Friday Democratic Talking Points [Vol. 4]

[ Posted Friday, October 5th, 2007 – 17:33 UTC ]

[Welcome back to the weekly Friday Democratic Talking Points column (I'm still looking for a snappier title, by the way). This week, I've decided to start numbering these columns, so I can keep track of them easier. Previous columns will be numbered [ 1 ] (9/14/07), [ 2 ] (9/21/07), and [ 3 ] (9/28/07) for future reference. OK, enough of that, here we go...]

I think I'm going to have to introduce a feature for this column of "Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week." I really wish I didn't have to do this, and sincerely look forward to a week where there are just no candidates for such an award. Until that happens, we're going to have to shine a spotlight of shame on the most embarrassing cave-in of the week.

This week's award goes to Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He released a letter this week where he rolled over (once again) on his eminently reasonable demands for documents to find out just what was going on in the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Leahy has decided to throw away his biggest leverage -- refusing to hold hearings on the new AG candidate -- in return for absolutely nothing. The White House didn't work out a compromise with Leahy, he just decided it was risky politics to make good on his demands. To his further embarrassment, the New York Times apparently has better information than Leahy's committee on just how far the Bush administration is willing to go in its re-definition of "torture." The Times article broke just as the story of Leahy caving broke -- that's got to be embarrassing.

Now, on the whole, I like and respect Patrick Leahy. His heart is in the right place, but time and again he seems to back down from playing political hardball when it matters. You can argue that he's behaving like a gentleman Senator should, working towards compromise and all that, but he seems not to have learned that President Bush is not interested in compromising anything. Bush is much more interested in defending his warped view of an Imperial Presidency and in scoring political points off Democrats than he is in any form of compromise (which he sees as a weakness). Given this, Leahy's tactics will equate to Bush successfully stalling all these investigations until he's long gone from the White House. Which earns Leahy the very first "Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week" award.

Of course, we all know who would win that award on the Republican side of the aisle this week. But here's where I would caution using restraint, and taking the moral high ground. Any Democrat interviewed this weekend, if asked about Senator Larry Craig, should respond with, "I will defer to the Republican leadership on the question of whether Senator Craig should resign or not." Just as with the Mark Foley case, this is a time to stand back, watch the Republicans form a circular firing squad, and perhaps mutter "tsk, tsk." But it's not seemly for Democrats to kick Craig while he's down -- since the Republicans are doing a fine job of that already. So take the high road on this one.

Most of this week's talking points deal with the children's health bill which President Bush vetoed last week. This is good offense when it comes to politics (we're in football season now, so it's time to put away the baseball metaphors for the year and dust off the football metaphors). There are big Big BIG budget battles brewing in the next few weeks, and (for once) Democrats did the right thing tactically and strategically -- lead with your best shot. The SCHIP bill polls at over 70% of the public in favor, Bush has staked out an almost irrational position on it, and House Democrats are within 10-15 votes of being able to overturn Bush's veto in the House. While Democrats already have a 67-vote veto-stomping majority in the Senate, the House will vote to overturn first.

The last item on last week's list was "Show the Republicans the knife" -- warn the GOP that this will be used in the elections. This week there is a wonderful ad already up on YouTube put out by the Campaign For America's Future site. This is the sort of thing Republicans should expect while trying to hold onto the House next year. Moderate GOP-held House districts are being targeted even as we speak, and Nancy Pelosi has given everyone two weeks to hear from their constituents back home on the issue. So there's a decent shot for an override at this point, but the vote's going to be close either way it goes.

In any case, most of the items on this week's list refer to the SCHIP debate. Last week I devoted the entire column to the issue, and most of those are still valid as well. Without further delay, onward to this week's list.


Democratic Talking Points, Volume 4 (10/5/07)


(1) This one's easy:

Ebenezer Bush and/or George W. Scrooge

I can't claim originality on this one. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) was quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying: "This has got to be up there with motherhood and apple pie. This is Tiny Tim. And who is against Tiny Tim? The only person in all of literature was Ebenezer Scrooge." Democrats obviously need to assign Congressman Cooper permanent duty naming future Democratic legislation. How much easier would this whole argument be if every media talking head had to say "The Tiny Tim Act" instead of "the proposed expansion of the S-CHIP legislation"? This is brilliant, and deserves to be on everyone's lips this weekend. Combine Bush's name, and you don't even need to explain yourself the way Cooper did -- the label is self-explanatory: Ebenezer Bush. Or George W. Scrooge.


(2) Measure everything using the Iraq War Yardstick:

"X" months of Bush's Iraq war

While several Democrats have been using this successfully in the SCHIP debate so far, it needs to become a universal measuring stick for the entire budget debate. President Bush is actually relishing the opportunity to veto something like three-fourths of the budget bills which will be coming his way, in a pathetic effort to play to the "fiscal conservatives" in his party. After the Republican Congress abetted by the Republican Bush racked up enormous spending increases in the federal budget during the past six years, now all of a sudden Bush has seen the light of fiscal conservatism. But the total difference between what Bush is demanding for the entire budget and what Democrats will likely pass is about $20 billion or so.

So use it for SCHIP, of course, but use this universally throughout the budget debates to come: "The difference in the bipartisan budget we passed in Congress and what Bush is demanding is less than two months' worth of the war in Iraq." Bring this up again and again. Remind everyone of the priorities involved.


(3) Strongly challenge President Bush's nonsense:

President Bush obviously hasn't read the bill he vetoed.

Whenever a strawman argument from the White House is offered up, shoot it down right away. Bush has been trying to create a number of false impressions about this bill, so point out the falsehoods as they arise. SCHIP is not "federal-run" health care, it's not socialism, and it does not cover people up to $80,000 in income. So don't let him get away with saying so. Rather than refuting Bush point by point, just repeat: "Well, our bill doesn't say that. I guess the President George W. Scrooge didn't read that part before he vetoed it, because that's not what it says."


(4) Frame children's health as a moral issue:

The least among us

That's all you have to use -- just that one phrase. This reminds everyone subtly of the Bible and the Golden Rule and all of that sort of thing, without having to get specific. "President Bush calls his education bill 'No Child Left Behind' and then turns around and leaves behind millions of little children. We consider this to be immoral, and we wish President Bush were more compassionate to the sufferings of the least among us."


(5) Teddy's challenge:

Refuse your government-funded health care if you don't think children should get the same thing

Senator Ted Kennedy wrote a brilliant and eloquent defense of the Democratic position on SCHIP this week here at Huffington Post. It is well worth reading if you care about the issue at all, or even if you just want a rip-snortin' good piece of Democratic red meat. He ends by tossing down a pretty heavy gauntlet to Republicans:

So I ask President Bush and the Members in Congress who support his veto:

Would you deny your own family what you'll be denying to millions of other families if this bill is vetoed? If you don't believe the federal government should support children's health care, how can you in good conscience accept it for your own families?


(6) Yet another in our continuing series of "throw it back in their faces":

The Rule of Law

"I'm actually kind of nostalgic for when Republicans stood up for the 'Rule of Law.' We had to pass a bill in the House this week to force our State Department to put their own security contractors under any law whatsoever. They have had four or five years to get this right, and they have ignored it completely. Democrats had to come along once again and clean up a Republican mess, so that we can show the entire world America means it when we say 'Rule of Law.' Interesting enough, President Bush has been lobbying against this law -- but then, that's no real surprise. We call on all Republican Senators to pass this law immediately and put it on Bush's desk."


(7) Rule of Law II:

If it happened to one of our soldiers, would we consider it torture?

"There's a reason we oppose torture as a country. It's because it is morally wrong. But there are many supporting reasons as well, and the biggest of these is: If we set the standard for the world to use, it will be used against us at some future date. And when -- "when," not "if" -- it is used against your son or daughter serving in the uniform of the United States, how are we going to condemn it as "torturing our soldiers" on the world stage, if we do the same things ourselves?"


Cross-posted at The Huffington Post


-- Chris Weigant


32 Comments on “Friday Democratic Talking Points [Vol. 4]”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll use the same argument for this commentary ( as I did way back then...

    Has it really been over a year!???

    You simply cannot compare the laws governing military on military action to actions taken against terrorists...

    It's apples and alligators...

    Now, if you want to phrase the debate fairly and properly, then (again as I said back then) you have to ask, "If your son/daughter was performing terrorist acts in another country, would you want him or her to be tortured"...

    My answer would be, (as it was back then) that, when it comes to family, all rational discussion goes out the window...

    Logically and rationally, I would LIKE to think that if my son/daughter had become a terrorist, I would have the courage to accept the fact that he/she went into this willingly and deserves everything that is coming to her/him..

    But, realistically, I know that, when it comes to immediate family, such "armchair analysis" goes out the window...

    Having said all of the afore, the simple fact is you cannot compare military on military actions to those of terrorist actions. It's been established that the Geneva Conventions On Treatment of Prisoners do not apply to terrorists..

    On another note, I hope everyone caught last Tuesday's episode of THE UNIT, as it dealt with just this subject matter... Also, if you want to catch just a small glimpse of the reality of CT ops, that show is closer to reality than anything out there in la-la land..


  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    For those of you wondering what Michale is talking about, the torture column link in the last paragraph of this article takes you to an article I wrote last September. This was the first epic comments fracas between myself and Michale.

    (Michale -- I linked to the HuffPost version of this article, and not the archived one here, JUST so people could see these comments. Saves you from having to type it all out again... you're welcome...)

    Heh heh.


  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Danke... :D


  4. [4] 
    CDub wrote:

    Too bad Huffpo archives don't give access to the whole comment record.

    But anyway, one common argument used in defense of torture is that it saves lives, but this is actually backwards, it costs lives, and extends wars.

    When enemies are under fire and they know that if they are captured, they'll be tortured, they are going to fight to the death. On the other hand, if they know they'll be taken care of and treated fairly, they'd probably be more inclined to surrender and sit out the rest of the war where they can get some medical attention and steady meals.

    We'd have a lot more surrenders and a lot less hatred brewing around the world.

  5. [5] 
    LindaR wrote:

    Your take on Pat Leahy's surrender inspires this title:

    DemoDuds and DemoStuds.

    You could feature the DemoDud of the week -- but balance it with the DemoStud of the week. And this is not meant in a sexist way! There was one day several years ago when Barbara Lee was the only stud in all of Congress.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:


    That is one HELLUVA great idea...



    If you need any help for the DemoDud, lemme know!! :D I've made a list and checked it twice...


    >Too bad Huffpo archives don't
    >give access to the whole comment record.

    Not sure what link you are looking at..

    That link gives access to the commentary and all 174 comments which (If memory serves) was a record for Chris... :D

    As to the rest of your post, once again, you are tying to apply military battlefield issues to terrorism...

    In essence, you are George W Bush trying to fit the Square Peg (Military vs Military issues) into the Round Hole (Terrorism and CT ops).. (Like the reference, Mr Cunningham?? :D )

    If it don't fit, forcing it ain't gonna make it fit..


  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    CDub -

    HuffPost has been constantly upgrading their comment-handling software. For instance, they now appear "newest first" instead of "newest last" in the list now. Because of this, sometimes the comments have problems for a few hours or a day or so. Reload the page, it'll probably show the comments.

    LindaR -

    "DemoDuds" is kinda catchy! Not so sure about "DemoStuds" though. What would Nancy Pelosi say? Heh heh.

    Michale -

    Yeah, but to win the Cave-In award of the week, it'd have to be RECENT stuff, so your list probably isn't going to work.

    And you're right, that column set a high-water mark for comments on HuffPost for me. One of my slogan contests came close, but didn't beat the Torture column.

    Thanks to all for commenting!


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those with sensitive eyes should avoid reading


    >Not so sure about "DemoStuds" though.
    >What would Nancy Pelosi say? Heh heh.

    For some reason, I am picturing Demi Moore in GI JANE screaming, "SUCK MY D*CK!!!" ;D

    Dunno why....


  9. [9] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    Ah, the power of TV! Every since Laugh-In and the wedding on Johny Carson Show, I first think of falsetto, uke playing Tiny Tim and have to mentally shift gears to Scrooge.

    Leahy should have a simple 4 word statement: No Documents, No confirmations.

    "the simple fact is you cannot compare military on military actions to those of terrorist actions" I assume the Iraqi family who loses a loved one to a raodside or plane dropped bomb, or indiscrimiate or yatgetted gunfire feels the same hatred toward the Americans, insurgents, or terrorist.

    @LindaR - "That is one HELLUVA great idea…" I concur. In fact if I didn't want to be labled an idiot I'd say "Dittos."

  10. [10] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    I was very impressed with the veterns comments from this article (10-6)in the WaPo: "Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII-Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'"

    [....]We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess...
    Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

    "I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

    When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

    "I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," [....]

    Torture is not an American value.

  11. [11] 
    CWCunningham wrote:

    I don't understand the huffpo problem. I've tried two browsers with more and more lenient script/adblocking settings, and finally turned off my firewall, but no matter which page of comments I choose, it only displays the first.

    When accessing a new article with firewalls on, adblocking on, tight scripting restrictions on, I can view all pages of comments normally. I'll try alerting Huffpo and see if they have any suggestions.

  12. [12] 
    CDub wrote:

    @Mr. cunningham,

    Love your cartoons!

    I'm having the same problems with huff. I tried Michales link as well with the same results.

    If you figure it out, let us know ... it's a stumper.

    Keep up the pixel carvings!


    Loved the link, there's some true war heroes, true Americans, I salute them. The only thing that seemed odd was when the article mentioned that 'moonbounces mushroom every weekend', had to google to find out what a moonbounce was.

    Good find!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:


    >I assume the Iraqi family who
    >loses a loved one to a raodside
    >or plane dropped bomb, or
    >indiscrimiate or yatgetted
    >gunfire feels the same hatred
    >toward the Americans, insurgents,
    >or terrorist.

    Most likely..

    But just because two different actions produce the same results (loved ones dying) doesn't make the actions that produced the same results are the same..


  14. [14] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:


    >I assume the Iraqi family who
    >loses a loved one to a raodside
    >or plane dropped bomb, or
    >indiscrimiate or yatgetted
    >gunfire feels the same hatred
    >toward the Americans, insurgents,
    >or terrorist.

    Most likely..

    But just because two different actions produce the same results (loved ones dying) doesn't make the actions that produced the same results are the same..

    If I understand ...

    Let's say your daughter is permanently disabled by a stray bullet from a firefight between police and drug dealers.

    Ballistics tests identify the shooter. Will you feel better if it turns out it was a police bullet, or a dealer's bullet? Will your daughter feel better one way or the other?

    I think the point is that unnecessary casualties can't be weighed in terms good guys and bad guys. They're simply tragic.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one is denying the tragedy...

    It's the "unnecessary" that I have a problem with..

    Who is to say what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary"??

    And, once again, since you put immediate family members in the crosshairs, all logic goes out the window..

    While "the end justifies the means" has gotten a bad rap, the simple fact is that SOMETIMES, it's a valid argument..


  16. [16] 
    CDub wrote:

    If your daughter were actively trying to attack one side, or the other, then I'm sure one side or the other would feel her injury necessary.

    If she were just riding her bike, where's the necessity that her life should be altered forever?

    It's important to note that ALL humans are family to someone.


    While "the end justifies the means" has gotten a bad rap, the simple fact is that SOMETIMES, it's a valid argument..

    So you're saying that if your daughter's life is destroyed so that drug dealers can have free access to your streets, you support that necessity.

  17. [17] 
    Michael Gass wrote:


    No, I think Michale's point was that if a police department guns down everyone in his (her?) neighborhood to catch the "bad guy's", he (she?) would be all for it because "the end justifies the means".

    It's a sick mentality... but hey... this is the mentality that found itself a President to cherish.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't mind the personal attacks, guys. Like I said, it's proof positive that my argument is valid.

    But let's leave my family out of things, K??

    Why not go with "a daughter" instead of "your daughter"...

    As to your questions, they are simply too ludicrous and moronic to address.


  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who STILL don't believe that Iran is involved in Iraq, killing US soldiers...

    HR 1585


  20. [20] 
    CDub wrote:

    The point of it being your daughter is not meant to be a personal attack, but it is meant to make you think about the circumstances of her debilitation in a personal manner.

    To demote her from 'your daughter' to 'a daughter' doesn't change the circumstances, outcome, or necessity, it only changes the answer to the question, "who cares".

    A lot of people don't care if someone else's daughter becomes a collateral damage statistic, But that doesn't mean no-one cares, or that no-one should care.

    Who is to say what is necessary and what is unnecessary? Each of us.

    Sure hope my family gets back safe and soon.

  21. [21] 
    CDub wrote:

    Your link doesn't work.

    You are aware that 60% of all foreign soldiers killing Americans in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, right? In fact, %72 of the 9-11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden himself are from Saudi Arabia.

    So is Saudi Arabia attacking Americans?

    As for the sense of the senate, they blew their credibility right along with Bush. I don't trust them, and I don't know many people who do.

  22. [22] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    "But just because two different actions produce the same results (loved ones dying) doesn't make the actions that produced the same results are the same.”

    So who has the higher moral ground - those who are trying to expel occupiers from their country, those who are retaliating against those supporting the occupiers, the occupiers, those seeking revenge against those who have brutalized them, foreigners who are supporting those who they see as fighting a common enemy, those just settling old scores?

    “Who is to say what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary"??

    WHO DOES? The occupiers or the occupied? The ‘might make right’ bunch or the ‘I’ll get you out of my country by any means necessary’ bunch? The ‘my god is better than your god’ bunch or the ‘my god is better than your god’ bunch? The 'we want you oil' bunch or the 'you can't steal it' bunch?

    There are several problems with the 'police force' analogy. The police are not illegally occupying the neighborhood. Police have a legal right to be in the neighborhood. In the vast majority of instances the ‘victims’ support the police. Even in the most egregious circumstances, there is an appearance of legality.

  23. [23] 
    spermwhale wrote:

    RE:DemoDuds and DemoStuds
    How about "REPULSIVE REPUBS or OVER-TESTOSEROMED REPUBS? (to offer balance to Demo Studs and Duds)
    This suggestion is not designed to engage the didactic and pedantic right wing whackos.


  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:


    >The point of it being your daughter
    >is not meant to be a personal attack,
    >but it is meant to make you think about
    >the circumstances of her debilitation
    >in a personal manner.

    Perhaps.. But, the original discussion was in regards to my daughter's own actions and the results of those action.. In her words, it's her own damn fault. That denigrated into her being of "innocent bystander" status which wasn't the issue of the original discussion. Therefore, I felt that bringing the family members into such discussions were outside of the scope of good taste..

    >So is Saudi Arabia attacking Americans?

    No, Saudi citizens are attacking Americans. But Saudia Arabia is not..

    It's been established that Iranian armed forces ARE attacking Americans and they are doing so at the direction of the Iranian chain of command...

    There is quite a difference between a country's citizens choosing to make attacks on US Armed Forces and a country's GOVERNMENT choosing to make attacks on US Armed Forces.

    Wouldn't you agree??

    >I don't trust them, and I don't
    >know many people who do.

    So, come Nov 2008, fire them...


    We are there at the behest of the legitimately elected Iraqi government.. Ergo, the insurgents are fighting against that government.

    >The police are not illegally
    >occupying the neighborhood.

    And the US is not illegally occupying Iraq..

    It's THAT simple...


  25. [25] 
    CDub wrote:

    Since I'm the one who asked the original question about your daughter, I'm quite confident that I know what the question was about. But thanks for playing.

    If it were truly established that Iranian forces are attacking Americans, we'd be in an overt war with Iran, rather than the covert one being waged by the MEK on our behalf. Bush is using every trick in the book to try and provoke them into something he can prove, as well as every trick in the book to prove things he wishes were true. Nobody's buying it ... well, you I guess.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:


    >Since I'm the one who asked the
    >original question about your
    >daughter, I'm quite confident that
    >I know what the question was about.

    I really don't give a rat's ass what you THINK your question was about. The simple fact is, you dragged my daughter into a discussion where it wasn't appropriate to do so. You COULD be mature about it and simply apologize. Or you could bluster and be all childish about things..

    Apparently you choose the latter..

    >Nobody's buying it … well, you I guess.

    Me, the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans in Congress, Bush, the entire Bush administration, the media...

    In short, EVERYONE knows that Iran has a hand in the Iraqi insurgency..

    Even shorter, the WHOLE world is wrong and YOU are right...

    Like I said, I wonder how *I* get the "arrogance" label around here...

    I guess it's just more of your anti-USA attitude peeking thru...


  27. [27] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    I really don't give a rat's ass what you THINK your question was about. The simple fact is, you dragged my daughter into a discussion where it wasn't appropriate to do so. You COULD be mature about it and simply apologize. Or you could bluster and be all childish about things..

    Apparently you choose the latter..

    I just asked a hypothetical question. If you choose to let that ruin your day, that's a shame, I'm honestly trying to be civil. Don't feel bad if I don't let it ruin my day.

    Like I said, I wonder how *I* get the "arrogance" label around here…

    I could hazard a guess, but I'm trying to be civil.

    Have a nice day.

  28. [28] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    We are there at the behest of the legitimately elected Iraqi government. “What utter nonsense. Of all the crap I read prior to the invasion, nothing I read indicated there had been a vote to invite us in.

    "In short, EVERYONE knows that Iran has a hand in the Iraqi insurgency.." Just like EVERYONE knew Saddam had WMD's. What an illogical conclusion! I don't know that. I do know that has been the Reich-wing talking points for some months now.

    BUT, let's for a short moment assume they have been invited in by the insurgents trying to take over their government. Using that tortured logic, Britain should have invaded France because the U.S. insurgents were getting aid from France. O, I forgot, Britain's military was so overextended they couldn't dare invade France.

  29. [29] 
    benskull wrote:

    michale, do you go on any righty sites? and if so which ones? just a question.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:


    >I just asked a hypothetical question.

    Oh.. I see.. So if someone asked a "hypothetical" question about a family member of yours in a disgusting and perverted situation, you would be perfectly OK with that??

    I won't bother to because I really don't like wallowing in the gutter that you, apparently, like to wallow in...

    Grow up son and show a little maturity, K???

    >I could hazard a guess, but
    >I'm trying to be civil.

    As with everything else... You failed...


    >nothing I read indicated there had
    >been a vote to invite us in.

    Psychotic dictators rarely allow votes that are contrary to their wishes..

    Surely, you don't admit that it was perfectly OK to leave a psychotic pervert such as Saddam Hussein in power...

    Where is your compassion???

    >Just like EVERYONE knew Saddam had WMD's.

    It's a documented FACT that Saddam possessed WMDs.. He even used them on his own people..

    Again I ask you.. Where is your compassion??

    >O, I forgot, Britain's military was so
    >overextended they couldn't dare invade France

    You are confusing capability with desirability...

    Oh wait.. I guess you are saying that "might makes right"... :^/


    >michale, do you go on any righty sites?
    >and if so which ones? just a question.

    I got banned from most of the "righty" sites... I am too liberal for their tastes...

    Chew on that...


  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what happens when the people demand and get "full disclosure"...


  32. [32] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    That's what happens when the people demand and get "full disclosure"…

    So it's the people's fault that the President's 'for profit' third party intelligence system isn't as professional as say, Valerie Plame?

    At least it's not political hacks leaking sensitive information to the main stream media. Or is it?

Comments for this article are closed.