discrepancies in their testimony. The U.S., for example, started a lot earlier than the British conceding that actual weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. British officials were apoplectic some weeks ago when the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggested Saddam may have destroyed his banned weapons before the invasion. Blair, after all, has stuck by the promise that WMD will be found in Iraq — at least until this week, when he began the subtle migration to a claim that the coalition may only find evidence that Iraq had maintained weapons programs rather than any actual weapons.

Blair, moreover, appears to be sticking by the Niger uranium allegation despite the White House retraction, insisting that it was based on sources besides the forged letters. U.S. officials had hinted, also, that other sources had pointed to Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Africa, but that none of these leads was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech.

Hardly surprisingly, the Democrats are demanding an inquiry. The surging support for antiwar Vermont governor Howard Dean in the Democratic nomination race signals deep discomfort among the party's core supporters over the war, and some of those who voted for the war may be inclined to use the presence of fake intelligence in President Bush's case for war to back away from their own support for the invasion. Still, they may have plenty to work with, because there's plenty of evidence emerging to challenge the White House assertion that it was not informed, before the State of the Union speech, that the Niger claim had been debunked by U.S. intelligence.

Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it. Ambassador Joseph Wilson emphasized that he had reported back through traditional channels, and asked whether his report had been ignored because it didn't fit with the administration's preconceptions about Iraq.

More troubling questions arise from the claim by IAEA chief Dr Mohammed el-Baradei, who was in charge of the nuclear component of the prewar UN inspection program in Iraq, that he was provided with the Niger "evidence" only in February, despite it having been shared on Capitol Hill the previous October. The U.S. and Britain were publicly committed to sharing intelligence with the UN inspectors in order to help them find a "smoking gun," yet el-Baradei was kept in the dark about evidence that was ostensibly directly relevant to his inquiry. And, of course, almost as soon as he was shown the Niger documents, el-Baradei and his team concluded that they were forgeries. Also, despite U.S. and British claims that "other sources" had indicated Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa, el-Baradei stresses that the Niger forgeries were the only evidence offered to the investigators.

Even more damning are reports that CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. If those prove true, it kicks the jams out from under the administration's claim that the presence of a falsehood in the President's case against Iraq was simply the product of ignorance. And it may be expected that the CIA will more and more sharply signal that it passed its findings up the food chain, because on the basis of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, they'd be left to take the blame if they didn't. Then again, the media may turn its attention to the role of the Vice President's office: After all, Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney's office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson's findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information.

And right now, the game in Washington is to pin the blame for the fact that a fib, conscious or unconscious, made it into the State of the Union address. And in a summer news trough, that's bad news for the White House.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html
____________________________________________

[ajmccarrell]

Do you know the difference between an op-ed article and a news story?! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Do you know the difference between an op-ed article and a news story?! :laugh:

Once again, please focus on the quotes. They are valid no matter where they are printed.

Also, do you not know the White House admitted the error in the Nigerian yellow cake issue it asserted as a fact in the SOU address, when it knew it was false before the Address (e.g. a lie) ? -- to wit (emphasis supplied)

White House Admits WMD Error

July 8, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS/AP) Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

Claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a primary justification for the war, but U.S. forces have yet to find any such weapons. The House and Senate intelligence panels are looking into prewar intelligence on Iraq and how it was used by the Bush administration.

Mr. Bush said in his address to Congress in January that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake" uranium "from Niger," Fleischer told reporters. "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

Fleischer's remarks follow assertions by an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa to investigate allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The envoy, Joseph Wilson, said Sunday that the Bush administration manipulated his findings, possibly to strengthen the rationale for war.

Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to the West African nation of Gabon, was dispatched in February 2002 to explore whether Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Writing in a New York Times op-ed piece, Wilson said it did not take him long "to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

In an interview on NBC, Wilson insisted his doubts about the purported Iraq-Niger connection reached the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

In fact, he said, Cheney's office inquired about the purported Niger-Iraq link.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there," Wilson said.

Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials, the assertion that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations in March — after the State of the Union — that the information about the uranium procurement efforts was based on forged documents.

A British parliamentary committee concluded Monday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government mishandled intelligence material on Iraqi weapons — and said key questions remain about the allegations of an attempted uranium deal with Nigeria.

The committee, however, cleared ministers of deliberately misleading lawmakers.

Blair said Tuesday he had made a valid case for military action.

"I refute any suggestion that we misled Parliament or the people," Blair told the House of Commons Liaison Committee, stressing he stands "totally" behind the case he made for war.

"I am quite sure we did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein because not merely was he a threat…to the wider world but it was an appalling regime that the world is well rid of."

On Monday, the Foreign Affairs Committee said Blair "misrepresented" the status of a dossier published in January.

Blair had referred to it as "further intelligence," although he acknowledged later that it contained material from a graduate thesis published on the Internet.

The committee said that another dossier on Iraqi weapons, published in September, gave undue prominence to an uncorroborated claim that Iraq could deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order being given. It also said the "jury is still out" on the accuracy of the information contained in the intelligence document.

"The jury is not out at all," Blair retorted Tuesday. "There is no doubt that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction."

Blair said Tuesday he had no doubts that evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs would be found in Iraq, but said his case would not be weakened if no weapons were found.

Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon that coalition forces needed at least another four months to search for banned arms in Iraq.

The weapons dispute is taking a toll on support for the war in Britain. The Times of London says a poll of 1,000 adults over the weekend find support for the war slipped from 64 percent in April to 47 percent now. Opposition rose from 24 percent in April to 45 percent now.

The poll also found Blair was deemed less trustworthy than rival political leaders.

The dispute is also affecting Australia's government, which will undergo a parliamentary inquiry on the matter next month.

The Australian Broadcasting Company reports Prime Minister John Howard, while continuing to express confidence in the prewar intelligence, is distancing himself from the data passed to him by the United States and Britain.

"I had discussions myself with senior figures in the intelligence community, very senior figures in both countries," Howard said. "I believe that they believed very strongly in their judgments…We had lots of material put to us over a period of months and it built a case, necessarily judgments had to be made by the agencies."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

[ajmccarrell]

Making a mistake is not the same as a lie. There is a material disconnect that you are not able to grasp. If someone is wrong, it makes them human, not necessarily a liar. A lie needs INTENT to deceive, something you are well practiced at. Perhaps your own dishonesty has clouded your judgment, or maybe you're just desperate to justify your anger and hatred. You don't strike me as a happy man.

[strandinthewind]

. . . The basic assumption that the WMD's was a lie is still highly questionable. No one knew there weren't any. Again, as has been pointed out, the Russians, French, British, Bill Clinton, and even Saddam's own generals believed he had the WMD's. No one lied, there is a difference between a lie and being wrong.

I never said the basic assumption about the alleged WMD was a lie. In fact, I think the Bush Administration was correct in pressing SH's feet to the fire with the renewed inspections. I think after 9-11, the world could not afford to let the possibility that SH had those WMD go unchecked.

I am arguing that once the UN agreed to renewed inspections, the Bush Administration realized the inpections would not allow the US to go to war. So, the Bush Administration lied to the UN about the exigency of threat and lied to the American people3 about the same. The yellow cake and the mushroom cloud lines were all BS and they knew it when they said it. They said it to scare the already scared American people who could readily see a nuclear bomb going off in the US. They were so ready to see that they bought Cheny's lies that SH and Al-Q and OBL were in bed together, then Cheney and co. knew there was no such connection. That is how they sold the concept of the invasion of Iraq as opposed to the renewed inspections for the WMD, which I agree everyone thought were there, save for any kind of nuclear device, which everyone knew SH did not have.

That is the distinction and it is a huge one.

[ajmccarrell]

Wow! Now you're lying about your own statements. This is quite entertaining now. When are you going to say that Bush CAUSED 9/11! This is conspiracy day!

[strandinthewind]

Making a mistake is not the same as a lie . . . . .

There was no mistake. They were repeatedly told the Niger story was false and they asserted it anyway. That is a lie on their part. Sadly, it had cost the lives of over 5,000 U.S soldiers, and the body parts of tens of thousands more -- not to mention the arguably hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Wow! Now you're lying about your own statements. This is quite entertaining now.

Please cite one instance when I said I did not think Iraq had WMD. I have consistently and repeatedly said the world though Iraq did. I have also said Clinton killed in the name of those same WMD.

My problem is with the Bush Administration's lying about the exigency of the threat as a springboard to justify an all out invasion.

[ajmccarrell]

Lemme guess! Next you'll be saying that 9/11 was all part of it and Al Qaeda is really the CIA. Boy, I bet this will be good soon. Let me microwave the popcorn.

[strandinthewind]

. . . When are you going to say that Bush CAUSED 9/11! This is conspiracy day!

I do not think he caused it. I do think, however, his adminstration was warned that Al-Q, not Iraq was the real threat. Sadly, the Bush Adminsitration chose to ignore that warning and focus instead on Iraq. In fact, they were warned that OBL wanted to fly planes into buildings, yet they still chose to concentrate on Iraq, to wit:

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes - information which prompted the administration to issue an alert to federal agencies - but not the American public.

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot.

When hijacked airliners plowed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, Middle Eastern men trained at U.S. flight schools were at the controls.

According to Fleischer, after the information was presented to President Bush in August, the administration put domestic agencies on alert in the summer, just months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

That alert was not announced publicly but Fleischer suggested it may have prompted the hijackers to change their tactics.

"The administration, based on hijackings, notified the appropriate agencies and, I think, that's one of the reasons that you saw that the people who committed the 9-11 attacks used box cutters and plastic knives to get around America's system of protecting against hijackings," he said.

Fleischer did not say which agencies were put on alert and what they did in response.

On Thursday, National security adviser Condoleezza Rice described a series of threats uncovered by intelligence officials, beginning in September of 2000 and reaching a height in the summer of 2001, that dealt mostly with American interests overseas.

Those threats prompted a series of alerts issued by the FBI to law-enforcement agencies and from the Federal Aviation Administration to the nation's airlines and airports, she said. There also were strong warnings to Americans to be careful overseas.

Earlier this month, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham complained that the Justice Department and CIA had not provided congressional investigators with adequate access to documents and witnesses for a probe into intelligence failures related to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Graham said through a spokesman Wednesday that the revelations in the FBI memo mark an important discovery in Congress' investigation into why the FBI, CIA and other U.S. agencies failed to learn of and prevent the Sept. 11 plot.

"It represents a failure to connect the dots," said Graham spokesman Paul Anderson. "This was dismissed rather lightly at FBI headquarters."

On Feb. 6, in his first public comments after the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA Director George Tenet told a congressional hearing that the CIA had seen "spectacular threat reporting about massive casualties against the United States" in the spring and summer last year, but there was no specific information.

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the CIA had continuously informed policymakers throughout the summer before Sept. 11 that bin Laden and his network might try to harm U.S. interests and discussed a range of possibilities that included hijackings.

"That was among the many things that we talked about all the time as a potential terrorist threat," said the intelligence official. "But when we talked about hijackings, we talked about that in the traditional sense of hijackings, not in the sense of somebody hijacking an aircraft and flying it into a building. We talked about concern about the general noise level about al Qaeda planning and we were trying to figure out what they would do. We never had specifics about time, place, MO (method of operation)."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml

[ajmccarrell]

You are a racist because the guy who presented the Iraq argument was Colin Powell, who is black. You are ignoring him in your statements, which implies that you believe that Powell was Bush's slave.

I mean, you twist my statements beyond recognizition, so why can't I have a little fun?!

[GypsyVisions]

ajm... the racist accusation is the dumbest effing thing I've read on this board in the last few months.

Bush did lie. Weren't you there? I remember it very clearly. It was sometime between September the 11th and Dick C. shooting his friend in the face... well.. the neck more so..


Lastly.. you know.. if you support the war.. or any war for that matter.. then you should be out there fighting it.. whether you're in a wheelchair or you're the sole wage earner in a house of 20.. Leave the rest of us to avoid the violence.

[ajmccarrell]

I did serve and have two saves to my credit from pulling two people out of burning vehicles, thanks.
The racist allegation was supposed to be dumb. The whole point of it was referring to another discussion I have with Strand. Then again, liberals are always frowning and seemingly have no sense of humor. I mean, who can laugh when there's so much suffering! I was pointing out that his allegations that I'm a racist were ridiculous because I used the same logic. It's clear from your response that you are just a party hack and have no interest in really debating the issue. You just want to take cheap swipes. Go ahead and vote for your messiah and watch us hit a full blown depression instead of the slowdown we're having.

Oh yeah, my brother in law served four tours over there. My brother was a Lt. Colonel. My father was a Navy Petty Officer, my step dad was an AF Sergeant, my grandfather was Captian during WWII and was a POW. No one in my family has ever shied away from active duty. I did my duty and went to college a month before the war started, I got out early due to a medical issue, I tried to re-up a couple of years ago, but my medical condition made me ineligible. I was an Admin Officer in a SAR unit stationed at a Naval Radio Station.

[GypsyVisions]

Yeah..uh hu.. you served..he served.. she served...


Yes, well .. if you've served, and you STILL support the war..then um...don't you have somewhere to be?

[GypsyVisions]

I'm sorry.. it just sounds really generic ..and similar to every argument I've ever heard..

You served, then medical problems..and..here you are.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, I don't want to delve into it very much, because I'd like to maintain my privacy. I tried to go back in 2005, but I couldn't. I had PTSD from being attacked by someone. Once you have that, you cannot go back. Sorry to disappoint you.

Your point is basically idiotic. It's just another point that someone got off of Air America. I mean, I support tax cuts too, does that mean I should stop paying my taxes? I am also for public executions and mob justice. Should I kill people in public squares and incite riots? I think child molesters should die slow painful deaths, should I then hunt them down? There are legal processes in which to do things. Taking it upon myself to go over to another country and start killing people on my own, over my own country's objections is treason and would make me a terrorist by definition. It's just a knee-jerk platitude from some radio show you picked up somewhere that sounds good, but means little.

[strandinthewind]

I want to know how you served for a seemingly long duration, went to college, and were homeless, got married and have been here for two years -- all before age 26?

I am not being smart. I think it would be an interesting story.

[SuzeQuze]

strand isn't even a liberal. :lol: God I hate that word. It's been so battered and twisted by the right so as to have lost its true meaning. Generous and open-minded. I find the arguments against liberalism in this thread amusing. And not everyone on Air America is angry. And the angry ones are not ALWAYS angry. That is just not true. Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow are both really intelligent non-angry broadcasters who just make sense. Painting any group with a broad brush is dangerous, including liberals. It would behoove you to actually listen to the content of the broadcasts as opposed to judging the people and their views. Respecting the opinions of others and their right to have them is smart. Although it is the tougher stance - it is much easier to sling sh*t and namecall.

And people suffering from things like PTSD is exactly why we lefties are against war. We don't think the human suffering is worth it. Especially when the war was begun under false pretenses and when another initiative that was supported by most Americans was not finished.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Especially when the war was begun under false pretenses and when another initiative that was supported by most Americans was not finished.

That is what gets me the most. I mean after the Bush Administration was caught with it's pants down on 9/11 after ignoring the warnings of every expert in the area -- did they change focus from Iraq to Al-Q? Not really. Yes, they invaded Afganistan (after giving OBL time to pack his bags :rolleyes: ) and then when they failed to get OBL, the went right back to focusing on Iraq. To me, that was the wrong thing to do. Yes, I think the UN should have resumed inspections. I was for that. But, the lies given to justify the rush to war were patent and the invasion of Iraq was just the wrong thing to do against the wrong enemy at the wrong time. The Bush Administration never learned its lesson.

Then again, W has failed at everything he has ever done in the provate sector -- what can you expect from a hog but a grunt :shrug: