Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Oresta
Published Letters: 166 Editor's Choice: 6
What were you thinking? And pink, yet. Sheesh.
From what we know so far, nothing rings true here. For example:
Woodward testified that his source "casually" mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Yet once this story broke, his explanantion to the press for why he never came forward - while the grand jury investigation was going on - was that he wanted to protect his source and didn't want to be put in the bind of Cooper and Miller.
Hello? A source's "casual" comment is not anywhere close to information given by sources on the condition of anonymity, as was the case with both Cooper and Miller.
Woodward also said, under oath, that he mentioned this to Pincus in passing (literally), an assertion Pincus says he doesn't remember, and certainly would have had it been so.
These two facts from Woodard's deposition give support to Libby's assertion that Plame's CIA position was common knowledge among the press. Ergo, Libby didn't out Plame, only repeated what was already out there.
So why would Woodward put himself in both legal and ethical jeopardy with this testimony to carry water for this administration? Why the risk?
Anyone who lost a family member on 9/11 ahould be outraged that Melanie Morgan would attribute such vengful behavior to them.
There must be some mistake. How could it be that high?
The media have given much attention to this as an "anti- Hillary" ad.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the point of this ad as anti Hillary? Or, more exactly, having anything to do with Hillary?
I have read "1984" and well remember the brilliant Apple ad dissing all those brain-washed DOS users. But what does this political ad, evoking a Big Brother government that derives its legitimacy and power from a constant state of war and total surveillance of its citizens, have to do with Hillary's political career from Arkasas Governor First Lady to White House First Lady to New York Senator?
Wrong candidate, wrong party, wrong election cycle.
with Edwards as being honestly up-front. He doesn't dissemble. On CNN I watched him reapond to a question about the recently passed emergency funding bills. Without hesitation he directly led out out, saying that Bush "is dead wrong." He didn't back into a response or try to side-step what was a carefully loaded question.
In today's NYT there is a story of yet another unfolding scandal in the Bush administration about student loans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/education/06loans.html?th&emc=th
Edwards's comment is telling: "We need to fix the student loan program to take the banks - which are just an expensive middleman - out of the process."
This is not a man who intends to sell off Social Security to Wall Street or let the Pharma/insurance lobby highjacking of Medicare continue.
I'm very impressed by Edwards because of what I have obseved in recent weeks. I gained no impression of him in the 2004 campaign because he was given no more role than to be a VP southern-accented balance to a New England candidate. A me-too shadow to Kerry's stay-on-message campaign.
However, I read here, and hear from some progressives I know that some are not sure Edwards is the genuine article. I would be interested in hearing specifically what is it that accounts for this skepticism.
Where he stands on medical marijuana, as a poster cites, is important information. But all other misgivings I see here and elsewhere seem based on gut sense, nothing substantial. Can anyone find a pattern of votes while in Congress that contradicts his campaign persone? Quotes from interviews? Anything?
"Oh Missy they were sort of like the Whig party. Wikki it up kid."
Delicious. Perhaps prescient?
In answer to you question 'way back when this thread was fully and gratifyingly OT, the name is ElBRidge, not Eldridge, Gerry, one of the players in the debating and framing of the Constitution.
A great account of the heroic struggle against the Federalists at this time by those (The Bill of Rights guys) who were on a journey to a different vision of a republic, I highly recommend Saul Cornell's The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism & the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828.
There was no Pentecostal flame that enlightened these guys with a common voice in Philadelphia in 1787-88, and the struggle still goes on. For an idea of just how fractious and contentious these days were, I recommend Joann B. Freeman's Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic.
Having added my 4.5 cents, I'm outa here until the Bible guy leaves, like he said he would shumbles of posts ago, and this thread is back OT.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
