http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml Seems Novak was not warned by his CIA contacts nor official spokesman that revealing that name would cause any negative or detrimental situation... It's also interesting to see that Wilson-the "double secret probation agent's" wife-worked in the CIA, and was the leading impetus behind the choosing of her husband to investigate whether a sale of "yellowcake" uranium was sold to Iraqi representatives in Niger... Why would this Administration select someone in Wilson that was formerly on Clinton's National Security Council for such an important job? The fact is-it wasn't their call-it was Wilson's own wife who pushed for the retired diplomat to be given the important assignment... How ironic that he ended up coming out negatively against the Administration after his research? I wonder, could his opinions about the administration have biased his research and the level of effectiveness of his research? Ladies and Gentleman, this is an endemic problem that many here like Biggles and TuWho just don't understand... Party loyalties are ripping this country and the apparatus of our government apart at the seams...People are now more motivated by destroying a party they differ with, and bringing them down into the mud further than they currently are than they are with effectively carrying out the mandate-not of a political party-of their government for which they serve... They feel it their duty to interpret their mission through the eyes of their party, instead of that of their government. WHOEVER is running this country, the party should not matter. COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY, PEOPLE...It is becoming apparent that every move that anyone working at the highest levels of our government makes is either interpreted or really IS made with selfish, party-centric intentions at their base... THIS MUST STOP. OUR COUNTRY DEPENDS ON IT.
As soon as you become bipartisan in your critiques of lack of bipartisanship, it might hold water. I am partisan for only ONE reason - the right DESPISES individual rights (except for gun ownership) and will does anything they can to transfer maximum dominion from the person to the state. For that reason, in any national election, I must vote D, save a real nutcase D candidate. The states and locals it doesn't matter, so I will vote for a R, if appropriate.
Just curious...Did you read the article? Evidently not, or you wouldn't be curious anymore, George... BTW-Weren't Democrats patently opposed to those "Special Investiations" they're howling for now during the Clinton Presidency? See, Tuwho? You just don't get it, do you...My point is that we've got to get rid of Political Party loyalty and that we've misplaced our loyalties when it comes to public service...It's to our party instead of our better judgement... What do you do? Breeze past it and make a comment inferring the mindless, endless left/right fiddle faddle that's the problem in the first place... What's it like, being one of the millions blinded with 20/20 vision?
You once again show complete lack of bipartisanship. A special counsel was IMMEDIATELY named in whitewater - which by the way was right wing howling about something that had NOTHING to do with Clinton's conduct in office. The Ds also opposed the inquiry into the sex life of Clinton - I will note, however, that the right didn't ask the AG to investigate the sex lives of perverts like Hyde, Burton, Gingkrich and Livingston (each of whom screwed or were screwing government employees, some of whom directly reported to them), so spare me the bipartisan talk, thank you.
My word...You ignore the subject by attacking using the very angle I'm crowing about! How is that logical? Are things that hopeless?
Oh, I beg to differ on that argument. It is the Left that is causing the greater erosion of individual rights in favor of the "Mommy State." It was a D, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who first ushered in the era of Big Government with the New Deal. Now, don't get me wrong, some New Deal reforms were great, and necessary to save the economy and the country. I just wish most of the reforms would have been temporary instead of permanent. But some of the ideas started from the liberal mantra of "If you can't take care of yourself, let Big Brother help you out." Take Social Security for example. Government pensions for retired folks, what could be wrong with that? Nothing, except you've got to have a way to PAY FOR IT! And how do Democrats like to pay for things? Draconian taxes, that's how. Of course, it only got worse with LBJ's Great Society. Can't hack it on your own in the big, bad world? Let Big Brother feed you, house you, clothe you. Throw in the constant erosion of the right to private property in this country, which was overseen by a Democratic-controlled Congress all those years ago, with the creation of an EPA staffed by lunatic Dems and Greens, the incessant desire by the Democratic Party to forbid private citizens to own firearms, the incessant push over the last four decades by a Democratically aligned bureaucracy to centralize education, taking power away from local school boards, and let's just say I'm a tad bit wary of Democrats promising they can save us from ourselves. Don't get me wrong, the fringe Right has some nutty ideas too, a lot of which I disagree with. Many times the GOP, especially the Christian GOP, falls into that trap of thinking, for the "Greater Good," they can legislate morality. Legislating morality doesn't work, never has. I would like the government to merely ENCOURAGE greater civic morality through education and laws favorable to the traditional, heterosexual, married husband-wife two parent family, but not MANDATE anything. But to hold up the Democratic Party as valiant defenders of individual rights is just plain stupid. The liberal Dems and Greens, like the authoritarian Rightists, have no problem walking all over the Constitution or making it elastic for the "Greater Good" of saving the environment, "helping underpriveliged minorities," building a "safety net", and on and on and on. TE has a point; both parties defend the rights they think you should have and try to take away the rights they, in their wisdom, think you don't need. In a way, this is good. The Dems will not speak up for gun owners, so the GOP takes up their cause. The GOP is the pro-life party, so the Dems take up the banner of legalized abortion. But it would be nice to have two parties who stick strictly to what the Constitution says, respect all rights, and decide, in debates strictly along Constitutional lines, what rights the Constitution dilineates and what rights it does not. From my perspective, right now the GOP is doing a better job of respecting individual rights, but not by much. Note, I don't say the GOP does a fabulous job of protecting individual rights, but apparently, the Democratic Party thinks we need neither guns nor land nor any spare change. Well, the Democratic Party can just GET LOST! I'll keep all of what's mine, thank you very much.
A Senior White House official is alleged to have outed a CIA operative. This action is a federal crime. And you are going to read from the Rush's History of the Democratic party..? Hypocrisy and lack of ANY credibility are what rules the right. Notice I said allleged. Welcome the investigatation and if innocent then move forward. Or hide behind historical piffle, excuses and do everything you can to divert the issue. As the chickens come home to roost....
