PDA

View Full Version : The Democrats Go Fishing



stephanie
04-04-2007, 03:33 AM
American Thinker ^ | April 03, 2007 | J.R. Dunn
:clap:

SNIP:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/kyle_sampson_shows_how.html
Posted on 04/03/2007 2:13:28 PM PDT by neverdem


Last week, Democratic strategy for the rest of the Bush presidency was rendered transparent: the Dems intend to impeach George W. Bush by whatever means necessary.


The Democrats need to impeach Bush. It's not optional - it's something they have to do. Not simply because of who Bush is or anything he may have done, but as an act of vengeance for Bill Clinton. Clinton's impeachment was a blow to their amour propre, their pose of being morally superior to the opposition, one that has rankled ever since. In much the same way that a gang-banger feels compelled to erase an insult through violence, the Democrats have to take down the succeeding Republican president, no matter how bad it makes them look or what price they have to pay. Only then can they at last move on. And perhaps not even then.


Their method is the one we saw utilized in the Plamegate "scandal". Use a shotgun approach, hitting as many targets as possible until one begins to resonate. Keep banging at it until a weak link is found, and then pound it until it breaks. Employ whatever means are required -- legal, legislative, and media. (Media assistance is crucial. Joe and Valerie's weird little caper could not possibly have been blown up to scandal status without it. Last Thursday CBS ran a furrowed-brow piece reprinted from The Nation in which somebody named John Nichols clearly outlines what the Dems have in mind.


This can be taken as a toe-in-the-water move on the part of the network -- CBS is testing how far it go with the cry of "impeachment" without putting itself on the line. We'll be seeing a lot more like this in the months to come.) Cooperation from a nominal Republican -- Patrick Fitzgerald during Plamegate, Arlen Spector now -- should be gained for use as a partisan smokescreen. There always seems to be at least one available.


Anyone requiring further details is encouraged to consult Clarice Feldman, who knows more about the subject than I ever will.


This is a far from perfect technique - the target in Plamegate was Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, but the Dems had to content themselves with I. Lewis Libby. And Libby, despite all pressures, did not break, and shows no sign of ever doing so.


But the case has been successful in putting the fear into potential victims. This is very likely what happened to Alberto Gonzales. When sparks began flying over the attorney firings - which appear to be entirely justified by the record, if Byron York's investigation into the firing of Carol Lam of the San Diego office is any indication -- Gonzales panicked, and rather than stiff-arming the Democrats, began to make statements that he couldn't back up, thus putting himself smack in the position he was afraid of in the first place.


The Attorney General's deer-in-the-headlights moment has stretched on unbearably, as he has compounded one error with another. Last Friday's claim that he "just doesn't remember" any meetings discussing the attorneys was what he should have said in the first place but now comes far too late. Defiance is the only way to treat bullies, particularly those of the political type, who are virtually guaranteed to have to a soft core. Cooperation and excuses, which is the path Gonzales chose, simply goad them to further excesses.


In contrast we have the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff. Sampson was rumored to be ready to cooperate with the committee, but nothing of the sort occurred. Last Thursday when Sampson appeared with no less than six lawyers, he did offer an apology, not for the fact that the attorneys were fired, but for how badly the response was handled. This appears to have been a pro forma statement, amounting to throwing the committee a bone.


But Sampson failed to go on in that vein, instead informing the committee that they were barking up the wrong tree on any number of grounds. He pointed out that


"the distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing the attorneys was largely artificial."
Public officials in that type of office


"may be asked to resign for almost any reason with no public or private explanation."
He then stonewalled the committee for over seven hours while Schumer and Leahy attempted to wear him down - according to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, Sampson said "I don't remember," over122 times. So rattled did Leahy at last become that, misinterpreting something completely unrelated, he began insisting that the Republicans had "shut down" the hearing, allowing Sampson to leave well before the committee had planned. (Milbank's take was utterly sarcastic, which, considering the source, comes across as high praise.)


Only once did Sampson give the committee Democrats anything they could possibly use, saying of Gonzales' claim that he was completely uninvolved in the firings, "I don't think it's entirely accurate..." That's a carefully phrased statement, subject to a number of interpretations, giving Gonzales several outs should that become necessary.


Not as impressive as Oliver North's performance, perhaps. But we expect Marine officers to be tough and quick on their feet. Bureaucrats have other talents, and Sampson is a bureaucrat from his wingtips to his rimless glasses. All the same, he has discovered the proper method of dealing with these people - meet them on their own ground, treat them with the due respect their positions require, and don't give an inch. If this becomes standard procedure -- as it should -- it will leave the committee Democrats grasping at thin air. Nothing could possibly frustrate them more. (Monica Goodling, one of Sampson's colleagues, has chosen to take the Fifth, which perhaps has its points. But to many this calls to mind 1950s communists and the "dese and dose" crew hauled before the Kefauver Committee, and should be discouraged for that reason alone.)


Libby behaved as a reasonable, law-abiding man naturally would - he cooperated in hopes of clearing the air, and, no better target being found, he was nailed for it on a question of differening memories of a short phone call years before. The Democrats are neither reasonable nor, in many cases, law-abiding, so there's no pretense of punctilious behavior on their behalf. With the Libby case, the Democrats threw out the rulebook. And when you do that, it applies to all concerned, not just the men on the platform. When our betters in government refuse to operate by the usual rules, there's no reason anyone else should either. Libby's fate has clearly demonstrated that.

lily
04-04-2007, 01:39 PM
Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 01:43 PM
Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

Why should a factual article be in the rumor section? moveon and kos are NOT the only sources of information on the internet.

lily
04-04-2007, 01:59 PM
If you take that post as fact, then you're not as intelligent as I thought you were. It's believeing in shit like this that is going to lose you the election in 2008.....so keep lapping it up! You and Stephanie are helping the Democrats more than you will ever know.:salute:

stephanie
04-04-2007, 02:07 PM
If you take that post as fact, then you're not as intelligent as I thought you were. It's believing in shit like this that is going to lose you the election in 2008.....so keep lapping it up! You and Stephanie are helping the Democrats more than you will ever know.:salute:

:lol: I said way before I posted this article, that the Democrats were fishing..
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=30858#post30858
And I'll say again what I said then....GO FOR IT..
The American people will get tired of all the baseless investigations, all the baseless accusations, all the waste of time and money...

The only one's who is shooting themselves in the foot...Are the Democrats...Which is exactly what they do, when they get a taste of power..


And I couldn't be happier..
See ya in 2008:cheers2:

lily
04-04-2007, 02:26 PM
Wow.......Stephanie made a statement! In all seriousness and if you want to be taken seriously, I'll need more than some op-ed piece claiming the Democrats must impeach Bush, because they are holding a grudge about Clinton. Geez.:salute:


Hey.......but on the other hand, I will give you rep points for not just posting your usual :lame2:

stephanie
04-04-2007, 02:47 PM
Wow.......Stephanie made a statement! In all seriousness and if you want to be taken seriously, I'll need more than some op-ed piece claiming the Democrats must impeach Bush, because they are holding a grudge about Clinton. Geez.:salute:


Hey.......but on the other hand, I will give you rep points for not just posting your usual :lame2:

I could care less if you, or anyone else, take me seriously.
If you don't like the Op-ed pieces........don't read them..
Pretty simple:slap:

And you can be :lame2:

Abbey Marie
04-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Wow.......Stephanie made a statement! In all seriousness and if you want to be taken seriously, I'll need more than some op-ed piece claiming the Democrats must impeach Bush, because they are holding a grudge about Clinton. Geez.:salute:


Hey.......but on the other hand, I will give you rep points for not just posting your usual :lame2:

I don't think anyone is calling it 'fact'. It is, however, an interesting theory for explaining the baseless, irrational behavior of today's libs. You should like it- it's preferable to just saying you are all insane, which is the only other logical explanation for such behavior.

stephanie
04-04-2007, 03:23 PM
I don't think anyone is calling it 'fact'. It is, however, an interesting theory for explaining the baseless, irrational behavior of today's libs. You should like it- it's preferable to just saying you are all insane, which is the only other logical explanation for such behavior.

:wink2: :laugh2:

lily
04-04-2007, 07:42 PM
I don't think anyone is calling it 'fact'. It is, however, an interesting theory for explaining the baseless, irrational behavior of today's libs. You should like it- it's preferable to just saying you are all insane, which is the only other logical explanation for such behavior.

The logical explanation is they are now doing the investigations they tried to do but were stonewalled when in the minority, by not getting the documents they asked for.

I'll admit to you that there is a chance that they will go too far, but I haven't seen it yet. I want them to do what my senator promised he would do and that is find out what got us into this war and what went so wrong.

Personally I could care less if some Republican prosecuters got fired. If the Republicnas don't care about their own......why should I?.........but when the Attorney General speaks in front of Congress and the American people, he should tell the truth. The same for Libby, when he is in front of a Grand Jury he better tell the truth, otherwise he will get charged for it.

Dilloduck
04-04-2007, 07:50 PM
The logical explanation is they are now doing the investigations they tried to do but were stonewalled when in the minority, by not getting the documents they asked for.

I'll admit to you that there is a chance that they will go too far, but I haven't seen it yet. I want them to do what my senator promised he would do and that is find out what got us into this war and what went so wrong.

Personally I could care less if some Republican prosecuters got fired. If the Republicnas don't care about their own......why should I?.........but when the Attorney General speaks in front of Congress and the American people, he should tell the truth. The same for Libby, when he is in front of a Grand Jury he better tell the truth, otherwise he will get charged for it.

How is finding out what got us into war and what went wrong going to help anything?

lily
04-04-2007, 08:01 PM
How is finding out what got us into war and what went wrong going to help anything?


I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or if that's a serious question. You don't think that the Ameican people deserve an answer into how we got into this war or what went wrong, so that we can try and correct the mistakes that were made and make sure they don't happen again?

Please tell me you were yanking my chain.

Dilloduck
04-04-2007, 08:22 PM
I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or if that's a serious question. You don't think that the Ameican people deserve an answer into how we got into this war or what went wrong, so that we can try and correct the mistakes that were made and make sure they don't happen again?

Please tell me you were yanking my chain.

Sorry--no chain yanking--Assuming that everything has gone so wrong in Iraq is up for the future to decide. It's pretty obvious how we got there. What more do you need to know?

Gunny
04-04-2007, 08:38 PM
Sorry--no chain yanking--Assuming that everything has gone so wrong in Iraq is up for the future to decide. It's pretty obvious how we got there. What more do you need to know?

It isn't "what more do you need to know?" It's "Let's drag this out with investigation after investigation until we find the answers we want, then write the history we want."

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 08:42 PM
I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or if that's a serious question. You don't think that the Ameican people deserve an answer into how we got into this war or what went wrong, so that we can try and correct the mistakes that were made and make sure they don't happen again?

Please tell me you were yanking my chain.

Lets see, saddam spent 12 years ignoring the un and the sanctions and the 17 resolutions against him. He spent 12 years firing missiles at our aircraft patroling the no fly zone. He consistantly kicked out the un inspectors and by all the intelligence reports from every major country in the world he was producing and planned to use WMD's. Every democrat from clinton on down insisted he planned to make and had WMD's. Members of al queda were being harbored in baghdad. He was giving finacial aid to al queda, hamas and hebollah.

Bush went to congress and said I'm going to invade iraq. Congress approved his doing this with an overwhelming majority. Since you were not around when all this was going on I have brought you up to speed on why we went to war in iraq. Of course the dems have since reversed themselves on their war stance and insist they had nothing to do with it or were fooled into voting for it. Because they don't want to lose their moonbat base.

We are still occupying the country because we can't just pull out and leave a vacuum where islamists can move in and take over. Unlike afganhistan iraq has a lot of oil and an infrasture, under the guidance of iran it would be a very grave danger to this country and the entire region. Including the shipping lanes of the gulf. With the addition of more troops things are starting to turn around. The fighting is not going to stop overnight.

Mistakes are made and new strategies are developed.

Gunny
04-04-2007, 08:53 PM
Lets see, saddam spent 12 years ignoring the un and the sanctions and the 17 resolutions against him. He spent 12 years firing missiles at our aircraft patroling the no fly zone. He consistantly kicked out the un inspectors and by all the intelligence reports from every major country in the world he was producing and planned to use WMD's. Every democrat from clinton on down insisted he planned to make and had WMD's. Members of al queda were being harbored in baghdad. He was giving finacial aid to al queda, hamas and hebollah.

Bush went to congress and said I'm going to invade iraq. Congress approved his doing this with an overwhelming majority. Since you were not around when all this was going on I have brought you up to speed on why we went to war in iraq. Of course the dems have since reversed themselves on their war stance and insist they had nothing to do with it or were fooled into voting for it. Because they don't want to lose their moonbat base.

We are still occupying the country because we can't just pull out and leave a vacuum where islamists can move in and take over. Unlike afganhistan iraq has a lot of oil and an infrasture, under the guidance of iran it would be a very grave danger to this country and the entire region. Including the shipping lanes of the gulf. With the addition of more troops things are starting to turn around. The fighting is not going to stop overnight.

Mistakes are made and new strategies are developed.

You're wasting your time, gaffer. I've had this same argument with here more times than I can count. Reality has nothing to do with her politics.

lily
04-04-2007, 09:12 PM
Sorry--no chain yanking--Assuming that everything has gone so wrong in Iraq is up for the future to decide. It's pretty obvious how we got there.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say everything has gone wrong. I said and I quote:


You don't think that the Ameican people deserve an answer into how we got into this war or what went wrong, so that we can try and correct the mistakes that were made and make sure they don't happen again?


What more do you need to know?

The mistakes that were made...oh and it's ok....Bush admitted mistakes were made........so we don't make them again.

lily
04-04-2007, 09:14 PM
You're wasting your time, gaffer. I've had this same argument with here more times than I can count. Reality has nothing to do with her politics.


Thanks for the help Gunny..........but I had no intentions of either responding to his C&P type post, with no originality or your insults. I'm here to discuss with peole that actually want to.

You have a nice day now!:salute:

Gunny
04-04-2007, 09:23 PM
Thanks for the help Gunny..........but I had no intentions of either responding to his C&P type post, with no originality or your insults. I'm here to discuss with peole that actually want to.

You have a nice day now!:salute:

That's quite a switch.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 09:32 PM
That's quite a switch.

She gets put in her place with facts and now doesn't want to discuss it any more. I guess that means I win. :coffee:

lily
04-04-2007, 09:35 PM
Dear, if that's what it takes to stroke your ego........go for it!:salute:

Gunny
04-04-2007, 09:39 PM
She gets put in her place with facts and now doesn't want to discuss it any more. I guess that means I win. :coffee:

Yeah, while claiming to take 'the high road." THAT is the richest part to me.:laugh2: