NY Times
Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.
Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.
Left unchallenged, especially if Democrats fail to pick up seats in next year’s Congressional elections, she said, Republican leaders could ram through extremist conservative judges, wreck Social Security and make unacceptable concessions to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations that are needed to finance the United States budget deficit.
“There has never been an administration, I don’t believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,” Mrs. Clinton told the audience at a “Women for Hillary” gathering in Midtown Manhattan this morning.
“I know it’s frustrating for many of you; it’s frustrating for me: Why can’t the Democrats do more to stop them?” she continued to growing applause and cheers. “I can tell you this: It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don’t care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.”
Bill,
This is the tell tale trait of the “neo-consevative”. If you do not agree 100% with their views, you obviously hate America. The odd thing, is that that type of mind-set is decidedly un-Americam. Our friend PCD is very closed minded and destined to live in his shallow, closed world. Don’t be upset with him, feel sorry for him. He is unable to help himself.
101-I don’t think it would be considered “close-minded” as much as a dislike for ignorance.
Peejz,
Just one question…
If one were to disagree with your views, would you automaticly classify him as un-American?
103-More than likely not, but then again, I haven’t seen PCD call you un-american either:roll:
It was not me that he called un-American, it was Bill. Though I may disagree with certain views others have, I would not immediatly call someone un-American because of that. This country is made up of many different ethnicities which is a very possitive thing. We all do not see thing exactly the same way. Yet, we are all Americans. Having a different opinion does not make it a wrong opinion. That is what this country was founded on.
I can decidely say that I have disagreed with PCD, Peejz, Kilo and the like and have never been accused of hating America.
I have often found a tell tale sign of someone who has no idea of what a Neo-Con is that they usually pre-emptively call people Neo-Cons.
Funny how that works
Ted
point taken….
I’ll be careful to think carefully prior to using the term.
105-”It was not me that he called un-American, it was Bill”- Well why are you getting involved? It didn’t concern you did it?
I guess not, I was simply pointing out that the comment was not proper.
109-That would be a matter of opinion. I won’t edit it. The debate becomes quite spirited around here. It isn’t a place for thin skinned people. All opinions are welcome here. I only edit a post if it is double posted.
Haven’t seen anything onm this as I browsed the site, so i thought I’d post a quickie in the interest of keeping folks advised. Ciao.
From Truthout, more on the Downing Street Memo(s) and the rush to war:
… One document, a briefing paper partnered with the Downing Street Minutes, states bluntly that British officials knew an invasion would be illegal, but had no choice but to figure out a way to frame it as legal, because Bush was going into Iraq no matter what and would use British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia to do so. This would make Britain complicit in the invasion even if they decided not to send troops, and so it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
How does one go about creating the conditions for legality? By framing facts and intelligence around the policy, of course. The word “Lie” does not appear in any of the released documents, but the need to lie, the decision to lie, in order to justify war permeates every word.
This document also exposes the Bush administration’s rhetorical nonsense about “supporting the troops” by describing how their war plans did anything but. In a section of this briefing paper titled “Benefits/Risks,” the authors wrote, “Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.” …
Conversation would be most dull if all parties agreed on everything…:???:
Hmmmmm Ellis…
This would make the Blair adminsitration less than honest~
113. Trying to shift the focus?
no need to…
112-Exactly:smile:
just curious why Wacko Jacko is getting more news coverage than this?
117-As we talked about in another thread, there really is no story to the memos other than the fact that they don’t get the press some people think they merit.
but if the memos are valid, questions do need to be asked. (and answered)
119-What is it that you are looking for? What question would you ask that hasn’t been asked?
the memo details how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was “fixed” to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of “war as a last resort” were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
you must ask yourself: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
I think Bush owes everyone a response to this question.
121-That’s where we disagree. This memo does not lead me to ask those questions. I do not ask those questions because I paid attention to everything that was said leading up to the invasion. I also felt we cut and ran in 91 and should have completed the mission. Saddam was given ample opportunity to comply with resolution 1441, but he chose not to. I do believe he was a threat to the security of this nation. I continue to support the war. Am I troubled by the deaths? Yes, but unfortunately that is a price we pay for our freedom.
101, Max, take your elitist condesension and shove it. Get your facts straight. I am NOT a neo-con. I am an Ultra Conservative. You are a pissant goat roper.
When I see a closed minded America hater like Bill, I call them on it. YOu, Bill, shiloh, ellis, have very thin skins because you fight with words and nasty words cut you to the quick.
Bill is an America hater because he adopts the rhetoric of the America’s enemies and blames America for all the ill of the Progressive movement. A movement that would see America destroyed rather than have a non-Progressive philosophy run the country.
99, Bill you are as shallow as a Rather/Mapes investigation. You are the one that moves on from accusation to a new accusation as soon as your last accusation is blown out of the water. YOU attack with lies and falsehoods. YOU swallow like Lewinski forged documents just to reverse an election that Gore couldn’t steal or Kerry win.
Well, part of the problem is that we don’t know the legitimacy of the Downing Street memo. This is probably the main reason the mainstream press hasn’t jump all over it. It is sourced anonymously, and we all know the press’ recent track record regarding those type of sources.
As far as the questions presented in 121, those have been answered long, long ago as they were repeatedly asked through 2 years of campaign and post campaign rhetoric. At this point, we are beating the proverbial dead horse.
Ted
125. The authenticity has not been questioned. Even Blair and Bush in their press conference last week did not debunk the existence of the memo. The memo first appeared in the British press.
You say the questions raised in 1212 have been answered. I say those “answers” were incomplete, probably not truthful, and misleading. It’s time for a full, honest, accurate accounting.
This is not a dead horse. It’s a serious issue that anyone who wantts the truth would pursue. Remember, over 1700 military dead, scores wounded, international relations derailed and severely damaged, a presence in Iraq for a long time per ground commanders, no exit strategy, etc. Perhaps the truth scares you.
127,
Actually, you are not correct. When mentioned in the press conference, Bush and Blair did not say it was true. They actually denied the assertion that are put forth by the memo.
This memo’s authenticity has not been verified, (when I say authenticity, I mean the “facts” contained there in) for the source is anonymous. Can I can make a statement anonymously and without any verification uphold it as true? Of course not- so why is this any different?
You may say the answers are incomplete- that is your opinion. If you wish to continue to search for the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that is your prerogative.
Sorry- but this is a dead horse. The only people who don’t recognize this are the desperate “notBush” clan. Just as it did during the Clinton era, that kind of thinking makes no sense.
Ted
126, ellis is still shilling for forged, ginned up, not true documents from anonymous sources? ellis, dear shyster, you have no shame and no integrity, but you are a typical Progressive.
Ted, why do you point your posts at the post you are posting???
129,
I have no idea- must be talking to myself!
Ted
128,
For all we know, the document may be authentic, however that doesn’t mean the contents of the documents are true. With out collaborative evidence one can’t just assume that it is, though.
Ted
131, for all we know, this may be one moonbat who got his/her hands on official stationary to write down their delusions.
Just like that dingbat AZ State Rep that issued a press release on State Democrat Caucus stationary demanding Sean Hannity be arrested for entering the country illegally.
Personally I think the authors in both these examples should be punished severely for frauduelently misrepresenting themselves and propagating Libel.
Ted,
Bush and Blair didn’t deny the memo, either. That’s my point. Also, there have been other memos to surface that point to the same conclusions ans the “Downing Street Memo.” All of the memos are of UK origin, and come from high ranking officials involved in the UK decision-making process.
133, ellis, how many of these memo sources got “Oil for Food” vouchers from Saddam?
133,
Bush and Blair denied the contents of the memo were true.
As I said, no evidence that points to the truth of the content of the memo, and just because it came from a British government official doesn’t mean there isn’t an agenda involved here.
Let’s face it this is by no means evidence, but something used to prop up straw man arguments made by people who will do anything they can to smear Bush or Blair. This is partitioned politics at it’s ugliest, and no more.
This is why both parties suck, at least for one reason.
back from a few winks of needed sleep…
…
gentlemen,
If said memo does prove to be true… Would the items stated in the document not even slightly cause you to question the motives of the Bush administration? Or is it that you take every word that they say as gospel?
Max, did it ever occur to you that your side is lying from the start and trying to use lies in any way they can to reverse an election where your side was basically told to go to Hell?
you are so correct PCD,,,,
in 2000 Bush actually got less votes than Gore..
in 2004 Bush got 51% of the popular vote.
a magnificent mandate to be sure!….
why do you refuse to answer the question I asked?
Because your side has a long history of forging documents, false testimony, and stuffing ballot boxes.
Also, Bush got more than 51%. You can’t even get that right in your Bush hatred.
136,
I don’t doubt the memo to be authentic (although we yet to have that proof), what I want is collaborative evidence. This means no hearsay, rumors or conspiracy theories, but evidence.
This is a similar to a common tactic from news media. One will run with a story from an anonymous source. Then another paper will run it, then another until one paper runs it as the gospel truth because by that time it will have run in twenty or thirty papers, but all still from the same anonymous source.
I want evidence, not spread thin hear say..
Ted
Ted, beaware MoveOn.org and a few other “Progressive” organizations are urging their members to target different media people demanding they publicize this “document” and castigate Bush for taking us to war.
pcd
the “Progressive”organizations that you mention are simply trying to get the mainstream media to report news rather than spend time reporting on Michael Jackson. I would think that you would want to know all the facts before making your decision on a matter as important as this might be.
Max, why confuse the issue with facts? FoxNews is “fair and balanced” [gag] … what do they say? Isn’t that all the conservatives need to know? Fox’ position and also what’s in the morning talking points memo/email from RNC (or whoever distributes it)? And don’t tell me there is no morning memo … a very well respected and honest friend who works in the DC/national news arena confirms its presence.
ellis with his anonymous sources again. You ready for the mothership to beam you up, ellis?
Fu Xnews on the right, Air America on the left, and corporate owned and censored media in the middle… the state of journalism in this country right now is in extremely sad shape…
142-Max, as I stated before, many of us studied this prior to the invasion. We are satisfied with the information we were given in the years, months, and days leading up to the invasion. You still have not answered my question in #120. All you did is tell me what you thought I should ask.
MaxQ… I agree with that.
However, there is not denying the leftist bent of the producers / editors / reporters.
don’t forget.. in 1996, 43% of 43% voted for William Fellatio Jefferson Blythe Clinton
92% of washington based correspondents cast their votes for the blowjob king..
does that tell you anything about the state of journalism in this country?
145-How so?
143,
I say to you again-
What “facts” have the downing street memo revealed?
Ted
satisfied with the information you have been provided? you can’t be serious!
tell me… when was the last time that you have seen a dead American soldier from the Iraq war on US TV? You have not.. Do you wonder why that might be??? Think about it… the VN war was brought to an end by the nightly reports of dead and maimed soldiers being beamed into our living rooms. We the people demanded an end to it! The current administration has the corporation’s that own the media outlets by the balls… you see the “news” that W wants you to see and nothing more…