You just don't get it, do you. There is no "public data point" in any way shape or form that could possibily lead one to conclude that Rove was indicted and then the charges withdrawn. Non. Zero. Zilch. And TO was not "speculating" they were reporting it as FACT. My comment about "interesting speculation" had to do with the laughable idea that Cheney had any exposure in this case - something even Murray Waas says is ridiculous.
Face it. This is a story made up or wildly exaggerated by their "sources." Of course Fitzy was considering indicting Rove for forgetting one fricking email out of how many goddamn thousands he gets. The guy is stuck. He has three years of investigations and all he's got is Scooter Libby? And absolutely nothing on anyone when it comes to "outing" Plame.
This entire investigation is going to peter out and fade away. And btw, give me one good reason Fitzy wouldn't correct Luskin's contention that Rove is in the clear? You can't because there aren't any. And why would Luskin lie about it? He'd never work in DC again if he did. No one would trust him with anything more than jaywalking cases.
No. Face it, Tano. Your heroes at TO have feet of clay. And they've broken their promise to out their sources. Hell, the big lefty blogs are even backing away from them.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 20.06.2006 @ 11:31
You make an excellent point. I guess I was too chicken to come out and say that if Bush really wanted to, he could have asked for a restoration of the draft following 9/11.
No student deferrments. No special treatment. And some kind of national service for those who weren't drafted into the military. (Think Katrina clean up).
There is much to be said for conservative ideology that orders the universe beginning with individual freedom. But there must also be some recognition that we are in this together. That has been a failure of conservative presidents since Reagan who really did make individuals feel part of a whole.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 19.06.2006 @ 13:41
Are you a person? Or a robot?
You are a fricking broken record with your "not enough troops" tripe.
Don't believe me? Here's a link to all the comments you've left on this site.
It begs the question: What kind of an idiot keeps repeating the same thing over and over? Don't you have an original thought in your entire head?
You bore me. Change your shtick or get out.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 17.06.2006 @ 08:15
I obviously don't read enough economic news!
Then again, numbers always confused me. And math was never my strong suit in school. Besides, I had a nice qualifier when making that statement...
"perhaps the first time..."
To err is human. To admit it if you're a blogger is divine. See my post today about the Truthout.Org mess and the Rove indictment that never happened.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 20.06.2006 @ 07:28
Sheesh! The one fricking post on economics I write in two years and I screw it up! Thanks for pointing that out, Larry, although I had a devil of a time trying to find the exact figures until (slapping my head) I googled up...the BEA:
Please note the first paragraph:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter of 2006,
according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter,
real GDP increased 1.7 percent.
Not that I doubt you, but where did I go wrong?
And for my regular readers: NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH A FAMILY REUNIONS!
I have "outgrown" using the old shibboleth about a "liberal" media in all but a handful of cases (read any news story from the AP and tell me there's no bias) and the New York Times. Most of my media critiques today are based on skewering liberal columnists who can't seem to keep their facts straight.
However, to posit the notion that the ever smaller circle of CORPORATIONS (gasp!) that own the media somehow put a conservative slant on straight news reporting ignores the individual biases of the noted White House, National Security, and political reporters who voted for Kerry in 2004 in percentages approaching 90%!
Most reporters - like our dear brothers - are able to professionally manage those biases by practicing the craft of journalism the way it should be done. Then there are the lazy ones who can't be bothered. These nitwits inevitably are exposed by bloggers and made out to be the clock punchers they truly are.
And a word here about corporate guidance. Newspapers sell a brand. That brand is usually "accuracy" not bias (exceptions being Punch Sulzberger and the Reverend Moon). Getting the facts right is more important to say, the Los Angeles Times than it is to "Raw Story" or "Truthout.Org." This is what concerns corporate managers; how the brand is doing, not whether or not Dana Priest (NS correspondent for the WAPo) is a liberal moonbat (she is) or whether Bill Salmon is a conservative conspiratorial loon (anyone who says there are al-Qaeda nukes in suitcases in this country falls into that catetgory).
And these same corporations exercise little control over the day-to-day publication of their newspaper - which makes any bias they have pretty much of a moot point.
Finally, as I mentioned, this is my first post about economics in nearly two years. I also don't do legal. The decision sounds horrible. Then again, if you are the wife of a police officer sitting at home night after night waiting to get the worst phone call of your life, maybe she has a different perspective.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 16.06.2006 @ 10:29
You are half correct. I looked it up in my on line dictionary:
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
I bow to the superior judgment of you and the inheritors of Samuel Johnson's legacy.
Rick MoranComment Posted By Rick Moran On 16.06.2006 @ 06:13
You're right...but we used those nazis to help us in the cold war and the space race.
I think you're spot on and I think Maliki is thinking the same thing, although he apparently will draw the line at insurgents (not terrorists) who deliberately targeted civilians.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 15.06.2006 @ 07:37
Thanks, Brother. And you are right about Red Badge of Courage while I'll make Glory the second best Civil War film behind Gettysburg.
I was actually looking for a story this morning on the charge made by the 54th at Fort Wagner. I seem to remember them losing 5 color bearers in the assault. Similarly, the 10th (?) Minnesota who held Cemetary Ridge on the second day at Gettysburg and charged a whole division, losing 90% of its men lost several standard bearers as well. The survivors were extraordinarily proud that despite their huge losses, they never lost the flag.
Your evocation of Crane's masterpiece is quite moving and appropriate. I vividly recall Mr. Hellerman's discussion of Crane's themes of redemption and loss as a sophomore. And you're right - I was too young to appreciate not only the exquisite writing but the horrific and dark imagery that Crane used to emotionally illuminate his absolute hatred of war.
I doubt it is even required reading in most public schools anymore.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 14.06.2006 @ 10:30
1. If some arrangement could have been worked out between Justice and Defense over trying to figure out which of these detainees are a threat and which are taxi drivers who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time (or some other innocent bystander turned in by the warlords and/or tribal leaders in Afghanistan) Guantanamo would probably be closed.
2. I wasn't referring directly to the suicides but rather a system that has allowed the issue to drift on for years without a resolution.
I disagree with about 90% of the NY Times editorial. I want to see the truly guitly placed in a dungeon for the rest of their lives. But about 2/3 of the people being held at Gitmo were not captured on any battlefield of this war. They were turned in by people with suspect motives - informants, warlords, and tribal elders.
Look at what happened in England last week with the chemcal vest raid. They had to let those guys go because the informant who passed along the info was dead wrong. What was the informants motive for turning those people in? Doesn't it make you want to ask questions about the people being held at Gitmo on evidence of informants?
This is why some kind of judicial oversight is needed. If every single one of the detainees were captured carrying a gun on the battlefield I'd say fine, the military tribunals are adequate. But this is not the case - despite what the government told us, some of the top lawyers in the country (Republicans and Democrats I might add) are saying otherwise. And the documents released by the government on detainee cases prove that the lawyers, not the government, are telling the truth.
It begs the question: Is the Pentagon continuing to hold these people and resist judicial review for them because of national security or because the truth would be embarassing to them?
I tend to come down in the latter camp.
And I hope I get to continue to mock the MSM when I feel that they're acting like a pack of fools - even though this piece has turned me into one of them (lol). Come to think of it...I have a peculiar desire to start wearing a fedora and smoke a pipe. Maybe there's an antidote I can take before its too late!Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 13.06.2006 @ 03:12
To my critics (which I guess is everbody):
While I think I say pretty much everything I wanted to say in the post above, I would like to stress one thing: We are not sure if all, most, or some of the detainees are in fact, a threat to the United States.
This is because, despite what we were told continuously, it appears that the overwhelming majority of the detainees were not "captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan" but rather handed over by warlords trying to curry favor with US troops or tribal leaders who also were seeking US help.
In addition, the "tribunals" that judged these prisoners were a travesty. What kind of legal procedure would not allow the defendent to see the evidence against him or face his accusers?
This could have been avoided years ago which is why I call it a stain on our justice system.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.06.2006 @ 09:54
Pages (132) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132