Comments Posted By Citizen DeWayne
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 31 Comments
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
"...45%, indicated they were more likely to agree “that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.â€
You think that's bad? 65% of the population thought Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 when we went to war with Iraq! Where did they get that idea? Who funded it?
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 23.05.2006 @ 23:12
WHY I WILL DRAG MY SORRY ASS TO THE POLLS ON NOVEMBER 6
If you had any guts, or real sense of patriotism you would go and vote for a Democrat who might become part a majority that would put some oversight and separation of power back into the government. But no, your idea of patriotism is keeping this bungling administration that has created the worst foreign policy disasters in the country's history, i.e. Iraq, to continue on as if nothing is wrong.
I'm sure the prez will appreciate you loyalty.
p.s. Your statement that, "...Americans [are] in Iraq putting their hides on the line every day of the week so that you have the choice..." is ludicrous. There is no way Americans are any safer because of the Bush Iraq policy. The only beneficiaries of our little adventure into Iraq are Halliburton and the Iranian government.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 18.05.2006 @ 12:11
ARE PARTS OF THE NSA TELEPHONE RECORDS STORY BOGUS?
..."the only public statements regarding the truth of the USA Today story are:
1) Joe Nacchio’s lawyers
2) Verizon
3) BellSouth"Yeah, that and every rightwing political operative explaining exactly why collecting phone logs is legal. The president did not deny the story Thursday morning in the spontaneous press briefing. Howard Feinman of Newsweek made a good catch in Tony Snow's first press briefing where Snow says something like, "I'm not going to presume declassify it"-- to which Feinman says-- "woops, he just confirmed it."
"five days is fast, particularly when the Legal Office is involved."
If it's one the guys at the top understand it's stock price. They were crisis mode when, finally, they had to do something to protect the stock price. Who knows, it could be a clever ploy to reclassify the whole thing.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 17.05.2006 @ 12:47
Your right to say these latest denials from the phone companies raise questions about the story. My question is, what took them so long? This story broke May 11th; these rebuttals come five days latter. That is five days of being the bad guy, while Quest Com. was reaping praise for saying to the government, 'no warrant no records.' These denials might just be some cleverly worded PR work.
We'll have to wait and see...
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 17.05.2006 @ 09:28
A lot of accusations but no evidence there Rick. You keep asserting that she is guilty of treason, but where is the hard evidence? Why hasn't she been indicted? Is the Bush administration afraid of what the liberal press might say? If she is guilty she should be charged and sentenced.
I see you haven't written about the raid on Dusty Foggo's home and CIA office on Friday. Josh Marshal, at Talking Points Memo, has been following this story for months and has posed the question: Could there be a connection between McCarthy's firing and the Foggo investigation?
From TMP: "...[A]t the time of her firing, McCarthy was working in the CIA's Inspector General's office, the same office that was then investigating Foggo and not more than a few weeks after McCarthy's firing would participate in raids on Foggo's home and office."
My question is, if there turns out to be a connection between Foggo's investigation and McCarthy's firing, will you make a sincere apology?
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 15.05.2006 @ 10:25
JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE OFFICE FOR THE LEAKERS
That was supposed to be Non-Denial-Denial.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 11.05.2006 @ 16:57
President Issues None Denial--Denial
Red flags went up at the White House this morning when the USA Today splashed the headline:
"NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls"
In a spontaneous press conference this morning president Bush said, "We're not mining or trolling though the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.'' This a classic example of the none denial--denial. No one accused the administration of "mining or trolling the personal lives of...Americans." What the USA Today article says is a huge data base of our personal phone records are being mined for possible connections to terrorists supposedly.
Remember a few weeks ago how you were all angry about loony liberals not putting the word "illegal" in front of the word immigrant and insisting you were just being adamant that the law be enforced. Well that is exactly the issue here as to whether or not these wire taps are legal. I'm sorry, but we just cannot take the presidents word for it. And, there no way any of you can say this is all perfectly legal, because no one knows exactly what is happening.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 11.05.2006 @ 15:58
"THE LAST HURRAH" FOR THE EVIL ONE
Kate,
If no crime was committed why didn't the White House just say, 'yeah we did it?' Why did Freedom Medal winner Tennet refer the case to the DOJ? Why did the appeals court find that the matter was so serious it superceded the first amendment rights of the free press? Why did Fitzgerald say, 'because of the obstruction he couldn't determine if a crime was committed?'
Your point is well taken though. I wish some sharp reporter had the where with all to ask a question of Fitzgerald in his one and only press conference that went something like this: Did CIA agent Valerie Wilson qualify for protection under the law?
The problem with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is that the way it is written places limiting conditions on the knowledge and intentions of anyone who would disclose such identities. Defenders of the White House seem to be making the case that Wilson never qualified for protection under the act. If that were the case, Fitzgerald would have closed up shop after day one, because that would have been the first thing he would have established as to whether or not a crime might have been committed.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 9.05.2006 @ 08:30
Compassionate Conservative Carl Rove could be indicted as early as this Friday for merely having a faulty memory, making him the innocent victim of a runaway prosecutor. One piece of evidence that is never mentioned any more, not even in the liberal msm, is that Rove is on the record telling Chris Mathews, immediately after of the Plame outing, that "Wilson's wife was fair game."
I know to the morally superior Christian Right that is just good old fashioned hardball politics. One can only hope at least half of the grand jury are of this ilk, because godless humanists may think going after your enemy's wife is crossing the evil line. Even if it is political genius.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 9.05.2006 @ 01:08
JUST HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL ARE OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES?
K Street Project Goes to Langley
"But leaking a classified pre-war analysis two days before the first Presidential debate that showed the Administration had been “warned†about the unstable post-war environment in Iraq could have one purpose and one purpose only; to hurt the President politically. If there is another definition of partisanship, I’d like to hear it."
Sounds like a pretty good definition of partisanship to me. Your argument is flawed, however, by the "Fallacy of Exclusion." That is, if and only if a leaker is a partisan, in this case a Democrat, could the leak be called partisan. On the other hand, if the leaker was a Republican (cia 85% Republican) or independent partisanship would not apply. The other motivation that comes to mind is patriotism.
Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 6.05.2006 @ 12:18
