Group protests Karl Rove outside Rep. Drake fundraiser

A caveat to my prior entry: I am not trying to lecture anyone, as my statements are a qualitative/anectdotal report card of sorts on policy and governance debates nowadays.

I hear you too. I agree that discourse on crucial matters such as national public policy has become inane and basal. When politicians run their ads on outright lies and purposeful distortions and people buy into the garbage we are in trouble. We are a mentally lazy country when it comes to citizenship. Soundbites and stereotypes win elections, not real reasoned debate on meaningful issues combined with well articulated stands on the issues. We go for the personal attacks instead. Critical analysis of our leaders is subplanted by partisan hyperbole. Crude statements are made about those who dare to think differently than one's own views. Those who subscribe to one political party believe themselves to be right while those from the opposition are always wrong. It is mindboggling and frustrating because it serves no higher purpose and runs counter to a well informed citizenry.

But I know you don't think the effects of that positive externality are long lasting, and I believe you would still prefer to have the answers to the questions you have been asking now for almost two weeks. I agree with your comments regarding education / common sense, but I will also add that no matter what one may have achieved scholastically, it means little if there is a core of dishonesty when engaged in any discourse, political or not. My original and ongoing posts in this matter are 100% public record. They are not spin, nor open to interpretation. I admit to bristling when someone challenges them and not only provides nothing to back up their own claims, but then makes things up, refuses to admit their errors and then finally comes up with some lame ad hominem attack to try and brush off the original points / reason for posting at all. And when I say it is sad, I mean exactly that.

EP, some constructive advice for you to mull over before you post again. First, instead of saying that you are smart, how about saying something smart? Second, when confronted with requests for evidence to back up your claims, respond with said evidence, instead of diversions and even more unsubstantiated claims. There are arguments you started but have never replied to, because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Third, and I mean this sincerely: learn to write. Learn to express yourself so that you will at least appear more intelligent than your evidence-lacking posts would otherwise imply. Fourth, read more. Understand what words mean. I know you didn't know the words I was using; you had to look them up. That's okay. I would do the same thing if I didn't know them. But to imply I don't know the meaning of the words I used just shows you still don't understand what I was saying. Sad indeed.

Education level is not a good gauge to use when discussing topics such as this. I have known many a well educated book smart person who had the common sense of a four year old. And I have also known many a person with "little" education or book smarts who had plenty of common sense. This really does not boil down to academic intelligence but citizen intelligence relating to having a rudamentary understanding of the following: the workings of our govt, our system of laws, a broader historical perspective of our nation's history and of our role in the world; and being able to be critical of our leaders-and in that I mean critical of their performance relating to their sworn duties and how that performance effects us all. Partisan politics can go to h---. That does nothing but divide us down faux lines rather than bring us together on doing what is best for our country. Still waiting for some answers though.

at least enough to check this post! You are a complete fraud. But you finally consulted a dictionary, don't be afraid of it anymore, it is for everyone's benefit. I just wish you wouldn't ignore it until you are told to use it. I do give you a gold star for taking advantage of it. You were NOT speaking sarcastically. You may want to believe you were but you just made a mistake not realizing you were trying to offend an educated man who was reading novels in the 2nd grade! I'm sorry that you felt so foolish but you made a novice mistake. Don't worry, I'm fully confident you won't do it again. Good luck with whatever you are doing and God bless! Unless you can come up with REAL substance I will obey Proverbs 26:4 and leave you alone!

For me, this is now what is called a "positive externality".

So good of you to come crawling back to enjoy more abuse. Oh, believe me, EP, I have a much better understanding of the English language than you my friend, as has been demonstrated many times. Your oft repeated and clever use of LOL notwithstanding, you have demonstrated virtually no command of the language, and even less understanding on how to respond coherently to questions posed to you. I am sorry that you had to consult a dictionary to understand my posts, but that would be YOUR problem, not mine. To spell it out for you, the word "pithy" is used sarcastically in my post, as your posts are definitely not really pithy at all. EP, I have tried to caution you against making assumptions regarding my education, especially since anyone reading the quality of our posts could discern which person might be found lacking. (Um, that would be you.) In the future, I will try to make my posts more kid friendly, in deference to your shortcomings.

hopefully you took a dictionary with you so you could do some much needed studying while sunbathing. LOL! But maybe you could learn how to use an online dictionary? Your attempted slam fell far short of impressive to say the least. Maybe you should look up the word "platitude" and maybe before trying to offend me with the word "pithy" you should know how it is defined! LOL! I hope you are not on government payroll in any form, your obvious lack of language skills and of the English in general would be very embarrassing to me the taxpayer. Of course Michael Moore and company doesn't offer English in a video do they? LOL! Thank YOU for the great entertainment you have just provided for me! LOL!

Appreciate your admission of defeat, inasmuch as you were unable through many posts to refute my original statements re: Plame and warrantless wiretapping. Since you still seem to have a problem reading, if the director of the CIA identified her status as covert at the time she was outed, then she was covert. Which he did. Can you really be that obtuse to even debate the point? It was a really nice touch for you to completely ignore the warrantless wiretapping issue and in retrospect that was a good move, since it prevented you (somewhat), from embarrassing yourself even more. Also much amused by your substitution of the word "platitudes", for the more appropriate term "facts". You know, they don't actually mean the same thing, but I know you meant facts, so thanks. Will be on overseas travel for next couple of weeks, non covert status, so replies to your pithy posts may be delayed due to spott

I was very clear on how you were to respond. You were to admit you were wrong on both issues. Because, of course, you were. Plame was covert. This is a fact. Your silly blathering does not make any it any less so. You were to admit that the warrantless wiretapping program was found to be illegal. Because, of course, it was. You have not been able to refute one thing, because you don't have facts. You have noise. You don't answer questions because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Your arguments never come close to addressing the topic. Your inability to present even one cogent argument to support your non reality based opinions has gotten sadder by the post. And I am sorry that your post was censored. That has never happened to me. I wonder why? Oh, wait, I bet I know. It is because I probably present my argument in a more civilized manner, without the arm waving and wild charges. And one more thing. I

The questions: 1. There is no doubt that Clinton tried to get OBL, but he was chided for wagging the dog by the Repubs. Yet when Bush took over he did nothing for 8 months. After 9/11 Bill was blamed fornot doing enough by Bush and others. How is Clinton doing something worse than Bush doing nothing? Why was not one meeting on OBL held prior to 9/11, or even increased funding for counterterrorism proposed in May 2001? 2. If Clinton/Gore are traitors in your mind for continuing the sale of missile guidance systems for commercial satellite launches (as was the case under Reagan/Bush) then why are Reagan and Bush not traitors as well? Reagan/Bush initiated the process and Reagan even authorized China/US scientific exchange programs that were used to aid in the Iran/Contra affair. The missile tech bleed by all accounts began in the mid 80's and was breached by 1988. Please answer.

Tim nowhere says he is giving equal status to terrorists than he is to citizens. That is the typical strawman argument meant to stifle any rsasoned debate on the issue. There are numerous cases of citizens getting caught in the "trap" Bush has approved, i.e. held without charges, cruelly treated while incarcerated, denied communications for days, etc. So the problem is when you let the govt take an inch on Constitutional rights it will quickly take a mile-and it did. Bush admitted that the wiretapping program was much broader than initially stated, when it broke that they were listening in all on traffic. That means he lied. Which explains why Bush and Co. will not testify under oath. Keep on harping about Clinton's extramarital issue-it had nada to do with national security or Constitutional rights. You stil have not answered my questions though.

I said "moron". The CIA director doesn't get to define words genius. She was covert (by definition) when she was in the middle east recruiting agents to the CIA and did so honorably. What was she doing that was covert in DC microgenius? Her status was active. Her classification was covert while in theatre. He "said" she was covert, how does that fit the definition? Clinton "said" many things too and questioned the definition of the word "is". So if a he can make an argument by a definition so can I. LOL! I can't believe you still think to make terrorists equal with U.S. citizens! I'm never shocked by how bitter you people still are after Bore/Kerry election results. Why do liberals always want more of our money? Since we have pretty much stretched our previous topic paper thin I decided to introduce a new one. Good luck answering or not answering that one.

EP, I'm sorry you don't understand what covert means. Again, the director of the CIA says she was covert. Location does not equal status. See how patient I am being with you? Now, you can send an equally calm reply stating you were wrong. Not that anybody still reading this string (maybe 5 of us: me, you, pd, keith and Fred), yourself included, doesn't already know you were wrong. I see you have failed to address the illegal wiretapping issue. Again. Someone besides me must have told you that you were wrong. But I will also must insist that your next reply to me also state your incorrectness on this issue as well. As for bringing pd and myself together, I think issues, shared values and beliefs, respect for other's opinions and a desire to educate oneself on issues of the day is what unites most people. In this case, your absolute wrongheadedness and lack of understanding or knowledge of the issues

See? I'm not bad, I brought you two together! Covert does not mean sitting in DC. I am a conservative. Bush is a moderate. Clinton is a liberal. Those are 3 very distinct philosophies. Politics by nature is partisan. Show me where liberal democrats have ever been bipartisan. Republicans have been bipartisan and that is how they have gotten themselves into trouble with conservatives. It is the liberal mindset that says "he didn't even have a meeting" that implies Bush is to blame. I only point out Clintons (not as an indictment of guilt but as a participant of negligence) non-involvement did contribute to 9/11. The asprin factory bombing happened 2 yrs 5 months before he left office, what did he do in that time that Bush didn't in 8 months?

Thanks for the kind words. Although those who know me might say the patience thing is not a virtue of mine. Another good read is Richard Clark's Against All Enemies. He started his career under Nixon, worked his way up, and stayed on until Bush II. He is blunt about his assessment of all the POTUS's during his tenure, and it is aggrevating at points to hear just how mind-numbingly moronic our govt can be at times. And how bitterly partisan and hateful-especially in recent years. But to hear just how plain ignorant Bush and his staff was from 1/01 to 9/01 is befuddling. Clinton had his faults for sure but then so did the Republican Congresses of the 90's and 2000's. To blame Clinton out of the gate and try to diffuse criticism for not even holding a single meeting about OBL (when the warnngs were out there) in 9 months is unexplainable. No one wants to answer why that happened.

Could not agree more. As I have commented before, I like to read this blog daily, even when overseas, so I can hear the views of my community. I usually only venture a comment if someone says something egregious that I can't let it pass, or to try and add clarification. You are absolutely correct in your assertion that history historic events do not happen in a vacuum, but over a period of years, finger pointing towards Bush or Clinton does not come close to telling the whole story. There are many to blame for our failure to stop 9/11, but I don't point the finger at any one president, for example. I read the Looming Towers which really laid out an infuriating case to be made at a whole slew of people in our government. On a different note, I will say I admire your patience...wish I had more of it.

Can you write a little slower please, according to some I only understand one syllable words. LOL! What concerns me is people who look at issues though only a politically biased lense. As if one party does all wrong (the party a person does not subscribe to) and their party can do no wrong. That is how politicians want us to think and that is how many campaign-with soundbites and stereotypes. I have the unfortunate mindset that requires that I look at all sides of an issue, research what politicians say and do, and think for myself. I voted for Reagan both times and for daddy Bush but have come to see them for what they were-just as faulted and phony and deceitful as most other occupants of the Whitehouse, or in DC for that matter. Once "we the people" get passed partisanship and vote intelligently the strangle the parties have on us will loosen. In theory.

Clinton tried to kill OBL and the republicans ridiculed him for it. Bush ignored the threat of terrorisim until 9-11 and afterwards we could see how important it was to Bush to "stop" OBL.

BUSH SAYS HE IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OSAMA.
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him. I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Did the mean old people with facts hurt your feelings? I have to laugh at your attempts to say your insults were in jest. Let me assure you, they are not taken that way by anyone, and let me assure you that the scorn I have demonstrated towards you in my posts is not in jest. I find people such as yourself, who don't bother to learn anything about the issues of the day and who insist on braying whatever talking points they heard some windbag on the radio utter to be boorish. Your absolute refusal / failure to be able to refute my two simple, proven statements, i.e., that Plame was covert and that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, says much for your character, as anyone who cannot admit they are wrong in the face of facts is pretty much beneath contempt. Your consistent lack of knowledge on issues of the day is almost as pathetic as your bleating on and on about issues irrelevant to topic at h

It is hard to read from words what someones intent is, so when I read how you made me out as an simpleton I take it as such. Now, what you are saying is that Clinton and/or Gore knew positively of the leaks, took campaign contributions from people associated with the PRC and looked the other way while top secrets were taken. Simply not true. Bill adopted the same sale of tech (guidance systems)for commercial satellite launches that Reagan initially approved and Bush I held as well. He kept the same safeguards in play that were in place when he took office. Spies get away with things until they are caught and he could not control that. I can admit he made errors in judgement but can you at least admit that the bleed started under Reagan? And with his blessing. Because it did and the proof is published all over the place. It does matter who started something. And you have still not answered my questions I p

My comments that you took so personally (made in jest) are beginning to look accurate. Why are you struggling with ICBM technology? I'm talking about WHEN they obtained ICBM technology! Those two were already aware of Iran/Contra weren't they? I remember it being broadcasted all over the different news networks nearly constantly. Why did clinton/bore ALLOW the "leak" to continue? ANSWER THAT! You can't! Why didn't they stop up the "leak"? You don't know and neither do I! You are trying to defend something that is undefendable.

I just gotta say something. I do not feel as a victim, I just think it is childish and boorish of people to insult others and anyone who delights in doing so,as EP apparently does, is well..childish and boorish. As for the ICBM's, the intel bleed started under Reagan plain and simple. So he is responsible as well. Now if one wants to talk about influence how is this: Katrina Leung a GOP supporter venture capitalist was a double agent (US/China) and had affairs during Reagan/Bush with two FBI agents: James Smith and Bill Cleveland. Smith was found guilty of negligence in allowing her access to classified info. Cleveland eventually ran Lawrence Livermore Ntl Lab-one that came under fire to losing secrets-which Leung got. Smith became lead agent on the Gore temple investigation. That's right. The lover of a GOP supporter and double agent ran the show against Gore. A DOJ report stated no undue in

of a victim like PD! I can handle you 2. Prove that Bush ordered the "leak". You can't. A federal judge dismissed her lawsuit. Prove he didn't. You can't. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's criminal. Wiretapping is okay for terrorists but not U.S. citizens. Prove they wiretapped legal U.S. citizens. You can't. Why would they want to listen in on ordinary citizens anyway? What nefarious conspiracy do you think is occuring? The liberals only want to create little controversies to distract the public from the everyday socialistic ways of the democrat party. I know Howard Dean is behind it all and I expected it when he was chosen to be the DNC! I used to work with a "Dean-ite" a few years ago and I'm immune to your paltry arguments. Hyaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! LOL!

Nobody ganged up on you. You challenged both myself and PD in your post dated 7/21 5:23pm. Read that again slowly. Or go back and look for yourself, if you know how to do that. Here is some advice for you, though: Be able to prove your point before attacking others. Here we are, days later, and you still have provided not one scintilla of evidence to refute anything in my original and subsequent posts. I get your m.o., and it may work with those who don't bother to know what they are talking about in the first place. I am not one of those people, however. I do admit that I cannot really believe you are for real...

Maybe there will be some gain with your pain. You ignored ICBM. What else can I say? The blind cleric but not OBL. Who cares where it startd? Look where it ended- ICBM tech. I'm sorry you are so vulnerable. A warning letter in 8/01? A whole month to stop the worst terrorist attack in US history? You are being too gracious. We'll never know if it was a diversion from the monica-saga or not. Either way it's past and OBL has to be stopped. Either way you 2 ganged up on me!

Still ignoring answering my questions. The first WTC bombers were caught and tried-and that happened several weeks into Bill's first term. No one can stop all terrorist attacks and all sides share blame. But many attacks were also thwarted in the 90's. You focus on the ones that were not. About China, the fact is that the tech drain started under and with the approval of Reagan no matter what you say. Wow you are really something. Always an excuse to get out of a reasoned answer to a question. A weak argument is highlighted by going down to the lowest common denominator-basal personal attacks. You have insulted me personally and have shown your true colors and are not worth the effort to respond to anymore. Good day sir.

I cannot answer your question. But I can add this about Clinton: he proposed an omnibus anti-terror act in 1996 that Repubs like Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, and Phil Gramm opposed vigorously and succeeded in denying Bill many powers Bush was readily given after 9/11. Bill went after OBL but Bush did not, even after a warning letter in 8/01. His staff never discussed OBL. Arlen Specter (R) was on record stating Bill was going after OBL to divert attention from the Monica issue. Orin Hatch (R) called Bill's anti-terror efforts "phony" issues. Robert Oakley, Reagan's anti-terror czar said of Bill "I give them very high marks..the only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama." John Ashcroft upon entering office submitted his budget proposal on 5/10/01 and it contained no mention of counter-terror programs for DOJ and wanted cuts in funding for counter-intel efforts. Some just choos

None of those events were perpetrated nor ordered by the same organization genius. OBL oredered all the before mentioned attacks that is the difference. WTC 93, the Cole, the 2 embassies you mentioned. Who knows how many others in total. Maybe you don't know the difference between a SRBM and an ICBM? SRBM is a Short Range Ballistic Missile and ICBM is a INTERCONTINENTAL Ballistic Missile. That mean ICBM go very far. I just used 1 syllable words so you would understand. That is a direct threat to us in the U.S. pd! They got that technology during Clinton/Bore. Speaking of Bore. How about the time Bore (illegally) raised $55,000 from the Chinese Buddhist temple to help re-elect Clinton? Maybe it was a payment for services rendered? LOL! Maybe you need a breath of fresh air because your thinking is clouded.