Apr 10 2008

Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress

One thing America is sick of is the use of the law to settle differences of opinion. And the cutthroat crap in DC has been debilitating to the functioning of our government and juvenile in its claims. And so when the wacky left remind us they have plans for payback for Clinton’s impeachment, they make the best case why not to vote dem this year:

War Crimes

09 Apr 2008 07:11 pm
A provocative headline, I know, perhaps needlessly so, but it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.

If a democrat Justice Department is going to spend any time investigating the man who stood upon the rubble of the World Trade Center and promised the terrorists they would be hearing from all of us soon enough, and then did what he promised he would do with Congressional and public backing at the time he did it, then there is no better reason to make sure there is a GOP Justice Department in place come next January. And we might as well neuter any similar dumb ideas in Congress as well.

101 responses so far

101 Responses to “Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress”

  1. Whippet1 says:


    Yes, I do think! I will find the gas price information but right now I feel like I’ve been sourcing term papers all day! I think it was Pelosi and Reid but that one may take me some time.

    I appreciate the sentiment and believe it or not A.J. and I along with many others here have debated with great passion about things we disagree about. I have stated many times that I may disagree but I will also defend everyone’s right to voice their opinion. So we can agree on something. And yes, I do think that we can disagree on these issues and still respect each other, but not as men… because I’m a woman! What is it with the sexist men around here…AJ made the same assumption!

    And any number of pages from the Pentagon are hard to digest so I suggest if you choose to read them all that you take lots of time. I’ve been reading him for quite awhile so it hasn’t been so daunting.

    On Wilson/Plame… In my opinion, the whole Wilson/Plame mess is what it is because of Wilson/Plame. We may have had intel from the U.K. but when the CIA sends someone to determine the validity of that intel you would hope the agency would send someone qualified to investigate the information and then deseminate it appropriately. I believe that Wilson intentionally confused/deceived/twisted his findings in an attempt to discredit/embarass the Bush Administration. And then he/they used his wife’s position at the CIA to manufacture the deception of outing a covert agent.

    I still believe that A.J’s hypothesis is correct because even though the intelligence community may not have formed their opinions about the Iraq/Niger link based on the information from Wilson he helped to create the lack of consensus within the entire intelligence gathering community by either creating doubt or creating confirmation. I also suspect he also intended to exploit the friction between the different agencies for his own purposes. It’s a sad commentary on the intelligence groups.

    And then when the CIA (again, with his wife as the employee) didn’t require a confidentiality agreement (don’t think that’s the right term) he became the media darling. No one questioned his motives or his conflicting/misleading stories. He was a former Ambassador for God’s sake. He couldn’t be that incompetent. And his recent history showed that he wasn’t honest. I would prefer to trust your 5 year old before I trust Wilson/Plame. Skittles or no skittles…

    I think people here are very receptive to discussion and I have enjoyed this debate we’ve had even though we disagree. It got started a little rough but we came around…Lately, there have been a few commentors who I believe have been more interested in hijacking the comment threads with inane rhetoric instead of discussion. That’s when you showed up!

    I read other sites that I don’t agree with at all to see what people are thinking and why. I would never think of commenting there and certainly never in the manner that a few have done here recently. Honest debate is fine, but trying to wreck someone else’s home is not acceptable. And I’ve gone after AJ before for criticizing someone for being a name-caller as he calls them some name and now I’ve become a name-caller myself of late. I expect AJ won’t give me a pass on that one…which he shouldn’t.

    I’m off for some sleep…to debate another day!

  2. Whippet1 says:

    I couldn’t resist and it turned out to be an easy find. The gas price promise link:


  3. AJStrata says:


    I would not state something I could not immediately prove with a link from this site. You, my friend, need to listen to one Joe Wilson about when he was first in Niger. Doh!

    And you thought yourself an expert on the matter? How quaint.

  4. AJStrata says:

    Oh, and Breschau,

    At Libby’s trial it was revealed the first report that hinted at Iraq’s interest in Niger was from Wilsons 1999-2000 trips. Cheney was asking about Wilson’s first report. That is how Wilson was able to weasel in another trip in 2002, being the source for the original reporting. And it was the Senate that determines Wilson’s reporting gave more credence to the theory Iraq wanted Uranium.

    Now please try and learn about things you don’t know, don’t assume you know everything – that is as false for you as it is for me.

  5. ivehadit says:

    B stands for brainwashed, imho. LOL!

  6. breschau says:


    Okay, sorry for the delay – this took a LONG time to go through. Correct me if I’m wrong here:

    You believe that the US first learned of Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium from Niger through Joe Wilson because of these notes from Judith Miller:

    “the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship, since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium, Author of this report was Joe Wilson”

    Now, I can see how you think this, but I believe you’re wrong. Let me walk through it:

    “the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship” — this is referring to an *Iraqi* delegation that arrived in 1999, not Joe Wilson.

    In fact, Wilson referred to this, along with the “since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium” idea in his 2002 report. It’s referred to in the Report on Iraq that Whippet linked to above, on page 43:

    “Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss ‘expanding commerical relations’ between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.”

    So yes, Wilson was in Niger in 1999, the same year the Iraqi delegation was there (this wasn’t surprising – there was a coup, so plenty of people would be there, trying to make inroads with whoever was running the country now). But Wilson did NOT produce a report for the CIA in 1999 – the only report was from 2002. And that 2002 report *referred* back to the issue in 1999 between this Iraqi delegation and Mayaki. In fact, that report was when they first found out about it.

    I admit it’s rather confusing – but keep in mind that what’s quoted at the top were Miller’s notes, not a direct transcript or the final article. They’re jumbled, but they were never meant for publication – so long as she remembered what she meant, it didn’t matter.

    She was never trying to say Wilson wrote a report in 1999 about a 1999 meeting. She was saying we found out about the 1999 meeting in his 2002 report.

    So, I’m sorry – but your assertion that we originally found out about Iraq pursuing uranium from Joe Wilson is, quite simply, wrong. We found out about it in the way that it’s described in the Report on Iraq, on the top of page 36: “from a foreign government service”, “on October 15, 2001”.

    As a wise man once told me:

    “Now please try and learn about things you don’t know, don’t assume you know everything – that is as false for you as it is for me. “

  7. 75 says:

    Breschy, you still trying to squeeze blood out of the Joe Wilson turnip? Move on. Geesh.

  8. breschau says:

    Ah. So I assume “Move on. Geesh.” is your code phrase for “Whoops, looks like we were wrong. How embarrassing.”

    Okay – thanks for playing.

    And thanks for the heated debate, Whippet. I do apologize for assuming you were a man – that’s rather unlike me.

    See y’all.

  9. ivehadit says:

    Ah. So I assume “Move on. Geesh.” is your code phrase for “Whoops, looks like we were wrong. How embarrassing.”

    Ah no. Unless you are being incredibly sarcastic, you got that wrong, too. LOL!

  10. truthhard2take says:

    Ralph Nader doesn’t need my counsel to whip any of his two rivals decisively, which is why he will be barred from the debates.

  11. 75 says:

    Breschi must have a high threshold for pain. Whippet makes an ass out of him and he’s STILL clinging to Wilson. Either he wants a whipping again from everyone here or he has a bizarre sort of man-love thing with Blow Joe.

  12. 75 says:

    That’s true Truthy!! Nader is a complete moron even without your assistance.

  13. VinceP1974 says:

    Truth is using the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid ♀♀♀♀♀ “EVERYTHING IS A BLOODY DISASTER!” Turing Machine â„¢ to make his posts.

  14. 75 says:

    Vince, sometime for fun just check out Truthy’s sources that he links to here for us. It’s a who’s who of the of the finest in misinformation.

  15. VinceP1974 says:

    75: The great thing about folks like Truth is that everything they say has been said about 49576025792839673280672968349-6725890 times before.

    Yet each time they say it, that individual acts like he’s received a revelation from Mt Sinai and he’s now going to benefit us by sharing his new sophisticated understanding of the world or history with us uninformed nubes.

    Though they are utterly silent when it comes to a) suggesting a future course of action and/or b) anticipating the consequence if they do manage to come up with some future plan.

    Thus every thread , blog, comment, article,story, video etc.. that has anythign to do with the problems we’re facing, you’ll find these fools LOUDLY and ARROGANTLY and ONLY assigning blame for things done in the past.. even if the past isn’t the subject.

    Talk about increasing the size of the standing army, and you’ll hear the 408 things Bush did wrong in 2003.

    Talk about what the consequences of Iran going nuclear will be .. and you’ll hear about the alledged arming of Iraq by Reagan in the 1980s.

    Talk about what the geopolitical situation in South America will be next year, and you’ll hear about the CIA overthrowing some Inca warlord in 3942 BC.

    That’s all they have to offer.. their repetitive constant blaming jag.

  16. 75 says:

    LOL! Those are good…especfially the CIA Inca intervention of 3942 BC. I think Woodward wrote on that one as well.

    Vince, they are what I call “soup pissers”. Their idealogy changes with whoever’s bowl of soup they want to piss in at the moment. They been born of and educated with the protest movement of the 60’s so that being loud, irritating, boorish, or otherwise just clogging the gears is more important than their actual viewpoint. It’s why normal polticial groups like the Heritage Foundation or the NRA have memberships, meetings, and conventions and behave with civility.
    Soup pissers are bitter no one comes to their meetings so they take their viewpoint to the blowhorn and scream it in our face.

    In the end, itt matters little WHAT Truthy actually is; libertarian, lefty, Jihadi wannabe, or hippy reject…he believes himself to be the great foil to better minds when in fact he’s nothing more than our entertainment. He’s the kid in class who the bully always beat up and no one bothered to care…the kid who always smelled, blew snot bubbles, and had head lice. A loser destined for irrelevance.

    Normally I’d feel almost pity for someone this clueless but he’s made it clear

  17. 75 says:

    that he cares little for anyone else.

  18. VinceP1974 says:

    A friend of mine came up with a good term for the behavior you describe. They’re pigeons (the birds).. they fly in.. cause a bunch of commotion, defactate all over, create a huge mess,,and then fly off unconcerned.

  19. 75 says:

    That sounds more like what Rush Limbaugh refers to as “the drive-by media”…they show up on the scene of an event, spray their false stories all over the place about the event, and then drive off leaving someone else to clean up the mess.

    Back to Pelosi for a minute…did you see this?


  20. VinceP1974 says:

    Yes, I saw that ealier today.. that’s only HALF the story…
    Check out think for the full scoop on the treason of Nancy Pelosi.


    The world is too dangerous for this half wit to be doing this crap. She should be arrested.