We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, July 3. 2007
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Really? While it is arguable that Libby was caught up in something it is also helpful to remember that he volunteered for the position and knew Cheney for what he was: a lying, vicious, violence prone paranoid with no respect for democratic institutions. Knowing that he should have been aware that by doing Cheney's bidding he exposed himself to the law. Cheney views himself as above it, but that umbrella of denial did not, obviously, extend to his minions. Cheney stands as an irresponsible cheat in this because, as usual, he wants to have his cake and eat it to by having the benefit of lying and having someone else suffer for it.
Bush is merely an enabler here offering commutation to Libby, the knowing liar, for doing Cheney's work.
Libby is a victim, but a knowing one and for that he should be in jail. Better yet Cheney should be required to visit him there to know the cost of his desires.
Like Bush, Cheney cares nothing and shows no interest in the losses the military, soldiers, in the pursuit of their happy little war. Again, others pay the prices for their self-deception. Commutation suggests that Bush believes he has the right and power to relieve the hurt of bad decisions--and for the more than 3000 dead soldiers he does not.
You are of course being what? Tongue-in cheek? It doesn't come across with any of the finesse that requires.
You come across as a vitupritive poltroon whose judgement has been impaired, possibly by too great an exposure to agitprop.
But we are celebrating the 4th, so free speeech away. Do you like the 4th of July and what it stands for?
Good for you.
Have a great 4th.
Unfortunately, no. It is all too sadly true. We have been under the sway of elected leaders with a penchant for both secrecy and self-deception, classic symptoms of malignant denial, who have done their best to destroy or discredit key democratic institutions, while all the while crying loudly how much they wish to honor exactly those same institutions. The evidence is clear that neither has either a sense of humor or any ability at self-reflection. Consequently irony misses its mark completely. As we know from Shakespeare this combination is fatal to the holder and to those attached closely to them.
Your answer was as I expected. Uninformed. Your sciolism is showing and anomie has you in it's grip. Shakespeare cannot cover you. The apercu you display is painfully diaphanous.
May I suggest The Daily Kos for your outlet.
Habu - Don't send these folks away. The fellow writes too much to be a troll. Give him a dialogue. Lots of folks seem to see it the way he does.
You are correct. I badly overstepped and I apologize not only to you and MG but to the writer who is entitled to his opinion. bboot my apologies.
Nicely done, but wrong headed. I am, I am afraid, far too informed. The deeds and misdeeds of our elected executive have been well enough covered from all dimensions that one can form judgments with some confidence. It is only those, like Cheney, who believe that all history is conspiracy who believe others are ill-informed. The faint hearted belief in secret knowledge has led nations, as now, into a morass of poorly advised adventures leading to disasters of great scale. This is exactly another of these moments. And those who refuse to see are ballast to the sinking.
"The faint hearted belief in secret knowledge has led nations, as now, into a morass of poorly advised adventures leading to disasters of great scale."
bboot...exactly when in history have nations NOT had secret knowledge?
As for that or any knowledge leading inot a morass of blah blah..if you mean war...keep in mind we didn't start this, Islam did centuries ago.
Or are you going to now tell me that 9-11 was a US Government conspiracy ...news time rejoin in an hour or so...
Here's a question: When did the prosecuter learn that Richard Armitage was the leaker who leaked the crime that made the trial?
Honest question now, pull up your socks and go find out!
BD, here, let me help. Since Libby "...volunteered for the position and knew Cheney for what he was: a lying, vicious, violence prone paranoid with no respect for democratic institutions", then all that other legal mumbo jumbo can just be ignored.
For more on "what is a political crime?" see A. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago".
Ah, the Armitage question is well aimed. But the conviction was not, as we know, for the overt act but for lying to the grand jury: thus are the mightly tripped up in their smallest arrogance.
Nice reference to Solzhenitsyn, who lived but thirty miles from where I am, but again wrong headed for it makes the claim that 'political' somehow exempts an act from moral or legal judgment. This case shows that in a democracy that is not the case--wrong is wrong and it is actionable. Except of course for a venal chief executive who believe as you do that 'political' has its own rules of which he alone is the judge.
Tut tut, my dear Boot--the CiC states very clearly his respect for the rule of law. Surely you distinguish between a commutation of the 2 1/2 years of jail time, with the $250,000 fine, the two years probabtion, the felony recorded, the career shambled, et cetera, left standing, and the scott-free pardon you imply in your assertion of venality, et cetera.
"...wrong is wrong and it is actionable"
Ahhh...where to start...with the Plame/Wilson conspiracy, and work backwards through to a stopping point circa multi-felon organized crime entrepreneur Marc Rich and his pardon contempore with the missus's $1mm contribution to the Clinton Liberry in Awkensaw? Or perhaps with the Reno Justice Dept? Or how 'bout a little Sandy Berger ragtime to move us along through the cold-cash congressmen, or the Tuna Speaker's Problem, or Sen feinstein's hubby's deal, or...well, I won't bore with more, but please, that high-horse is slightly stuffed, like Trigger in Roy Rogers' sitting room; of course wrong is wrong.
...but your point is a good one, Boot. Libby shoulda took da fifth rather than babble on about conversations that not a single witness managed to well-remember either. for that, he transgressed the law, and thus is guilty of that. But my reference to "political" prosecution was not, as you mistake, a plea for a special category, but was a much simpler plain old reference to what we all know, that Libby was a way to smear Bush, so that the oppo party could rise higher relative to the party in power.
That's what I meant by "political prosecution". And "persecution" is only a step away from that; ergo the "gulag" ref.
Let me assume that you are a resident of Vermont since Cavendish, Vt is Solzhenitsyn' US home.
But allow us if we may to calibrate your political philosophy beyond the state definded by it's socialism and represented by the only openly socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
Tell us , who are you philosophical muses? Is socialism in your world preferable to capitalism?
You seem to have trouble with our Constitution, particularly the prerogatives of the Executive office. Can you dilate on your take on the Constitution?
As far as your fear of governments, and those that control them having secrets it would be most edifying for you to provide examples that come to your mind of times in history when this has not been the case?
By the way, we do not have a democracy. The word democracy shows up in neither the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had a better plan.
Anyhoo, I'll make this quick and will quit hogging the thread, but the underlying crime, remember, was that someone allegedly outed a secret agent.
Well, she wasn't actually a secret agent, for starters, but nevermind, because, in a spectacularly bizarre, Kafkaesque twist, the special prosecutor is now known to have learned before the trial began that it was state dep't official (and, with Plame/Wilson et al, an OIF opponent) Richard Armitage who had leaked the name of that non-secret "secret" agent.
But the special prosector went ahead with the trial anyway. Why? Because he *could*--and because he was after all the "special prosector".
Yep, wrong is wrong, and that Cheney, wot a bastid. Can't trust those guys, nosiree.
What, habu, are you saying that the Founders did not have in mind the criminalization of politics?
Are you saying that you too can hear the Donkey braying at the bit to finally get to that wonderful future wherein it can simply jail its opponents?
How many times have we delt with the bboots? I've been dispatching their arguments since the 60's .... you start to peel away the layers and soon you get to some mutation of Marxism, which even Marx says he wasn't.
Funny thing is if you can stand reading Marx,(and very few can) he makes no sense. I have never read or heard a group of Marxist scholars agreee on what he meant beyond just reguritiating his cant.
I think we just had a drive by empty strawman who is now back at a Socialist Democratic site learning new talking points.
BL...have a great 4th!!!
The sciolism on Marx is wholly pervasive in acedemia. Oh , you can take courses on it and have a PhD recire passages and refer to "what he meant" but as a cogent coherent philosophy it is considered a mess.
Marx fails even the most fundamental of test by being unable to define the formation of capital at it's inception. It's like starting a book in the second chapter, when the first chapter defined all the impotant elements.
Agree--Marxism is a big word salad created to fill the need for something more mysterious than its actual meaning, which can be easily understood as Suttonism (from Willie Sutton, who, when asked why he robbed banks, answered "because that's where the money is").
same-same--have a great 4th, habu.
Gettysburg, battle ended 144 years ago today. Remember the Fallen.
" Like Bush, Cheney cares nothing and shows no interest in the losses the military, soldiers, in the pursuit of their happy little war."
I'm always impressed that people, ..you know.. can really know what's inside another person's head. Amazing. Isn't the word I'm looking for 'clairvoyant'? 'Psychokinetic'? Pretersensual'? 'Stupid'? One of those, I'm sure.
So many assumptions--where to start? The thread exemplifies precisely the problem--assumptions about others' motivations serving as justification for condemnation, exclusion, and judgment . But what if none of the assumptions are true? The whole house of cards comes crashing down as it did finally with Libby.
Perhaps the central example of what we witness here is the observation the Cheney sees that the world is a dangerous place and acts accordingly. Surely this would be his justification and if not explicitly it covers the behavior. But it leaves unexamined the effect of the belief which is to make it so. Believing the world is dangerous and treating its inhabitants as threats makes them exactly that. This used to be called a self fulfilling prophecy or described as blinded by one's convictions. The cost here is substantial and the gains minimal: that alone should cause us to re-think. Cheney's fears have become our watchword. Had he not been so afraid of chimera we would not be in this mess and Libby would not be convicted.
I believe it was established that Plame was actually covert by the way.
I would also remind you all that Pat Leahy is the other, more senior, senator from Vermont: no socialist he.
As to intellectual guides: Charles Hartshorne, AN Whitehead, Ernst Cassirer, Paul Ricoeur, Patrick O'Brian, Soren Kierkegaard, etc and so forth.
"So many assumptions--where to start? The thread exemplifies precisely the problem--assumptions about others' motivations serving as justification for condemnation, exclusion, and judgment ."
Stunning you would write that. You just exemplified yourself.
What a windbag you are.
"Cheney's fears have become our watchword. Had he not been so afraid of chimera we would not be in this mess and Libby would not be convicted"
That's a stunner, too, unless the tens of thousands of dead people murdered in terrorist acts across the globe over the last couple decades is a "chimera".
"Ah... So many assumptions..where to start?" (nose in air). You could write a book on what you assume is going on in Cheney's mind, but in the real world it would have to be classified as fiction. Like so many of your ilk, you have the ability to write voluminously without saying much of any thing.
Of all your intellectual guides I'm afraid you are most dependent on "etc. and so forth".
Soren Kiekegaard. What! More like Bertie Wooster.
Not only that, Boot, but, despite your lovely prose, you're inconsistent on standards.
To wit: you hold that all speculation as to the politicization of the case is invalid because trial findings are ipso facto valid, yet you simultaneously promulgate a backstory of a White House conspiracy that in fact is nowhere in evidence.
Objection! Counsel refers to facts not in evidence!
And Sen Leahy may not be an official socialist, but he is certainly a hard-left senate assassin, well-known for vindictive rhetoric unmoored to truth, who is as we speak trying mightily to lash the senate judiciary committee into pressing for another show trial in order to criminalize the totally manufactured "Gonzalez scandal".
One wonders if Sen Leahy ever reads a newspaper, anything to help him realize that the world is in a war, and that the senate ought to be concerning itself with matters beyond his personal obsessions.
He should, after all, be grateful that even a state with fewer residents than a medium-sized town in the 'normal 49' gets to have two senators, who are allowed to run rampant through a body that the nation needs to have working on matters that exist within the first order of reality (rather than the 'derived' reality of his ongoing crusade against his political opponents).
Save the Founder's Senate! Repeal the 17th Amendment!
How it's done: use bogus charges to create a court case, then use the existence of the court case as proof of "controversialness".
Anything but good-faith loyal opposition. Back-alley mugging is more like it. And they sit on their high horse about "ethics", wot freaking gall.
BD - you are a much more magnanimous man than I - I have little patience for the bboots of this country. Though I agree we need lfind a way too talk with each other.
BL- That Leahy thing is the biggest croc...gets me riled up.
Me too, Luther--real riled up. The nerve--and we're PAYING for it--senators with staffs of hundreds, all making a 100k/yr of your hard-earned money & mine, and doing not a damn thing with it but creating trouble, 24/7. Be different if there was anything to it but dirty politics. I guess as long as we keep the money coming, there'll be people around to make mischief with it.
Up the Revolution, Buddy. Seriously though, we do need a revolution of sorts. We have drifted too far from what the Founding Fathers thought governments role should be.
They, I believe, thought that government should stay out of peoples lives-Freedom- not be there to restrict, control, and oversee our every action.