of another possible election year meltdown at CBS News.
One of the most explosive claims made was that Karl Rove was involved in an attempt to entrap Siegelman:
CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:
If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.
The stickier point is proving her explosive charge that Rove told her that he wanted her to catch Siegelman having an affair. That seems like it will be very difficult to prove, and if she cannot prove it, then the 60 Minutes story never should have run.
Stay tuned, folks... however it breaks it promise to be very interesting.
1
If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.
Why? What is illegal about privately surveilling someone to catch them cheating on their wives? Even if the allegations are true about that - it is not a crime. Moreover, it does not mean that the charges against Sieglmen were not true or that such charges were politically motivated.
Karl Rove or some other republican could have asked for oppo research on Sieglmen of this type (which I am sure is done regularly by both parties) and the investigation into corruption by Sieglman could have occurred independently.
I'm not sure how there is any connection between the two things, or why it is even a story.
Posted by: Great Banana at February 28, 2008 11:23 AM (JFj6P)
2
But they *have* proof!
SHE said it so it must be true.
Posted by: Dan Irving at February 28, 2008 11:51 AM (zw8QA)
3
Bob,
I looked at your earlier post about Obama's assertion in the debate, the one about the Army captain in Afghanistan and, knowing you are a man who believes in keeping everyone honest, I know that you'll update it to reflect George Casey's testimony that he had "no reason to doubt" Obama's story.
I know it caused a lot of upset among your readers and hope this will help clear things up.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at February 28, 2008 11:56 AM (Bx4FB)
4
I'll bite although it is off topic and obvious trollery... Just who the hell is George Casey, what does he know about Obama's alleged army contact and how does he know it? "no reason to doubt"? Is that the standard that is applied to George Bush or Cheney or Rice or anyone else not blessed by the liberal enemies of decency and liberty? Hmm?
Posted by: megapotamus at February 28, 2008 12:24 PM (LF+qW)
5
"Frankly, I doubt that 60 Minutes would risk running this story without having vetted Simpson to the best of their ability"
Was a time when I believed that. But Cronkite and more recently the NY Times, et alia, have pretty much cured me of that.
If it is anti-Rove, that is all they need to know, it seems.
The story as you recite it is so farfetched that I can't imagine a scenario that works.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at February 28, 2008 01:06 PM (qM3aH)
6
"the liberal enemies of decency and liberty"
Watch out, you're starting to rave and drool now. It's almost McCarthyesque in its paranoia.
Posted by: rapid at February 28, 2008 01:15 PM (c7CKN)
7
"Why? What is illegal about privately surveilling someone to catch them cheating on their wives? Even if the allegations are true about that - it is not a crime. Moreover, it does not mean that the charges against Sieglmen were not true or that such charges were politically motivated.
Karl Rove or some other republican could have asked for oppo research on Sieglmen of this type (which I am sure is done regularly by both parties) and the investigation into corruption by Sieglman could have occurred independently.
I'm not sure how there is any connection between the two things, or why it is even a story."
Yep, it would be like someone quietly sharpening a knife, walking over to his neighbor's house, ringing the doorbell, hiding behind the hedge, waiting for him to come out, raising the knife. . . and then a meteor slams right into his front stoop.
Posted by: rapid at February 28, 2008 01:20 PM (c7CKN)
8
Yep, it would be like someone quietly sharpening a knife, walking over to his neighbor's house, ringing the doorbell, hiding behind the hedge, waiting for him to come out, raising the knife. . . and then a meteor slams right into his front stoop.
Uh, except there is NO evidence that Rove or anyone else did any such thing except the word of this person, not established to even be in a position to do ANYthing, much less anything remotely equivalent to brandishng a knife in the dark. Pathetic, yet another enemy of decency and humanity who presumes his political opposite numbers are as vile, cowardly and indecent as himself. You are a picture, rapid. Casting dark suspicions on the better men in this nation on whom you rely for your squandered liberties. Yes, talking about Karl Rove (and others), smarter and more decent a man than you could ever hope to be. Go pee your little pants, half-man. Go concoct your lurid fantasies. Go make something worthwhile of yourself. It's not too late.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 28, 2008 01:28 PM (LF+qW)
9
got to you huh? I think there's a ledge somewhere with your name on it. breath in a bag for a while and drink more than you already have today.
Posted by: rapid at February 28, 2008 01:40 PM (c7CKN)
10
Consider this:
Jill Simpson filed a sworn affidavit asserting everything she siad in the story. If she lied, then it is perjury--for which she can be jailed.
Karl Rove refused to testify or file a sworn affidavit (again). Why not?
Two sides to every story, right? One side swears on the Bible and tells a story. The other side refuses to swear, to even show up.
Makes one wonder, no?
Posted by: Jamal at February 28, 2008 01:56 PM (0722a)
11
Megapotamus:
"George Casy" is General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army. He testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee stating "he has no reason to doubt" the story told by Obama.
Posted by: Jamal at February 28, 2008 02:00 PM (0722a)
12
"Jill Simpson filed a sworn affidavit asserting everything she siad in the story. If she lied, then it is perjury--for which she can be jailed."
Wrong in all respects. Such an affidavit has no legal standing unless entered under the auspicies of a court or an officer of such court, including in many cases federal employees, such as FBI agents.
Additionally, such a document has no significance in terms of bolstering the case that she was telling the truth. Everything that we know about her, her history and this incident supports the proposition that she is a great big fat liar.
Posted by: Terry at February 28, 2008 02:34 PM (d/RyS)
13
I like how you are only focusing on the part of the story where Rove supposedly asked Simpson to photograph Siegelman. No one really cares about that. The issue here is that the prosecution of Siegelman was thoroughly corrupt. The US attorney who filed the charges was the wife of the campaign manager for Siegelman's opponent. She should have recused herself. And this isn't the only thing wrong with the prosecution. 52 former states Attorneys General, Republicans and Democrats, have signed a letter saying that the case raises serious issues. In fact, CBS spent a large portion of the piece talking to a Republican, who is a close friend on John McCain, and is on McCain's campaign staff. Siegelman can't even get an appeal because after 20 months there is no transcript of his trial. A transcript is required for an appeal and is supposed to be provided within 30 days of conviction. AG Mukasey wont do anything about this until after Siegelman's appeal, which is conveniently impossible. This is like a Kafka novel.
But no. Focus on something trivial instead of the important bit. Way to go.
Posted by: Mr. Reality at February 28, 2008 02:37 PM (l8GOp)
14
I am hoping that Obama and Clinton both take the pledge to IMMEDIATELY pardon Siegelman upon taking office. It's clear that the corrupt, incompetent, pedophilic Republican Party has perverted (the word of the Year for the Party of Foley and Craig) the course of justice to partisan ends.
Posted by: POed Lib at February 28, 2008 02:42 PM (EjPK6)
15
I just want to follow up and add that Siegelman shouldn't be pardoned. It's certainly possible he is guilty; we just don't know. Given the circumstances surrounding his conviction, I have no faith that the outcome was correct. So, he should have another trial, a fair one, to determine his guilt. That's all.
Posted by: Mr. Reality at February 28, 2008 02:49 PM (l8GOp)
16
I must confess that I haven't followed the Siegelman case at all, so perhaps POed Lib can answer a qestion for me: were the 12 men and women of the Siegelman jury all "corrupt, incompetent, pedophilic Republican" types as well?
I ask, because according to wikipedia, they convicted him of "one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice."
Mr. Reality: you focus on the prosecution and the court system claiming they are all corrupt to some extent or another, but what about Siegelman? Are you claiming he is innocent? Or does that even matter?
Inform me, folks: I haven't followed the case, and I'm all ears.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2008 02:54 PM (6NuxK)
17
As an Alabamian, let me give you my take on why Siegelman was ever even prosecuted. Look at his co-defendant, Richard Scrushy.
Scrushy paid off "religous leaders" so the jury would deliver a favorable verdict in the Healthsouth trial.
People wanted justice. And the only way to get Scrushy was to go after his connection to Siegelman. Based on the evidence, Siegelman certainly merited more than a slap on the wrist. But as he was caught up in the "get Scrushy" momentum, the severity of his sentence was greater than if he had been tried without Scrushy.
Posted by: Steve from Birmingham at February 28, 2008 03:15 PM (g/MKW)
18
As an Alabamian, let me give you my take on why Siegelman was ever even prosecuted. Look at his co-defendant, Richard Scrushy.
Scrushy paid off "religous leaders" so the jury would deliver a favorable verdict in the Healthsouth trial.
People wanted justice. And the only way to get Scrushy was to go after his connection to Siegelman. Based on the evidence, Siegelman certainly merited more than a slap on the wrist. But as he was caught up in the "get Scrushy" momentum, the severity of his sentence was greater than if he had been tried without Scrushy.
Just some background opinion . . .
Posted by: Steve from Birmingham at February 28, 2008 03:16 PM (g/MKW)
19
karl has already amended his earlier statement that he had never met or talked to Simpson. and we can be assured that as more info pours out, karl will backpeddle even more
Posted by: ibfamous at February 28, 2008 03:20 PM (ihUEC)
20
I'd like to help deliver some details of this case to you, CY. It is MUCH worse than just Rove asking someone to spy, as others have said. The real meat of it is in the prosecution and the trial. As was mentioned, 52 attorneys general have rebuked the handling of it.
I will give you some details from the 60 minutes website. I'm shocked that you would bother to blog about this topic while admittedly knowing nothing of the details and not even posting a link to the source information. Here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830_page2.shtml
In 2004, after two years of investigations, the AG tried to prosecute Siegelman, but the case was thrown out before witnesses were called because of its baselessness. The Justice dept. then went wild in their investigation, which was run by the wife of Siegelman's opponant. The cornerstone of the case that led to the conviction was testimony of a now-convicted aide who gave false statements that were allegedly known to the prosecution at the time. This aide wrote down his testimony beforehand (at the prosecution's request because his story kept changing so much), but the prosecution never handed that over to the defense, as required by law.
There are also questions about the judge, starting with why was the case before him when the case was thrown out by the judge in the proper district. The cases were not joined, and the issue was never raised by judge Fuller. Fuller alse allowed the prosecution to introduce and amplify evidence more than once, disallowed virtually every defense motion, and during sentencing, shackled and hauled straight to jail Siegelman for the white collar crime (virtually unheard of).
The lack of transcript for appeal has already been brought up and I'm sure others can expand on this. I've run out of time to continue, but I could type pages more.
I'll end by reiterating how telling it is that you have admitted your ignorance of this case as a defense to defending the prosecution, but you nevertheless were comfortable slandering 60 minutes for their broadcast of the story.
Posted by: Jeff at February 28, 2008 03:26 PM (A9sOK)
21
Jeff and Mr. Reality,
Your points might make sense - there may have been problems with the prosecution, the U.S. Attorny probably should have recused herself.
but, that does not explain the hit job of 60 minutes implying that Rove had something to do with it b/c he allegedly asked someone to surveille Sieglman to see if he was cheating on his wife.
My point was that even if the allegation against Rove is true, it has nothing to do with the corruption case and is not illegal in any way (ask any P.I. that is hired to trail a spouse and see if he/she is cheating).
Why would 60 minutes include that ridiculous bit in this story? Well, to smear Karl Rove and other republicans. If they had the goods on this being a bad or politically motivated prosecution, they would have told that story and provided evidence. Instead, they provide this weak and lame stuff about Karl Rove.
Do you really think that the various campaigns do not have investigators surveilling each other and looking into backgrounds for dirt? What is oppo research?
So, why is the allegation against Rove doing the same here have any relevance to this story about a guy who was charged with and convicted of corruption?
And, the conspiracy theories about him not getting a transcript, etc., I don't buy. Any decent lawyer would be able to get that taken care of quickly, as a due process violation. So, I just don't buy it.
As to General Casey - the only thing he said he does not doubt is the alleged Captain's alleged claim that they did not have enough large arms ammunition for training BEFORE he went to Iraq. The claims that the alleged captain's platoon was split in 1/2, that they did not have equipment or ammo, have all been debunked many times over (including by the alleged cpt himself) and General Casey did not validate those claims.
So, your comment re General Case is very disengenous - indeed, is deceitful.
Posted by: Great Banana at February 28, 2008 03:45 PM (JFj6P)
22
I think I was absolutely clear in my second post that I have no idea whether or not Siegelman is guilty. He deserves, at the very least, an appeal, which has been thwarted by the lack of a transcript.
Posted by: Mr. Reality at February 28, 2008 04:06 PM (l8GOp)
23
Re: Karl Rove.
That's what the case of the AG firings was all about (i.e. Rove's wish to politicize the Justice Department).
The fact he won't respond to the subpoena to testify speaks volumes.
Sure,you could say nothing has been proven yet, but can't you say the same about Saddam having WMDs? That didn't stop them from killing and maiming 100s of thousands of people over "allegations".
Posted by: Robert in BA at February 28, 2008 04:10 PM (tB4OT)
24
Jeff, perhaps reading isn't your "thing," but I did in fact link that CBS News story, in both the second and third links in this post.
Perhaps you have not been introduced to the wonders of Al Gore's Interweb, but the bolded text in the main story above are HTML elements called called "hyperlinks" (or "links" as the cool kids call them). You can take that odd-looking pointing device beside your computer keyboard and "click" the "links" to get to the CBS News story in both examples above. Perhaps with practice, one day you can even learn how to make them yourself, instead of dumping a URL into a comment thread.
Further, I in no way slandered (or for that matter libeled, since I'm fairly confident you don't understand the difference between those two terms) CBS News by asking them to provide evidence that they vetted Simpson's claims. I also never defended the prosecution (just the jury).
R.I.F., Jeff.
That's an "acronym."
I suggest you look it up (since you can't apparently figure out how to "click" the "link").
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2008 04:24 PM (6NuxK)
25
Thanks for correcting me, CY. Between reading the post and then the comments, I forgot that the link was there. I stand corrected on that point. It was your comment that threw me off because the way you protested ignorance, it made it seem like you did not read the piece.
Wait a minute, I think I get it now. You just selectively cut and pasted one section about Simpson while ignoring all the stuff from Woods and the details of the prosecution. So, you are just feigning ignorance to disguise your partisan hackery. Way to go. You have been put in a much better light now. I'll wait for your actual rebuttel of all the information regarding the story beyond the Simpson matter once you are done with the name calling.
Posted by: Jeff at February 28, 2008 04:38 PM (A9sOK)
26
To Great Banana:
I agree that as part of a political campaign, there is nothing illegal about digging up dirt on an opponant. But, do you really not see the difference in this context? This was not during the course of a campaign, the requestor was part of the White House, and coincidentally, the full weight of the federal executive branch justice dept. got involved. This was at a time when many other AG shenanigans went on, and when Rove conveniently lost millions of emails.
You tell me honestly that you would not be screaming bloody murder if this happened under Clinton's presidency.
Posted by: Jeff at February 28, 2008 04:44 PM (A9sOK)
27
The implications of this story are precisely why an investigation into the firings of the US Attorneys earlier need to be investigated. But as Jeff has pointed out, all of Rove's emails from that time have been conveniently lost and Rove and Miers have refused to appear before Congress.
Making the DOJ a political arm of either party, then using it to go after a political opponent, is the stuff of banana republics, and I'm not talking abot the clothing chain.
For one moment, put yourself in the opposition's shoes and imagine how hard it would be for you to do anything, let alone run a campaign for governor, if you were publicly under investigation by the Feds. Think of how many voters just an investigation would sway to your opponent.
This has to be investigated. It's not a question of someone out to get Rove. It's a question of whther we can depend on an impartial DOJ in these partisan times. That's no small concern.
In your desire to keep people honest, you should be calling for Rove and Miers to raise their hands and testify.
If it was you or me, we'd be wearing orange jumpsuits by now.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at February 28, 2008 06:02 PM (Bx4FB)
28
So let me get this straight. We have a Republican party operative, saying she was paid to spy on a political enemy. We have the head of the Alabama Republican party and Carl Rove saying that isn't true. 60 minutes has a raft of corroborating evidence for the political operatives story on their website, but the operative must be the one that's lying because..?
See I know what Megapotomus's answer would be. He'll just assert with no support whatsoever that draft dodger Carl Rove is "the better men that you rely on for your squandered liberty".
I want to know how Yankee and some of the other thinking posters on this site justify taking Carl Roves word over Jill Simpsons. None of you can possibly still think he's an honest man.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at February 28, 2008 06:06 PM (mYHGQ)
29
Banana,
As to General Casey - the only thing he said he does not doubt is the alleged Captain's alleged claim that they did not have enough large arms ammunition for training BEFORE he went to Iraq. The claims that the alleged captain's platoon was split in 1/2, that they did not have equipment or ammo, have all been debunked many times over (including by the alleged cpt himself) and General Casey did not validate those claims.
So, your comment re General Case is very disengenous - indeed, is deceitful.
I know that all the barracks lawyers have dissected Obama's statement and parsed each and every sentence for any shade of perfidy, but his point remains solid: The war in Iraq drew men and materiel away from Afghanistan. That he didn't report
exactly what the captain said, you guys can kick around all you want, debating on the what the definition of is, is, but the truth of the statement was indeed backed up by Casey. This is the relevant exchange between Casey and McCaskill:
“Is that your understanding, that this captain who has served valiantly and heroically, has independently verified that certainly there was a frustration over getting what they needed to do that job in Afghanistan at that point in time?” she pressed.
“Senator, I don’t think there’s any doubt,” Casey responded. He stressed that the incident occurred four and a half years ago and that the Army and the Pentagon have worked together to correct all deficiencies.
That hardly makes the previous statement deceitful. I think you owe that gentleman an apology.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at February 28, 2008 07:34 PM (Bx4FB)
30
I'd take almost anyone's word over that of CBS and 60 Minutes. They're proven liars with an axe to grind.
Posted by: Evil Pundit at February 28, 2008 07:53 PM (KENEq)
31
"then they are in the position of now having published a second false presidential election year story..."
Nice Try. Rather's story was HARDLY false - Bush's AWOL status and basic National Guard goof ups, are well known and well documented. SOME of the documents Rather used were CONTROVERSIAL - aside from a few partisan bloggers, those documents were NEVER proven false - nor was the story. Warpublicans have always hoped it would just go away if they kept lying about Rather and those documents, but - in a court of law, when Bush is put on the stand, he will either admit the truth or be busted.
I think he'll admit the truth - that he was not only AWOL, but given special status because of his daddy...
Posted by: The Warpublican Review at February 28, 2008 07:57 PM (vTlYF)
32
Another HUGE point. There were plenty of other problems that didn't make the short newsclip. Including the $21 Million no-bid contract awarded to the Judge's private company.
I'm absolutely disgusted by corruption, I'd be happy to head back to the old egyptian solution, cut off their noses and ears, put them in a sack with 2 wild animals, and toss the sack in the river. I'm serious.
The thing is though...its pretty obvious the wrong person went to jail in this case. It should have been the judge and the prosecutors.
Posted by: gg at February 28, 2008 07:59 PM (rWCmS)
33
Great Banana,
You think it's some "conspiracy theory" that there's no transcript?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/NEWS02/711080315/1009
Here's my evidence. I've backed my claim. Now back your own.
Posted by: Mr. Reality at February 28, 2008 08:00 PM (l8GOp)
34
It's my understanding that "evidence" is a reference to substances of criminal court proceedings. On the other hand a story about someone claiming to be intimately knowledgeable to actions, which MAY be criminal, carried out by a high profile, high powered political figure, might be an interesting news story. If after a Judicial investigation evidence of a crime is found it WILL continue to be an interesting news story.
So far I think that a TV show which tries to air interesting news stories has somehow attracted, up to now only attention. That's all.
Posted by: T-Ray at February 28, 2008 08:51 PM (++DsC)
35
But Mr. Reality,
"The bulky transcript from the two-month-long trial has not been completed and must be available before attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy can appeal the convictions to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The delay was caused partly by the death earlier this year of Jimmy Dickens, the court reporter who recorded the trial, which included dozens of witnesses and mounds of physical evidence."
Come on, it's "bulky" and the court reporter, who presumably typed up the majority of the thing whilst sitting there in court, passed away. And he's only the former governor of Alabama, so there are probably PLENTY of other cases that need to be dealt with first.
And while we're on the topic, something of this magnitude comes to light and CY's first sentence in his post is not "Former governor of Alabama may have been set up by Bush operative" but "Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft shares the news of another possible election year meltdown at CBS News." Yes, anybody can see that this is really a problem for CBS.
Or, as CY himself once said - yesterday - "A journalist's point of view can be quite illuminating from time to time, can't it?"
Posted by: rapid at February 28, 2008 08:55 PM (oEV28)
36
Warpublican Review has put up a comment on the Rather/CBS discredited story on Bush and his Texas National Guard service. In a lengthy report, CBS themselves acknowledged the complete lack of truthfulness and accuracy in the Rather piece on 60 Minutes II. Warpublican Review's comments are total BS and represent wishful thinking on his part.
Posted by: Terry at February 28, 2008 08:57 PM (d/RyS)
37
Terry,
And the sad part is, it would take a huge legal effort to successfully commit such a delusional person, thus sparing society his incompetent vote for a cycle or two.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at February 28, 2008 09:01 PM (zncSj)
38
It's almost McCarthyesque in its paranoia.
History has proven McCarthy to have been largely correct.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 28, 2008 10:11 PM (5hXBq)
39
umm. what history was that again? footnote, footnote, footnote.
Posted by: rapid at February 28, 2008 10:16 PM (oEV28)
40
"CBS themselves acknowledged the complete lack of truthfulness and accuracy in the Rather piece on 60 Minutes II."
Not true.
Posted by: Warpublican Review at February 28, 2008 10:16 PM (vTlYF)
41
I understand the vicious hatred which drives George W. Bush, Carl Rove and the Alabama Republican Party. It is the same hate which Hitler and his Nazis. Prisons and Courts are to torture and murder your political opponents. The next time you see Carl Rove or Gov. Riley, remember to show respect: give them a heartfelt Sieg Heil.
Posted by: Brian Kara at February 29, 2008 04:54 AM (87GPd)
42
Will America be able to promote the high ground as we debate other countries on their human rights and political prisoners if we don't even allow a basic transcript and appeal to what appears to be our own political prisoner in the deep, deep, South?
Posted by: Roy at February 29, 2008 08:46 AM (xXXqw)
43
This has to be investigated. It's not a question of someone out to get Rove. It's a question of whther we can depend on an impartial DOJ in these partisan times. That's no small concern.
Umm, I'm not for using the DOJ to get political opponents (where were all of you leftists when the Clinton's had FBI files on all of their political opponents, and when the IRS was used to go after Clinton "enemies"?). But, you must be corrected. The DOJ is part of the executive branch - overseen by the President, who, as the Executive, is responsible for enforcing the laws. That's why the President gets to appoint (and can fire) the Attorney General.
thus, the DOJ is not, and was never meant to be, an "independent" agency. I think we need more and better civics in high school.
Also, I'm all for investigating the "politiziation" of U.S. Attorneys. Let's start with the 100 that Clinton fired when he first took office. Once that investigation is done, we can move on to the ones that Bush fired.
As to whether Rove's alleged action had anything to do with the charges that Speigleman was CONVICTED of - I have yet to see a single piece of evidence or a credible argument that one had anything whatsoever to do with the other, and see no credible reason for why that was included in the 60 Minutes piece except to smear Rove through innuendo and implication. Is that really good journalism that you are defending.
Again, if they had a good piece with good evidence showing that Sieglman got railroaded for political reasons they should have reported that. Instead, we have a lot of innuendo and smear implications. YOu may enjoy it b/c it is against someone you dislike, but is that really the kind of "journalism" you support? If they had a strong case to make why did they rely on this weak tea?
As to the Transcript issue, again, as an attorney, I think there has to be more than is being reported. The worst attorney just out of law school could get something done about that - so I would not hang your hat on that being a conspiracy or anything.
As to the person who tried to parse Genderal Casey's words.
Obama claimed that a CPT told him that 1/2 his platoon was taken and sent to Iraq. Both the Captain and Obama now admit that statement is not true. Obama also claimed the CPT told him that his platoon had to capture Taliban weapons and use them b/c they had no ammo. Both Obama and the CPT have disclaimed this (after basically being laughed at by anyone who knows anything about the military).
In contrast, General Casey admitted that troops get frustrated over resupply in a war theater. I hate to break it to you - troops in both peace and war throughout history have had this gripe. And, as to not having enough ammo for training - when I was in the Army (when Clinton was president) we often did not have ammo to do live-fire training due to budget constraints. So, you see, this is pretty normal stuff, unfortunately. I would love to see more $$ go to the military so they can fire all the live rounds they want in training - would you agree to the same?
So, as I said, General Casey did not confirm Obama's statement and to claim so is a flat-out lie and you should be ashamed.
Posted by: Great Banana at February 29, 2008 09:15 AM (JFj6P)
44
I understand the vicious hatred which drives George W. Bush, Carl Rove and the Alabama Republican Party. It is the same hate which Hitler and his Nazis. Prisons and Courts are to torture and murder your political opponents. The next time you see Carl Rove or Gov. Riley, remember to show respect: give them a heartfelt Sieg Heil.
Calling your opponenets fascists. Always the indication of true intelligence and rational discourse. Almost always wins a debate.
The Nazis were were a party of the left not the right.
Let me also point out that leftist governments have done more evil and killed more people in this world then any rightist government. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Pol Pot, - these people starved, murdered, and tortured millions of people and they all come from your philosophy. The same cannot be said for a rightist philosophy, who are not even close on the murder and torture scale.
So, don't be so quick to point fingers unless you know a little history. Based on history it's far more likely that prison camps and torture will come from the left than the right.
Posted by: Great Banana at February 29, 2008 09:24 AM (JFj6P)
45
Great Banana,
At no point did I ever say there was a conspiracy theory. Those were YOUR words.
And you seem to have some sort of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The guy hasn't been President for nearly 8 years, his wife is losing the nomination, and yet you still are fixated with him.
No one complained when Clinton fired the 100 attorneys for the same reason no one complained when Bush originally fired 100 attorneys. We expect them to do this at the start of the term. USAs almost always serve for the full term of the President who appointed them. The last time a USA was fired in the middle of a term was about a decade earlier and the USA was fired for biting a stripper. Bush fired attorneys who were pursuing investigations against Republicans. When USA Paul Charlton tried to file an indictment against Rick Renzi back in 2006, Charlton was placed on the list of attorneys to be fired only a few days later. USA Caroline Lam was fired after indicting Duke Cunningham. (And these aren't the only cases.) It's political interference. It's illegal. It's completely different than firing all the attorneys en mass. It deserves, at the very minimum, some investigation, which the President has actively blocked.
Another thing, I have no problem with opposition research. And apparently neither do you. So what exactly is the smear here, if it's acceptable behavior and no one has a problem with it? And this was such a minor claim in the CBS piece. It was background information that came in the first two minutes of the segment. You are just trying to change the subject and pretend this is about some trivial detail, or switch the focus to CBS News instead of the travesty of justice surrounding Don Siegelman.
Posted by: Mr. Reality at February 29, 2008 10:09 AM (l8GOp)
46
First,
I disagree with your assumptive conclusions as to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys under Bush. If indeed something illegal was done, then there should be charges. thus far, no such thing has been proven, nor any evidence even indicating it. Indeed, despite your conspiracy minded claims, there have been plenty of intestigations into republicans and convictions of republicans during the Bush presidency, which completely undermines the left's claims here.
As to Clinton - I simply point out that all you leftists had nothing to say about his political corruption in using the FBI and the IRS to "get" political opponents, thus your (the left in general) credibility is pretty non-existent on this issue today. that is why I bring it up. In other words, you were fine with Clinton using the levers of power to crush his political opponents, but suddenly you care about justice. I find that laughable.
I personnally don't want to see the levers of power abused for political gain regardless of who is in power, but despite your claims, I haven't seen any credibile evidence of it in this case, or in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys.
As to this statement "Another thing, I have no problem with opposition research. And apparently neither do you. So what exactly is the smear here, if it's acceptable behavior and no one has a problem with it? And this was such a minor claim in the CBS piece. It was background information that came in the first two minutes of the segment. You are just trying to change the subject and pretend this is about some trivial detail, or switch the focus to CBS News instead of the travesty of justice surrounding Don Siegelman."
My point is why was it in the piece at all? Background information? Background to what? How was that relevant to the story? It was in the piece to imply that Rove was behind "getting" Seigleman, otherwise it should not have been in there. And if you don't admit that, you are either knowingly lying to me, or lying to yourself. That is why it was wrong to be in that piece.
As to the piece itself, I saw nothing that gave any credence to Sieglmen not getting a fair trial that led to his conviction. I'm an attorney, so I find it easy to separate innuendo and baseless allegations claiming that there was and is some conspiracy theory to "get" Sieglman from the actual evidence presented in the case. That 60 minutes piece had nothing to suggest that the charges and conviction of Sieglman were improper.
So, 60 Minutes puts a piece on with no real evidence that anything wrong was done in the charges and conviction, and support that non-story with a pretty far-out allegation (which they did nothing to verify) that Rove was looking to surveille Siegleman before he was chaged. They use this to implicitly lead the viewer (which if you read the other leftist comments above you will see succeeded) to believe that Rove and the White House were out to get Siegleman and used whatever means necessary. Why else would they possibly have included the bit about Karl Rove? What did it have to do with the story whatsoever? THus, it is a hatchet smear job - and indicates the weakness of the claims made in the story re: Siegleman.
If you believe that Sieglman is innocent - point me to some evidence to support such a claim. 60 Minutes did not provide any such evidence.
If Sieglman did indeed get railroaded, I would like him freed, his conviction overturned, etc. but, unlike you - I will ask to see evidence and not just believe it to be so b/c the other party is in charge.
Posted by: Great Banana at February 29, 2008 11:23 AM (JFj6P)
47
"thus far, no such thing has been proven"
Of course Rove hasn't responded to the subpoena for his testimony (other than to thumb his nose at Congress).
But, as all alleged terrorists (or just Americans using a telephone or the internet) know, there's no concern if you have nothing to hide.
Posted by: Robert in BA at February 29, 2008 12:31 PM (tB4OT)
48
"The worst attorney right out of law school..."
Bannana, have a bit more self respect... and quite dropping your supposed creditials as if they bolster your ridiculous arguments
Posted by: ibfamous at February 29, 2008 05:12 PM (ihUEC)
49
"The worst attorney right out of law school..."
Banana, have a bit more self respect... and quite dropping your supposed creditials as if they bolster your ridiculous arguments
Posted by: ibfamous at February 29, 2008 05:12 PM (ihUEC)
50
Main Street America LOVES 60 Minutes. You guys are whack !!
Posted by: John Ryan at March 02, 2008 10:01 AM (TcoRJ)
51
What you should know, if you have any intention of being a professional source of balanced information, is that there is a wealth
of investigative research and documentation on this story to apprise you of the facts behind the allegations. Casting Rove as the "victim" is laughable once one has read up on the vast evidence that has surfaced.
And really, fellas, if Rove is such an innocent, why won't he testify under oath in front of Congress, like Ms. Simpson has done?
Perhaps denial and cover-ups have over-extended their effectiveness in the public discourse these last 7 years. It might be time for the rightwing mouthpieces like yourself to finally stand up and deal with your
lot in a dignified manner, rather than enable the rot to continue to chew your party up. Just suggesting.
Here is some enlightened research to aid in your quest for the truth:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_permanent_Republican_majority_Daughter_of_1127.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_Part_III_1216.html
http://www.harpers.org/subjects/DonSiegelman/SubjectOf/BlogEntry
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
Posted by: Kimberly at March 02, 2008 01:31 PM (kSg0t)
52
It's interesting how these sorts of things almost instantly degenerate into an exercise in faith. People who hate the "liberal media" immediately assume that 60 Minutes is lying. There is "no evidence" to support the claims against Rove -- except, of course, for the story of a Republican insider who was involved in the whole thing. That person couldn't possibly be telling the truth -- as if Karl Rove's integrity is somehow unquestionable.
What would Simpson's motivations be for lying? Are there a lot of Republican insiders who harbor secret fantasies about getting on 60 Minutes and attacking those at the top of their organizations? What did Rove do to her to piss her off that badly?
I can't think of too many people I would find LESS credible on matters of political dirty tricks than Karl Rove. He has shown his Machievellian values consistently over the past 40 years. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that his denial holds any weight.
I won't assume that he's guilty, but I'll assume that it's possible and it should be fully investigated. How many subpoenas should one man be allowed to ignore?
Posted by: jontv at March 03, 2008 10:38 AM (rtlI7)
53
It's interesting how these sorts of things almost instantly degenerate into an exercise in faith. People who hate the "liberal media" immediately assume that 60 Minutes is lying. There is "no evidence" to support the claims against Rove -- except, of course, for the story of a Republican insider who was involved in the whole thing. That person couldn't possibly be telling the truth -- as if Karl Rove's integrity is somehow unquestionable.
What would Simpson's motivations be for lying? Are there a lot of Republican insiders who harbor secret fantasies about getting on 60 Minutes and attacking those at the top of their organizations? What did Rove do to her to piss her off that badly?
I can't think of too many people LESS credible on matters of political dirty tricks than Karl Rove. He has shown his Machievellian values consistently over the past 40 years. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that his denial holds any weight.
I won't assume that he's guilty, but I'll assume that it's possible and it should be fully investigated. How many subpoenas should one man be allowed to ignore?
Posted by: jontv at March 03, 2008 10:41 AM (rtlI7)
54
Welcome Scott Horton fans! We have a nice collection of bridges for sale.
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 03, 2008 09:55 PM (0pZel)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
