The press has been full of righteous indignation that high officials in the Bush administration would endanger the identity of a covert agent. And it has been argued that administration officials did this to protect a fearless truth-teller -- Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson -- a former ambassador who charged that the Bush administration purposefully ignored intelligence and lied about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium to develop weapons of mass destruction.
 The problem is that the narrative line being offered up by the press is almost entirely wrong. And it is almost certainly true that neither of the statutes that might cover the situation -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and the Espionage Act of 1917 -- was violated, at least by anyone in the administration.
"You mean like one of them getting her husband sent on a mission in an attempt to make the president who is of a different political party look bad, then blaming the whistleblower? Yeah, I'd be suspicious."
For the record, it's not me making this a partisan subject.
WASHINGTON -- Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers, it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders. Â
I think Will is right about the confirmation hearings. Miers may be in a box she can't get out of. Which is to bad because she may well be qualified for the job.
Christ on a crutch, jethro, do you not even understand what you copy and paste? Will says that the nomination of Harriet Miers is such a bad choice that it "discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." Like you.
Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments.
Like your contention that her lack of any judicial or constitutional-law experience is an asset, not a liability.
To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty.
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.
Christ on a crutch, jethro, do you not even understand what you copy and paste? Thanks for offending me. I thought you liberals were concerned about those things. Will says that the nomination of Harriet Miers is such a bad choice that it "discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." Like you. What have I said to justify it? Nothing. I am keeping an open mind on the matter. Will doesn't like the nomination becuase he don't know what approach she would take on the Court. All I have said give her a chance to tell us.
Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments.
Like your contention that her lack of any judicial or constitutional-law experience is an asset, not a liability. I did not say that.
What I said was:Â if she is a good lawyer she can translate that to constitutional law. If you knew anything about the law you would know that.
From the day of the announcement, I have been in what some have called the “wait and see” camp. My initial decision came effortlessly, because for over four years, Republicans have told Democrats that the president is entitled to his choice of judicial nominees and that each of those nominees should be given a fair hearing and an up or down vote.Â
jethro, you constantly call those you disagree with liars, moral degenerates and worse. Yet I use the expletive phrase "Christ on a crutch" and you get all offended and shit. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What seems to get your panties all in a bunch is when people disagree with you and state their reasons. Here's a sample of how you've responded to that egregious affront, just this month, just this thread.
it is obvious that you are seriously unbalanced. You are out of touch with decency and honesty. they can rest in peace but people that supported her murder, like you, should not be allowed any peace. You read only what you want to, don't you twerp? You could do worse and i am sure you are. so you are dimwit then. O.K. as usual you don't give a rat's ass about the law. You want people to be punished simply because you hate them. The known facts do not support your allegations. But people like you don't care. You see it as nothing but a politcal opportunity without regard for the truth. it would be humorous if it were not so dishonest. And most liberals are that way, which wouldn't be a problem but it undermines our society. Must you always lie? You guys are sinking deeper and deeper into dementia. the reality, you dishonest left wing baboon . . . that is just more proof of how far out of touch and loony you are. that is exactly why liberals are suspicious of the CIA. they don't understand intelligence and are quite jealous that anyone or anything has it and they don't!!!!!!
As I said, I was just returning a long-overdue favor.
jethro, you constantly call those you disagree with liars, moral degenerates and worse. Mostly just people like you and crabs.Yet I use the expletive phrase "Christ on a crutch" and you get all offended and shit. I just made a comment. It did get a response. Point to me! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What seems to get your panties all in a bunch is when people disagree with you and state their reasons. No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason.
I call them as I see them. People like crabs and you, although you are more polished, simply don't make any sense. And don't tell me that I always start the personal attacks. You and crabs do your share.
The only personal remark I've made about you lately -- despite considerable provocation as noted above -- is that being called a dimwit by you is like being called ugly by a toad. I have not questioned your truthfulness, your ethics or your sanity.
By the way, what does the sentence 'No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason' mean? I'm just too dim to understand what you wrote, I guess.
The only personal remark I've made about you lately -- despite considerable provocation as noted above -- is that being called a dimwit by you is like being called ugly by a toad. I have not questioned your truthfulness, your ethics or your sanity. You constantly question my intelligence.
By the way, what does the sentence 'No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason' mean I don't always, and often don't, edit my posts. This happens when I am in a hurry. It was supposed have read: "No what gets to me is that their 'reasons' are not reasonable."
You know what you do, pieter. You think you are superior. God only knows why you believe that.  Any evidence to support such a belief certainly isn't evident. In fact, the evidence seems to contradict that opinion.
You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me
Newark paying newspaper to print only good news about city
...The city council here has awarded the Newark Weekly News a $100,000 no-bid contract to publish positive news about the city, The Star-Ledger of Newark reported in Monday's editions...
...Under the contract, the paper will work with the city's public information office to spread "positive aspects of the city, as may be requested by the office of the mayor or the municipal council." The paper can only generate stories based on leads from the council and the mayor's office...
"Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,”
What is funny, rat, is that I read the headline as: Miers Withdraws Nomination from the Supreme Court . Do you need glasses? So you don't think any of the blame belongs to democrats. I mean there were at leasr 22 democrats no votes out of the box and maybe more. And those were no votes no matter what she said.Â
"So you don't think any of the blame belongs to democrats."
That's right. I think the right wing extremists -- like a pack of dogs -- forced her to withdraw. One of the ugliest scenes of political strongarming that I've seen in, hell, coupla months.
With Miers pulled, I think he knows the base wants a hardcore conservative. I think he will put someone up that is very solid to the right. Let the mudslinging begin!
That's right. I think the right wing extremists -- like a pack of dogs -- forced her to withdraw. One of the ugliest scenes of political strongarming that I've seen in, hell, coupla months.
There is no such thing. The President, a non-lawyer, nominates a candidate. The senate, a bunch of non-lawyers for the most part, ask questions of candidates that they are not qualified to ask. Just because you are elected to public office doesn't make you qualified to judge the judicial quality of judges. It's all about POLITICS and on which side of the aisle you will be slashing laws from the books. Call them what they are, the Supreme Vetoers.
I wonder how much private conversation went on about Harriet Miers. A couple details that the family valuescontingency probably pondered among themselves.
Sixty-one years old, never married. How could she identify with usand our values?
I don't think Miers had every Democrat in the Senate against her, either. There were several Democrats, notably Harry Reid who said they knew her personally and were pretty complimentary. I don't know if there was a Senator who spoke out against her.
They're throwing around the term "Borked" for Harriet Miers. If she was Borked, it came from the right. And it didn't happen in the Senate. Talk radio and the Blogswarm Borked Harriet Miers. They're power and reach is large and growing.
Same people who probably complained about unfairness in the nominating and confirmation process.
Actually, I think it is a disgusting and dangerous idea. I don't care if it is republicans or democrats that are the mayor and on the city council, it is just plain wrong and they should be taken to task for what they have done. It should not be passed off as "Honest out-front capitalism".
There is no such thing. The President, a non-lawyer, nominates a candidate. The senate, a bunch of non-lawyers for the most part, ask questions of candidates that they are not qualified to ask.
Well, actually the Judiciary Committee is crammed with Lawyers, not the least of whom, The Committee Chair himself, is most certainly a Lawyer and a good one at that, or at least, he has a good reputation among his contemporaries. But they are almost ALL Lawyers, and most of them have far more "Experience" in matters of the law than Ms. Miers has ever had, hence the storm of protest by her own "supporters". MOST of the Democrats on that committee, are Juris Doctors, if not ALL of them.
If these Lawyers cannot ask her questions about matters of "The Law", then who can?
I find it very interesting and very hypocritical that Arlen Specter himself was one of her most critical-opponents, until yesterday, when he decried the fact that she never made it to the "questions and answers" part of the process, and many Republican pundits said THAT was the most important reason why she pulled her name out of the running, because they worried she would be shredded by questions, especially from her own party.
THEY are the ones who forced her to quit, embarrassed their own President in the process and have set the stage for a very-real and very useless political fight.
They have handed the Dems all the reasons they need to perhaps successfully fight any Neo-Conservative appointment, and Bush would do well to take some advice this time, and not pick someone based upon purely social friendships.
Are you ever slightly suspicious of what the CIA does in the name of the United States, jethro?
The press has been full of righteous indignation that high officials in the Bush administration would endanger the identity of a covert agent. And it has been argued that administration officials did this to protect a fearless truth-teller -- Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson -- a former ambassador who charged that the Bush administration purposefully ignored intelligence and lied about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium to develop weapons of mass destruction.
 The problem is that the narrative line being offered up by the press is almost entirely wrong. And it is almost certainly true that neither of the statutes that might cover the situation -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and the Espionage Act of 1917 -- was violated, at least by anyone in the administration.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michaelbarone/2005/10/24/172504.html
"You mean like one of them getting her husband sent on a mission in an attempt to make the president who is of a different political party look bad, then blaming the whistleblower? Yeah, I'd be suspicious."
For the record, it's not me making this a partisan subject.
WASHINGTON -- Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers, it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/23/172485.html
I think Will is right about the confirmation hearings. Miers may be in a box she can't get out of. Which is to bad because she may well be qualified for the job.
For the record, it's not me making this a partisan subject.
jethro bodine 10/24/05 5:59pm
Christ on a crutch, jethro, do you not even understand what you copy and paste? Will says that the nomination of Harriet Miers is such a bad choice that it "discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." Like you.
Like your contention that her lack of any judicial or constitutional-law experience is an asset, not a liability.
Great link, jethro, thank you.
Christ on a crutch, jethro, do you not even understand what you copy and paste? Thanks for offending me. I thought you liberals were concerned about those things. Will says that the nomination of Harriet Miers is such a bad choice that it "discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." Like you. What have I said to justify it? Nothing. I am keeping an open mind on the matter. Will doesn't like the nomination becuase he don't know what approach she would take on the Court. All I have said give her a chance to tell us.
Like your contention that her lack of any judicial or constitutional-law experience is an asset, not a liability. I did not say that.
What I said was:Â if she is a good lawyer she can translate that to constitutional law. If you knew anything about the law you would know that.
Merely returning a favor long overdue.
From the day of the announcement, I have been in what some have called the “wait and see” camp. My initial decision came effortlessly, because for over four years, Republicans have told Democrats that the president is entitled to his choice of judicial nominees and that each of those nominees should be given a fair hearing and an up or down vote.Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/loriebyrd/2005/10/25/172677.html
Merely returning a favor long overdue.
jethro, you constantly call those you disagree with liars, moral degenerates and worse. Yet I use the expletive phrase "Christ on a crutch" and you get all offended and shit. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What seems to get your panties all in a bunch is when people disagree with you and state their reasons. Here's a sample of how you've responded to that egregious affront, just this month, just this thread.
it is obvious that you are seriously unbalanced.
You are out of touch with decency and honesty.
they can rest in peace but people that supported her murder, like you, should not be allowed any peace.
You read only what you want to, don't you twerp?
You could do worse and i am sure you are.
so you are dimwit then. O.K.
as usual you don't give a rat's ass about the law. You want people to be punished simply because you hate them.
The known facts do not support your allegations. But people like you don't care.
You see it as nothing but a politcal opportunity without regard for the truth.
it would be humorous if it were not so dishonest. And most liberals are that way, which wouldn't be a problem but it undermines our society.
Must you always lie?
You guys are sinking deeper and deeper into dementia.
the reality, you dishonest left wing baboon . . .
that is just more proof of how far out of touch and loony you are.
that is exactly why liberals are suspicious of the CIA. they don't understand intelligence and are quite jealous that anyone or anything has it and they don't!!!!!!
As I said, I was just returning a long-overdue favor.
jethro, you constantly call those you disagree with liars, moral degenerates and worse. Mostly just people like you and crabs.Yet I use the expletive phrase "Christ on a crutch" and you get all offended and shit. I just made a comment. It did get a response. Point to me! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What seems to get your panties all in a bunch is when people disagree with you and state their reasons. No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason.
I call them as I see them. People like crabs and you, although you are more polished, simply don't make any sense. And don't tell me that I always start the personal attacks. You and crabs do your share.
The only personal remark I've made about you lately -- despite considerable provocation as noted above -- is that being called a dimwit by you is like being called ugly by a toad. I have not questioned your truthfulness, your ethics or your sanity.
By the way, what does the sentence 'No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason' mean? I'm just too dim to understand what you wrote, I guess.
The only personal remark I've made about you lately -- despite considerable provocation as noted above -- is that being called a dimwit by you is like being called ugly by a toad. I have not questioned your truthfulness, your ethics or your sanity. You constantly question my intelligence.
By the way, what does the sentence 'No what gets to me is that their "reasons" are reason' mean I don't always, and often don't, edit my posts. This happens when I am in a hurry. It was supposed have read: "No what gets to me is that their 'reasons' are not reasonable."
Replying to that would not be sporting.
You know what you do, pieter. You think you are superior. God only knows why you believe that.  Any evidence to support such a belief certainly isn't evident. In fact, the evidence seems to contradict that opinion.
Ask Him humbly and sincerely, and you can know it, too.
I'm trying to watch the game but the center field camera won't get off Barbara, Rick. Those Bush's are ruining everything. It's like she's everywhere!
You also claim that 90% of all lawyers are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Your intelligence is constantly questionable.
Without question.
Ask Him humbly and sincerely, and you can know it, too
If I were
you
I wouldn't seek a reference from Him, at least not until you ask Him to forgive you for your many sins.Â
Your intelligence is constantly questionable.
But you're not, for which I am profoundly thankful.
But you're not, for which I am profoundly thankful.
And I am thankful that I am not you. If I were you, I would take a loaded .45 place the barrel in my mouth and pull the trigger.
You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me You're me
And you wonder why I believe that you are out of your mind.
I don't wonder, actually. I have a very good idea why you do.
Let me rephrase: you ARE out of your mind.
Pete is told that whatever thread he is on.
Newark paying newspaper to print only good news about city
...The city council here has awarded the Newark Weekly News a $100,000 no-bid contract to publish positive news about the city, The Star-Ledger of Newark reported in Monday's editions...
...Under the contract, the paper will work with the city's public information office to spread "positive aspects of the city, as may be requested by the office of the mayor or the municipal council." The paper can only generate stories based on leads from the council and the mayor's office...
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--goodnewsonly1024oct24,0,1901909.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey
The new slogan for Newark Weekly News:
News that's FARE and BIASED.
Honest out-front capitalism.
I thought you might support that deal Rat.
I thought you might, too.
The long knives are coming out for Harriet Miers
"Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,”
Conservatives are getting nasty.
Right wing extremists hound Miers out of nomination
What is funny, rat, is that I read the headline as: Miers Withdraws Nomination from the Supreme Court . Do you need glasses? So you don't think any of the blame belongs to democrats. I mean there were at leasr 22 democrats no votes out of the box and maybe more. And those were no votes no matter what she said.Â
"Do you need glasses?"
Yes, I do, but I mostly wear contact lenses.
"So you don't think any of the blame belongs to democrats."
That's right. I think the right wing extremists -- like a pack of dogs -- forced her to withdraw. One of the ugliest scenes of political strongarming that I've seen in, hell, coupla months.
Now the prez will nominate a real conservative instead of a moderate. The liberal whining will really start.
I think the president will try to be a uniter and not a divider.
With Miers pulled, I think he knows the base wants a hardcore conservative. I think he will put someone up that is very solid to the right. Let the mudslinging begin!
That's right. I think the right wing extremists -- like a pack of dogs -- forced her to withdraw. One of the ugliest scenes of political strongarming that I've seen in, hell, coupla months.
"I think he knows the base wants a hardcore conservative."
I thought they might want a qualified jurist. But you might be right.
"qualified jurist"
There is no such thing. The President, a non-lawyer, nominates a candidate. The senate, a bunch of non-lawyers for the most part, ask questions of candidates that they are not qualified to ask. Just because you are elected to public office doesn't make you qualified to judge the judicial quality of judges. It's all about POLITICS and on which side of the aisle you will be slashing laws from the books. Call them what they are, the Supreme Vetoers.
I wonder how much private conversation went on about Harriet Miers. A couple details that the family valuescontingency probably pondered among themselves.
Sixty-one years old, never married. How could she identify with usand our values?
I don't what the Sam Hill you're talking about CSC.
Makes two of you.
I don't think Miers had every Democrat in the Senate against her, either. There were several Democrats, notably Harry Reid who said they knew her personally and were pretty complimentary. I don't know if there was a Senator who spoke out against her.
They're throwing around the term "Borked" for Harriet Miers. If she was Borked, it came from the right. And it didn't happen in the Senate. Talk radio and the Blogswarm Borked Harriet Miers. They're power and reach is large and growing.
Same people who probably complained about unfairness in the nominating and confirmation process.
I thought you might, too.
Actually, I think it is a disgusting and dangerous idea. I don't care if it is republicans or democrats that are the mayor and on the city council, it is just plain wrong and they should be taken to task for what they have done. It should not be passed off as "Honest out-front capitalism".
"qualified jurist"
There is no such thing. The President, a non-lawyer, nominates a candidate. The senate, a bunch of non-lawyers for the most part, ask questions of candidates that they are not qualified to ask.
Well, actually the Judiciary Committee is crammed with Lawyers, not the least of whom, The Committee Chair himself, is most certainly a Lawyer and a good one at that, or at least, he has a good reputation among his contemporaries. But they are almost ALL Lawyers, and most of them have far more "Experience" in matters of the law than Ms. Miers has ever had, hence the storm of protest by her own "supporters". MOST of the Democrats on that committee, are Juris Doctors, if not ALL of them.
If these Lawyers cannot ask her questions about matters of "The Law", then who can?
I find it very interesting and very hypocritical that Arlen Specter himself was one of her most critical-opponents, until yesterday, when he decried the fact that she never made it to the "questions and answers" part of the process, and many Republican pundits said THAT was the most important reason why she pulled her name out of the running, because they worried she would be shredded by questions, especially from her own party.
THEY are the ones who forced her to quit, embarrassed their own President in the process and have set the stage for a very-real and very useless political fight.
They have handed the Dems all the reasons they need to perhaps successfully fight any Neo-Conservative appointment, and Bush would do well to take some advice this time, and not pick someone based upon purely social friendships.
The Conservatives crucified that woman.