Powered by TypePad

« The Spitzer Situation | Main | Mapmaker, Mapmaker, Make Me A Map »

July 26, 2007



For H&R and friends:

There are things that are difficult to say when you're drunk. There are also things that are very difficult to say when you're drunk. And then there are things that are downright impossible to say when you're drunk.

[stolen from Presurfer]


"How you folks can contenace, no support, blatant lying escapes me.

Posted by: TexasToast | July 26, 2007 at 09:29 PM

Don't worry Texas we just scroll over your posts,yu verbal incontinence doesn't bother anyone.


Texas Toast is getting self righteous about someone lying, and he is a Democrat? what a hoot, pot...kettle...black...etc.

This is an excerpt from an interesting post about this from Dafydd

Finally, according to earlier accounts (I would love a link to this), Gonzales actually offered to tell the Senate J-Com exactly what program he remembers the discussion being about... but Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT, %) actually turned Gonzales down. He demanded that the attorney general reveal the program to the committee in open session with TV cameras rolling.

That is, "Leaky" Leahy demanded that Gonzales "blow" a hitherto undisclosed classified anti-terrorist program.

If Democrats really wanted to get to the bottom of this, they could subpoena Mueller, Ashcroft, and accept Gonzales' offer to reveal exactly what program he thought the discussion was about. Then they could ask Ashcroft whether, with prompting, Gonzales might be right... and ask Mueller whether, after having his memory jogged, Gonzales may be accurate and truthful.

Then, if everyone but Gonzales says it was about the TSP, you might have a basis for a referral; but even then, I would be skeptical, since perjury requires the intent to deceive... and this could be an honest misremembering by Gonzales, Mueller, or Ashcroft.

But the J-Com Dems chose not to take this route; they didn't want clarity, they wanted a headline. Thus, on the basis of impressions and feelings, four ultra-liberal Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee plus the Majority Leader -- each of whom is on record as hating Bush and all that Bush has done in response to 9/11 -- demand that a new "Patrick Fitzgerald" be appointed to prosecute Gonzales and attempt to put him in prison and ruin his life.

This is the politics of personal destruction... Democrat style.


Why hasn't Ashcroft been asked to testify yet? Wouldn't that pretty much roll this whole thing up? Reminds me of Fitzgerald not being all too interested in Russert, Gregory, Mitchell, and the NBC crew - he didn't want to know. The Democrats apparently don't want to know the truth here either.

Meanwhile, they have their friends in the media writing that Gonzalez contradicted himself, and that Mueller contradicts him, even though neither case is actually proven.

The media is essentially acting like left-wing blogs that throw around as many accusation and claims that they can to see which of them will stick and turn into a meme.

So a hearing about why 8 US Attorneys were fired has morphed into a hearing about who said what to whom in a hospital room about an NSA surveillance program.



Great site! Would you consider a Link Exchange to The Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen to over 26 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!



Great site! Would you consider a Link Exchange to The Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen to over 26 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!


Cecil Turner

So a hearing about why 8 US Attorneys were fired has morphed into a hearing about who said what to whom in a hospital room . . .

Exactly. How many times do we have to see the false accusation morph into an investigation into perjury/obstruction investigations of minor variations amongst different versions of unrelated eyewitness testimony before folks istinctively recognize it as the set-up du jour? And now that the standards have evolved such that the eyewitness needn't even be present at the conversation . . . well, this is getting hilarious.

hit and run

Why hasn't Ashcroft been asked to testify yet?

Why doesn't say a Hugh Hewitt call him up and ask? Would Ashcroft refuse?

Ah forget it. What's his email? I'll get to the bottom of this.

hit and run

And then there are things that are downright impossible to say when you're drunk.

Shoot. Can't see it at work. Emailing link to my personal account so I don't forget it when I get home.


How could there possibly be a still-secret program with the N.Y. Times in the picture? As far as I know, they haven't said they won't publish national security secrets.


BobS: Actually, I think Clarice should be Molly Weasley! She has the best line in the book.

As to the AG, it is pretty clear this is a witch hunt. To call for a Special Prosecutor because the AG said a conversation was on one related topic and someone else claims it was about another related topic is just silly. And it's not a lie.

The Dems lie about WAY more than that any day of the week.

hit and run

This campaigning is too long the formats are stupid and no one is bothering except the punditry.

Amen sister Clarice.

I put this on the Surging thread, but it relates to this statement...even the punditry is getting sick of it.


...and one of my contentions was my distate for how early the campaigning starts (which of course is fallacious, it never ends).

From Geraghty, the Campaign Spotter, who does this for a living, responding to the latest tempest in a thimble about Romney and flying F-16s and firing AK-47s:

I don't know about you guys, but I'm finding this kind of back-and-forth gotcha games triggering premature exhaustion with this campaign.

Amen brother Jim.


I'm still thinking of Clarice's comment

I think Gonzo and Bush operate by the same rules..Hit me with your best shot..And then they just continue what they've been doing.

and wondering, are they planning to wait until the 12th round? I mean, it's not the rope-a-dope strategy unless you ultimately knock the tired dope out.

Judging by Gates' lame response to the real Voldermort, I guess maybe it's still too early in the fight.


I know the discussion has moved on, but darn it I want to comment anyway on the CNN Youtube debate.

I disagree with Ruffini. I think it's time for our candidates to take a stand and say enough of the nonsense! Who cares what the Dems and liberal press say or what accusations they will toss? The nutroots are spreading like a cancer in the Democratic party and we are supposed to show how "brave" we are by giving them free rein to our side too?

We should be the responsible, serious, grown-ups in the room. I am with Mitt Romney on this.


NRO has a fine editorial on the Gonzo story today
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZhMWJhMzlhNmM=>Foolishness in the Senate

So does the WSJ.


Well Extraneous, Tarrance reported yesterday that despite policy differences, 57% of Americans personally like Bush, the NYT to its chagrin notes support for the war is rising, and everyone reports that support for Congress is nose diving.

Keep that in mind.


Clarice, link to WSJ?

I agree partially with the editors' NRO article. The part that I disagree is that Gonzo should go. He does not need to go. The Senate and the House are making too much of a big deal out of this one. It just shows that they don't know how to legislate at all.

Speaking about that 14% Congressional ratings, the Democrats are blaming that on the fact that they had not been able to force withdrawal of our US troops. Of course, they refuse to defund our troops. What weasels.

Another argument is that that 14% is not limited to the Democrats. They claim that they're not happy with the Republicans.

Of course, I'm not happy with alot of the Republicans, especially when they seek earmark and pork approval and those white flaggers.

I see that the Victory Caucus has rebuilt and relaunched.

I disagree with Ruffini on the debate. Boehner has a good point about contributing to the Republican presidential candidates, especially when there's a very wide gap between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.


I hope that the closer we get to the November elections, the odds increase in favor of the Republicans.

Brit Hume's All-Star Panel of last night seem to think that there will be NO Special Council; NO Special Prosecutor; and that the stand-down will last til the end of Bush's term.

I thought Harry Reid made sure that Bush cannot take advantage of recess appointments. Think that even if Gonzo goes and Bush replaces him, will Leaky Leahy continue to find ways to go after the replacement? Yeah, I think so. Especially when Specter's trying to review the Roberts and Alito hearings...is it because Bush knows that some of the aging Supreme Justices are getting close to retirement by forced choice? And that Specter knows something that Leahy will do if Bush has to nominate someone?


Clarice, link to Tarrance, too? Thanks!


"Even if the Dems get their impeachment hearings, don't they need a 2/3 majority in the Senate to remove Bush? They don't have the votes. So what is the point?"

Why did the Republicans go ahead with the impeachment proceedings of Clinton when they did not have the votes in the Senate?

The Democrats want to proceed with the impeachment proceedings to make a point with the American Public.

All the more for them to do it. It'll be a huge waste of time and money and they'll continue to endorse their reputation as a "Do-Nothing" and vindictive Congress filled with hatred and unwilling to work and cooperate with the Republicans.


"Did you (FBI Director Mueller) have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?"

Suppose that Gonzales had originally answered that there was disagreement about “TSP”, Dem Senators could have said “Ah hah! The disagreement was not about the program that has been discussed in public, but about another secret and more insidious program. The AG is being dishonest!”

So, if Gonzales says “no it wasn’t about TSP or yes it was about TSP”, Dem Senators will call him a liar. The only safe answer would be to say it wasn’t about the publicly discussed program that the President had confirmed.

That’s the answer that AG Gonzales gave and offered to explain in closed session.


I hate to change scope, but does anyone here know much about the two border agents who were convicted of weapons charges. I've been hearing alot about it of late and know that both sides of the aisle of congress are making alot of noise about it. Fox radio had a spot this morning.


I agree with CentralCal @ 9:33 am.
The Dem's can stiff FoxNews, no harm, no foul.
The Republicans would be better if the candidates were to make a much needed statement of unity by all of them dishing CNN You-tube dedate than they would by jumping through hoops and mine-fields set by the KOS crowd.


Legislate, not investigate!


Legislate, not investigate!

How about neither? I'm all for longer vacations for Congress!!

hit and run

Name More Post Offices!


Latest from lgf on the Scott Thomas affair:
[quote]The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”

Wow. Oblivious to the ethical problems, or just saying anything to divert attention? You decide.

Beauchamp, meanwhile, is in a world of hurt, as the military has launched a formal investigation into the crimes and ludicrously bad behavior he wrote about and shopped to the New Republic—instead of reporting to his commanding officers.

Foer also said Beauchamp “has put himself in significant jeopardy” and “lost his lifeline to the rest of the world” because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges. ...

Maj. Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the base, said by e-mail: “We are conducting a formal investigation into the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic, so given that situation, I am unable to comment on the matter until the investigation is complete.”[/quote]


The problem isn't so much that Beauchamp is married to a TNR staffer, but that Foer seemed to think that that made any further fact checking unnecessary.


Is Gonzo playing a part

Rick Ballard

"Foer also said Beauchamp “has put himself in significant jeopardy”"

That's why Article 15 level handling of the matter is important. Raise it any higher and Pvt BS Beauchump will become a lefty hero. He knows what an Article 15 is - apparently he's already had two, the last for being AWOL. He's a dud and if he wants to leave the Army, the Army shouldn't stand in his way. Give him a 'good of the service' discharge and be done with him.

If he wants to stay then a transfer to the Aleutians is probably in order.


Personally, I think Foer was criminally negligent. He knew or should have known that this reporting would get his reporter in trouble.


Sara and Clarice, your point is well taken and I agree that over the past 200 years it has worked, now it is a different thing sex does not kill so kenstar proved clinton did not use my tax money to pay for sex. Gonzo is is a different set of circumstances...people keep interupting me ..at work chat more later. Have a nice afternoon!!


darclay, the problem remains; how does a power investigate itself?


Gonzo as I was saying is different in that after watching him testify was evasive and was aparrant that he was trying evade answering even Spector honestly. Lord knows if Jessy Helms were told something like gonzo told Spector he would already be indicted. Not that I agreed with Jessy on a lot of things he took things like that very serious.
If I said Sara did you eat the cookie and Sara says half of it is already gone and I say no Sara did you eat the cookie and Sara says well Clarice pinched it yesterday . the only logical conclusion to come to is at the most Sara ate the cookie or the least she knows who did.
I do not know what the AG was trying to do but seems to me he is hiding something. If he were not then why be deceptive?
Trust in the system.


Kim the last sentence was for you in my last post.


darclay, you don't know what you ask.


Rope a Dope. I am thinking, as an October surprise.


God, I hope so.


OT: And Goodmorning

In a question put to Wilson earlier this month, Amy Goodman asked Joe why he didn't come forward earlier.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Wilson, President Bush said those sixteen words, that the British understood that Saddam Hussein was getting uranium from Africa -- and it was about getting uranium from Niger -- in January of 2003. It was the rationale used for the invasion in March. Your piece came out in July, months after the invasion. Why didn't you speak out before the invasion?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, first of all, at the time of the President's speech, it was not clear that the country to which he was referring when he made that statement was Niger. I did, in fact, call the State Department the day after the State of the Union address, and I asked the deputy assistant secretary what the President was referring to, and I pointed out to him that had he been referring to Niger, I didn’t believe the facts were there, and if the facts were there I’d be interested in knowing about them.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was the deputy assistant secretary, Joe?

JOSEPH WILSON: I don’t have his name offhand, but he was Walter Kansteiner’s principal deputy. And his response to me -- I said, “You know, I have to assume that either the President misstated the facts, in which case he needs to correct it, or he was speaking about another African country.” The response was, “Well, he was probably speaking about another African country.”

The deputy assistant secretary whose name Wilson claims he didn't know was Charles Snyder

Then on page 17 of his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson claims Walter H. Kansteiner approved his trip to Niger.

A few days later, I was asked to go to Niamey. Within hours, I went over to the state department to see the assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, Walter Kansteiner and his principle deputy.

He agreed to my trip and contacted Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick, who also agreed to it.

Kansteiner traveled with Bush to Africa on July 7, 2003. Do you think Bush wanted to know who was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger after he read Wilson's op-ed on July 6, 2003?


Kim I may not know what I ask, but you tell me how else are we going to find out what the Att. firings were about among other thing that it is apparant that the AG is not being truthful about.Most of the att fired were Republican three were if I am not mistaken were Dems Sara or Clarise will know . Two who were working on very real acts of fraud bribry and other charges were going to be brought against "Fogo". I could give a rats.. about party loyalty I do care about the abuse of power and corruption in my government. We just sent our speaker(former)to jail, Mr. Black. He was basiclly a nice man but he broke the law betrayed the public trust he leaves for jail I think Monday. I do not see that that casts aspersions on other Dem or republicans or Independants. Maybe if he were buddies of Clintons or Bush he could get a get out of jail free card. There is the real miscarriage of justice. Mark Rich and his lawyer buddy Libby getting off without paying the price for their crime is the travasty.
I expect my AG to at least be honest and as this is not a perfect world we have to rely on the seperation of powers to maintain the balance.One of my clients said yesterday that she thought that maybe it was a good thing that congress and the executive branch were so balanced that they got nothing done that way they could do no harm...it a thought..lol. So you are telling me that we do not need a special prosecutor then how do you propose that we find out all of these lies and obfuscation is all about? My mother always said there was never a reason to lie unless you were hiding something you did wrong.Evasion of a question is just another way to lie.
Hope you coffee is as good as mine is ..lord it good to be off work.


One lump or two? What makes you think Gonzales is lying?


His evasiveness seemed to me an attempt to avoid disclosing classified information. Schumer had him in a delicious trap there, didn't you see?


I entertained that idea also but I watched all of the test. and when he refused to answer Spectors questions that was the deciding factor that it was not about classfied info.


just cream:)


It did not appear to me Spector was playing to the cammera. he looked guinely ticked off.


wish we had spell check


I ll check back later have to go to MOM's.
have nice morning!


Spector's attitude is curious. I believe he has backed off of doubting Gonzales, but can't prove it.


Why not allow him his closed door session, if the truth is what they are really looking for?


It was bound to happen. My "not spam" that I had to type to post...FUK969. Now that is just not right.

hit and run

FUK969. Now that is just not right.

Sue, I don't get it? Could you explain what that means?

Francis Fukuyama?

He became the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University in 96.

But I don't get the last 9?

Or is there another meaning?


Dear Darclay, I am too busy to answer you but i most say you sound a bit like a sock puppet agitator.

By now even you must know that gonzales was not lying, but as most of us bellieved all along was trying to answer without discloosing classified information of substantial national security import.


refused to answer Spectors questions that was the deciding factor that it was not about classfied info

See clarice? Refusing to answer a question that would reveal a classified program (data mining) proves it was not about classified info. Why not you may ask? Because nothing is as it seems. The obvious is never true and always deception.

hit and run

I am too busy to answer you but i most say you sound a bit like a sock puppet agitator.

FWIW, the only google reference of darclay previously posting here:

Since when did the Republican Party support damaging U.S. Intelligence. Reguardless if you believe that Valerie was covert or not, intellegence gathering was damaged. I find it curious that you seem to be playing symantics. ( what is,is) Try reading the "Federalist" and tell me that what was done to Valerie was right!

Thnx for clarifying that, Boris..and good job Mr. Hit!


More on Kansteiner from Keith Harmon Snow and ZNET

Several multi-national mining companies have rarely if ever been mentioned in any human rights report. One is Barrick Gold, who operates in the town of Watsa, northwest of the town of Bunia, located in the most violent corner of the Congo.
Barrick Gold is one of the client companies of Andrew Young’s Goodworks International lobbying firm.
Barrick Gold’s mining partners have included Adastra Mining—formerly named America Mineral Fields (AMFI, AMX, other names), formerly based in Hope, Arkansas, Bill Clinton’s hometown.
Walter Kansteiner, the son of a coltan trader in Chicago, is the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa and former member of the Dept. of Defense Task Force on Strategic Minerals. Kansteiner’s speech at The Forum for International Policy in October of 1996 advocated partitioning the Congo (then Zaire) into smaller states based on ethnic lineage (20). Ironically, while the speech was given, Laurent Kabila and his ADFL were beginning their march to overthrow Mobutu with the aid of Rwanda, Uganda, and the U.S. (21). Kansteiner is a trustee of the Africa Wildlife Foundation—another euphemistic front for resource acquisition in Congo.


2 Links

Niger bars French mining official

Niger has barred the local operations director of the French nuclear company Areva from returning to the country after a visit abroad. The authorities offered no explanation for the ban imposed on Dominique Pin.

Areva, which mines uranium in northern Niger, has rejected accusations that it is linked to rebel activity.

Some weeks ago, an Areva security adviser was expelled amid local media claims that the country was supporting the Niger Movement for Justice rebels.

Areva condemned the measures against Mr Pin....

and Documents In Jefferson Case Unsealed

The documents show Jefferson's efforts to help iGate when Nigeria appeared to be dropping the company in favor of a deal with Chinese interests. Jefferson wrote Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar on congressional stationery.

The documents supply more details about what may be the most titillating detail in the case -- that the FBI found $90,000 in a freezer in Jefferson's home. The unsealed documents say agents found $20,000 each in Boca Burger and Pillsbury Pie Crust boxes, three stacks of $10,000 in a bag from an organic food market and two more stacks wrapped in foil and placed in the freezer.


Here is actually a more detailed account on Jefferson's unsealed documents...


Good Morning


I wonder if Kansteiner's mixed up in this. From your last link.

On June 9, 2005, YahYah told Jackson, "I believe now is the time for interceding with the VP (vice president)" of Nigeria, who had influence over NITEL.

From Walter H. Kansteiner III's bio

Mr. Kansteiner advised the buy side on the $1.3 billion privatization of Telkom South Africa, the largest privatization in Africa to date.

Telkom South Africa bid for NITEL

Telkom South Africa and its mobile subsidiary Vodacom will bid for Nigeria’s state-owned telecom provider Nitel. Nitel owns mobile operator M-Tel.

Kansteiner also spoke in New Orleans

On Friday, April 25 the World Trade Center, World Affairs Council, City of New Orleans, Louisiana Economic Development, and other organizations will sponsor a luncheon program in the WTC’s Plimsoll Club in New Orleans on "Outlook on Africa: What It Means for U.S. Businesses" featuring Walter H. Kansteiner, III, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Clarice, sorry you feel I am a sock puppet. All I was doing was trying to get imput from others and have a discussion about all of these things. I valued your opinion and that of Sara's and for that matter ALL of the people that blog here. Is this a public forum or is it just for those who goose step to your views? Sorry to offend you. I will admit to sometimes playing devils advacate, but I will never at any point try to agitate and will not admit to doing so. I have no problem in answering yours or anyone elses questions.

Yes hit and run I do believe that that was a question/statement that I made. I voted for Jessie Helms once and Richard Nixon twice and many Republicans since.I am not a party person. I make and draw my own conclusions.
PEACE to you and yours Clarice! :)


just for those who goose step to your views?

Deliberately offensive or just incredibly stupid?

This forum is less about anybody's views and more about coherent dicsussion and informed debate. So far "sock puppet" is a rather generous benefit of doubt.


Boris, just asking a question it was not ment as an offensive statement. As far as informed debate goes how can one be informed when they are chided for expressing a point, or asking a question? If I felt that the people here were not informed and had valid points to make I would not be here. Kim seemd nice and informed thus the discussion that I was trying to have.
I met Sara and Clarice on Sara's birthday. They seemed smart and educated people so that is why I kept coming back.
I try never to hurt anyone and anything I say is not ment as an offense. If i intend to be offensive it would be blunt and to the point compleat with expletives.:)

The comments to this entry are closed.