Posted on 07/08/2007 10:36:02 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
It’s amazing how the Lefties are blind to that fact, and attempt all sorts of convoluted rationales to explain it away.
Novak was a conservative Democrat until the Carter years. He still has better Dem sources (although not the moonbats) than conservative Rep sources. Thus, he has been out of the loop for some time.
The Armitage meeting made him a player again. He agreed with the Scowcroft-Powell clique that we should not exercise military power, especially in the Arab world. He has been long sympathetic to the Arabs.
Now he is a self-promoting paleo whore like his good friend Pat “I’m no anti-semite” Buchanon.
Which is ironic given that is what many people seemed to want in 2000 - a good Christian man with strong personal values who said what he meant and meant what he said and who could unite the country after the Clinton years. We got one and his approval rating is at 26%.
That is the biggest crock I've ever heard from a journalist! If ground rules aren't established before the interview, everything is on the table. Novak purposely set this whole episode in motion.
Scooter was sentenced to 2.5 years in jail because he had a different recollection of events that Fat Dim Russert. Fat Dim filed a false affidavit to the judge, one that the prosecutor KNEW was false. Judge Walton allowed on the jury, over the objections of the defense, a neighbor of Fat Dim’s who also worked for Woodward at one point.
The whole case was a farse from start to end; Walton needs to hang up his robe and retire; Fitzy needs to be held in contempt for lieing to the court and a full investigation of his prosecutorial tactics needs to be undertaken.
As for Libby, how/when will he ever get his reputation back?
NBC/MSNBC was intimately involved in this whole story. From the spitter Chris Matthews who made it his trademark story, to his “key” reporter David Schuster who was caught in more lies than any other reporter. Mrs. Alan Greenspan knew all about Plame and told us so on Capitol report, then claimed she must have been drunk when she said that (as so she told IMUS). David Gregory was a leak recipient and Fat Dim filed the false affidavit and lied on the stand when he said he didn’t know you couldn’t have a lawyer in the grand jury room. All of these individuals are still employed by NBC/MSNBC. There is NO doubt in my mind that NBC/MSNBC was colluding with the Kerry campaign during this whole story.
I’m glad the President commuted Libby’s sentence and I’m glad he slapped the judge when he made his statement saying that the punishment was in part based on evidence that was NOT presented at trial.
Walton is Ito, Fitzy is Niphong.
great post
There, fixed it.
Thanks
Whoa. Where did that bile in your post come from? If you have a point of view about this, don’t you think you should discuss your disagreement with a verbal assault?
Your aggression seems unwarranted.
The political class will destroy this country
The political class will destroy this country
To: nathanbedford
I agree with most of your statement about the Bush family.
I’d point out that while Laura and Barbara might be for the principle of Roe v. Wade in order to “prevent back alley abortions like in the old days”, that in itself isn’t proof that they are “for abortion” in the sense of advising their female family members, or their friends’ daughters, to get abortions. I think the formulation among such folks is “abortion should be legal, safe and rare”. If I’m reading them correctly, without proof, and I hope I am.
The larger point is that George HW and George W aren’t required to politically follow the personal preferences of Barbara or Laura. There are various elements in the family and I don’t ascribe “lockstep” on abortion or other issues to the family as a whole.
Your point about George W coming from a Christian perspective rather than a conservative one is so true. Strange that to poster Philip Freneau Bush is a Marxist. Let me take that on in my way, as a supplement to your excellent analysis.
Freneau claims that Bush claimed to be a conservative, but after in office supported a lot of what Fr. called Marxist legislation.
Doesn’t square with the facts, even putting analysis aside.
First, if he were a total leftist, why did he heroically push a supply side solution to the economic troubles following the Clinton Bubble and the fallout from 9-11?? His marvelous tax cuts might not be conservative enough to suit Freneau, but they aren’t what a “leftist/marxist” would pursue and that’s indisputable.
The most erroneous statement, however, is that list Freneau made of Bush the Bush legislative record coupled with his claim that Bush took the conservative position on all of those and then turned around and did the opposite. He attributed his motive to some kind of conspiracy like blackmail (while not using the word) or something I didn’t quite follow, tying it in somehow to Bush’s acquiescence to the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame thing.
Actually, Bush had long ago come out for federal education testing mandates, modeling them after his work in Texas education. His nod to conservatism was that the Feds would not mandate the test content or what testing company to use, etc. but WOULD require schools to MEASURE or else their funds for Title 1 would be cut. To get this done, he had no choice but to work with Ted Kennedy. No education bill of any kind was going to pass without him. Thus Kennedy shaped a bill that would have been different if Bush alone had crafted it. Bush was for private school vouchers where public schools were failing, and he had to drop it. He wasn’t for the amount of spending Kennedy was, but had to give on it to get the mandated measurement.
The rest on Fr.’s list are similar in that Bush supported them beforehand, not as a johnny come lately who had a secret agenda.
The one exception I see is McCain-Feingold. There, Bush had long backed a version of CFR which differed from McCain’s and was much more in keeping with conservative (Christian?) values when compared with it. But Bush was not going to oppose McCain who was already on the outs with him and rub salt in an open wound, not to mention oppose the supposed war hero McCain whom his father liked as well as having been a friend of McCain’s father the Admiral, who was by all accounts a great man. Not to mention have a veto overridden while doing so. So he signed the thing and there’s reason to believe he thought the Supreme Court would knock out the part about no issue ads 60 days before an election. The Court didn’t, but the most recent Court has taken a different, better turn.
Even that act of signing legislation that contained items he disagreed with dates back to Texas. Bush tried to preempt receiving unwanted legislation by getting in with the key players before the bills were written. He tried to put what personal stamp he could on things, but there were times when he would have signed something because of strategic or technical or political reasons when it wasn’t the type of bill he wanted.
Whomever attacks George W Bush as a Marxist or Leftist needs to answer: Why the venomous attacks on HIM? If HE’S a Marxist or Leftist so is almost - not all - but almost all of the rest of America and officeholders who supported the legislation that Fr. so railed against.
And why rail against LBJ for allegedly starting it all? I personally couldn’t stand LBJ, but his hero was FDR and he was following in his hero’s footsteps.
Is there something about Texans that automatically galls Fr? And if anyone or anything galls him, he vents his spleen all over the nearest place, which happened to be Free Republic??
Novak was never under any court order not to divulge this and let the Bush administration hang. He is the most disgusting dirtbag in DC.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I don’t really blame Novak in all this. I read his original article and it was harmless enough. This whole episode shows the power of the Democratic attack machine. Valerie, left-wing kook in the CIA, recommends her husband for a politically sensitive mission. Someone in the CIA approves. (The identity of this someone remains a state secret.) Wilson goes to Niger, provides an oral report to the CIA, and does not sign a confidentiality agreement. He falsely tells the NYT that the President lied. Democrats call for impeachment. Novak asks who the heck hired this fruitcake. The answer comes back that it was his wife who works in the CIA. Novak reports. No one cares. A few months later Joe Wilson (coaxed by David Corn of the Nation magazine) yells “Bush outed my wife,” and calls for impeachment.
Questions remain. Who hired (on Valerie’s recommendation) Joe Wilson? Why didn’t the CIA require Wilson to sign a non-disclosure agreement? How left wing is the CIA? What role did they have in setting up this political game to get Cheney and Bush?
Novak did some innocent political reporting and we can see how risky that turned out to be. My concern is that the legal system, in concert with a one party mainstream media, hamstrings anyone who wants to tell the truth.
Frances Townsend is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT?????? What the HELL is going on!!! She is in charge of Homeland SECURITY thingies, isn’t she??? I give up trying to figure out Bush....he must have a DEATH WISH!!! I am sickened to learn this about Townsend!
This sure seems to help Libby’s appeal.
Armitage is a Bush ENEMY....that’s why he wasn’t prosecuted.
NEEDS REPEATING, PLEASE!!! Post that info on every thread about Libby also. What about Wilson seeing the FORGED DOCUMENTS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE???????? and then LIED about it!!
We don't need "reason to believe," we have Bush's own words from a White Press Release upon signing the bill.
"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections."
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.
THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP. If Bush had "reservations about the constitutionality" of the bill, he should have vetoed it and the supporters of the bill would have not been able to override the veto. Political expediency won out over the President's sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no excuse for his action, which limits political speech.
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.