Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

From the way Fitzgerald spoke in the press conference...sm

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-31
In Reply to: Bye..Bye..Scooter Enjoy Your Time in the Federal Pen - gt

S. Libby has A LOT to be worried about. It seems he's a bald face liar, and I think what would be interesting to find out is why would he lie and say he didn't even know who Plame was under oath having been briefed on her at least 4 times before coming to court. I smell smoke...



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Press conference
Gee, none of the stations out here covered it, LOL. 
Another press conference going on now

If I didn't lose count, that's #8 since he was elected. Do I have to listen to 4 years of this?  Or is this just about chosing his cabinet and if so, did he fill all the spots yet?


I can read. I don't need to see him except when he takes questions from reporters.


FYI, I never listened to GW's press conferences either. I can't stand canned speeches.


Pres just had a press conference..
listened very discernibly, heard nothing different from his other press conferences...  Feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray, only Bill Murray is much more funny and quite a bit smarter!  When will get some real leadership?  We desparately need LEADERSHIP!!!
A press conference is where reporters ask...sm
the candidate questions. The candidate does not know what questions are going to be asked. Hence, a teleprompter would be useless at a press conference. Teleprompters are for SPEECHES. Get it?
I saw the press conference. Sad. Feel bad for the
nm
I just saw Nancy Pelosi in a press conference...
and I was reminded of the interviews I have seen her in...and frankly...Palin does a HECK of a better job than she does....and nobody seems to mind that.  Bear in mind, if, God forbid, something happened to both Pres and VP guess who we get:  NANCY PELOSI.  She is TWO heartbeats away from the Presidency no matter who gets elected.  Good grief, no wonder they send the VP to an undisclosed location and don't let Pres and VP travel together.  lol. 
Obama press conference coming up...sm
Is it just me? Or don't we usually only have one president at a time. I thought for sure he didn't take office until January 20th.


Just an observation...Obama supporters -- no need to flame me for stating the obvious.

press conference aftermath prediction
FOX news offers Ed Henry a multimillion dollar contract.  ;-) 
Summation of today's presidential press conference

Here is NPR's write up of today's press conference by the president for those who would like a quick run down.  I just listened to it.  Made me nauseous.


WASHINGTON December 4, 2007, 1:04 p.m. ET · President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.


"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."


Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.


It is also stood in marked contrast to Bush's rhetoric on Iran. At his last news conference on Oct. 17, for instance, he said that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.


Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week. But he portrayed it as valuable ammunition against Tehran, not as a reason to lessen diplomatic pressure.


"To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community — to continue to rally the community — to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," the president said. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program."


He also asserted that the report means "nothing's changed," focusing on the previous existence of a weapons program and not addressing the discrepancy between his rhetoric and the disclosure that weapons program has been frozen for four years.


Bush said he is not troubled about his standing, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people. "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life," Bush said.


"I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."


Bush said the report's finding would not prompt him to take a U.S. military option against Tehran off the table.


"The best diplomacy — effective diplomacy — is one in which all options are on the table," he said.


The president also said that the world would agree with his message that Iran shouldn't be let off the hook yet.


In fact, Europeans said the new information strengthens their argument for negotiations with Tehran, but they also said that sanctions are still an option to compel Iran to be fully transparent about its nuclear program. European officials insisted that the international community should not walk away from years of talks with an often defiant Tehran that is openly enriching uranium for uncertain ends. The report said Iran could still build a nuclear bomb by 2010-2015.


In Kabul, Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reinforced the U.S. position that the new U.S. intelligence assessment shows that Tehran remains a possible threat. He said it shows that Iran has had a nuclear weapons program and that as long as the country continues with its uranium enrichment activities, Iran could always renew its weapons program.


The U.S. intelligence assessment "validated the administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic efforts to bear on Iran," Gates said Tuesday, speaking at a news conference with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.


Bush called the news conference, his first in nearly seven weeks, to intensify pressure on lawmakers amid disputes over spending and the Iraq war. Taking advantage of his veto power and the largest bully pulpit in town, Bush regularly scolds Congress as a way to stay relevant and frame the debate as his presidency winds down.


Democrats counter that Bush is more interested in making statements than genuinely trying to negotiate some common ground with them.


Specifically, Bush again on Tuesday challenged Congress to send him overdue spending bills; to approve his latest war funding bill without conditions; to pass a temporary to fix to the alternative minimum tax so millions of taxpayers don't get hit with tax increases; and to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


"Congress still has a lot to do," Bush said. "It doesn't have very much time to do it."


On another matter, Bush was asked about a rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her — a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. Saudi Arabia has faced enormous international criticism about the sentencing.


"My first thoughts were these," Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been — I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."


Bush, however, said he has not made his views known directly to Saudi King Abdullah, an ally. But he added: "He knows our position loud and clear."


The president said the U.S. economy is strong, though he acknowledged that the housing crisis has become a "headwind." He said administration officials are working on the issue, but he is wary of bailing out lenders. "We shouldn't say, 'OK, you made a lousy loan so we're going to go ahead and subsidize you.' "


Asked about the 2008 election, Bush steered himself back out of commenting on politics. "I practiced some punditry in the past — I'm not going to any further."


On other issues, Bush said:


—"The Venezuelan people rejected one-man rule" when they rejected a constitutional provision that would have enabled Hugo Chavez to remain in power for life and drive changes throughout Venezuelan society. "They voted for democracy."


—He talked by telephone Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and briefed him on the new Iran intelligence estimate. Bush also said he told Putin that "we were sincere in our expressions of concern" about irregularities in the voting that produced a sweeping parliamentary victory for Putin's party.


—He has "cordial relations" with Democratic leaders of Congress despite the sharp words between the White House and Capitol Hill. He blamed Democrats for the lack of compromises, saying, "In order for us to be able to reach accord, they got to come with one voice, one position."


Fitzgerald Launches Web Site









 
washingtonpost.com


Fitzgerald Launches Web Site

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 21, 2005; 1:00 PM


Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has just launched his own brand-new Web site.


Could it be that he's getting ready to release some new legal documents? Like, maybe, some indictments? It's certainly not the action of an office about to fold up its tents and go home.


Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn minimized the significance of the Web launch in an interview this morning.


I would strongly caution, Dan, against reading anything into it substantive, one way or the other, he said. It's really a long overdue effort to get something on the Internet to answer a lot of questions that we get . . . and to put up some of the documents that we have had ongoing and continued interest in having the public be able to access.


OK, OK. But will the Web site be used for future documents as well?


The possibility exists, Samborn said.


Among the documents currently available on the site:


* The December 30, 2003, memo from then-acting attorney general James B. Comey establishing Fitzgerald as an independent special counsel with all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity.


* A Feb. 6, 2004, follow-up confirming that his mandate includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation.


The Web site is bare bones and is still a work in progress, Samborn said. We have some document formatting issues that we're still resolving. As a result, the site has not yet been officially announced -- although there is a link from Fitzgerald's home page as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.


Up until now, the only official repository for documents related to the special counsel's investigation had been a page on the U.S. District Court's Web site. But it only included court motions and rulings.


Incidentally, if you call the number the new Web site lists for Fitzgerald's D.C. office, the phone is somewhat mysteriously answered counterespionage section.


But as Samborn explained to me, that's because the special prosecutor is borrowing space in the Justice Department's Bond Building from the counterespionage section. The office of special counsel doesn't really have its own dedicated space, he said.


That's the problem, they can't attack Fitzgerald...sm
I liked when one of the reports suggested that he would be seen as a political hack and he responded *to which party?* I think it's good that this not be a politically motivated special prosecutor just one who wants justice. I like Fitzgerald I think with his attitude and integrity he would make an awesome president!!!

Isn't Fitzgerald's grand injury investigation into Rove, et al.

about to come to an end soon?


I think October is going to be a very interesting month.


Hurry up Fitzgerald..Im waiting to throw a party!
 It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby
    By Frank Rich
    The New York Times

    Sunday 16 October 2005


    There hasn't been anything like it since Martha Stewart fended off questions about her stock-trading scandal by manically chopping cabbage on The Early Show on CBS. Last week the setting was Today on NBC, where the image of President Bush manically hammering nails at a Habitat for Humanity construction site on the Gulf Coast was juggled with the sight of him trying to duck Matt Lauer's questions about Karl Rove.


    As with Ms. Stewart, Mr. Bush's paroxysm of panic was must-see TV. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts, Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post. Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in Psycho. Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.


    That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.


    Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group.


    Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.


    Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. Dates bracketing the formation of WHIG tell us otherwise. On July 23, 2002 - a week or two before WHIG first convened in earnest - a British official told his peers, as recorded in the now famous Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration was ensuring that the intelligence and facts about Iraq's W.M.D.'s were being fixed around the policy of going to war. And on Sept. 6, 2002 - just a few weeks after WHIG first convened - Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.


    The official introduction of that product began just two days later. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in A Pretext for War, writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage.


    The administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on. As Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post would determine in the first account of WHIG a full year later, the administration's escalation of nuclear rhetoric could be traced to the group's formation. Along with mushroom clouds, uranium was another favored image, the Post report noted, because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb. It appeared in a Bush radio address the weekend after the Rice-Cheney Sunday show blitz and would reach its apotheosis with the infamously fictional 16 words about uranium from Africa in Mr. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address on the eve of war.


    Throughout those crucial seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words. But the truth never mattered. The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took responsibility for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.


    It was not until the war was supposedly over - with Mission Accomplished, in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.


    It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were not involved with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as Bush's brain, he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.


    Bush's Brain is the title of James Moore and Wayne Slater's definitive account of Mr. Rove's political career. But Mr. Rove is less his boss's brain than another alliterative organ (or organs), that which provides testosterone. As we learn in Bush's Brain, bad things (usually character assassination) often happen to Bush foes, whether Ann Richards or John McCain. On such occasions, Mr. Bush stays compassionately above the fray while the ruthless Mr. Rove operates below the radar, always separated by a layer of operatives from any ill behavior that might implicate him. There is no crime, just a victim, Mr. Moore and Mr. Slater write of this repeated pattern.


    THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.


    Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another victory for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.


Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=83760
O is having a news conference right now

First, he's talking about Iran. They say he is going to talk about health insurance, the economy, etc.


 


The O is ready to have his first news conference. Waiting now.
x
He also spoke of h-e-ll
and the repercussions of not accepting him as Christ. He also flat out told the pharisees that they were going to h-e-ll for what they were doing. He didn't just preach love. He told people how it was. He warned us that there is a h-e-ll and people go there. You can't teach the good without the bad.
Genesis of America, the evangelical theocracy: a conference call

If history is still allowed to be accurate generations from now, this is how the inception of America, the evangelical theocracy, should be documented.


From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL


Judgment Call
Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.


Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade, Mr. Dobson said last week. But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion.


It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.



Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.


Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.


What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?


Absolutely, said Judge Kinkeade.


I agree with that, said Justice Hecht. I concur.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls. (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was very possible he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)


Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was pro-life, a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, I don't know. He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.


The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson's initial comments about things . . . that I probably shouldn't know, Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known. He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.


Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it, a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions, one participant told me.


Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers very hard on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through, Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. One slipup on camera and she is toast.


Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. The nomination is in real trouble, one GOP senator told me. Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her. Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.


President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a superstealth nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.


Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Huckabee spoke about this the other day
He said a very astute financial guy with decades of eperience had noticed a very unusual trend in the market last week; that every day at the same time late in the day, the market would begin selling off huge volumes, just in time where it could not rebound and then this would start again the next day, with no rebound gain. He questioned economic terrorism then.

And it did make us wonder then if this thing was being manipulated. When the government over the weekend began singing how they were going to put money in the banks that was a big sign for me that there may be something to the suspicions. This gave governments an exception to buy into banks, thereby starting the ball of socialism. Government should never ever be involved in banks like this.

I don't think for a moment this has anything to do with not paying China off because China has been hacking into the World Trade Bank in Europe for over a year.... a year! And their people can't keep them out. So, that tells me China has been involved in this manipulation for a long time. They managed to get very private financial documents with loan information and procurements on them that would allow them to really manipulation behind the scenes with all that information they have.

I don't doubt China has EVERYTHING to do with this. But if we keep buying more of their junk and refuse to buy anything but their junk, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. We should start demanding our government NOT import any more goods from China and that our companies going over there to save taxes be given tax exemptions ONLY if they bring all their business back to this country.

When I was growing up, my great aunts always said keep us out of the United Nations and don't do business with communist countries or we would regret it one day. They were right!
Obama spoke himself about
x
The people spoke
The Supreme Court over-ruled their decision. They were given another opportunity to make their voices heard and rejected the legality of gay marriage a second time.

This is the democratic process at work: the majority rules. Funny how quickly that goes by the wayside when the liberal shoe is on the other foot.
Listening to Harry Reid/Chris Dodd news conference...

I don't know how they can stand up there and lie through their teeth like that...blaming the White House and Republicans for this financial debacle.  They know that is a lie.  They know, especially Chris Dodd, was central to this.  Also mentioned Barney Frank.  Good grief.  The hypocrisy is staggering.  They should be talking about getting us out of this mess....just yesterday they were saying don't play the blame game.  Telling McCain not to politicize it while they are politicizing it.  That man makes my skin crawl. 


And saying there was a "deal" and McCain blew it up.  The only "deal" was among senators...the only house person present could not negotiate.  He just had to listen.  If they had the plan and had gone to the house with it, then the house would have blocked it there and hours if not days would have been wasted.  Amazing the gall of some folks.  Ridiculous!!!


Why can't they all stop the political posturing and just fix this mess.  The House is only reacting to the onslaught of emails from their constituents saying protect us here, we don't like this carte blanche 700 billion.  I for one am GLAD at least the Republicans in the house said whoa wait just a minute here. 


I'm glad you spoke your mind.

You've got more guts than I do. They would have definitely gotten a dirty look from me, but I wouldn't have had the courage to say what I felt.


I hope they weren't able to "snare" too many impressionable young people with false promises and other lies. 


Did you hear that they're even telling would-be recruits how to pass drug screen tests so that they can still get into the military even if they're on drugs?  I don't think there's anything they WON'T do or say to meet recruitment quotas.


seems to me thousands spoke this weekend
Seems to me most of the country takes Cindy Sheehan seriously and are behind her 100%.  This weekends protests in DC, CA, NY, Ohio and other states prove it..When you look at the anti war protests compared to the pro war protests, tells you what the majority of the country wants..ending of the Iraq war.
A Kaydie clone just spoke!

nm


someplace where they spoke English
x
The mayor of Chicago also spoke this...sm
morning explaining the need for city employee layoffs.
The people spoke with their vote.
Changes should happen slowly to ensure we really want those changes to be put into place and to give time for any and all actions to be ordered.

It was voted on. It was a legitimate vote.

I think it sends a clear message that everyone is not ready for this type of change yet.

It's our (those who support Prop 8) country, too.

Well, if they spoke, that means I drop
everything and bow to people who do not have the last word on what the administration does.
His news conference yesterday...and there are a few real conservative economists left in the world..
that know his plans won't work, economic, healthcare and all the others.

Obama is doomed to fail miserably, and will probably blame someone else for it all (wait for it....It's Bush's fault...well, and maybe it'll be Congress' fault too, when things fail to work out according to his great plans).


Socialism doesn't work. Ask any true economist, and ask any historian how well Russia, Cuba, Venezuela socialism has worked out.
Exactly. After Galloway spoke out they tied him to al Qaeda. sm
Of course, the man must be a terrorist sympathizer because he has the guts to tell it like it is. Just like they call you an antisemite when you say anything about Israel, conspiracy theorist and nut bag, etc., if you speak out against Bush. See the pattern?
McCain has spoke ad nauseam about Keating 5
Get over it already!

The corrupt ACORN bunch are still at it and Obama is backing them every inch of the way. They are his push into office don't ya know?
You're going to be blasted..you spoke against Obama
sad but true
Um no, Palin spoke and did herself in.... didn't you hear her? sm
No media, even intelligent media, could make up what she said. She said ignorant statements out of her own mouth, rallying the crowds and saying Obama pals around with terrorists. She ruined any chances McGeezer had, not that he had much of a chance but you MUST know that she has hurt the republican party, except for the most ignorant of them.
Color me blind but name a case in which a republican spoke out...sm
and liberals started calling and threatening his life. I'm sure it happens but can you think of a case right off hand?

BTW, if you post it on the conservative board I'll read it there.
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it.  The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march.  They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not.  what a shame. 
Bill Ayers spoke at Millersville University in PA

Yesterday. This is a college that prepares students for teaching jobs. You can see part of his speech here: 


http://www.wgal.com/video/18971823/index.html


There was a one-on-one interview with him at:


http://www.wgal.com/video/18971823/index.html


No, not making it up...watched him as he spoke, no tele, no speech prepared.

Stock Market diving since Obama spoke today.
nm
Janeane Garofalo spoke today. Glad she represents
nm
And Associated Press
They have both been caught doctoring pictures. Another example of how you can't trust the MSM.

I haven't seen the photos, but I'm going to look them up tonight when I get home.
How about the Associated Press?
then select news.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkwn9iRCwdE76BB6ClH6Qmw8NcFQD938KQSO0

Will you believe Associated Press then?
Had to look hard for it, no surprise there.


New House rules reflect Democrats' election win

By LARRY MARGASAK – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats unveiled internal rules Monday that would end Republican-imposed, six-year term limits on committee chairmen and make it harder for GOP lawmakers to offer alternative legislation.

In changing how the House operates, Democrats sent a message that they will use the huge majority they won in November to overpower Republicans any time they wish. GOP leaders complained to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they were being marginalized, but there is little they can do.

The changes are set for approval Tuesday after the 111th Congress takes office.

Not all of the new rules were partisan, but they reflected only the Democratic view of how the House should be run.

The Democratic majority will be 256 to 178 with one vacancy when the new House is sworn in, compared to 235-198 with two vacancies at the end of the previous Congress.

One rule would have a longer disclosure requirement for House members negotiating a post-government job. Under the change, negotiations must be reported until the lawmaker leaves office. Previously, the disclosure directive ended when a successor was elected.

It also would be easier to object to so-called "air drop" earmarks: special projects added to legislation by House-Senate conferees after both houses already approved legislation.

For Republicans, however, the changes were a reminder that the majority rules in the House, unlike the Senate, where it takes 60 of the 100 senators to pass controversial legislation because of filibuster rules.

"President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. This (rules package) does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago," Republican leaders wrote Pelosi.

When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, they adopted rules to limit the terms of committee chairmen to three terms, or six years.

That change followed four decades of Democratic rule, when committee chairmen ruled by seniority and built up unchallenged power to pass or block legislation. The powerful chairmen also built up a system of perks for themselves, including a special bank that allowed lawmakers to overdraw their accounts without penalty. That helped lead to the Democrats' downfall in 1994.

Republicans said the term limits they established were designed to reward new ideas, innovation and merit rather than longevity.

However, the limits also generated huge fundraising efforts by chairmen-to-be, moving them closer to special interests in the legislative areas they controlled.

Republicans also objected to a proposal that governs how alternative legislation can be offered. Republicans said this would prevent the minority from trying to eliminate hidden tax increases added to larger pieces of legislation.




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnHMsHdiW-mG_jKo8vvmIqcdmKMQD95HAAJG1
Not according to the Associated Press. nm

hammered press sec
I thought it was great how the journalists finally yesterday started hammering the press secretary about Rove.  Yesterday I read where Hiliary Clinton equated Bush with Alfred E. Neuman, LOL.  Today I was thinking, what cartoon would be Rove.  Elmer Fudd.  So, we have Elmer Fudd, Alfred E. Neuman and **death warmed over Cheney** running the country.  Oh my, we sure are in good shape..NOT..and they we have the dinosaur backward thinking conservatives backing up whatever this administration wants to do/say..
WH press secretary would
I do almost feel sorry for Scott. Rove made his 4th trip to testify today as well. Scott better get ready for some major 'splainin' or catapultin'
There is a rumor going through the press that........ sm
Rahm Emanuel turned him in. I'm not reporting this as fact because I haven't checked it out yet, but I have seen that mentioned.
and let's press charges
someone who kills someone who is pregnant for a double homocide but WAIT A MINUTE...... that is not an actual life...
Looks like BO's press honeymoon

The press might finally be wising up to a fact that's even more important (to their bosses) than playing suck-face with BO - namely, that even Americans who voted for this President are starting to really, really dislike his policies.  The last issue of Newsweek to feature an Obama (was it number 19?) barely sold enough copies to pay for the printing, and it's more or less a rule in the news business (and it IS a business) that "if they don't sell, they smell".  Obama is starting to sell less, and smell worse.  Lots worse. 


If the most recent news conference with BO is any indication, the honeymoon might just be over...and BO didn't like it one bit.  In fact, he got downright surly - and he is really one UGLY man when he gets surly.  Tsk - such a thin veneer.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html


Palin not ready for the press

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259517

Todd Harris, a GOP strategist, and McCain aide Nicole Wallace both said Sarah Palin won’t be available to the press. They said might make a mistake and American people don’t care about Palin talking to the press.
Todd Harris, GOP Strategist who is also close to the McCain campaign, told Chris Matthews, MSNBC that Palin won’t be available to the press for about two weeks. He said she might make a mistake in the show.

If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt McCain for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.

And the GOP is proud in making such a decision, despite telling everyone she has more experience than Obama and Biden.

In the second video, McCain aide Nicole Wallace told Time’s Jay Carney and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC that the press will not be given a chance to take shots at Palin. She said American people don’t care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. She said the public will know about her from Palin’s scripted speeches and appearances on the campaign trail and in political ads.

Jay Carney responded with the following statement:

Wallace's bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won't lift McCain to 50% in November. More importantly, in her smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters.

If she is not ready now, how can we expect that she will be ready in the next few months? Is there a two-month crash course for Presidency?
Meet the Press at 6 pm EDT. Watch

for the answers to these allegations.