Posted on 09/03/2006 5:01:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Yep. I understand one technical term is "projection" in that they presume Republicans are doing what they are doing even if we are not. Democrats I know are totally convinced of it. This is also the basic defense of "everybody does it" they used to insulate Clinton's antics.
I've read some Horowitz's stuff on it. Don't think I've read the Alinsky book.
They are all in the Libby indictment. You have read that havent you. I mean the entire 20 plus pages, not some wacko decides to excerpt.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I am saying your wrong not to exhibit more skepticism of the charges against Libby, particularly given the most recent revelations.
I'm willing to believe it because they listed the people attending the various meetings (Rove, Cheney, Fleischer) and I havent heard a single one deny that. They have Libby's own hand written notes provided to them by his assistant. Are you suggesting his assistant created months worth of hand written notes for his boss to aid the prosecutor or are you suggesting that Libby lied to his notes like the Clinton guy lied to his diary? Also there is paper trail between State Department and Libby and also CIA and Libby.
Even before you get to Russert and all the other journalists, there are plenty of people who are supposed to be on our side that suppposedly testified against Libby. They all made it up to either get themselves off the hook (not likely since our side doesnt do anything wrong) or because we hired traitors who were part of coup attempt (not likely). Might I suggest that Libby panicked and lied and thought he was so smart he could get away with it.
My agenda, none other than I detest people that buy ideology or party over the truth. I have no patience for high paid Washington lawyers who arent smart enough to follow the first advice they would give any of their clients, dont lie and dont get involved in coverup. They almost never succeed.
Yep, indictments are always to be believed without any cross examination, validation or (how inconvenient) the bother of a trial.
Why bother with a trial. Just hang the bastard! After all, he worked for Bush and supported the Joooooooos!!!!
You are either a fool or a plant.
At this point you can be completely dismissed as irrelevant to any discussion of facts or truth.
Don't go away mad, little buddy. Just go away.
- 30 -
Sadly, I did not hear any of the panel admit that we are in a long WOT and this will not end any time soon.
I would amend that to
Sadly, I did not hear any of the panel admit that we are in a long war against Islamic Fascism, which is seeking total world domination, and this will not end any time soon.
It's not Islam, but Islamic Fascism (world domination) that we are fighting. My wife is a Baha'i, which is itself an offshoot of Islam. I don't personally accept, for moment, that Mohammad was a prophet of God. However, I can accept that others can hold that belief and not be inherently evil.
On the other hand, if someone believes that their mission in life is to convert, enslave or kill all who don't hold with their interpretation of Islam, then they are my enemy and must be wiped away before they wipe away me and mine.
For me this is a matter of immediate concern and, literally, life and death. Since my wife and, by extension, our children (if not by their own commitment) are Baha'is, they are apostate to these monsters. I've been paying attention to these folks for more than 30 years now. The Islamofascists are the focus of evil on this planet at this time.
The original author of that list was Southack.
Would anyone happen to remember thread and post number?
I missed it the first time around (to the best of my recollection) and would sure like to find it.
With all the people that have been talking either directly or through their lawyers, dont you think its strange that none of the people involved have challenged what is in the indictment. I hear people saying that Russert and the other reporters lied (no evidence) but I dont hear anyone challenging the evidence in the indictment ala the Duke Rape case. By the way, your average criminal up for a robbery or murder, other than when you are on a jury, do you assume they are not guilty until proven so in a court of law? Didnt think so.
Why bother with a trial. Just hang the bastard! After all, he worked for Bush and supported the Joooooooos!!!!
I didnt say anything about Bush or the Jews. Are you anti-semitic or something?
At this point you can be completely dismissed as irrelevant to any discussion of facts or truth.
So what truth have you been offering? Libby didnt do anything wrong because he didnt leak (he wasnt charged with that) or because there was no underlying crime (Prosecutor could have confirmed that a lot earlier if Libby hadnt lied. Lying suggests that there was something to cover up). If you offered any other truth, I sure dont recall it. If Libby is guilty and it appears to me that he is, it was his stupidity that did him in.
Hey, Good to see you! Hope everything is perfect.
Thanks. That's good information. You do a good job discussing the State Department.
It is on Southack's homepage - I think it is complete..
Here's my take on the "more troops needed" mantra. It's a Dem ploy to further discredit Rummy and the Admin if the opportunity were to arise. If you remember, back in the early days of the Admin, Rummy stated he was implementing "Workforce Restructuring". Rummy stated that he only wanted people in the military that wanted to be in the military. Workforce Restructuring eliminates quite a few AFSC's, MOS's etc. to realign our forces for combating terrorism. In the Air Force, certain AFSC's are offered limited Career Job Reservations (CJR's). In other words, a Flight may have 60 people, but only 10 CJR's meaning that only 10 individuals may stay in that job and the other 50 will have to cross train or get out of the military. The available positions to cross train into are positions the average GI doesn't want, as it means they maybe rotating in and out of the Area Of Responsibility (AOR) on a more regular basis and among other factors. For example, my co-workers son is in the Air Force. He was Civil Engineering (CE) and now has been forced to cross train into Security Police (SP's)and being sent to Iraq, again (4th deployment in 4 years), for convoy duty. So when the Dems call for more troops in Iraq, we don't have the forces to put huge amounts of boots on the ground and the Dems know this and want to be able to use it against the Admin if they could convince the American public that we need more troops in the AOR.
Sorry to be so late in reply. Your post to me got buried in FR land.
About State employees feeling loyalties to the countries they are involved with, I recall a news article about a new Secretary, (could it have been Powell?) who asked people what country they represented, with many replying the name of their assignment. The interviewer then said, "no, you represent the United States of America." Perhaps that is an apocryphal story, I'll have to ask my relative the next time we meet.
How many ex-Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia go on to be lobbyists in one way or another for SA?
Who decided on the policy that resulted in the bombing of the Cole?
What was April Glasby doing in the Middle East?
There are more examples but I don't want to take the time to write any more.
*****
You mentioned people resigning because they disagreed with a policy. Do you believe that happens in every case, or can you see that some careerists will hang in and either, slack off, or actively work against a policy that they find objectionable.
You sound very principled, but perhaps your glasses are a little too rosy when observing human nature.
PS: How are the French doing in southern Lebanon?
I have heard that one many times. It was supposedly Shultz. If it every happened, it was more than likely a political appointee who occupy 35% to 40% of all ambassadorships. Many are not qualified nor do they have area experise.
How many ex-Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia go on to be lobbyists in one way or another for SA?
Not many. They usually go on to Middle East think tanks. People like Baker, Weinberger, John West, and other political appointee types do parlay their service for future advantage. There are also plenty of military who go back to the Kingdom upon retirement and work. Clinton and Bush 41 received donations from the Saudis for their libraries. The career types don't do as well because they don't have the political connections.
Who decided on the policy that resulted in the bombing of the Cole?
Anthony Zinni, CENTCOM, made the decision granting approval for US warships to refuel in Yemen.
What was April Glasby [sic] doing in the Middle East?
April Glaspie was appointed as an Ambassador to Iraq by Bush 41. I am sure the Department recommended her for that position. Glaspie was born in Vancouver, Canada, and graduated from Mills College in Oakland, California in 1963 and from Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in 1965. In 1966 she entered the United States diplomatic service, where she became an expert on the Middle East.
After postings in Kuwait, Syria and Egypt Glaspie was appointed Ambassador to Iraq in 1989. She was the first woman to be appointed an American Ambassador to an Arab country. She was as qualified as most to fill the position. Her performance was another matter.
You mentioned people resigning because they disagreed with a policy. Do you believe that happens in every case, or can you see that some careerists will hang in and either, slack off, or actively work against a policy that they find objectionable.
No, it is unusual for career officers to resign because they disagree with policy. However, I am not aware of anyone working "actively" against a policy. That's not the way the Department operates. It is similar to the military in that regard. You carry out your orders or suffer the consequences.
You sound very principled, but perhaps your glasses are a little too rosy when observing human nature.
After working for the USG for 36 years [includes 8 years as a naval officer], my views are far from rosy when it comes to the way the bureaucracy operates. However, I must take exception to the unfair stereotypes and misinformation that surfaces on some of these threads. Blaming the State Department for issuing a visa to Khatami or for our policy on Lebanon is unfair. That's not the way the USG works. Such decisions are made at higher levels and vetted through an interagency process.
I am particularly offended by comments impugning the loyalty of State Department employees. It does a disservice to those who risk their lives on a daily basis overseas and endure the hardships involved in living in developing countries. There are hundreds of State employees in Iraq and Afghanistan who are subjected to many of the same kinds of risks undertaken by the military. Our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya suffered far more casualties than the USS Cole.
I have no idea except what I read in the MSM. The cease fire is holding.
I am particularly offended by comments impugning the loyalty of State Department employees.
^^^^^
You distinguish between political appointees and career officers. That is your view from the inside, but you are all lumped together when we read the news.
My relative has never told one tale out of school about superiors or co-workers, so all my info is from public access.
"A source at the State Department" leaking the latest info critical of the White House is any of you when we hear the leaks.
More often than not, it is probably a political appointee. Powell and Armitage were major leakers. The leaks are about turf battles more than anything else. Similar leaks come out of DOD.
Yes, they were certainly the opposite of team players. Team Bush, that is.
I'm taking a leisurely stroll through the Sunday thread this week as part of my program to spare my eyes a bit of strain, hopefully to put off my surgery. I think three days to get through what others went through in three hours is a fairly moderate pace.
Anyway, I just got up to this post where you stated the above. On a purely intellectual level I would have to disagree with the conclusion that they are "two very different issues." It would take some intervening logic, but it seems it would be perfectly reasonable to logically connect the Saudi state funding of Wahabi schools and their state funding of Saudi students in the United States. You clearly cannot and should not assume that all Saudi students are, ipso facto, here to aid the spread of Wahabi teachings or interests, but it's reasonable to think that some may be.
A student visa is a time honored mechanism for placing agents of influence in western countires, whatever your goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.