Thomas Oliphant on Libby compares Bus and Kerry

[Mass]

Oliphant's has always been one of the more decent columnist in the Globe- Once again, even if this column is not about Kerry, he notices the difference between Kerry and Bush - Who behaves like the real president?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/01/the_coverup_worked/

As one of the victims of this farce, Kerry has carried himself with dignity. Not enough people noticed, but he made an important speech here last week about the ongoing war in Iraq, offering a plan to gradually withdraw US troops over the next 15 months as Iraqis shoulder the burden of their own security. The timetable is responsive to a request by a third of the country's Parliament.

By contrast, President Bush was back before a handpicked audience in Virginia last week, insisting that Americans are at war in Iraq so they won't have to battle terrorists in this country.

Kerry was merely offering ideas responsibly in the public square. Can anyone seriously claim that Bush is doing that and that he could have survived the surfacing of the truth a year ago?

[Mass]

1. And Thomas Oliphant seems to have a glimpse at the true issue

why Miller's silence is unacceptable. They are not protecting sources to get us information. They are denying us the right to an information, and we can only imagine what would have happened if the indictment had been held in October 04 rather than October 05.

It seems that most people dont get the reason for the coverup: it is not about Iraq, it is about the 04 election, which is why I have no sympathy for Miller. Her job is to give us information, not to hide it.

[beachmom]

2. He's right about the hand picked audience in Virginia

I had joked that I would be willing to go see * if it were convenient, but when I got my newspaper about the speech the next day I was flabbergasted by how the audience was described. They gave him a warm standing ovation and were just ga ga over him. There was a ton of military there, GOP hotshots from the area, and it ends up that tickets were given away to only the military and passed out by the Chamber of Commerce. There was a heckler there and 65 protestors outside, but I just thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Where are the "normal people"? You know, people who may have even voted for *, but have become disenchanted with him, as suggested in the polls. Or Democrats or Independents who didn't vote for him, but are curious what he has to say. These would be people who would not heckle but would like to ask him questions, not unlike the Q&A at Kerry's speech. They would be respectful but reflect the worry and concern they feel. But that's how out of touch the president has become. He won't even allow people who are disappointed in him, but for the good of the country, would like to see him get back on the right track. It's easy for him to dismiss a heckler or some protesters, but it would do him a lot of good to hear how regular people feel. But it's obvious, he's not interested in hearing from anybody but the converted.

[fedupinBushcountry]

15. Virginian Pilot

sucked up to Bush alright. Front page Presidential visit, that alone made me sick. Then I open it up to read the other heading, Bush Receives Warm Welcome, well of course you jackasses it was his own select group and the military.

Beachmom, did you read the story about the potholes? Come to find out Bush uses that line quite a bit what an idiot, comes to a city and the first thing he does is complain to the mayor who happens to be a Dem and a false complaint at that, for the way he came in was on the State owned Highway. He is such an arrogant asshole.

Then they lightened up the traffic situation by saying it was the usual morning rush hour traffic. Well I was not even on the highway and probably about 8 miles away on Virginia Beach Blvd. and Newtown at 10 in the morning stuck in traffic for a half an hour trying to get through 1 light. We don't have rush hour traffic at 10 in the morning. Geez. :grr:

Kudos to the protester that got in and for those standing outside in the cold rain.

[rox63]

3. Oliphant is great

He and Kerry go way back to the '70's.

[TayTay]

4. EJ Dionne caught this too

See his column in today's OpEd

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

[rox63]

27. Another article today notes that Kerry might have won

If the CIA Leak investigation hadn't been delayed. Makes me wonder if the press is suffering from a case of latent guilt.
This one is from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer1nov01,0,5045529.column

What Judy forgot: Your right to know

Robert Scheer
November 1, 2005

The most intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.

Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff — a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq — "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

-snip-

[whometense]

5. Thanks for posting this, Mass.

An excellent column. What would we do without Oliphant???

I just wrote a post on it here, if anyone's interested: http://toughenough.org/2005/11/coverup-worked.html

[TayTay]

6. Another good pondering article

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1604573,00.html

The next battlefield will be the 2006 mid-term elections. At stake is control of both houses of Congress, which Republicans fought for decades to wrest from the Democrats. 'If things continue to go south for the Republicans, their majority in both chambers could be in danger,' said Larry Haas, a former official in the Bill Clinton White House. The question is: can the Democrats take advantage?

As Miers was making her telephone call to Bush last Wednesday, John Kerry was giving a public speech at Gaston Hall in Washington. He spoke out against the Iraq war, defining his Iraq policy a mere 51 weeks after losing to Bush last year. At one point he introduced his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and remarked ruefully at the cheering crowd: 'If only more of you had moved to Ohio.'

That is typical of the mood of many senior figures in the Democratic Party. The Democrats are still engaged in a bout of introspection after last year's devastating loss. In fact, far from being able to capitalise on Bush's many crises, they are also in danger of becoming a victim of them. Iraq has split the Democrats. The favourite to secure the 2008 nomination, Hillary Clinton, is a hawk on Iraq. She has campaigned for a bigger military and refused to condemn the war. Kerry meanwhile - at last - has come out punching, sounding like his 1960s Vietnam protester incarnation. 'Despite all the troubles of the Republicans, the Democrats have not got a single message of a positive alternative to the Republicans,' said Haas 'The message, "We are not those guys", will not be enough.'

This article is right: the age of Bush will soo be over. We need people of vision to propose a positive way forward and not just a ruefull look backwards. I hope Dems start listening to this.

[whometense]

7. Interesting what they

say about Hillary...

[TayTay]

8. Isn't it though!

Sen. Clinton has been getting a lot of 'vague' press about her in a very general fashion. But she has not been getting specific praise for specific program announcements. Sen. Clinton is not 'leading' the Democratic Party at this point in time. (It's early, we shall see. But she is very, very cautious at this moment in time and I wonder if that is what people really want or if that is what is needed.)

[whometense]

9. Has any democrat really

responded to Kerry's Iraq speech yet? I don't understand the reason for their caution at this point; I really don't. Except that no one wants to follow Kerry because they don't want to acknowledge his leadership??? That's real mature...

[Mass]

14. No . With the exception of Feingold, they have ignored it.

THis morning, Panetta was on NPR complaining that Democrats should propose something on Iraq. The only mention of Kerry he made was that he did not present his agenda.

[karynnj]

18. What did Feingold say?

What did Pancetta mean - that Kerry has an agenda, which Pancetta is not willing to consider as the Democrats'? Did he give a clue as to which Democrat or Democrats should come out with a plan? (Clinton - B & H)

This sounds like a very interesting NPR show.

[Mass]

19. During his speech on the floor last week, Feingold listed

Kerry in the people who were leading the way concerning Iraq, with Dodd, Levin, Byrd and Kennedy.

No idea what Panetta meant but it seems to me that many of these think tanks spend their time saying the Democrats dont have agenda because they dont follow their agendas.

[karynnj]

24. Thanks, Mass

Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Levin, Byrd and Kennedy - that's a nice group for Kerry to be in.

Seems a backwards role for the think tank which you would think should be presenting well researched alternatives or backing up positions of the elected officials. In this contect, I wonder why Hillary is not speaking up.

[karynnj]

16. With many potentially running, they

might be weighing how to help themselves. For several, it may be an unwelcome event and they may prefer it sink rather than force them to take sides. I haven't heard one word from, Biden, Edwards, Bayh, H. Clinton (or B), the "anti-war hero" Clark, Vilsack, or Warner. I think many of these are following the conventional wisdom that in a time of war an anti-war candidate can't win. (Their mistake is that Kerry is not anti-war, but offering an exit plan that defines a goal. The next step is to push the administration to "define Victory" as Kerry asked Rice to do.) I hope they are pushed to choose - but I can't think of any of our talking heads with the integrity to do this.

Feingold is in a different position as he had called for withdrawal in a far vaguer plan - for him the question may be does he agree with some of the specifics of Kerry's plan. He does seem on the SFRC to be a Kerry ally - often picking up on Kerry's points to amplify them. The problem for him in supporting Kerry, is they are contending for being the viable antiwar candidate. When asked, I would expect him to talk about modifications he would make if he were Kerry. (Also, just as Kerry didn't run in 1992 with most of his "class" of Senators, possibly because of a very complicated person life - this may ultimately be Feingold's 2008 decision.) I would imagine they will become allies on the policy to the degree they can.

It will be inter sting to see whether the people not running will say if anything. Someone posted that Dean tried to talk about Kerry's plan but was shut up by Chris Matthews. Maybe Kennedy will say something - he agrees and backs Kerry. I would think some of the others like Lautenberg, Levin, etc might either call for the same thing (or some variation) in the Senate.

McCain commented - that he totally disagreed, but he respected John, "his friend" on the IMUS show earlier this week - what a disingenuous creep - not on disagreeing - but that he's back to publicly calling Kerry a friend, "forgetting" he denied their friendship last year.

[ginnyinWI]

35. Kucinich

This isn't anything new with him, but he puts forth a great argument about why the Dems can't hide from the issue of Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103105R.shtml

first four pph:

Monday 31 October 2005

Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no end in sight.

It is also increasingly unpopular. For all these reasons, plus the increased spotlight that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put on how much the war is draining resources desperately needed at home, Democrats should clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and Senate.

National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn't work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side - the president's party always loses seats in the mid-term election - the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. "Let no light show" between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership's strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush. Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.

He mentions the last two elections and how avoiding Iraq was bad for the Dems, but doesn't attack Kerry personally. He's a class act.

[karynnj]

10. I think the norm for the party not in office is that they are not all on

the same page. Gingrich's Contract for America was note worthy because it was unusual. I think it also gained in reputation when the Republicans took so many house seats.

The contract is interesting in that, to my memory, it didn't deal with all issues - just those that the conservatives all agreed on and weren't too far out for the moderates. It also was often pretty vague. The Democrats could do this by looking at what they have in common at. Like the Republicans, there are things we agree on at the generic level. We need a party statement at that level - ie - healthcare needs to be affordable, yes - but don't quibble over single payer or other implementation mechanism.

The obvious are all the new deal safety net issues that are challanged - the Princeton Study that Tay Tay instructed us to read - showed that it's not primarilly hot button social issues. With companies abandoning defined benefits pension plans and good health insurance plans, there have to be more people who will see the safety net as possibly being important to their own future. Add in correcting corruption (including the pre-war lies) and election reform - both apple pie type issues - and we have something a huge % of Democrats will agree with.

All the social issues can be dealt with without specificity with Sesame Street like lightness of respecting all people and equal rights. This is not minimizing the importance of these issues, it's just putting them in perspective.

Iraq is the big issue - and unless there's a sudden major change in Hillary and Bill's position - there can't be a consensus position. Kerry and Feingold certainly aren't going to back a stay the course positon. It will be interesting to see what the other possible candidates say. There is consensus that Bush screwed up the war - but both the lies and the future are more important.

Every candidate for Congress will be asked about Iraq and the position they will take has to be their own.

[TayTay]

11. Very true. Esp. for the Dems!

LOL! The Dems are a fractious party and always have been. But I agree with you that they should start to rally around basic items that do define the Democratic position and I also agree that at this point in time, those issues are economic in nature.

This is the area where the pickup votes live. That's really the ballgame right there. The Dems need to focus on their 'bread and butter' issues.

And Iraq is the behemoth that looms over everything else. If the Dems can represent themselves as being the ones with a reasonable plan for getting out of Iraq while at the same time not 'blowing up' Iraq, then that's game, set & match. It really is.

Sen. Kerry has taken a large step forward in proposing a workable plan. We have to see if more folks join him (and Sen. Feingold and Sen. Kennedy and the others who espouse this view.) This is a 'winner' for us.

[Mass]

12. I have to disagree with them - Kerry has been proposing thinhs in a

positive way. He has been proposing an agenda.

I am getting tired by people coalescing Hillary with Kerry.

[TayTay]

13. I am tired of it also, but

the tone of that article suggests that some people are beginning to notice that someone is proposing positive steps to take.

Baby steps with the media, baby steps!

[beachmom]

23. Kerry's Iraq Speech is a good first step

But there is a big issue that none of the liberal blogs seem all that interested in, and that is the radical Islamic ideology spreading all over the world. Not to be mistaken with the religion of Islam, this extreme radical ideology, known as Islamism (of if you prefer, militant jihadism), is a huge threat to the civilized world, including both liberals and conservatives. Yet I can only get info about it from andrewsullivan.com. This site, dailykos, TPM are so obsessed with Bush and the Iraq War, that they forgot about the guys who every day plan and scheme to kill us, and are waiting for the moment that they acquire WMD (most likely they'll get it from the former Soviet Union). This is where Dems will get creamed over and over again -- if they continue not to show that the "get it", about the threat of this ideology and the jihadists' murderous methods.

Talking about terrorism, al Qaeda, OBL, Zaqawi, etc. does not amount to capitulation to the * administration. I think it's fair to say that OBL wants us ALL dead (or converted to his ideology), regardless who we voted for or whether we live in a blue or red state. And there is an opening here for Kerry and other Dems to show that the * administration has become so distracted with Iraq, that they are failing to focus on the bigger picture of global terror. Maybe because * uses the words terror, terrorists, jihadists, 9/11, etc. so much and with such cynicism just to gain votes, that liberals feel the words don't have any meaning. Well, they DO have meaning, and I really want Dems to start talking about this threat, but attaching their own meaning to those words, the broader context of it in the world, and how we can beat back both the violence of terrorists AND the ideology itself.

Of course, you know who I think can do this better than anyone else, given his extensive experience with studying their financing methods, his years in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and how when he studies a subject, he learns ALL aspects to it!! Kerry should keep talking about Iraq, and how to get out of there, but then he needs to take the next step and explain how his Iraq policy will make us safer AND what he would do about the scourge of terrorism in the world. Liberal bloggers may not care, so obsessed they are with *, but your rank and file Americans want a strong and competent president whose #1 priority is the national security of the USA.

[Mass]

25. Some care - they see that the fact that we are in Iraq and support

the corrupted regimes of the ME, is responsible for the terrorism ideology to spread as a reactionary movement.

Kerry has been one of the strongest supporter of policies that would fight this by effectively supporting Democratic movements and stopping being dependant of these corrupted regimes (Saudis for a start, but not only).

The keyword is energy independance and it has been one of the main theme of Kerry's campaign (and I am happy to see that the theme is starting to resonate within the Democratic party, thanks to high oil prices).

[beachmom]

29. I agree, Mass, but I would like to see it all put together in one

vision. And I would like to see a Democratic approach to terrorism that's put in positive terms. I mean without saying -- * did this, and that's wrong. Instead I would like to hear a vision for fighting terrorism, a detailed discussion of who the jihadists are and their ideology, how different aspects of the gov. will fight it. Because, right now, I am only getting this from conservative outlets. And this saddens me. I think there's a better way than the Republican tough talk, "let's just invade other countries" approach, but what I mostly hear from lib pundits and blogs is criticism of *, instead of an alternative vision. It's more like, by the way, energy independence is a good idea. And now back to our regularly scheduled program of * bashing.

It's not just up to the Dem leadership. It's the job of the liberal punditocracy, too. And all the way down to the grassroots and the netroots. But instead it's * conspiracy theories all the time, day and night. Yeah, so BushCo. are a bunch of crooks and liars -- JK already told us that last year, and he should know!! But at the end of the day, OBL and his minions are still out there. So what are we going to do about it, when * has gone?

[ginnyinWI]

28. he does understand so much about this issue!

Remember, he wrote a book about it several years back. Our current administration, with its idea that the only solution is military, has flopped badly and has increased the terrorism problem! You would think they'd get a clue. Kerry is saying, and always has said that you need other means: intelligence ops, political solutions.

I think the Dems are going to have to decide on a position on Iraq, because it is such a big issue with voters. I can see why Kerry wanted to come out with something in public, even though there's a snowball's chance that anyone in the WH will act on it. The neocon ideology is firmly set, and the only hope is to either vote them out or neutralize them politically.

If current attitudes toward the GOP hold until next year, we'll have more Dems on the Hill--that's a start. Didn't I hear somewhere that people decide on who they'll vote for as much as a year in advance.

[JI7]

17. did anyone listen to McCain on Imus ?

i saw a mention somewhere that McCain said he disagrees with Kerry's plan on there. i was wondering if he said any more or gave any reasons.

[Mass]

20. No cut and run - We have to stay as long as it takes

(I did not hear him, just guessing). McCain is whoring to Bush and very hawkish anyway in his onw right.

[LittleClarkie]

32. "As long as it takes" .... WHEN THE HELL IS THAT!?

What kind of an answer is THAT? So how will we know how long that is? What will it "take"? Could he have coughed up any more vapid a phrase? Could we get some specifics here?

[TayTay]

21. I wouldn't be surprised. McCain is a genuine Hawk.

He has never agreed with Kerry on the war. This is not new.

BTW, just as an interesting aside, I saw Cindy Sheehan wrote this (herself) on DKos in a thread about Iraq and the necessity of a pull-out.

i don't agree (4.00 / 7)

with a lot that john kerry says, but he said:
Our military presence there is the problem, not the solution.

we need our military presence out asap...let's use our words to solve this problem, with an international coalition of master word users...not condi..she is a master liar and war monger.

by CindySheehan on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:55:19 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/31/194047/69

This was written in response to a person who, very politely, asked Cindy if getting out of Iraq now meant we would just have to go in later to fix the problems withdrawal would create.

I would say that Cindy's post was very respectful. That's an interesting indicator, all by itself.

[karynnj]

22. From the MSNBC website

McCain was with that obnoxious Col Jacobs.

COL. JACK JACOBS: I've had a few of those, yes.

But at the end of the day, it's some 19-year-old kid with a bayonet who's got to actually seize the terrain and hold it. There's a lot of talk about the situation now in Iraq, and how we've got the place, and now we're having a hard time holding onto it. And we always have to go back to first principles. Jacobs Rule Number 3A says that it always takes more assets to hold onto anything than it does to take it. I've taken lots and lots of objectives, by myself and with others, and it takes more to hold on to it. I've been run off of plenty of them.

MCCAIN: I think you would also agree, though, the worst strategy kind of strategy is to go into a place and kill people and then leave. And that's what we've been doing up until very recently, and that's one of the reasons why this war has been badly mishandled.

COL. JACK JACOBS: I agree with you.

IMUS: What happens now, though? I mean, I keep asking that every time you're on.

MCCAIN: I think we continue to try to train and equip Iraqis so that they can take over the responsibilities. You know, it's a long discussion, but the fact is we can't afford to lose, in my view, and the mistakes we've made have been serious, but I think we can still prevail. And that means, as far as the United States is concerned, American public opinion is cutting back on the casualties. That's key.

COL. JACK JACOBS: Indeed, I'm concerned that we will, for political expediency, with draw precipitously.

MCCAIN: It's a terrible mistake. In fact, my friend Senator John Kerry advocated withdrawal last week. I strongly disagree.

COL. JACK JACOBS: I agree with you there. You know, we're going to leave a lot of advisors with Iraqi unites.

------------------------------------------------------------------

So the comment is just to disagree with it - incorrectly present it as withdrawal - when it is far more complex. MCCAIN IS A CREEP ans a liar who I hope Kerry never trusts again.

[beachmom]

26. I don't have a problem with what McCain said

Kerry's plan was a withdrawal plan, tied to political benchmarks. McCain respectfully disagrees. I'm alright with that. But it has sparked debate, which is a good thing. I really do want these senators to get together and have a good old fashioned debate about this. Because obviously, such a debate is not happening in the WH. Only when there is an honest debate, can we begin to come to possible solutions to this problem. When McCain said he disagreed he was being perfectly honest. I mean, if it were up to him, we would STILL be in Vietnam today. That's fine. But I respectfully disagree with McCain. Calling him names doesn't does not negate the fact that he was being honest about disagreeing with Kerry's plan. Which is why he as a VP candidate for Kerry would have been a disaster.

[karynnj]

34. Sorry I called him names, it was wrong - but they were at least clean

I really don't think Kerry's plan is primarily a withdrawal plan and the fact that McCain brought it up and characterized it just like that sets a wrong perception. In the context of the previous statement about withdrawing precipitously and the mention of it being political - he clearly was putting Kerry in a bad light.

That said, yeah they do disagree and also you are right that he is not lying about Kerry's plan - just not telling the whole truth.

[beachmom]

36. Sorry, Karynnj, my last post may have come out a little snippy

For some reason, I feel the need to defend McCain, maybe because I share melanoma with him now and feel a bit of kinship. No, I didn't like some of the stuff he did during the '04 campaign, but he's one of the better Republicans, when I look at the various issues out there. Having said that, I probably wouldn't vote for him for pres. because he's too hawkish for me. But, it looks like Kerry has forgiven him, and at least had breakfast with him. Why can't we?

[karynnj]

37. You were totally right -

I should have said what I said in the later post rather than name calling which I shouldn't have done.

I think the reason I react to McCain is because of the pass he gets from everyone and because he uses it so well. (ugly secret it is jealousy)

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. Because what he did to Kerry was worse than what Bush did

Seriously, if I had forged a bond with someone and came to call them friend, then they abandon me at my time of greatest need, that's unforgivable, sorry. I expected Bush and Rove to engage in filthy smear tactics - what I didn't expect is that it would be silently abetted by McCain. McCain denied that he was ever friends with Kerry and, after one brief moment of conscience, allowed himself to be intimidated into silence about the Swift Boat lies. Kerry and other Senate Vietnam vets stood up for McCain when Bush was smearing his service, but none of them could manage to return the favor, to put their own favor within the party on the line, for what was right. There's a word for that, and it's cowardice.

McCain gets NO sympathy from me. He was silent when it counted, and now that that whole unpleasant business is over with, wants to be "friends" again? Talk about fair-weather. "Friends" aren't chummy with you when it's convenient for them to be so, and then abandon you when you need them. I haven't heard anything about Kerry forgiving McCain, and honestly, I hope he doesn't. He ought to know better now than to ever trust McCain again.

[fedupinBushcountry]

41. No sympathy here either

Instead of choosing honor, integrity, character, and friendship, he chose politics as usual. Shame on him.

[whometense]

42. I'm in complete agreement with both of you.

He showed himself to be unworthy of Kerry's friendship. I don't think Kerry will be hurt by him twice - he learns fast.

What I really can't fathom is McCain's abandonment of his country's best interests. Mr. Environment? Mr. Straight Talker? Mr. Campaign Finance Reform? Puh-leeze. He knew, and he still endorsed the candidate who opposed all of McCain's own favorite policies. He's a sellout and a hack, and no better than someone like Frist. Maybe even worse, because he really could have made a difference and chose not to.

[JI7]

43. i can understand the personal connection you feel , but my problem

with McCain was that it wasn't exactly honest. just as when those who claim to be anti war claim anyone who doesn't call for withdrawal NOW has the same position as Bush.

just as Kerry's position on Vietnam wasn't just about getting out but lasts into current days with dealing with the pow/mia issues, normalizing relations and other things to help make the lives on both sides better.

[karynnj]

45. Wasn't McCain on the WMD committee

that failed to do part 2???

If so, Mr. Integrity has a problem.

[beachmom]

47. Look, guys, I understand your feelings and respect them

But Kerry did use the word "withdrawal" in that speech, and let's face it. McCain wants to run in '08, Kerry wants to run in '08, so this is really a debate for the presidency. You can be annoyed with what he said (I was), but it wasn't "whorish" or dishonest. It was his take on Kerry's speech, and if it comes to it, Kerry can respond to McCain, although at this point, I doubt he will (he understands the race for the presidency is a marathon, not a sprint).

By the way, I think McCain acted like an ass last year, and he was thin skinned during 2000. He's just currently getting a free pass by the press. This will change once presidential season hits. Although obviously McCain is a tough cookie (his years as a POW), I think in the political realm Kerry is tougher, as far as being able to take hits, and remaining strong. Not sure that's the case with McCain. I saw that moment when McCain (in 2000) was bitching about the smears against him, and * just said "That's politics. It's nothing personal". I have to say, Kerry got that in '04. Maybe internally he was upset by the SBL smears, but externally, in terms of the campaign, he never showed a thin skin, and remained focussed on what was important. I'll say that until I'm blue in the face. I'm tired of people saying he "didn't fight back". When it's all blatant lies and those lies are debunked, and the media still shows them, precisely how are you supposed to fight that? The only thing that could have been done better were to have his crewmates on cable news every night defending him, but since they're not professional partisan talking heads, that may have been unrealistic.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I love him. Did I read that he's been sick though? Is he okay?

Or am I mistaking him for someone else?

[Mass]

31. No, he has an aneurysm (sp?) at the beginning of the year

but he is fine now.

[LittleClarkie]

33. Oh whew. I enjoyed seeing him on Franken. Is he on often?

And I taped part of his appearance with John. You can tell John likes and trusts him.

[whometense]

40. He seems to have a regular spot

on Franken - third hour on Thursdays. I'm kind of tired of Franken, but I always tune in on Thursdays to hear Oliphant. I like Joe Conason too (Fridays).

[LittleClarkie]

44. I'm just getting introduced to Franken on Sundance

I'd never heard him before. I give him kudos for lending his name recognition to a flegling endeavor.

But what taste! Oliphant on Thurday! Conason on Friday! Be still my heart!

[whometense]

46. He is really pretty good.

His self-absorption can wear a bit thin after a while (self-absorption=comedians' standard character flaw). He was easier to take with a co-host, though I wasn't that fond of his first one. I guess every comic needs a straight man. :-)

[Mass]

39. Scheer has it just right here -

What Judy forgot - Times reporter protected administration instead of your right to know

The most intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."
...

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech.

The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, but the reporters who fought to avoid testifying to the grand jury in the investigation that snared Libby upheld neither. They were acting as knowing accomplices to a top White House official's attempt to discredit a whistle-blower.
...

The 1st Amendment protection is not a license for mischief on the part of journalists eager to do the government's bidding. To the contrary, it was conceived by the founders to prevent government from subverting the free press in an effort to misinform the public. Unfortunately, that is precisely what occurred here.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19821