Carl Rove is Leaking

[Guest Game of Chance]

You would think that we could have a viable third or fourth party or a truly independant canidate. We can't. There is no way for them to get enough money to run a campaign on a grand enough scale. The Dems and Reps have changed the laws to make it extremly hard for any other party to get funds. CAmpaign Finaince reform.... what a joke. When the Green party started to really start getting big and started to pull away from the Democratic base.. the Dems pushed for new reforms, robbing the Green party of finaincing... The Republicans have done the same thing over the years. The way the laws are now, noone but the Republicans or Democrates can raise enough funds.

What we need to do is stop Voting straight ticket. Vote the issues, not the party. I know it seems a small thing, but so many people do it. Lazy, small minded people. They'll vote for anyone, they dont really care who or what they believe in, as long as they are the correct party... stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We should have a "hanging clause". Every 12 months, there should be a public vote on major elected officials. If the majority thinks that they're screwing up, hang them. In public.

Think that would deter corruption?

Public service should be exactly that. Unfortunately, these days it has very little to do with service and a lot to do with money and consolidation of power.

[Jarodaka]

We should have a "hanging clause".  Every 12 months, there should be a public vote on major elected officials.  If the majority thinks that they're screwing up, hang them.  In public.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're kidding, right?

I understand the sentiment, but giving that much power to 'the public' is a horrible idea.

[Scary Guy]

Exactly why true democracy only works in small groups. I think thats the first thing they teach you in social studdies.

What we really need to do is illiminate career politiicians who have their own agenda for what is good for them and not what is good for the country.

[Fierce Critter]

Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking sometimes. But something dawned on me today.

It would be cool if all campaign contributions had to go into one, big pot. Then anyone who runs for president has to be given an equal share of the pot. If a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, a green, and an independent all run, they each get 1/5th of the pot to use toward their campaign.

If none of them have enough for TV spots - then nobody gets TV spots. etc.

And all of them will have to present their stance on issues in televised debates & town hall meetings where they have to answer directly to the people they're trying to solicit votes from.

The biggest difficulty would be in whittling down how many candidates can actually run, so that "pot" won't be spread TOO thin. I haven't ironed out my entire thought, this was just stream of consciousness thinking I was doing while driving today.

But this would enable more "average Joe's" to run for president. I'd like to see that.

[Scary Guy]

I'd like a supermodel goth girlfriend and a shit load of money. Some things are beyond hope.

But lets focus on what you just said. Campeigns are run by the money from lobyests and they give the money to the canadate they want to see win. If everyone gets equal sharees then the companies will bitch. At that point why not just make it a tax and call it campain tax.

What's fair and what's done are often never the same thing. Just look at justice and law, thats a perfect example.

[Black Sunday9]

you people are so full of BS. Look Karl Rove is not someone I respect and if he did something wrong he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but where was your thread when Sandy Berger got CAUGHT RED HANDED stealing sensitive security memos????

You people have two sets of standards and it's not right.

It's funny I saw plenty of Iraqi's dancing int he streets of Dearborn celebrating the fall of Saddam, there are polls by the BBC, ABC and Zogby that show a majority of people in Iraq support the war. You people never bothered to ask them, did you? Google Ken Joseph and read his article about that.

As for Bill Clinton's various "gates" being not a big deal compared to Iraq.....hmmm....let's see he bombed Kosovo without UN approval. Or does thae lack of Un security council approval only bother you when a Republican does it? Clinton also bombed a medicine plant in Sudan which was wrongly thought to be a terrorist cell, and then had Madeline ALbright lie about it. Clinton also bombed Iraq for "no fly zone" violations on a Muslim holiday.

And I am not saying CLinton was wrong to do those (and other things) I am just pointing out that people here (and other places) have a double standard.

[phee]

Have you taken your meds today BS9?

[Black Sunday9]

Have you taken your meds today BS9?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. I am just cranky. Sorry.

[phee]

Is OK

[Fierce Critter]

"Us people", as you appear to be referring to anyone liberal/democrat/not rightwingconservative, are no less/more guilty of "double standards" than the conservative/republican/notleftwingliberals who post here.

So naana naana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

[JaneDead]

hehehe

[The_Dark]

I would just like to say, I agree with BS9's post above. I just have kept the old mouth shut abou tit.

[Paper Hearts]

Not everyone who is against Karl Rove or the Republicans is necessarily a Democrat, that's seems to be what is being assumed here.

Regardless of the majority's judgement of the war, whether here, Iraq or Honduras, the Iraq war has been an incredibally bad scheme, despite of what Clinton or Ghingus Kahn have done in the past... How do you expect me to believe you're there to punish someone for violating a UN resolution but in doing so violate a UN order, yourself? How do you after initiating violence, simply change your pretenses when you have been proven wrong, instead of admitting your error? If it's right for us to have WMD then Iraq, N Korea, the rest of the world has the right to have them as well. It's such a ridiculous notion for a country who's make up is nearly 95% non native peoples to think itself superior to all other nations. In particular, when you remember that the United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another, when you remember that we sold Iraq those weapons, helped established the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. WMD are wrong for anyone and of all nations we're the least acceptable to go crusading in the name of peace through less devastating weaponry

Bush and the war are uselss to any of my purposes and I cannot see a war for "freedom" as justifiable, when it's come from our his regime. We have no custom of removing every "evil" foriegn leader from power so it's a bit awkward to use the "but Saddam is a bad guy" arguement and besides, our "war on terror" has been very selctive: for instance, in this country, violent hate groups are said to be protected by freedom of speech (ie KKK, Nazis, etc) but when the hate group happens to be rooted somewhere else, we go ahead and bomb just them. If freedom is really our mandate, then why is it only our policy when it's convienient? What about innocent until proven guilty? -Things that supposedly define us...

And then oh, all of those billions of gallons of oil...

You can string up both Clinton and Burger and what we still have is a sham.

[The_Dark]

Just to address a few of you rpoints... First I ahve to address the "War for Freedom" thing. You can't think of a justifiable reason for War for Freedom.. I can.. 1776.

As for our home grown hate groups... KKK, Neo-Nazis, PETA, Anti-Abortion groups.. we do prosocute them when they get violent.

As for why some people can have WMD's and some people cant.. Treatys. The world decided a few years ago that there were enough Nuclear powers. Everyone, damn near anyway, signed the Non-Proliferation pact, Including Saddam and Iraq. Then Iraq started a war, Iraq lost the war and signed a Peace Treaty that said they were not allowed to have WMD's anymore because they were naughty. The UN did nothing to enforce that treaty. Sure, it now seems that Iraq did infact disarm, but they never did what they were sopposed to do acording to the treaty. Which was to prove it. There are international laws that govern this kinda thing. Iraq broke them all.

What UN order did we violate? There was no resalution saying that we were not allowed to reinstate military action at all. Infact, there were UN resalutions that said that we could. The UN, France, Russia and Germany just didn't want to give up Their Cash Cow (Oil for Food).

We are getting less oil from Iraq now than we did before the War. So don't try to say this war is/was about oil.

[phee]

War for Freedom.. I can.. 1776

This war... like the Iraq war... and almost every other war I can think of is about economics

[Paper Hearts]

As for why 1776 is nor relevant: 1777-2005 and especially the last 5 years.

"we do prosecute them" Yes, and we simply bomb these other groups without even proof against them.

Funny how world treaty organizations mean nothing except when it's suitable to Bush's wants... Besides, Iraq had no nukes and we had no real information otherwise and that has been admitteded fairly recently. The Un was enforcing the provision, do you not remember the inspectors who repeatedly found nothing, who asked for more time before a strike was made? -The (what was it, 6000 page) weapons program dosier from Iraq, etc? Iraq was meeting the UNs demands, in the end it was us who made the violation.

Regardless, no one has a right to these types of weapons.

Oh, of course, remember when the UN voted that it was too soon to use force because there was no evidence of wrong doing? That's the one we violated to "punish Saddam for violating UN order" (which, it turns out, he actually hadn't).

Ignoring the millions of gallons of Iraqi oil that've come up simply missing (under our watch) and all the contracts and future prospects, I wouldn't be able to say that, you're right...

[The_Dark]

It doesn't matter if Iraq had Nukes or Bio/Chem weapons. The UN resalutions said he had to prove he didn't have them. He refused... hence 10 years passing with the UN scrapeping funds off the Top of Oil for Food. Iraq only had to show proof that it had scrapped it's weapons. There was never any doubt that Iraq had the weapons, the doubt was if he still had them or not.

What group have we bombed in the lat 5 years that we didn't have proof against?

[Paper Hearts]

Iraq.

[The_Dark]

Forget the bull shit reasons that we were given to justifie the invasion and look at the actually legal recourse we had. Legally, the invasion is justifiable. He didn't abide by the peace treaty he signed.. that means we restart military actions.

[Paper Hearts]

No, were that was the case, then that would have been among the pretenses originally given. There was no violation that warranted an attack if there had been, the UN certainly would have voted otherwise.

[Guest Game of Chance]

You're kidding, right?

I understand the sentiment, but giving that much power to 'the public' is a horrible idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm actually not kidding...at all. lol...are you not a member of the public? Or do you consider yourself above the "masses"?

People should be free to think for themselves and not have others think for them.

[The_Dark]

the UN certainly would have voted otherwise

You seem to forget that the UN was skimming money off the Oil for Food Program. That France, Germany and Russia, the major players against acting on the UN's resolutions, were all making millions of money illegally off of that very program.

I did find some interesting information today about the actual topic at hand.

It seems some 36 different mainstream media outlets got together and filed a motion 4 months ago with the Appeals court that Judith Miller was put in jail by, for not divulging her source.

The way the Law is, a reporter does not have to divulge their source if no crime was committed. This filing says that Miller should not have to divulge her source because Plame was already out in the open. Further research shows that Plame had actually been outed 10 years ago.. by the CIA. PDF of the Motion

This whole fiasco is just the Left trying desperately to deface someone, anyone in the current Administration.. with the help of the liberal media.

Rove did nothing wrong. Noone infact did, except for perhaps Jospeh Wilson.

OH, before I forget.. the whole getting uranium from Niger that Mr Wilsons report said was all false and lies... 5 miles south of Bagdad is a storage phasility.. in it is 5 million pounds of Yellow cake uranium that has not been enriched and 1.9 million tons of mildly enriched Yellow cake. It all came from Niger. And it was all in the process or waiting to be in the process of enrichment. hrmmmm Why no, Saddam's weapons programs were all shut down....

[Black Sunday9]

damn, the Dark beat me to it.

The BBC ran a report showing the countries who opposed the war in Iraq were the ones most benefiting from shady Oild for food deals with Saddam Hussein, especially France. The UN is a complete and utter disgrace, when the US was booted from the human rights commission - Libya and China was added. WTF? The U.S. pays 60% of the U.N. operating budget and withheld payment to get back on the commission. The UN is about to blown wide open by the oil for food scandal and Kofi Annon is going to go down as one of the worlds most corrupt human beings, his son already belongs in prison (and I suspect he will be imprisoned before long).

And that's not to say I even support the Iraq war. I am conflicted by it, I have my doubts. But the people who opposed it are so full of shit that it's laughable, especially France - the same France who occupies the Ivory coast. France is one big joke of a nation and the facts speak for themselves. Remember that farce of a book called "the great imposter" (forget the franch translation).

And Paper Hearts brings up that the US is the only country to use a nuclear bomb, which is weak considering it was half a century ago and his beloved France tested Nuclear weapons in the 1990's in the south pacific which has affected the health of the people of several nations in the region, another thing the holy UN opposes, by the way.

[Paper Hearts]

Whatever one BBC investigative report simply suggests is irrelevant. What is relavant is that the conflict was started under pretexts since disproven. What was asked for was proof, naturally one asks for proof of what is being accused in this type of situation- At the time, Iraq was not accused of A., B., C. and sometimes D., they were accused of only A. We did not, could not provide proof of A. because as it turns out, there was no proof to be gotten. Nice as it would be to pretend that we're so absolutely perfect, it's not at all true-regardless of the wrongs of whatever other countries.

Anyone who does not believe that the world would be a safer place without Bush is ridiculous.

I know about nuclear testing. The US uis the only nation to use an atomic weapon against another country in an act of war-no one else has so much as attempted it. Whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki were wrong or right, that fact still stands. Besides, for many other reasons our crusading against " evil weapons of mass destruction" is very poor theatre.

[Black Sunday9]

Whatever one BBC investigative report simply suggests is irrelevant. What is relavant is that the conflict was started under pretexts since disproven. What was asked for was proof, naturally one asks for proof of what is being accused in this type of situation- At the time, Iraq was not accused of A., B., C. and sometimes D., they were accused of only A. We did not, could not provide proof of A. because as it turns out, there was no proof to be gotten. Nice as it would be to pretend that we're so absolutely perfect, it's not at all true-regardless of the wrongs of whatever other countries.

Anyone who does not believe that the world would be a safer place without Bush is ridiculous.

I know about nuclear testing. The US uis the only nation to use an atomic weapon against another country in an act of war-no one else has so much as attempted it. Whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki were wrong or right, that fact still stands. Besides, for many other reasons our crusading against " evil weapons of mass destruction" is very poor theatre.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow Paul, are you serious?

The fact is that the Iraq war was about UN resolution violations, which were violated, there is no debate about that. Did you read thru all the UN resoslutions that Iraq violated? I don't have much time but maybe the Dark can post them all. It was not a false pretennse.

Anyway since Bush has been president there have been democratic reforms in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.....Syria is now out of Lebanon. I think you should rethink things, the Middle East is changing slowly and whether you like it or not, women are allowed to vote in places they once werent - thanks to George Bush. Did you know at a soccer match in Lebanon last month they held big signs of George Bush's face and the crowd cheered?

It's also funny that the places where Bush gets the most supports is places most affected by terrorism - Russia, Israel and certain middle eastern Countries.