I agree that Bush is a radical president, but not in the way you imply. His "war on national security career staff professionals" was brought to him, not the other way around. Bush is the President of the United States. As the president, he sets policy and is accountable to the people of the United States. He is not accountable to "career staff professionals." It has been well documented that many "career staff professionals" in the CIA and State Department have went out of their way to undermine Bush's policies. Anybody that works for me who knowingly and consistently undermines my policies will not be working for me. I expect no less from the President.

Bush's radicalism lies in that he is trying to democraticize the Middle East. History will judge him on that and that alone. The United States has the power (both economically and militarily) to support Iraq in its transition into a democracy. The only question is whether the American people (and by extension, their leaders) have the will to see it through. I fervently hope that we do.

Posted at September 12, 2006 11:28 PM in response to Whose Radicalism?

Yes, we went to war 100% "sure" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Bush thought it was so, Blair thought it was so, a large majority in the House and Senate thought it so (and those representatives/senators in the intelligence committees had access to the exact same intelligence as Bush did). Clinton's CIA director said it was a "slam dunk."

And they were all wrong!

So what to we do now? Point the finger at Bush and whine? That's what I hear when I read this article.

I am not a Democrat, but I am a liberal in the traditional since of the word. That is, I believe that we should promote representative governments around the world (and to promote the individual freedoms we take for granted in the western world). We have that opportunity in Iraq, but Bush hatred is jepordizing it. Anybody that wants us to pull out of Iraq before the government of Iraq asks us to leave is putting Bush hatred ahead of Iraqi self-rule. That is pathetic.

Posted at September 12, 2006 11:02 PM in response to Help for the Alzheimer's Generation

Yes, it would be great if the Palestinians decide they want peace. However, throughout the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians have consistently shown that they do not want peace. The election of a Hamas government is the latest such evidence. Blinding oneself to that fact does not change that fact.

Question: What has been the single issue that prevents peace?

Answer: The existence of Israel.

Until the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, there can be no peace. A new "unity" government in Palestine does not change this fact. In fact, I surmise that Hamas is "negotiating" with Abbas soley to look like they are cooperating to obtain international aid. Unfortunately, it will probably work.

Posted at September 12, 2006 9:34 PM in response to Primary timeout for some Mideast goodish news

You guys are amazingly pathetic. Joe Wilson got caught lying and instead of admitting it, he upped the ante by claiming that Bush was out to get him. He made a calculated risk, lost and his wife got brunt.

Whats most amazing is how you guys believe that the Washington Post is carrying Bush's water. At the beginning of this whole mess, they were the standard bearers (right there with the New York Times) in trying to pin PlameGate on Bush. But that meme just doesn't work when its Powell's right hand man who did the outing.

Posted at September 1, 2006 11:15 PM in response to Smearing the Wilsons, Sliming America

I don't recall Bush, Rumfeld or Cheney calling you (or any Dem politician) a terrorist sympathizer. Please stick with facts.

Hannity is a blow hard.

Katherine Harris is a kook.

I believe those are facts we can both agree on.

Posted at September 1, 2006 10:58 PM in response to Same Old GOP Song and Dance

So, here are the questions: (1)Was there an IG investigation of the prisons? If yes, who authorized it? What happened to it? (2)If no, did the CIA Director (goss) prohibit it from happening under the national security exception? Did he notify Congress as required by law?

Your questions are interesting. The answer to #1 is obviously "we will never know" because it is classified. Unless, of course, somebody else decides to break the law and leak classified information.

As for #2, if Goss did prohibit an IG investigation, then, of course he submitted a report to the intelligence commitees... because not doing so is easily verifiable by the IG (for Goss must send a copy of that report to said IG and once that happens the IG can submit comments to the intelligence committees).

I resent the inference that Mary McCarthy might have leaked the information because Goss broke the law.

Posted at April 24, 2006 8:39 PM in response to Why Did She Know What She Maybe Knew? The CIA IG Statute

Please get off this Bush is Hitler meme. Do you really believe that Bush is going to still be the President after 2008?

All this huffing and puffing about McCarthy being fire is a joke. McCarthy got caught leaking classified information; hence, she got fired. That's how it works.

Posted at April 22, 2006 10:39 PM in response to The Firing of Mary McCarthy

Let's see, the director of the CIA tells you its a "slam dunk" that Iraq has WMD and Iraq's foreign minister says that it doesn't. Sorry, but I think it is more prudent to trust the director of the CIA over Iraq's foreign minister (even if the latter was taking money from the CIA).

Posted at April 22, 2006 10:28 PM in response to The Firing of Mary McCarthy

rdf said:

"Just a quick question, how could Ms. McCarthy be fired for leaking information about a program that doesn't exist?"

Sorry, but that is a stupid question. Regardless of whether it was a sting operation or that the prisons existed, McCarthy has demonstrated that she can not be trusted with classified information. In the CIA, that is grounds for being fired.

Posted at April 22, 2006 10:21 PM in response to The Firing of Mary McCarthy

While I agree that we need alternative energy sources to reduce/remove our dependence on oil, relying on the UN for anything (except their time honored tradition of corruption) is just a good way to be fleeced.

Posted at January 31, 2006 8:09 PM in response to State of the Union Support Group Thread