The segments are:
Jane reports on the two conventions’ different vibes (04:56)
How America’s obsession with image helps Palin (06:49)
Can pro-life Palin win over Hillary’s voters? (07:14)
Ann accuses liberals of anti-feminist attacks on Palin (05:29)
Jane vs. Ann on prosecuting Bush (11:42)
So who’s gonna win this thing? (04:55)
"Jane vs. Ann on prosecuting Bush" is the hottest part.
I'm especially interested in your comments on that.
They titled this one "Palin Fire," for those think there hasn't been enough wordplay using the Palin name and allusions to Nabokov.
Posts
426 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 426 of 426Doyle said...
...
You're a pathetic hack and a miserable person.
You do realize that if someone had say that to your heroine Jane on her echo chamber firedoglake. She would delete the comment and ban you.
Yet your comment is still here.
Who is the better woman?
You know, San Fran Nan and her promises to cut off funding? How's that going? She doing what you elected her to do - oppose the war funding?
Especially since it doesn't take any positive effort to cut off funding. Just simply don't pass the next war funding package.
The Democrats haven't just been failing to cut off funding. They've been voting to continue it. How can you excuse THAT by saying they don't have a big enough majority? It doesn't take a supermajority to vote *down* a piece of legislation.
Seven Machos said: There is no field of battle in Afghanistan to win. It's a mountainous wilderness that is impossible to conquer with conventional technology. This is why the Bush administration rightly resisted nation-building there.
That's the reason we waged more war in Iraq than in Iran. We fought radical islam on our terms and they introduced us to theirs (remember?). But we outkill them and that's what count in war.
Hoosier Daddy said...
You know that's interesting. My dad was a cop and I'm betting that Middle Class Guy will back me up on this. A cop can pull you over for doing 35mph in a 35mph zone and if he wants to give you a ticket, he'll find a valid reason for the citation.
You are absolutely correct.
Formerly, MCG.
I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it's as if Michael and others like him don't realize that the majority party in the House completely controls the legislative agenda and calendar.
Completely.
The Republicans can't bring anything to the floor without the support of some Democrats, but the Democrats can bring anything they want to the floor with a simple vote in a committee.
How hard is it, then, to bring up impeachment charges (which is Constitutional)?
Saying "we can't do it now because we're powerless, but just wait until the Big O gets in - then we'll go after that Bush - and his little dog, too" seems to be the mark of a party that is ALL talk and no action.
What has the Democrat Party done with its control of the House since 2006? Bueller? Bueller? Certainly not stopped the war.
Not at all.
They've caved in to Bush for no reason.
Like Harry Reid can't stand McCain because he can't stand up to McCain.
This isn't a criticism but how about some brunette action?
An obvious example of something you can go after any President for:
Was absolutely every statement made to Congress by every last member of your administration either (a) completely true or (b) completely lacking any conflicting information of which you were aware?
If the answer to that question is "no", congratulations; the administration official is getting put on trial for lying to Congress, and anyone he discussed the information with is getting hit for conspiracy. Catch enough people "lying" in this manner and you've got enough to build a RICO case on and thrown the whole effin' administration in prison.
For example, analyst A says economic growth will be 4% and analysts B, C, D, and E agree; analyst F 3%. After discussions, you agree that F is incorrect and 4% is the accurate figure. You report this to Congress. Then growth turns out to be 3% after all.
Oops! You just "lied to Congress" in exactly the same way that the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs. You're going to jail; if the President took part in the discussions, he'd going too.
It doesn't take a supermajority to vote *down* a piece of legislation.
They don't even have to do that. Democrats control the legislative calendar as Miller mentioned.
If you want to cut off war funding you simply keep the funding legislation off the floor calendar, no votes required.
If the Speaker doesn't want legislation voted on, then she doesn't allow a vote to occur.
Granted, Republicans can try to insert funding language into other bills via amendments, but the Speaker can rule those amendments out of order.
Procedurally, it is very easy to end war funding. Politically, Republicans would regain control of at least one chamber if the Dems did so.
Democrats in congress this and Democrats in congress that. When are you people going to realize that the Democrats in congress are as useless as the United Nations.
They will argue incessantly over which brand of Brie to put into their dining room, but cannot make a decision on matters of state.
The most important thing they did since winning the House and the most widely reported was the reformation of the menu in their dining room and the no smoking rule in the building. That was it. Healthful food and Brie the Empress Pelosi declared. It was accomplsihed.
Like Porky Pig said Tha, tha, tha that's all folks.
Yeah why is it always Blonde on Blonde.
Enough with the Dylan.
How about some Pat Benatar.
They've been voting to continue it.
Those wussy, wussy Democrats. Perhaps this will make it clear:
Though the Bush administration can’t figure out how to win in Iraq, it is scoring a big victory on the public relations battlefield with its favorite myth: If you cut funding for the war you are not “supporting our troops.” If you support the troops you have to keep on paying billions for a failed war. -- Ira Chernus, March, 2007
The Dems simply do not want to piss off all the magnetic-ribbon-bedecked gas guzzler drivers.
Another thing I didn't understand about the RNC convention -- the same people who get 11 mpg in their support-the-troopmobiles were booing shipping billions of our dollars to "people who hate us." If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem buddy.
Joan Jett doesn't own Birkenstocks, either.
Might be a theme song that works- 'Don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation'.
Any other suggestions?
Wow, rearrange those actions and you have a description of my perfect Saturday night!
LOL!
Oh different we are. No where was there mentioned shopping and a pedicure.
The one thing I don't get is Biden saying he wants to go for it in prosecuting Bush people. I know he back pedaled but I find this sentiment so alarming and dangerous I shudder to hear it from a left wing nut bag let alone the Veep candidate of the Democrat party. Am I the only one this scares the bejesus out of?
Today, former law student wrote,
Though the Bush administration can’t figure out how to win in Iraq
One week ago, former law student wrote:
the US won the war in Iraq years ago. The country is now stabilized, our services are no longer needed, and we can withdraw our forces in an orderly manner.
Huh. How about that.
it is scoring a big victory on the public relations battlefield with its favorite myth:
Ah, I see. The Democrats don't dare cut funding to the war because Americans are just too stupid to figure out why they're doing it.
And you wonder why people call you elitist.
Omigosh - JH leads with the "if they haven't committed any crimes they have nothing to be afraid of" offense. Isn't that a traditional line for repression of civil liberties?
former law student said...
The Dems simply do not want to piss off all the magnetic-ribbon-bedecked gas guzzler drivers.
They have been pissing us off forever. Why would they stop now?
The Democrats have proved two things:
1.) They are liars. They promised to end the war and they did not keep their promise.
2.) They are not fit to run a government. They have accomplished nothing except to criticize the Republicans. Not one major piece of legislaton has been passed to benefit the people. All they have done is make fools out of themselves. Harry Reid should have been impeached for violating his oath and the first amendment. Pelosi's only major victory was to ban smoking and put brie and arugula in the dining room and ban good food.
Wow. Impressive. I would bet that their staff is made up of community organizers.
I usually am prompted to comment after reading other comments, but the divine Ms. A wants comments on the "prosecute Bush" segment so...
Well Jane, just how far do you want to go with that? There are several items in Jimmy Carter's dealings with Iran that could be construed, using the same criteria for "lying" that the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd use, as lying to the American People. People died as a result, and there's no statute of limitations on murder.
Bill Clinton did his best to quash, then edit, a documentary on his handling of the hunt for ObL. American troops and civilians died as a result, and he made demonstrably false statements during that period. Of course 9/11 was the result of policies that he signed off on. Shall we prosecute him?
One of the legal saws that has made its way into the wider world is that if he wants to, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. During Jane's comments supporting post administration prosecution I saw on the face of a basically attractive woman a level of venom and overweening self righteousness that gave me roughly the same reaction as seeing her face suddenly consumed and devoured by maggots. I saw Madame Defarge, and as she spoke got the sense that concerning prosecuting Bush, that she would consider the comparison a compliment.
A prosecutor with the authority and an attitude remotely resembling hers could, and likely would, indict Bush for lying to start a war, firing another rifle from the grassy knoll, kicking off the Great Depression, and aiding and abetting John Wilkes Booth.
Then there's the question of...indict for what? "Bush Lied. People Died." Presidents lie all the time. It's practically a job requirement. I don't think that FDR mentioned to the American public on June 5, 1944 that we were about to invade Europe at Normandy. FDR lied. People died. But far fewer died than would have otherwise. He also forgot to mention the A-bomb, and helped conceal its existence. Truman didn't know about it until he was President, but enthusiastically went along with the deception. Truman lied, and half a million people eventually died. But had we either invaded or blockaded and starved Japan the death estimates are 10 million and upwards.
So, exactly where is lying (and I do NOT concede that Bush did in fact lie) a statutory crime for a President. Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath and had his law license suspended for awhile. He had been sworn to tell the truth in his testimony, entirely separate from his oath of office. Is a President considered to be under oath to tell the truth in all public utterance from January 20 following a leap year until January 20 following the next leap year? Is there a statute to that effect? For certain there's nothing like that in the oath of office. I'm sure Hamsher wishes there was such a law, but I'm sure that wishing is as close as she approaches reality.
There are no statues or Constitutional remedies to use against a former President for executing and defending unpopular policies. There is a provision for removing a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. In 1999 the Senate decided that perjury and abuse of power in the pursuit of sexual gratification were insufficient ground to remove a sitting President. Circa 2003, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 the leaders of Congress who had access to the same information that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and who voted to approve that invasion, decided that they weren't going to attempt to impeach George Bush. Was it because they knew they had no case? Was it because they knew they shared responsibility? Was it to keep true national security secrets secret? All of the above? I suspect that "all of above" is the answer, and that the priority is as given. And Jane, those same considerations will apply next January 21, even if Obama wins.
Agreed Ann. It's a bad idea. It's way beyond bad. Obama's people are already trying to prosecute the principals of a 527 organization for publicizing some inconvenient truths about their guy. What will they do to avoid the publication of things a President Obama wants kept secret? The editor of the NYT published and blew the usefulness of a perfectly legal operation that traced money flow from al Qaeda sympathizers to the terrorists themselves. How would an Obama administration respond to a similar threat given their current actions? If the law(s) Hamsher wants to exist and applied to Bush, what would an Obama, or Clinton, or any other less than honerable administration do to keep their secrets? A guy named Putin might have some practical advise.
John,
"If she or Lithwick ever had the opportunity, they would lock up everyone who didn't agree with them."
But don't leave out and there would be lots of dead marshals--because plenty of Americans would do what Solzhenitsyn and his fellow-zeks only dreamed about.
Hoosier,
Could we maybe let the Dems run a banana stand?
It appears that the collective wisdom of Americans is better than the failed promises of the Democrat Party.
"The Dems simply do not want to piss off all the magnetic-ribbon-bedecked gas guzzler drivers."
Heh.
Reality sucks sometimes, doesn't it.
Of course, when the Republican Party avoids doing something politically sensitive, then they're pandering.
Bambi, if he had any guts, would be excoriating his own party for failure to lead on ending the war.
McCain, for all his faults, took on his own party IN PRIME TIME and at the NATIONAL CONVENTION to scold them for their failures.
Which one has the courage, honesty, and integrity to take on the challenges of America in 2009? Someone who thinks he's the president already with a fake seal and fake columns, or someone who's shown he won't be swayed by his own party's bad choices?
Yeah, you go ahead and vote for Bambi. You'll get everything you imagined on January 20th. And check under your pillow - the tooth fairy might have left you a present, too.
Though the Bush administration can’t figure out how to win in Iraq
I hereby renounce that part of the statement. Lovers of freedom will understand that was the prefatory clause, not the operative clause.
Obama's people are already trying to prosecute the principals of a 527 organization for publicizing some inconvenient truths about their guy.
This shows how Republicans (1) Play fast and loose with the facts, (2) Aren't ready for political reform, and (3)Applaud law-breaking.
The organization in question was a 501(c)(4) organization whose primary purpose CANNOT be political campaigning. Factors determining whether an issue advocacy communication is political campaigning:
The communication identifies a candidate for public office;
•
The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign, which includes national party convention;
•
The communication targets voters in a particular election;
•
The communication identifies that candidate’s position on the public policy issue that is
the subject of the communication;
•
The candidate’s position on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the
candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other
public communications; and
•
The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy
communications by the organization on the same issue.
The 501(c)(4) campaign in question didn't even bother to identify an issue. At no time has the American Issue Project used its advocacy communications to advocate a position on any issue.
The issue here is not, did the Bush administration break this law or that law. We don't treat political decisions as private crimes! If President Bush broke your window, fine. If he sent the CIA to break your window, fine. But any decisions that are part of his job of running the country, whether you disagree with them or not, whether you think they are against the Constitution or not - those should not be dealt with as private crimes.
FDR did plenty of things that someone might have claimed were against the constitution, and so did Abraham Lincoln. The remedy is to stop them from doing those things, not to prosecute the people involved.
As I've mentioned before, a democracy cannot survive if people are afraid for their safety if they lose an election.
Incidentally, I went to the Hamsher blogpost on this BH episode, and the comments outstripped even my diarrhoea one in insipid commentary.
I don't mind people who can make cogent arguments if they disagree with mine. But my word, Althouse commenters are much better at deconstructing these episodes than what I read there.
Cheers,
Victoria
Post a Comment