When the president commissions a bipartisan investigation into an important matter of policy or law or to study a controversy, reasonable people tend to regard the panel’s conclusions as dispositive of the issue at hand. To be sure, some may question the bias of this or that panelist or the panel’s failure to evaluate certain evidence, but barring such evidence of bias, most will look seriously at the results of the investigation.
Similarly, if the Justice Department brings in a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of criminal behavior, most people expect that his investigation will be thorough. Should the prosecutor find evidence to substantiate such behavior, he will press charges. Without such evidence, he won’t issue indictments. And when the investigation is particularly thorough, people will understand that where no indictment was issued, the prosecutor didn’t find enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonble doubt that a crime had occurred.
As Democrats’ hatred of President Bush increased, they have called for no end to investigations of his Administration. They claimed they wanted to find out the truth. But, when those investigations, be they criminal or informational, reach conclusions with which they disagree, instead of finding such conclusions dispositive, they call for still more investigations. Or, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did on Tuesday, misrepresent the findings of an investigation to suit their ends.
Like so many Democrats (and others on the Left), Mr. Reid holds that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation proves something which Mr. Fitzgerald says the investigation didn’t even address. Given that many on the Left found (to borrow the words of one of my most persistent critics) that “Mr. Fitzgerald handled himself so incredibly well,” they should take him at his word that, “This indictment is not about the war.” But, that statement is at odds with the result they wanted his investigation to yield–evidence that the White House twisted intelligence in order to make the case for war.
It seems odd that they would use this investigation (of the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s name to the media) as evidence to prove the Administration’s deceit. After all, her husband, Mr. Wilson was not hired to investigate every single claim intelligence agencies were making about Iraq & WMDs, but was instead tapped (in large part because of her recommendation) to look into just one. In his comments to a New York Times editorialist — and in his own words on that paper’s editorial page — he called into question only sixteen words of one of the president’s several speeches outlining the case for war against Iraq. And CIA analysts interpreted his own report as substantiating those sixteen words, i.e., that Saddam had sought to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
Even if those sixteen words weren’t accurate, Administration critics still have not provided any evidence to show that the White House knowingly deceived the American people about Iraq’s WMDs. At the time the president prepared to liberate Iraq, “the intelligence agencies’ official consensus estimate expressed a high level of confidence that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons.” But, when our troops did not find such weapons, both our government and the British government commissioned investigations to look into the matter. While they found much to fault in pre-war intelligence, none found any evidence to substantiate the Left’s mantra that Bush lied (to lead us into war). As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this morning:
everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.
Given Harry Reid’s behavior on Tuesday, Powerline‘s John has concluded The Democrats’ political strategy, apparently, is to yammer about our intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction–the world’s intelligence, actually–until next year’s election.” Perhaps the Democrats hope that by repeatedly leveling the spurious charge–of manipulation of intelligence–against the Administration, people will come to believe it and vote Republicans out of office next fall. They hope their overheated rhetoric will drown out reasoned voices proffering bipartisan studies which disprove left-wing theories.
It seems Democrats are upset that Fitzgerald investigation’s did not prove their contention of corruption in the White House, corruption which they had hoped to use against Republicans next fall as Republicans had had hoped to use Whitewater and Monica against Democrats in the 1990s.
Perhaps, they’re so intent on running against this alleged Republican “culture of corruption” because, as Texas Senator John Cornyn put it in the wake of his Democratic colleagues’ stunt, they “have no ideas or agenda of their own .” They just want to change the subject.
While Democrats wail aboutalleged Republican misdeeds, Republicans are putting forward proposals for reform. In my adopted home state, it is the Republican Governor who has offered a reform package to address the state’s problems. Golden State Democrats favor the status quo. Even in Congress, the energy for reform comes from within the GOP, albeit a minority of the GOP.
I agree with Senator Cornyn. Democrats’ demands for repeated investigations are merely a smokescreen to change the subject. They are rooting around for a Republican scandal because they need to deflect attention from their own failure to come up with alternatives to the president’s policies. So, they want yet another investigation.
As Harry Reid’s antics earlier this week clearly show, Democrats aren’t interested in using these investigations to discover the truth, but to attack the GOP. And when the latest Senate investigation shows what other such investigations have shown, it won’t matter much to Reid’s Democrats and their allies on the Left. Because the only investigations which matter to them are those which reach the conclusions they want them to reach. Conclusions they themselves have reached, not based on much evidence, but by assuming the worst of President Bush, his Administration and supporters.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Not believe, SUSPECT.
There has been enough conflicting information disseminated by this administration that the suspicion has neen raised.
Talk to the hand, West. Your extensive re-hash of Thursday evening Republican talking points may satisfy and give hope to the 6 to 8 true believers who show up here every day, but all that partisan yapping doesn’t mean diddly to those of us who are clearly now in the majority in America, who understand what the September ’02 “marketing rollout” was all about: using iffy intelligence as a platform for (1) off-year political benefit; then (2) taking the country into one of its most disasterous mis-adventures. The jig is up on the little idiot who likes to dress up in uniform (a little late in life) and think of himself as a “war president”. We’re going to find out exactly what he and crew were up to and then, fates willing, shove the facts into the faces of those of you who enabled the bastard.
(sigh) If only you did care about facts, Kewpie……if only!
Oh and CH…Let’s be clear that the conflicting information you’re talking about (raising your “suspicion”) was/is disseminated only by the left-stream media, not the administration.
The Administration has told a very consistent and truthful story on Iraq from day 1. Y’all just didn’t want to know it.
I could rehash what they were saying from day 1 (that was truthful and consistent), but we both know you still don’t wish to know it.
You wanted to think they were saying something else, i.e. something inconsistent, so you could get all emotional and self-indulgent about it, like Kewpie in comment 2.
Here’s a typical example of what I mean.
Cheney, in early 2004, telling a consistent story that remains true today…and Leftstream media pretending (and failing) to have debunked the evil “liar”:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/005726.php#005726
The problem is, you have to read a lengthy article. You have to think to understand it. You have to care about getting facts and conclusions right. And we know you would rather not bother. It’s work. Your comfortable outrage is more comfortable.
On a lighter note, I found Kewpie’s online profile.
Queer is pleased to see that Calarato is still burning from the thrashing he got last evening on his Big Lie about investigations of “mis-use of intelligence”.
?????
Well, we’ve long suspected you live in an alternate reality.
We’re way past “suspected” on that one, Calarato; we’re moved well into proof, especially when he turns this post into this “fact”.
Responding to QP is like playing GameCube with my five year old cousin……you gotta learn to suppress the competitive instinct and just let the kid have fun trying to beat you. 🙂
Oh yeah.
You know, I only read about 1/3 of his posts (or less) because I have learned they are so alternate-reality, not to mention hateful in emotion or outlook much of the time.
I probably didn’t even read whatever he is trying to harp on in comment 6…probably had something else to read that was better.
OK, fellas, tell me again — who lives in an “alternate reality”?
From the “Harry Reid Unhinged…” thread…
“The new bipartisan committee to look into the Iraq intelligence is a joke. We already had at least 3 such committees. They all found that the Iraq intelligence was in no way mis-used.” Comment by Calarato — 9:08 pm – November 1, 2005
“That is a FALSE statement. NO committee anywhere has yet investigated possible ‘mis-use’ of CIA data. Three U.S. committees (the 9/11 Commission, the President’s own Robb-Silberman Commission, and the SSCI) HAVE investigated whether pre-war intelligence was faulty, but that was as far as any of them would go — NONE of those three dared go into the possible ‘mis-use’ of the data. One of them — the SSCI — promised to do exactly that in its ‘Phase 2’ 18 months ago. However, Sen. Roberts has since refused to convene on that issue. Comment by Queer Patriot —9:21 am – November 2, 2005
And, Thirty, if I were you (a frightening concept), I wouldn’t talk about others living in an “alternate reality”. After all, you’re the person who — in your many windy expositions here — has at various times pronounced himself to be…
1. A bi-sexual
2. Religious fundamentalist
3. Who believes he’s bound for heaven
4. With a big old burly “husband” in tow
5. Who believes being gay is a choice
6. No, an “excuse” really, for all that sinning
7. Something that can be cured by reparative therapy
8. And someone who truly just despises most other gay people
Now, for most folks here (many of them your own partisan fellow travelers), THAT is an “alternate reality”.
Heyo Queer, there ya go… pulling a CindyZeroSheehan moment in #10. Tell me, does this intense ranting drama really make you feel better? Or do you actually assume it’s convincing or compelling to anyone other than Chandler or GayCowBBs?
Wow, and YOU think Karl Rove is evil for allegedly conspiring to attack people in the public arena –please grab a mirror and meditate on your own failings for a bit. If you weren’t so GayLeft, you’d appreciate tolerance and dialogue –but I know, ranting feels better to you, eh? So rant QueerPat, it’s probably better for your psyche.
Just so everyone knows what QP is talking about, I thought I’d put out a little elaboration of my views relative to his thumbnail descriptions.
And, Thirty, if I were you (a frightening concept), I wouldn’t talk about others living in an “alternate reality”. After all, you’re the person who — in your many windy expositions here — has at various times pronounced himself to be…
1. A bi-sexual
What I have said is that I have been attracted to both women and men at various points. However, I’ve never had sex with a woman, am attracted primarily to men, and have a male partner. That’s why I self-identify as “gay” rather than bisexual.
2. Religious fundamentalist
That depends entirely on how you define fundamentalist. I believe, for instance, that the Bible is the literal word of God, but that the Bible itself is not strictly identical with the Word (as described in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1).
3. Who believes he’s bound for heaven
Yup.
4. With a big old burly “husband” in tow
Yup, and he’s cute, too. You can take the quotes off “husband”. 🙂
5. Who believes being gay is a choice
Sexuality is a function of both attraction and action. Attraction tends to be more biological, but action is indeed a choice. To whit, even though I have been attracted to women, I’ve never acted on it. I am attracted to men and have acted on that.
Really, this is something that, were it acknowledged, would cut back significantly on homophobia and homophobic actions. Letting people know that having one or two “gay” thoughts or a non-heteronormative relationship with a man does not make one gay would go a long way in lessening the need to prove oneself “manly” again by picking on “faggots”. It would also help people empathize more with gays by seeing such thoughts as natural happenings, not as some kind of sick perversion.
6. No, an “excuse” really, for all that sinning
Simply put, some gays use their sexuality as an excuse to jack off in the gym, solicit/perform sex in public restrooms, or parade around half-naked at wholly inappropriate times. Worse, some gays use their sexuality as an excuse for bigotry.
7. Something that can be cured by reparative therapy
If someone is truly miserable being gay, I think that reparative therapy can help “cure” the problem, although only in the same way that dependency counseling “cures” alcoholism or drug abuse. You can’t change the cravings, but you can change the behaviors associated with them.
8. And someone who truly just despises most other gay people
I’ll let people judge that for themselves. 🙂
“Worse, some gays use their sexuality as an excuse for bigotry.”
In what context?
Well, Gryph, there’s this guy named Bevan Dufty………
It’s just like the 2000 election. “Keep counting ’til I win.”
We’re going to find out exactly what he and crew were up to and then, fates willing, shove the facts into the faces of those of you who enabled the bastard.
Hey, let us know when you leftards come up with some real facts.
#10
I don’t see any liberals wanting to investigate the Able Danger issue. Add to that, I’d be very interested in an investigation of the Wilson’s and the C.Y.A to find out if there was an attempt to undermine the Bush administration and the war on terror.
I don’t think anyone actually cares that there were no WMD’s in Iraq. It’s just something that the Administration screwed up so badly on that it’s easy to criticize. I never thought Saddam was trying to build and H-Bomb or any such nonsense. It never made much sense to me. Simply because with the UN sanctions Saddam had a good racket going. He could be tyrant-in-chief as long as he wanted and could indulge his every sick wish or desire. Developing WMD’s would have interfered with the lifestyle he and his sons wanted because it would have brought too much attention to him. I supported the war because Saddam was a snake and needed to be dealt with. Not because of WMD’s.
This Administration’s crime was not “misleading” America into war. I have little sympathy for people who buy every line a politician tells them. Americans are not that stupid. We just understood that Saddam had to go.
What this Administration HAS done however, is much, much, worse. Every day it seems that more and more is coming to light about the Administrations approval and instigation of torture. Secret prisons run the CIA? Holding a US citizen indefinitely without charge outside our legal system? Administration approval of using interrogation techniques such as “water boarding” and other forms of torture? And these things are not coming to light through because members of the military are stepping forward and giving evidence of it at the cost of their careers. There is now a large paper trail of documents from the FBI, CIA, DOD, Army, etc. that now show that this administration has fundamentally acted in a immoral and criminal way. An Un-American way.
I used to think that the cries of “War Crimes” were a stupid claim by the anti-war nutzos, and for the most part, it still is. But this Administration has done its best to make those claims true. This is what has finally moved me solidly into the anti-Bush camp. Not for going to war, not for supporting an anti-gay Constitutional Amendment, but because he has basically corrupted what it meant to me to be an American. You can’t be proud to be an American when your government is torturing and even murdering people in secret prisons. The Bush administration has taken any right to that pride away from me, away from all of us. It’s unforgivable.
Rob in #17, Ace of Spades agrees with you, suggesting we investigate Wilson and Plame for perhaps using the Wilson mission to Niger as a means to undercut the president’s policy.
And of course liberals don’t want an investigation of Able Danger; it might prove what conservatives have been saying about Clinton’s lax attitude toward threats of terrorism.
Patrick, alas, it seems you’ve been spending too much time reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog.
“The Administration has told a very consistent and truthful story on Iraq from day 1. Y’all just didn’t want to know it.”
Yes. *cough**cough*Ignore the State of The Unions!*cough**cough*Those were fabricated by the Liberal Media!!! GRAR!!! Me Smart*cough**cough*
Sounds like you’re looking for a reason to hate Bush, Gryph, all facts and logic to the contrary.
What you can take pride in with being American, Gryph, is not that we’re perfect or morally blameless, but that we know what the boundaries are, we only cross them with good reason, we do our best to ensure that we had a good reason, and we accept the consequences if we don’t. The process surrounding Colonel Alan West is an excellent example.
What the liberal left wants to do is to shame us back into doing nothing because we can’t do everything perfectly. Meanwhile, these same leftists defend butchers and killers like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, who not only tortured, killed, and imprisoned, but did so without remorse or consequence.
LOL…..unfortunately, Joey, Saddam Hussein WAS a menace to humanity, he wasn’t in compliance with ANY UN resolutions regarding his country, including those regarding WMDs, and he WAS imprisoning, torturing, mutilating, and murdering millions of people.
I think it’s time we call shenanigans on the left and ask them to explain why they fought so hard to keep Saddam in power.
Perhaps they ought to explain why, since the UN itself has admitted that prominent leftists and antiwar governments profited immensely from bribes from Saddam to ignore his abysmal human rights and compliance record, there is such a piquant irony to their shrieks of “No blood for oil”.
Perhaps they ought to explain why their claims of Joe Wilson’s “heroism” in standing up to that mad, crazed murderer Saddam who killed anyone who disagreed with him don’t jibe with their claims that Saddam was a kind, benevolent monarch presiding over a country full of kite-flying children and citizens who freely elected him.
Perhaps they ought to explain why their opposition to torture at Abu Ghirab is only when a handful of Americans are doing it and not when thousands of Saddam’s henchmen are.
We could go on, but you get the picture.
It is sad that there is anyone left to support the Bush administration. Only a moron could beleive that he has the interests of the American people in mind. Sadly, this country is made up of at least 40% morons, most likely fundamentalist christians who are too f**ing stupid to think for themselves. Christ was a liberal, and if he were alive today he would condemn this current administration and their war. If Christians are right that there will be a judgement day you can bet that 95% of fundamentalist Jesus freaks will go to hell. They deserve it. As for Gays and Liberals – that is who Jesus would want to hang out with – definately going to heaven.
Now that you’ve vented Fred, do you feel better?
Christ is a liberal who will send 95% of those who believe in Him to hell.
Yep, I guess that’s what He would do if He were a liberal.
Joey says:
What you forget to mention Joey is that the only reason Colonel West was prosecuted was because he himself came forward and said what he did was wrong. I see no such accountability or even honesty in the White House or the DOD, or even acknowledgment of the facts on this issue.
You and others seem to argue that we cannot be just and fair Americans and still fight and win the battle against terrorism. I put to you that to win by ANY means is to destroy anything good about America worth protecting in the first place. We cannot have peace at any price. Especially if that price is our national moral character. I’d rather put my head on the Islamic chopping block.
This is not about “doing things perfectly” or even occasional roughness during the interrogation of a prisoner. It’s about adopting torture as a sanctioned and standard policy of the US Government. Those are the facts that are coming out. And do note that once again today Cheney is attempting to get a torture “exclusion” for the CIA written into the law recently passed by the Senate. And that the President has threatened a veto over the matter. This Republican President won’t veto even the most flagrant examples of pork barrel spending but tell him that he doesn’t have the right to torture people and he threatens a veto.
Tell me thats something you as an American are proud of. Tell me that something worthy of the “Land of the Free and the Brave.” Principles matter.
“I’d rather put my head on the Islamic chopping block.”
We know. Hence the utter failure of your side to regain power. We fear you would rather put our heads on the chopping block as well rather than endure hyporcrit wailings of a sadist Arab leader or a dying Euro-socialist.
What you forget to mention Joey is that the only reason Colonel West was prosecuted was because he himself came forward and said what he did was wrong. I see no such accountability or even honesty in the White House or the DOD, or even acknowledgment of the facts on this issue.
Well, not quite.
After the interrogation, Colonel West woke up his superior officer to recount what had occurred. The superior officer testified that he did not remember Colonel West’s offering specifics, beyond saying that he had discharged his weapon during an interrogation and that no one was hurt.
Indeed, it is possible that the abusive interrogation might never have come to light if a sergeant in another battalion had not subsequently written a letter of complaint about the “command climate” under Colonel West’s superior officer. In that letter, the sergeant mentioned almost as an aside, according to Mr. Puckett, that Colonel West had interrogated a detainee using a pistol. An investigation was set in motion.
And there you have it.
You and others seem to argue that we cannot be just and fair Americans and still fight and win the battle against terrorism. I put to you that to win by ANY means is to destroy anything good about America worth protecting in the first place. We cannot have peace at any price. Especially if that price is our national moral character. I’d rather put my head on the Islamic chopping block.
I feel the same way about torture that I do about the death penalty and nuclear weapons, Gryph, since they are of the same vein; something that you don’t want to do, something that should require only the most dire of circumstances, something that should have the tightest of controls around it…..but something that should be allowed and available for use.
“Just” and “fair” do not mean that we forswear use of torture and detainment, Gryph. They mean that we use it in circumstances where doing so will prevent harm and save lives.
#18
Funny how liberals either ignore it, or wet their purty pink panties over it, depending on who’s president.
BTW, the waterboarding thing? Didn’t happen.
I suppose it would be more humane to put the enemy combatants in a ’69 Olds with Teddy behind the wheel, eh?
Oooh, Thirty, I liked your explanation of yourself in No. 13. Lengthy, further revealing even. Unfortunately, it begs more questions than it answers, the first of which is this: are you always able to find a church open after the gym closes?
Oooh QP, you sound just like Reid after Fitzmas didn’t come.
Unfortunately, it begs more questions than it answers, the first of which is this: are you always able to find a church open after the gym closes?
Actually, I go to 24-Hour Fitness, so it’s not really a problem; I can always find a gym open after the church closes. 🙂
Funny you mention that, ND30 – in many ways, going to the gym is the gay equivalent of going to church.
I’m not sure I’d want to use a gym in the wee hours of the morning, but I’d like mine a lot more if it stayed open until 11 pm every day of the week.
I actually go to the gym on average at 10 PM at night, if not later…..it’s quiet, equipment is open, and you can get in and get out quickly.
And that’s the problem, Frank….at the gay gym, too many people are spending time gossiping in the fellowship area. 🙂
” Democrats Just Want Investigations to Prove What They Believe” yeah… but when they prove it , wont that make it true, and the people who believe otherwise wrong…? retarded story for retarded people.
Me and my girlfriend are going to go make a baby now, then walk down the street and have it aborted… it kinda a weekend thing we like to do together. God Bless America
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Chairman, DNC Education Policy Committee