Olbermann calls for Bush & Cheney to resign

The only thing more pathetic than this statement is that there are very likely a lot of people that would agree.

The Libby pardon isn’t going to bring Bush down. Yes, it shows the wanton disregard for the law that this adminstration has. But it has no legs. Between the people that believe the “but she wasn’t covert” lie and those that point to Clinton’s pardons (many of which were as inexcusable), there isn’t a great groundswell of outrage. Sorry, but we’re going to have to catch them red-handed doing something illegal.

The prosecutor flap has more potential to do the trick, if the stonewalling can be broken and the truth is ever told. But I’m not betting on it.

Actually, I personally don’t 100% disagree with bob_co’s statement, the caveat being that we have an identifiable enemy, sponsored by a recognized country, with an actual army that fights according to actual rules of engagement.

In which case, I say bombs away! Otherwise, we’ve got to keep on rooting out the dirtbag suicide bombers and militant islamo-fascists who have proven themselves willing, with wild and reckless abandon, to misguidedly kill as many Americans as they possibly can, house by house, door by door, person by person, until the whole thing either collapses around us, or we turn it over to Iraq and hope for the best.

In either case though, we’ve made several generations of enemies over there, and we may get to a point where the people in charge see what bob_co is suggesting as actually possible.

Ask the Mayor of Hiroshima about that.

Yes it is; and even if it were not, Bush has done a piss-poor job of it.

Thank goodness.

By the by, going back to the OP, does anyone else feel that the speech owes just a touch to Cicero?

Not this shit again…

Almost in all threads dealing with torture I pointed to this New Yorker’s report for more than 2 years, and it is still ignored.

That link has become a virtual hand grenade, every guy that has posted like “all we are saying, is give torture a chance!” ignored it or refused to defend how misguided they had become after I referred to that article, How I wish I had a link that would do that in any discussion!

I will point out the part that shows one big reason torture should not be used: because it can get an incompetent leader false information that justifies other wars:

IAWTC. What boggles my mind is that you apparently don’t see that Scooter Libby was a victim of the exact same type of witch hunt. Bottom line: Libby shouldn’t have been going to jail because Libby didn’t do anything illegal. Patrick Fitzgerald was on a partisan witch hunt, and when he couldn’t get an indictment against Libby for “outing” Valerie Plame (which he didn’t, for the simple reason that what Scooter did not break the law. Libby’s actions may have been, indeed probably were, petty, vindictive, crass and unethical, but they were not illegal), Fitzgerald decided to “get” Libby for something. It’s a classic tactic of a Federal prosecutor who has no case: drag the grand jury out for days until you find the slightest little inconsistency in the testimony and then jump onto it with both feet screaming “Perjury!” at the top of your lungs. It is a tactic used by men and woman who care nothing for facts and the truth but are only out to hang something, anything on someone so they can claim “victory”, regardless of what actually happened, and it’s a process that almost nobody-you, me, Mother Theresa-can withstand. At this level it’s almost always a blunt political bludgeon used by one party to club someone in the other party. This was a political conviction, made for political grandstanding, and Bush used a political tool to negate it (ironically giving his opponents more political ammunition to use against him). It’s the exact same bullshit that Kenny Star used a decade ago against President Clinton, which is why an investigation of Whitewater wound up asking the president about his sexual peccadillos. I deplored it then and I deplore it now. Keith Olbermann and his fellow liberal talking heads foaming at the mouth while loudly decrying the commutation of Libby’s sentence as a great evil is laughable. It is much ado about nothing. In the end, Bush’s move was nothing more than a counter to the political maneuvering of the Democrats. Scooter Libby is not a criminal in any meaningful sense of the word, and the commutation of his sentence does not mean the end of our great republic, no matter what you are told to believe. It’s just typical, sleazy, DC political crap, about a remarkable as rain in April or Christmas in December.

silenus, I’m curious. Would you think it a good idea to start your class off with, say, this opinion piece? If no, why not? It’s certainly better written than Olbermann spittle flecked diatribe.

Can you explain what was the “whitewater” “filegate” “monicagate” investigations that then led to the perjury of Libbi? I missed them, as it was that democrats controlled this. In light of the firings of the justices, it is clear to me that it did go the other way around, Fitzgerald was pressured to let many off the hook.

Olbermann did not say this. Did you even listen to what he said? He said this incident is one more in a litany (listed upthread) of Bush administration lies, transgressions, politicizing of government agencies, torturing (pun) and disregarding the law, etc. and one of the most egregious to date.

For those (not you Weirddave) whose said Plame wasn’t even a covert agent, why is she and her husband suing:

"claiming that they [Rove, Cheney and Libby] [had] violated her constitutional rights and discredited her by disclosing that she was an undercover CIA operative," . . . . ?

That’s the part I take issue with. It’s nothing of the sort.

GIGObuster: huh?

Actually, no it isn’t. Very dry writing, IMO. But it does present the other side, and I’ll probably include it and a few like it in the handouts that will accompany the assignment. My mother subscribes to American Spectator, among others, so they are usually well represented in the editorials I ask my students to comment on.

The key to getting the kids hooked with this is Olbermann. They are visual creatures, the students, and they will pay more attention to an empassioned talking head than they will a dry written editorial. Or an empassioned written editorial, for that matter. Ya gotta catch 'em before you can filet 'em. So somewhere about day 5 or so they’ll get the Olbermann piece, a packet of supporting and opposing editorials, and a few days to research the flap and the general background, then produce an analytical essay detailing the questions and supporting one side while refuting the other. With cites and logical thinking.

Ought to wake them up, in any case.

And one thing that is omitted by the right wing media (to level of lying to their viewers, readers) is that Armitage finally admitted that he had resigned out of shame for what he had done, and he even asked forgiveness from Plame. Fitzgerald used his testimony on the way to get Libby, IMO Armitage was let go because he was the only one willing to show regret for what did happen and resigned in shame, I’m not holding my breath to see other members of this administration that were more culpable to do the right thing like Armitage did.

Easily boggled, apparently, since I have made no such claim as you attribute to me. I’m not going to go looking for it, now, but around the time of Libby’s conviction I noted that finding functionaries who happened to say the wrong things under oath, then prosecuting them, is pretty standard in the U.S. for high profile investigations that are going nowhere. (Of course, in Libby’s case, it did not take five years, millions of dollars, and collusion between a prosecutor and a trial lawyer for an unrelated case. However, I have no problem viewing Libby as little more than the guy who was too stupid to get his story straight and stick to it. That does not exactly get Bush off the hook for reducing a sentence that was imposed by a court following mandatory guidelines that Bush has supported, of course, but then I do not expect integrity or consistency from Bush when it is “his” people.)

If it was just like what they did to Clinton, I would had expected by now to see nothing but the feathers if they had done the same to the Bush administration, (And that is because it is clear to me that there are many more valid reasons to impeach him)

Bottom line: saying that getting Libby should be condemned because it was the same type of witch hunt is like comparing the Spanish inquisition with a dunking the witch in the water at a renaissance fair.

You *sure * you don’t want to include something by Bill O’Reilly? :smiley:

No, kids can smell bullshit five miles away.

If that doesn’t work, you could always try Naked News. :wink:

GIGObuster, oh I see. So it’s OK when the Democrats do it because the Bush regime is really evil and they probably deserve it anyway, but when the Pubbies do it it’s evil because Clinton is such a fine upstanding saint. :rolleyes: Why not condemn the practice as wrong no matter who wields the hammer?

Tom, thx for the clarification.

The movie Reservoir Dogs illustrate the yin and yang of torture in two lines:

Movie lines or not, both of these things are true.

Now, Mr. Arar, the example in the NY’er article, is a civilian, assuming as the article and I both do, that he has no actual ties with terrorism, is not a terrorist, and was singled out just because of his indirect ties with a potential (or actual) terrorist. He was an unfortunate victim of what can be a necessary thing. The fact that the parents of this poor soul knew and warned him about the dangers of crossing paths with Syrian police speaks to the fact that torture (or at least the idea of it)works as an incentive NOT to be affiliated with the bad guys.

Unfortunately, the incentive isn’t enough anymore, because in our rush to war, we’ve made enough enemies mad enough AT us, that no amount of propaganda or even actual torture is going to stop the next airplane from hitting the next tower.

Ken Starr: Began by investigating a sleazy real estate deal in Arkansas that took place before Clinton was president. Found nothing to incriminate anyone in the Administration. Ended by investigating the president’s sex life, backing him into a corner where he perjured himself.

Pat Fitzgerald: Began by investigating an act of political retaliation directly connected to a lie that was used to lead the U.S. into war. Ended by nailing an official who committed perjury in coverup of same.

Do you really, honestly see any equivalency here, Weirddave? Do you even see any similarity? If you do, you have an incurable case of retrocranial inversion.

Are you comparing lying about oral sex to lying about ratting out CIA agents? Do you really think this is a fair comparison?