Comments Posted By Lee
Displaying 1 To 6 Of 6 Comments
THE ORIGINS OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
You totally miss the point that the general incompetance, arrogance and stupidity of federal, state and local investigations are often at the root of many of the so called "conspiracies" which make the theories seem reasonable.
Your specific mention of Vince Foster is interesting in that the final Fiske report was never made public and a preliminary report prepared for Ken Starr which pointed away from suicide was reject by Starr for a more "politically correct" result. Combine that with all of the incompetence and arrogance with law enforcement and the white house behavior and you will find the term "CDS" to not always be accurate.
Vince Foster, Ron Brown and TWA 800 are three example of extremely flawed investigations and a great deal of arrogance on the part of the government.
While at the end of the day, the truth may be the same as the official position, but a reasonable person can still wonder if some other explanation is valid.
Now the 9/11 conspiracy theories, that is stuff for complete whackos!
Comment Posted By Lee On 8.11.2007 @ 01:04
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
Gonzales should of never been attorney general. Ashcroft was a much better AG. To think Bush thought about him for the supreme court too. I hope this thought is not in the cards any longer.
The fact is the highest level justice general has lied under oath as well as lieing after this whole thing began.
Instead of saying they were fired for "performance" all they needed to do is say that we are hiring some new SAG's in order to move in another direction. End of story.
Instead, we have heard multiple reasons as to why it was done and the entire episode looks bad.This was a stupid non-story that turned into a story as a result of Gonzales's idiotic untruthful response.
Comment Posted By lee On 25.03.2007 @ 12:25
I just wanted to compliment you-I like your writing style.
Also, I wanted to give you feedback regarding your posting. As someone living in the northeast this is a very socially liberal area. You mentioned that Obama would need to run to the center here on social issues. I disagree. Any republican who has won in any of the northeast has been socially liberal. As for the democrats out here they are all socially liberal.
I think Obama's problems will reside in the rest of the country, with the exception of the west coast. I can't see him winning any states in the south and having a difficult time picking up any western states. As well I think many parts of the midwest will be difficult for him.
He is certainly a breath of fresh air and enjoyable to watch and listen to but I agree with you that all of the hype on him will come crashing down.
Comment Posted By lee On 10.02.2007 @ 23:20
New to 24 but glad to see torture works, I'd spill the beans if someone was goiing to cut my eyes out.
Comment Posted By Lee On 31.01.2006 @ 10:08
IRONY PILED ON TOP OF ABSURDITY IN L'AFFAIRE d'PLAME
Nice post, Phil.
But how many on this site will actually read it & understand (finally) that politics is not sports -- you don't just continue blindly and unthinkingly rooting for your team, if said team turns out to have been cheating all along.
And boy, have these guys cheated! (And LIED.)
No, I'm standing on the sidelines now -- not cheering what is really a sad indictment of American "democracy." It's sad to see that the only way to make the Bush Administration own up to their nefarious ways is to sic a prosecutor on them... and even then, there will be no mea culpas from those who have dragged our country into the muddy filth of our own end-zone.
Just Presidential pardons (as usual) -- not penalties all around, as there should honestly be.
Here's hoping some truth, at least, will out. Our country will survive, but I'm praying ALL the bad apples in the Bush Administration get their well-deserved comeuppance.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Comment Posted By Lee On 25.10.2005 @ 18:42
FITZGERALD TO SHOOT THE HORSE AFTER THE BARN DOOR WAS ALREADY CLOSED
"...it still begs the question as to how Fitzgerald views any kind of conspiracy charges – something Waas never mentions in his article. Was it conspiracy or just a general Administration wide push back against the CIA for their partisan antics?"
Do you think, maybe, that the conspiracy might be far larger than a conspiracy to obstruct the inquiry? It has been suggested that Fitzgerald is actually looking at a far larger conspiracy: that of the White House Iraq Group tasked with "marketing" the Iraq war to the public in the first place. The question then becomes, "Was there a conspiracy to deceive the American public into the war in Iraq?" That might be the larger question uncovered by Fitzgerald's dogged investigation. In which case, the purported jumpiness at the WH these days might be warranted, indeed.
Comment Posted By Lee On 20.10.2005 @ 16:39
