Democrats subvert national security for political gain

From Fox News

A memo has been leaked from Senate Democrats indicating that they are using investigations into pre-war intelligence to undermine the White House and hurt George Bush's re-election:

The text of the memo

"We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time "” but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."
we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials

So much for honest motives about discovering the truth. So much for the public's right to know. So much for waiting on the results of an investigation to make judgements. The desperation of these power-hungry hacks is frightening. If they are willing to play politics with this investigation, what else are they playing games about, when they should be looking after your security..?

As far as I am concerned, when I read/hear of this type of Democratic (DNC) behavior, it just solidifies my belief that they (Democrats) are just creating more of a gap between most American voters and themselves. Let them play political games with America''s future and security, it will just hurt their popularity in the end and lesson their powerbase/voterbase.

but we can only do so once

Remember that Daffy Duck cartoon where he drinks all the explosive stuff and swallows a match in a desperate attempt to upstage Bugs?
I''m seeing all kinds of parallels.

This is slimey. The Republicans have used the war for political gain, not that bad, but they have. This is just as bad, if not worse.

"ralcydan" wrote:

A memo has been leaked from Senate Democrats indicating that they are using investigations into pre-war intelligence to undermine the White House and hurt George Bush''s re-election:

I don''t know, seems like the White House had been doing a good job of that by themselves.

How is this different from what anyone else ever does? Every time there is an opportunity politicians use it for thier political gain, like it or not it''s thier job. If situations were reversed Republicans, Libertarians or even Green Party wierdos would do the exact same thing.

In fact I seem to remember Republicans going after Clinton and trying to get him impeached. Were they just ""power-hungry hacks"" for trying to take him down? It doesn''t matter what they''re investigating for either, because trying to get a president impeached is a pretty big deal. I don''t think either side is being unreasonable here, just using the situation to thier advantage. Besides, it''s not like they''re going to fabricate information, they''re simply waiting to nail him when it hurts the most. Boo-hoo, if there''s anything to nail him with they deserve it, same as anyone else.

If Clinton had been caught fabricating intelligence in order to further his political goals I''d want to see him get nailed just the same, just to be clear.

Well, first of all, it''s from Fox News, who are currently being caught up in accusations of falsifying this kind of stuff anyway, so I take it with a grain of salt.

That said, it wouldn''t surprise me at all if this is true (and in fact, I believe it probably is).

They''re politicians. Republican, Democrat, Holier-than-thou, whatever. They''re mostly all sleazeballs for whom I have little to no respect. Pretty sucky but true. As long as I can remember, every time I vote, it''s basically just to choose the lesser of two evils.

Well, first of all, it''s from Fox News, who are currently being caught up in accusations of falsifying this kind of stuff anyway

Well I can link you to the LA Times or Wall Street Journal for the same story, but instead I think I''ll just ask you what nonsense you''re talking about by saying that Fox has been accused of making things up. Link please?

Just read Al Franken''s latest book; that''s where I''ve been finding some interesting information about Fox news. I also read an article recently, but forgot to save the link on the off chance I might refer to it here.

Of course, Al''s a liberal, so he''s obviously untrustworthy, and so are the batch of students he had researching his material.

But anyway, if I stumble across that article again, I''ll provide a link here for ya.

While I haven''t read this book the primary focus from the book interviews I saw seemed to center on Bill O''Reilly''s Peabody awards he said he won, but didn''t. Is O''Reilly a conservative? If he is he doesn''t admit it. I know he isn''t a liberal, but he also insists upon distancing himself from conservatives (in rhetoric and practice).

Apparently all you need to be deemed a conservative (and therefore a liar) by Al Franken is an opinion that differs from his.

Ah. O''Reilly is a Republican, or at least he was a registered Republican when he was promoting himself as a balanced independent.

And the book is about far more than just O''Reilly; that''s just what the interviews focused on because it was ""sensational"" or whatever.

So far, all you need to do to be deemed a liar by Al Franken in his book is to make statements that are blatantly wrong and can be proven so by a little research.

However, I don''t take his word as gospel, since he is first and foremost a comedian.

Bill O''Reilly is an independent - just like Rat Boy.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""] Every time there is an opportunity politicians use it for thier political gain, like it or not it''s thier job.

Actually, no, it isn''t. Their job is to represent their constituants. They''re supposed to be doing what''s best for the country, and for the people that elected them. If they have evidence for something, it should be disclosed now, not when they think it will hurt their opponent. Of course, I have a problem with politicans calling each other their opponent, but that''s a whole different post.

While I haven''t read this book
Apparently all you need to be deemed a conservative (and therefore a liar) by Al Franken is an opinion that differs from his.

These two statements go hand in hand. You skipped the part where he does extensive research.

Bill O''Reilly is an independent

That''s funny, cause the book has a document showing him to be a registered Republican.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Beell Oo''Reeelly is un independent - joost leeke-a Ret Buy. Bork bork bork!

Sure he is. So I guess Al Franken is really a conservative?

That''s funny, cause the book has a document showing him to be a registered Republican.

Then I guess Wesley Clark is a Republican and Al Sharpton is ""colored"".Wedefine what we are, and if O''Reilly has decided he is an independent, then just because he once registered as a Republican is irrelevant.

Al Franken has been shown to use made up facts in his book. There is website centered on it, I''ll try to find the link when I''m back home.

Except, Ral, he said he was a registered Independent. He wasn''t. He must''ve gotten those Peabodys when he went to register!

Since we are on the topic of O''Reilly and Franken...Enjoy =)

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index....

(that link looks funny when pasted, hope it works..haha)

[edit]
just wanted to let everyone know that it is kinda long and doesn''t get interesting until the first speaker is finished, but the fireworks b/t O''Reilly & Franken are quite entertaining.

Except, Ral, he said he was a registered Independent. He wasn''t. He must''ve gotten those Peabodys when he went to register!

There''s no such thing as a registered independent. You either register for a party or they leave it blank. I also somehow doubt you watch O''Reilly, Elysium. I have seen him say, ""I''m an independent"" many times - I have never seen him say ""I registered independent""...

I''m registered independent.

I''m registered independent.

Yeah, you and Hillary Clinton.

Why thank you. It''s nice to be likened to a future president of the United States.

Why thank you. It''s nice to be likened to a future president of the United States.

I also assume you''re both male. Rat, here''s to hoping that your political predictions are as accurate as your football picks. Actually, I don''t need to hope. Hillary is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Hillary is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

Hmm, other than holding only one political office and being better known by her relation to another president, she''s about as qualified as Bush was in 2000. That and she polls better than the rest of the Democrats against the president. Where in that is she unelectable?

Our first female president isn''t going to be someone as hated as Hillary.

There''s no such thing as a registered independent. You either register for a party or they leave it blank. I also somehow doubt you watch O''Reilly, Elysium. I have seen him say, ""I''m an independent"" many times - I have never seen him say ""I registered independent""...

On the form he had six selections, including one which would have labeled him as unaffiliated. Now, if I were an independent, I would''ve checked that box. Probably not the Republican box, which I can''t seem to find anywhere as synonomous with Independent.

Maybe that''s why there''s a supposed liberal media bias you''re always going on about. Republicans keep forgetting what party they belong to!

O''Reiley says a lot of things. I''m not sure I''d take his word on any of them.

Hillary on any ticket will get every Republican to the polls and most moderate voters to go Republican. I think Condie Rice will be the first female President.

Hillary had Repubs shaking in their boots that she might run this election. I personally know several people who would have voted for her, myself included. I hope she runs in 2008.

As far as OReilly goes, I can take a few minutes of his radio show before I change it. I think one of my recent favorite words from him referenced expensive cars. He first said, ""I don''t own an expensive car, so I can''t relate. My car is only 45,000."" Umm, ok.

In my state, you can registed as Independent. But who cares? People who make decisions based on their party affiliation aren''t really thinking for themselves anyway. And anyone telling you they are ""objective"" isn''t telling you the truth. Even I''m objective enough to realize I''m not objective enough.

Hillary had Repubs shaking in their boots that she might run this election.

Are you kidding? The Republicans want Hillary more than we want Dean - she just can''t win. Bring her on!