Here's your problem right here:

[vraiblonde]

http://www.thehill.com/news/110603/mcauliffe.aspx

Election result leaves McAuliffe in limbo
'04 impact weighed after Mississippi and Kentucky votes

This guy has done more to harm the Democratic party and turn it into a mass of screaming nutballs who can't get elected dogcatcher than anyone in the history of politics.

Every time Terry McAuliffe goes on TV to spew his hatred and vitriol, Democrats can count on losing another 10,000 votes.

And while I'm at it, Howard Dean made a HUGE mistake in capitulating to Al Sharpton's race baiting on the Confederate flag remarks. The day Al Sharpton becomes the moral compass for ANYTHING is a sad day indeed.

 

[Bruzilla]

Much like a neutered dog, the Dems just don't get it.

And don't you just have to love Sharpton telling Dean that he's not man enough to apologize for his comment, while he's never apologized for the Towanna incident.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
And don't you just have to love Sharpton telling Dean that he's not man enough to apologize for his comment, while he's never apologized for the Towanna incident.

George Will wrote about that in his column today. I'd have some respect for ol' Howie if he'd have turned around and let Sharpton have it. At first he gave him the figurative finger, then caved to the race baiters after all, just like they all do.

I have to say, I wasn't real impressed with Dubya in the beginning but I'm liking him more and more as time goes by. This time around I think I can cast a legitimate vote for him rather than just voting against his opponent. He seems to be a man of courage and conviction and I like that.

Too bad the Democrats don't understand things like that.

 

[MGKrebs]

Courage and conviction?

HAH!

(here we go!)

1. The courage to take a beating on his Harkin stock instead of insider-trading it away before it tanked?
2. The courage to finish out his ANG tour instead of going AWOL?
3. The courage to admit that he was wrong about nation building?
4. The courage to let us see the Energy Task Force member list?
5. The courage to let the 9/11 investigation committee see some actual documents?
6. The courage to attend at least one, ONE, funeral for a KIA soldier?
7. The courage to find and fire the person(s) who disclosed Valerie Plame's undercover status?
8. The courage to have his campaign pay for the aircraft carrier landing instead of the taxpayers?

And conviction- conviction can be good. But when it is used as another way of saying "can't admit a mistake", it is bad.

en garde!

 

[Frank]

That was dumb. Most of those have nothing to do with 'courage'. I think he made it clear he was cleaning house to find the leak that outed Valerie Plame, including checking all computers, emails and so on. But everyone in the press knows that such leaks are close to impossible to find. You'd have him waste an enormous amount of time to find something that previous presidents have failed to do.

He was 'wrong' about nation building? I guess I don't have the courage either, because I don't think he's wrong.

The aircraft carrier landing? You guys are STILL upset about that? His *campaign* should pay for a trip to a carrier? Please, give me a break. And numerous Presidents have done similar things. Johnson once had a ship **LAUNCHED**, just so he could go out to it in grand style.

I think, like Dean, you don't know the difference between having the 'courage' to do something, and caving in to what others want from you, because that is the common theme for most of what you posted. It's spineless to admit a mistake when you didn't make one. It's pandering to be wishy-washy and not mean it the first time.

 

[MGKrebs]

About courage.

I don't know what the dictionary says, but to me, courage means doing the right thing when it is hard.

It is not courageous to do the right thing when it is easy.
It is not courageous to do the right thing when you don't know it will be difficult.

There are numerous quotes of Bush opposing nation bulding. Do a google search.
Bush was wrong then, or he is wrong now. It would take courage to admit that error.

Plame- Novak's article came out in July. Bush evidently did NOTHING until the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate in September. And don't tell me this is hard. How many people in the White House have access to classified undercover agents names? Check the phone records of those. ASK the reporters. Make all with access sign a statement. You'd be getting pretty close.

Someone in the Bush team has ####ed off the CIA, and I would guess that they are an enemy you don't want.

Am I upset about the carrier landing? No. After all, it just made Bush look like the hero-wannabe that he is. But someone brought up courage. Most of that deal was a campaign photo op, and he should own up to it and pay for it. He could have flown in on the chopper, and he could have welcomed the crew without delaying their return. The rest is campaign BS.
(And if you want to bill LBJ for whatever it is that bugs you about him, I will review your petition and I might even sign it).

"I think, like Dean, you don't know the difference between having the 'courage' to do something, and caving in to what others want from you,"

Sometimes, those "others" might be right. And recognizing that can take courage. Actually, I think it is called learning, and perhaps you and Bush already know all there is to know, but I doubt it.

 

[Ken King]

MGKrebs,

Not much has changed, has it?

Name any President that has attended the funeral of a soldier that fell during war? Why is it an issue with Bush if it never has been one before?

As to your comment about the courage needed to fly onto a carrier, I would say that does take courage. Taking a “trap” aboard a carrier is about as dangerous as it gets in aviation.

As to the Plame issue, Novak himself has said, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this”. So should we believe words straight from the “horse's mouth” or should we believe what is coming from many “horse's @sses”?

As to the courage to be AWOL from the ANG, I would say that is no more courageous than his predecessor who had the courage to be a draft dodger.

 

[MGKrebs]

Quotes from Novak:

"Robert Novak said Monday that while he learned the identity of a CIA operative from administration officials, there was "no great crime"

"Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.

"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."

This is the exact quote from the original article:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

I would agree that technically, Novak may have an out. He hasn't admitted that he was told she was undercover, although he did say he was asked to not use her name, which he did anyway. So, you've got two "senior administration officials" giving him the identity of a CIA "operative", and asking him not to use her name. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on.

In any case, even if Novak doesn't have the courage to admit that he outed a CIA agent, Newsday just flat out claimed it a few days later:

"Washington -- The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing "two senior administration officials."

"Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak."
By Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce
We report. You decide.

 

[MGKrebs]

I will concede the point that

Bush is not more courageous than his predessecor.


"As to the courage to be AWOL from the ANG, I would say that is no more courageous than his predecessor who had the courage to be a draft dodger.

 

[Larry Gude]

This story stinks...

...and I have real concerns about espionage leaks and people losing their lives potentially.

On the other hand, I've read enough spy books, fact and fiction from WWII through the Cold War that make it pretty clear that everybody in the diplomat corp, from ambassadors, their wives, their gardener, to just about every aide in an embassy, from all nations, are all intelligence agents of some sort or another, if not flat out spies.

It is all one big game that helps to subtly balance power throughout the world and everyone certainly assumes that anyone they come in contact with is, if not recording a conversation, then certainly going to be reporting anything juicy to their bosses.

That said, I don't like the way this all happened as it stinks of a vindictive act by Novak and whomever he sourced. This is not just some innocent 'oopsie'.

That said, there is no doubt that Wilson is overtly partisan and he's not suppossed to be, just like spies are not suppossed to be diplomats and/or part of their entourage.

Her cover is blown therefore she is of no more use because everybody likes to pretend all is nicey nicey. Can't have officially know spies running about. This was personal to ruin her cool job because hubby wouldn't toe the intel line.

The only reason this doesn't bother me is that Wilson supposedly didn't do #### except talk to the same old people he knew in Niger, didn't turn over one new stone, which is what he was supposed to do, not even with his super spook wife yet he comes back knowing, KNOWING exactly this and that as though he'd done more than have tea with his pals. He didn't come back and report "not sure".

The Brits meanwhile, still stand by their story.

This is no Hanson case or Pollard or Walker. I've not heard one single menacing thing about her outing except we are suppossed to believe that no foreign nation would EVER have suspected her to be CIA thus anyone she ever came in contact with is now in grave danger.

Now THAT sounds like fiction to me.

 

[Bruzilla]

Yeah... here we go...

1. The courage to take a beating on his Harkin stock instead of insider-trading it away before it tanked? What's the point here? That Bush would have been smarter, or more courageous to lose a bundle? Sticking with a dying stock makes you a fool, not brave.

2. The courage to finish out his ANG tour instead of going AWOL? Are you calling people in the ANG cowards? I think some folks who actually wear that uniform might have something to say about that!

3. The courage to admit that he was wrong about nation building? How was he wrong? His comments about being against nation building was in reference to going into places like Haiti and Samolia, which were in utter turmoil and broke. Iraq is nothing like the aforementioned two.

4. The courage to let us see the Energy Task Force member list? Why do you need to see it? Did the Dems ever declassify who all was on Hillary's health care task force?

5. The courage to let the 9/11 investigation committee see some actual documents? What documents has Bush denied them the right to see? From what I've heard the only documents that are in dispute are some held by the FAA, not the White House.

6. The courage to attend at least one, ONE, funeral for a KIA soldier? I agree with Ken on this one. A President showing up at a soldier's funeral would set a bad precedent... especially if the deceased had Republican skeletons in his closet - like being a white male. Then the Dems would scream about him not attending a woman's funeral, a black male's funeral, a hispanic woman with a black-sounding name's funeral, etc.

7. The courage to find and fire the person(s) who disclosed Valerie Plame's undercover status? I've been doing a lot of looking into this issue, and the more I look the more I see this isn't an issue. I think the valet at the Washington Hilton was about the only person in DC who didn't know this woman was working for the CIA. It seems the comment was more along the lines of "and since she works at the CIA" rather than "Did you know she works for the CIA?" It was

8. The courage to have his campaign pay for the aircraft carrier landing instead of the taxpayers? That's a good one! Nobody used the VC-25 fleet more than the Dems did in the 90's, and those 747s cost a helluva lot more to fly than that little old S-3B. I don't remember any of you folks yelling for Clinton (Bill and Hillary) and Gore to use campaign dollars to fly a VC-25 around.

If this is the best that you can do to paint Bush as a coward, you're missing the mark. I think Bush is brave an has conviction because he's the only first-term President we've had who's had the guts to stand up to those who threaten the US, and doesn't cut-and-run when the polls start dropping. To me, that bravery earns him a whole lotta flights on any plane he wants.

 

[MGKrebs]

My rejoinder.

1. "Sticking with a dying stock makes you a fool, not brave. " I guess that's true all else being equal. But he BROKE THE LAW to avoid being foolish. So his choice really was; break the law to keep from losing money, or, follow the law and eat the loss, ask daddy for some more money. And don't tell me the SEC found no wrongdoing- his own lawyer did the SEC investigation. Nice gig. (And the investigation report is uh, not available.

2. I am not calling ANG cowards. He did not finish his ANG tour. He skipped. That is no reflection on anybody but Bush.

3. We can argue about the differences between Iraq and Somalia, but it is too complicated to ever resolve, I think. The real issue is that nation building by Democrats is bad, nation building by Republicans is OK. I happen to have no problem with the concept of nation building.

4. Did I ever say that Hillary had courage? Someone else said that Bush had courage. I am disputing that.

5. Perhaps I will look into the 9/11 document issue more fully. I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that the administration was blocking access to a lot of stuff. The security briefing from just a few days before 9/11 in particular.

6. I will concede the funeral point. Unfortunately, I was just repeating something that was transmitted to me from Alec Baldwin's brain, and that always gets me in trouble.

7. I guess we'll just have to see how big of a deal the CIA thinks it is. Stay tuned.

8. If you want to keep comparing the courage of Bush to Clinton, then have fun. Not a discussion that interests me.

Hey, I really hope all this works out, and the ME gets stabilized, we get lots of cheap oil, countries are intimidated into not producing nuclear weapons, no bad guys get into the country, and the economy picks up too. I just don't see the signs that it is happening. I am being patient. Will the swing voters?

 

[Bruzilla]

Re: My rejoinder.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Hey, I really hope all this works out, and the ME gets stabilized, we get lots of cheap oil, countries are intimidated into not producing nuclear weapons, no bad guys get into the country, and the economy picks up too. I just don't see the signs that it is happening. I am being patient. Will the swing voters?

I have a problem with barring other countries from having nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm on the vast minority on this issue, but I've always had a problem with the US, England, Russia, France, China, etc., i.e., those who DO have the bomb, telling those who don't have it that they can't get one.

As for you not seeing things happen yet, I would point out that 58 years after the end of World War II we still have hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe and Japan, that haven't really been needed there since about 1993 or so. So it took a sustained effort of some 48 years to bring about peace and stability to the European theater and Japan. I just don't see evaluating success after six months or a year very valid. I look at the Middle East today as I do Europe after World War I. We did our job, got rid of the bad guys, and left. After World War II we did our job, got rid of the bad guys, and stayed. Maybe if we had done the same thing after World War I there wouldn't have been a World War II, and hopefully if we treat the Middle East the same way, we can stop wasting lives and money on these stupid disputes every few years.

 

[MGKrebs]

I agree with you on this.

I wish we weren't there. I still don't think it was necessary for us to take the actions we did. But, we ARE there, and it is going to take a very long time to achieve anything close to whatever goals or expectations we might have.

I see the situation as closer to Israel/Palestine, in that I don't see any significant stability coming short of partitioning the territory into three countries. Then you have three governments, three armies, and probably three religious dogmas dominating. And stability may not come even then.

And the difference between this and Europe is that (my understanding) the Europeans wanted us and cooperated. It was also relatively easy for them to transistion post war because they were already used to democratic and free market systems to one degree or another. I don't think that is the case in Iraq.

 

[Tonio]

Back to McAuliffe, here's something from the New Republic:

The debates have been a millstone around the necks of the serious candidates for months. Nothing increases the stature gap between Bush and folks like Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards more than throwing them on stage with Kucinich and Sharpton week after week. Why is this Terry McAuliffe's fault? Because it's time for someone to give Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley Braun the hook, and it's McAuliffe's responsibility to do that. The debates should be reserved for candidates who are actually running for president, and those three don't meet that test. As every serious campaign we've talked to about this agrees, the only reason McAuliffe won't raise this issue is that it would mean excluding the only black candidates in the race. But the alternative is an increasingly chaotic debate setup that only further weaken the eventual nominee.

So in other words, McAuliffe is an easy mark for racial ambulance chasers like Sharpton. I've detested Sharpton for many years, because he makes it harder for society to address real racism.

 

[vraiblonde]

The whole Democratic party is an easy mark for racial ambulance chasers. They're the only ones who give them any credence.

They were doing a roundtable discussion of the Dem candidates and this one guy went off on Sharpton, reminding everyone of his Tawana Brawley days and how several people were killed because of riots Sharpton started. The fact that a cheesy con man and liar like Sharpton is up there in the first place gives the Dems a black eye.

These fringers are an embarrassment and McAuliffe, as party leader, should have shut them down a long time ago for the good of the party.

 

[Bruzilla]

Unfortunately, the Dems have painted themselves into a corner. They must have Black votes to win anything, and yet they failed to field a credible Black candidate. Sharpton is a joke and Braun is rapidly heading in the same direction. Surely, with all of the Blacks that are in the party there must be a credible face to put on the Democratic party that isn't a middle-aged white male one. There's really no way that they can put the hook on Sharpton or Braun without really ticking off the Blacks as the remaining field will be all white and the Dems will come off as looking anti-black.

 

[Tonio]

Part of the problem is that charlatans like Sharpton also manipulate other black politicians by calling them Uncle Toms.

Reminds me of people who pout and sulk to get their way.