Dems Taking All-Or-Nothing View on Iraq


By ANNE FLAHERTY,AP
Posted: 2007-07-25 03:37:51
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic leaders are taking an all-or-nothing approach on Iraq, a tack that leaves its members empty-handed for now but keeps the party in lockstep with demands by anti-war groups.

At the end of the month, lawmakers were expected to break for their August recess without passing veto-proof legislation that would significantly challenge President Bush's Iraq policies. Such a feat would have required Democrats to soften their stance or compromise with Republicans - something anti-war groups don't want them to do and a move party leaders have shown no interest in.

"Our goal is the total political collapse of support for Bush's war," said Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for the anti-war group MoveOn.org, which rose to prominence in last year's elections. "And this August gives us an even better opportunity to achieve that."

Surely you mean "pwns"

Nwrt

Nwrt

I'll be very interested to see how things pan out. The Dems surely are pandering to the far-left blogosphere...but I wonder if that is not just a new incarnation of "playing to the base" during primary season. If it is, then you should see the pandering slow down (or at least become more subtle) after the party's nominee is selected.

I think that makes sense, as it's hardly as if the blogs pull a lot of weight with the general electorate, but they are certainly very reflective of the mood of the party activists.

If the Dems think they has play for the blogs through to the end of the general election, then I think they are setting the stage for a big loss. They can certainly continue to beat on the war, as the general electorate hates the war, and perhaps that will be enough to sate the bloggers, but at some point they have to move to the middle. (Though a lot depends on who the Republicans pick. Giuliani is pretty middle of the road on paper, so the dems will have to make a big swing to the middle in order to defeat him...Romney seems further right—albeit in a Kerry-esque Flip-Flopper™ sort of way—so the Dems might not need as big a shift to the middle against him).

The Democrats were elected largely on the basis of the Iraq war. They are expected to do something about it. MoveOn represents many of the liberal base of the party. I think they can't worry about a legislative fix, only defunding this war now can end it. Then they should impeach the lot.

MoveOn: "We Bought" the Democratic Party
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 10, 2004

A standard “action alert” has provided a rare glimpse inside the mind of the Shadow Party.

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

To clarify, the hysterical Left believes not only that America’s oldest political party is for sale, but that George Soros has already made the down payment.

Such a view would line up with Soros’ own designs. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer (no conservative, she) quotes an unidentified friend describing the billionaire leftist’s modus operandi: “Money is just a tool for him. It’s how he manipulates a lot of things in his life.” Soros spent $18 million in his attempt to buy this year’s presidential election. Now he’s setting his sights a little lower, but his desire to “manipulate” our democracy remains.

MoveOn’s contemptuous assertion comes the weekend Democratic state party officials are to meet, interview, and potentially endorse candidates seeking to head the Democratic National Committee. MoveOn has set up a campaign urging its followers to warn party officials against electing a centrist. Such a scenario, the e-mail assures, is a political loser.

I thought Mc Cain/Feingold got the money and special interest out of Politics?

MoveOn.Org PAC Raised $31,870,607 In 2004 Cycle. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• MoveOn.Org PAC Gave $203,442 To Democrat Candidates And $0 To Republican Candidates In 2004. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)


MoveOn.Org Background:

“The MoveOn Family Of Organizations Consists Of Three Entities.” “MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views, and qualifications of candidates for public office.” (MoveOn.Org Website, www.moveon.org, Accessed 3/18/05)

MoveOn.Org Email Claims It Bought And Owns Democrat Party: “Now It’s Our Party: We Bought It, We Own It, And We’re Going To Take It Back.” (Adam C. Smith, “Unshaven, Unbowed And In Our Face,” St. Petersburg Times, 2/18/05)

“[M]oveOn.Org, The Pro-Kerry Advocacy Group That Spent $21-Million On The 2004 Election …” (Eric Deggans, “The Party Poopers,” St. Petersburg Times, 1/16/05)

MoveOn.Org Voter Fund Established On September 18, 2003 And Raised $12,558,215 In 2004 Cycle. (IRS 527 Committee Search Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed 9/30/03; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

Top Donors To MoveOn.Org Voter Fund 527 Were Herbert And Marion Sandler ($2,505,014), Peter B. Lewis ($2,500,000), George Soros ($2,500,000) and Stephen Bing ($971,427). (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• Sandlers Were Fourth Largest Donors To Democrat 527 Groups, Giving $14,009,039, Including To The Joint Victory Campaign And Citizens For A Strong Senate. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• Peter Lewis And Billionaire Philanthropists George Soros And John Sperling Have “Bankrolled The Pro-Pot Movement.” (Joel Stein, “The New Politics Of Pot; Can It Go Legit?” Time, 11/4/02)

o Lewis Was Second Largest Donor To Democrat-527 Groups In 2004 Cycle, Giving $23,997,220, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, ACT NOW PAC, America Votes 2004 And Democracy For America. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• Soros Said A “Supremacist Ideology” Guides Bush Administration, Which Reminds Him Of Nazis. (Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets Vs. Bush,” The Washington Post, 11/11/03)

o Soros Contributed The Most Money, $27,030,105, Of Any Donor To 527s In 2004 Cycle, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, ACT NOW PAC, And Democracy For America. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• Bing Described As “Playboy-Producer-Philanthropist” (Eric Alterman, “The Hollywood Campaign,” The Atlantic Monthly, 9/04)

o Bing Was Fourth Largest Contributor, Giving $13,952,682, To Democrat-527s In 2004 Cycle, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, Voices For Working Families, And Campaign for Americas Future. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

o “[B]ing Is The Largest Donor In Natural Resources Defense Council History, Having Pledged A Year Ago More Than $10 Million Over Four Years To Build A Climate Center To Focus Attention In The United States On Global Warming.” (Rachel Abramowitz, “A Player In Every Sense,” Los Angeles Times, 7/3/02)

o "[T]he Constant Refrain From The Politically Connected In Hollywood Is ‘What We Need More Than Anything Is More Steve Bings.’” (Eric Alterman, “The Hollywood Campaign,” The Atlantic Monthly, 9/04)

o Bing, Who Enjoys Strip Clubs And Las Vegas Casinos, Lives In Two-Bedroom Bel-Air Home But Bought Seven Adjoining Houses With Plan Of Demolishing Them To Create “Palatial Grounds.” “A determined bachelor, he lives in a small two-bedroom home in Bel-Air but has bought the seven adjoining houses with the intention of knocking them down and creating palatial grounds. He’s a fan of strip clubs, has been a high roller in Las Vegas for years, and yet he can discuss the dense Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson.” (Rachel Abramowitz, “A Player In Every Sense?” Los Angeles Times, 7/3/02)

MoveOn.Org PAC Raised $31,870,607 In 2004 Cycle. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

• MoveOn.Org PAC Gave $203,442 To Democrat Candidates And $0 To Republican Candidates In 2004. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 3/18/05)

The Democrats were elected largely on the basis of the Iraq war. They are expected to do something about it. MoveOn represents many of the liberal base of the party. I think they can't worry about a legislative fix, only defunding this war now can end it.

I agree. That is the big issue that got them elected... they had better do something or that'll look pretty bad for them. (not saying that I agree with anything they are doing... just agreeing with your assessment of the situation).

Then they should impeach the lot.

I disagree.

~String

Moveon.org owns the Dems like the religious right owns the Repubs?!:eek: Shriek all you want BR, your party is sunk. Gotta do better than this to turn the 15% that bend over for the religious right to a majority.:p

BR is one of the RR.

You mean like the Neo-Cons took over the Republican party? That's politics! And no, McCain-Feingold did not take the money out of politics.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vERcTSqw7Ko&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mn-UWfJsj5U&mode=related&search=

your party is sunk.

I love hearing people using fatalistic statements like that... as if it were true. On day, in your lifetime (unless you're really old), the worm will turn-- people will be accusing the Dems of conspiracy and corruption and then the Republicans will be back in office doing the exact same thing.

You would think that people had a memory longer than that of a goldfish.

~String

You would think that people had a memory longer than that of a goldfish. You'd have to remember the late 1800s to recall anything like what the Reps have been up to these past few years.

Not even Nixon or Reagan matched this zoo story, let alone any Dem.

How about Carter and Johnson? They did a bang up job, Ice...

How about Carter and Johnson? Carter did little, and some of it OK; Johnson did much good - and quit in good time.

No comparison with Reagan, even, for circus act - let alone the one, the only, the inimitable Dubya.

Find me another Presidential incident to compare with Jeff Gannon's tenure as White House "reporter", for example.

What did Johnson do that was "good?" And was it "good" enough to overcome the disaster of Vietnam?

You want a presidential incident? Refresh your memory with something called the Gulf of Tonkin (a far cry worse than fudged intelligence, I'd say). Or read up on how Johnson actually ordered the American intelligence community to spy on Americans (as opposed to Bush's domestic wire-tapping fiasco).

How about Carter and Johnson? They did a bang up job, Ice...Johnson led the greatest standard of living increase for whites in US history. The 1960's under LBJ were a flourishing time for the US consumer. The Great Society propped our standard of living up 3 generations in a few years. Whites were the beneficiaries of course.

Carter is easy to pick on but he inherited an economy made by REPUBLICANS. Nixon & Ford sucked and left it in tatters. The world was unstable from backward conservative US leaders too. Carter took the driver seat in a bad time. When righties boast that Clinton's bursting successful economy was because of Reagan and Bush preceding him, I apply that same reasoning to Carter inheriting a BAD Repub economy.

So why don't you apply the same reasoning to the success you lay at the feet of LBJ? He inherited an economy bolstered by Kennedy's tax cuts and Eisenhower's strengthening of the military industrial complex.

And though I can't substantiate it, (which you didn't bother to do, either) I'd argue it was the 1950s, what with its aforementioned spending in Eisenhower administration, the GI Bill and a general recovery from WW2, is the decade that led to greatest increase in the standard of living for Americans — not the 1960s. I'd also argue that the Great Society and LBJ's war on poverty were not as successful as people claim. Plus, as I mentioned in an earlier post, whatever domestic successes LBJ had are moot next to Vietnam, a war he had a major hand in engineering and esculating...

You want a presidential incident? Refresh your memory with something called the Gulf of Tonkin (a far cry worse than fudged intelligence, I'd say). Judgment call. I'd say the "fudged intelligence" was worse, because it involved wider and longer-lasting corruption and damaging of agencies public and private, and greater loss of face in foreign affairs.

And besides, we needed an incident to compare with the Jeff Gannon affair.

Or read up on how Johnson actually ordered the American intelligence community to spy on Americans (as opposed to Bush's domestic wire-tapping fiasco). Johnson was before FISA, acting when the legal loophole allegedly existed. Granted it was always dishonest, but after FISA it is also defiant in a new and different way.

And W's policy was not, and is not, a fiasco. It's a launched, ongoing, successful program in operation right now.
Plus, as I mentioned in an earlier post, whatever domestic successes LBJ had are moot next to Vietnam, a war he had a major hand in engineering and esculating... Johnson did not start the Vietnam War, is responsible for four of its thirteen + years, and forswore office when his escalation went sour.

And W's war came after Vietnam.

Judgment call. I'd say the "fudged intelligence" was worse, because it involved wider and longer-lasting corruption and damaging of agencies public and private, and greater loss of face in foreign affairs.

It is a judgment call, and frankly, a hell of call for you to posit that Vietnam and more than 50,000 dead is less of a mistake than the current situation in Iraq. But then what other call can you make, what with your obvious biases?

And besides, we needed an incident to compare with the Jeff Gannon affair.

Off hand, I have to admit I know of none that are so subject-specific. But the Gannon incident is small potatoes compared to everything else the current administration has handled, which is why I chose to focus on the larger issues of history when I turned to the past presidents. Nobody (other than a few partisans and journalists) know who Jeff Gannon is. Even less people will remember his name 30 years from now, so attempting to broad brush an administration with such minutia seems kind of silly to me, but you're free to pursue whatever rhetorical tricks you like.

Johnson was before FISA, acting when the legal loophole allegedly existed. Granted it was always dishonest, but after FISA it is also defiant in a new and different way.

FISA has nothing to do with the illegality of Johnson's actions. Let me quote to you from Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA, which I am currently reading: "In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of the CIA became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic (spying) operation, code-named CHAOS. ... The agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations. ... At (President Johnson's) command ... the National Security Agency turned its immense eavesdropping powers on American citizens."

All of this was ordered by Johnson in 1967 and illegally carried out by the CIA and the NSA, who both have charters preventing them from domestic operations. The operations were above and beyond anything the Bush administration has done, with its so-called "domestic wire-tapping" programs and warrant violations.

Johnson did not start the Vietnam War, is responsible for four of its thirteen + years, and forswore office when his escalation went sour.

I never said he started the Vietnam War, though in truth, I think he probably did. I blamed Johnson for the war's escalation, which even you admit to. America's involvement prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident was largely through military advisers, covert forces and CIA slight-of-hand. It was Johnson who seized on the fabricated attack as a reason to ratchet up the bombing, increase troop levels and turn a lukewarm conflict into a full-fledged war.

And W's war came after Vietnam.

So what? The point I was trying to make is that there is a historical parallel between Bush's misguided intelligence offerings and Johnson's invented episode on the high seas 40 years ago. The difference, I think, is that the latter of the two deceptions is much more detrimental, so far as honesty and effect are concerned.

The larger point is that you refuse to criticize or to accept valid historical criticism of any past Democratic presidents. Your bias could not be more clear and more pathetic...

Screw Democrats.

Screw Republicans.

Vote third party.

I'll second that, provided a viable third party surfaces. The current choices are an assortment of the lunatic fringe.

It is a judgment call, and frankly, a hell of call for you to posit that Vietnam and more than 50,000 dead is less of a mistake than the current situation in Iraq. We - you - were comparing the Gulf of Tonkin mendacity with the WMD lies, not the Vietnam War with the Iraq War.

As you are not stupid, I am forced to take that kind of twisting as deliberate. You've made a habit of it - have you noticed?

BTW: the size of the Iraq War mistake is yet to be known. It shows signs of expanding into neighboring countries, as Vietnam did, and of engendering blowback at levels much higher than Vietnam's. Even just the current rate of American casualty would make it ballpark comparable to Vietnam, after more than 13 years, allowing for the great advances in combat medical care. And of course in money and resources wasted it has already equaled that damaging financial wrench.
FISA has nothing to do with the illegality of Johnson's actions. ? They would be in violation of FISA, now. They were justified as "national security" then, quasi-legal via Presidential authority - and hidden, which is important.
The operations were above and beyond anything the Bush administration has done, with its so-called "domestic wire-tapping" programs and warrant violations. Are you sure? 300,000 names, NSA involvement, etc, is not above and beyond the current efforts - modern technology has reduced the need for individual agents or other physical resources, for equivalent effort. And as I pointed out: the current program is not hidden, but publically acknowledged. That is a new level. That alone makes it worse.

The larger point is that you refuse to criticize or to accept valid historical criticism of any past Democratic presidents. And, as always with you, your "larger point" is an essentially trivial and dishonest personal attack unrelated to the subject of the thread or the argument at hand. It is not true that I "refuse to accept" such things, simply because I think your arguments in the matter of the thread topic are garbage. I have not disagreed with or diminished Democratic evils at all - I simply insist that the current administration's evils are greater - and that they follow from the Republican Party's ideology and practice since Reagan.

We - you - were comparing the Gulf of Tonkin mendacity with the WMD lies, not the Vietnam War with the Iraq War. As you are not stupid, I am forced to take that kind of twisting as deliberate. You've made a habit of it - have you noticed?

Twisting? The only twisting I see here is your rhetorical attempts to not lose an argument or admit an error. Many posts ago you made a statement that compared Bush's administration to Reagan and Nixon, your other favorite presidential whipping posts. That screamed out to be challenged, and challenge it I did. I pointed out Carter and Johnson had problems and foibles similar to those of the current boob in office — you've attempted to gloss over these foibles and minimize their importance so that your original premise can stand.

You asked me for an incident to bolster my point. I gave you one: The Gulf of Tonkin. To me, this came naturally, as you've spoken at length about the "fudged" WMD intelligence that led to the War in Iraq. The Gulf of Tonkin, by my estimation, is much worse, because it was a madeup event (justified after the fact) that led the most costly foreign policy debacle in this nation's history. So no, I wasn't twisting, I was dealing with an apples-to-apples comparison of two administrations, the falsehoods they promoted and the effects of those falsehoods. I don't think talking the wars that resulted from those falsehoods is "twisting". It's dealing with historical effects.

BTW: the size of the Iraq War mistake is yet to be known. It shows signs of expanding into neighboring countries, as Vietnam did, and of engendering blowback at levels much higher than Vietnam's. Even just the current rate of American casualty would make it ballpark comparable to Vietnam, after more than 13 years, allowing for the great advances in combat medical care. And of course in money and resources wasted it has already equaled that damaging financial wrench.

You're right in the sense that if the war in Iraq drags on it could be as costly as Vietnam, but that's speculation on your part, not an argument based on the facts as they are known today. Right now, Iraq has not even come close to equally the social and political strife caused by Vietnam, nor has it claimed as many lives and military material.

They would be in violation of FISA, now.

Now is irrelevant. As you pointed out, FISA was not around then. However, charters and laws of acceptable behavior were, and Johnson, the CIA and NSA clearly violated them with a systamatic approach.

They were justified as "national security" then, quasi-legal via Presidential authority - and hidden, which is important.

They were justified as such, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Or do you subscribe to Nixon's notion that if the president does something, it's not illegal? I doubt you do. Anyway, you rant and rave about Bush supposedly violating the law, which hasn't been proven, and trying to keep it a secret from your "rightie" news media (Bush failed to keep it secret, darn those rightie reporters), then gloss over Johnson's actions? Some moral consistency would be nice...

Are you sure? 300,000 names, NSA involvement, etc, is not above and beyond the current efforts - modern technology has reduced the need for individual agents or other physical resources, for equivalent effort. And as I pointed out: the current program is not hidden, but publically acknowledged. That is a new level. That alone makes it worse.

How is it worse? It's out in the open and can be investigated by reporters and curious Congressmen. I won't bother to respond with your speculation about what the NSA is doing now, as you've given me no facts.

And, as always with you, your "larger point" is an essentially trivial and dishonest personal attack unrelated to the subject of the thread or the argument at hand.

How is stating that you "refuse to criticize or to accept valid historical criticism of any past Democratic presidents" and calling such pigheaded behavior a bias amount to a personal attack? It has nothing to do with you as a person and everything to do with the expression of the obviously one-sided views you continue to deluge this thread and this web site with. When trying to smear Bush you chose to compare him to two other Republicans. Now it is possible that these Republicans are in fact the most egregious examples available for your argument, but I doubt it. And I've posted facts that dispute it.

It is not true that I "refuse to accept" such things, simply because I think your arguments in the matter of the thread topic are garbage. I have not disagreed with or diminished Democratic evils at all - I simply insist that the current administration's evils are greater - and that they follow from the Republican Party's ideology and practice since Reagan.

So you accept them? That's good. I am curious, though, what you think is "garbage," considering I've argued with historical facts, whereas all you've done is state your opinion and argue for it with other opinions? If you want to sway people that Bush is worse than everyone else, a point which will always be a subjective judgment no matter what either of us thinks, I suggest you start producing the sort of information five minutes of flipping pages in a book provided me about the Johnson administration. Your opinions, while generally well-thought out and informed, don't hold much water with me when you state them as facts or truths that should be universally accepted and never challenged.

You're right in the sense that if the war in Iraq drags on it could be as costly as Vietnam, but that's speculation on your part, not an argument based on the facts as they are known today. I didn't bring in that speculation - you did. Your claim that the Iraq War is less of a disaster than Vietnam is purely speculative, and several current trends argue against it. I argued against your speculation using those trends - completely factual observations.

Or is such unsupported guesswork somehow a privilege of yours, not to be challenged? I pointed out Carter and Johnson had problems and foibles similar to those of the current boob in office — you've attempted to gloss over these foibles and minimize their importance so that your original premise can stand. Now its Carter thrown in here, more dust in the air - I didn't "gloss over", I flatly contradicted, with argument and evidence: W's behaviors are just as big, lied about to oversight authority, then publically acknowledged, and in overt defiance of specific legislation passed to prevent them. That makes them worse.

The only opoinion there is that "that makes them worse". It's a conclusion, from a simple argument that even you should be able to follow. You can't dismiss it simply by calling it an opinion.

You asked me for an incident to bolster my point. No, I didn't. I asked for an incident to compare with Jeff Gannon. W&Co's misbehaviors have expanded into brand new territories, compared with past administrations'.
I don't think talking the wars that resulted from those falsehoods is "twisting". I do. Especially used as a pretext for a dishonest personal attack to distract from the original argument. Try sticking to the argument, and leaving the tiresome blather about "bias" out of it.
then gloss over Johnson's actions? I never did that. You do have a habit, there - - -
They were justified as such, but breaking the law is breaking the law. And breaking more laws is worse than breaking fewer, publically defying legal curb and oversight is worse than hiding one's crimes, etc. W&Co have been much worse lawbreakers than Johnson's administration - even worse than Reagan's, next in line, and have produced no balancing public good. How is stating that you "refuse to criticize or to accept valid historical criticism of any past Democratic presidents" and calling such pigheaded behavior a bias amount to a personal attack? It's a lie, to start with. Quit lying, leave out the "pigheaded" that you have earned far more for yourself, and stick to the argument rather than spewing drivel about my personality, biases, etc.
Now it is possible that these Republicans are in fact the most egregious examples available for your argument, but I doubt it. And I've posted facts that dispute it You have not. The only potentially relevant facts you posted were accounts of Johnson's misbehaviors, and their "dispute" aspect remains unposted as yet.

But there is time: Why do the clandestine, loophole-justified, non-institutionalized, misbehaviors of Johnson, adopted in a context of riots and serious public disorder during actual wartime, which occupied a grey zone of deniability but nevertheless helped lead to his premature departure from office

deserve eqaul billing with the flagrant, admitted, ongoing, unjustifiable by loophole, institutionalized, misbehaviors of W, adopted in a context of manipulated panic and no serious war, which occupy a grey zone not of deniability but enforceablity in the face of open defiance of oversight and authority, and have not led to his departure from office or any real consequences at all ?

I didn't bring in that speculation - you did. Your claim that the Iraq War is less of a disaster than Vietnam is purely speculative, and several current trends argue against it. I argued against your speculation using those trends - completely factual observations. Or is such unsupported guesswork somehow a privilege of yours, not to be challenged?

It's not guesswork, it's factual. Casualty figures are what they are. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have all been ransacked by the communists and millions of people there have died. This is history. And that history is worse than anything that has happened or is happening in Iraq, in my opinion. You disagree, and that's fine. But don't pretend like I am making stuff up or speculating. I'm not even sure how one speculates on history?

I flatly contradicted, with argument and evidence: W's behaviors are just as big, lied about to oversight authority, then publically acknowledged, and in overt defiance of specific legislation passed to prevent them. That makes them worse.

You contradicted my arguments with your subjective appreciation of W's behavior (has the wiretapping been proved it was illegal?). Your offered few facts and few incidents. If you think W's actions are worse than the coups, assassinations and illegal surveillance of the American people perpetuated and ordered by American presidents from Eisenhower to Ford, that's your opinion. Right now, it looks partisan and uninformed, but that's just what I think of it. You can continue to believe whatever you like. I tend to think paying people to topple governments, trying to kill foreign leaders and inventing military attacks that didn't happen to justify a war are all slightly more egregious than some crappy intelligence and wiretapping, but again, that's just me...

No, I didn't. I asked for an incident to compare with Jeff Gannon. W&Co's misbehaviors have expanded into brand new territories, compared with past administrations'.

What are those territories? And because I can't name one apples-to-apples comparison with a minor incident (in the overall scheme of things) concerning the Bush administration, you win? He's the worst president? I don't think so...

I do. Especially used as a pretext for a dishonest personal attack to distract from the original argument. Try sticking to the argument, and leaving the tiresome blather about "bias" out of it.

It wasn't used as a pretext to attack you, it was used as a pretext to show how wrongheaded your argument was and is. I can't help the fact you appear to be biased. Your posts consistently bemoan one party and hold it up as the paradigm of all that is evil. Whenever confronted by similar acts by Democrats, you rationalize, downplay them or make a series of "those acts were less serious" than the ones Republicans did. All of which, I think, is poppycock. Politicians across the board pretty much behave the same way in power, something you seem unwilling to admit in your zeal to condemn a few people...

And breaking more laws is worse than breaking fewer, publically defying legal curb and oversight is worse than hiding one's crimes, etc. W&Co have been much worse lawbreakers than Johnson's administration - even worse than Reagan's, next in line, and have produced no balancing public good.

You've shown me nothing that prove any of the above. As usual, you're stating your opinion as fact...

The only potentially relevant facts you posted were accounts of Johnson's misbehaviors, and their "dispute" aspect remains unposted as yet.

Then dispute them. I cited the source. I can cite another, if you like. I've studied intelligence operations off and on for most of my life. I have shelves of sources, if you'd like me to talk about Johnson some more...

Why do the clandestine, loophole-justified, non-institutionalized, misbehaviors of Johnson, adopted in a context of riots and serious public disorder during actual wartime, which occupied a grey zone of deniability but nevertheless helped lead to his premature departure from office deserve eqaul billing with the flagrant, admitted, ongoing, unjustifiable by loophole, institutionalized, misbehaviors of W, adopted in a context of manipulated panic and no serious war, which occupy a grey zone not of deniability but enforceablity in the face of open defiance of oversight and authority, and have not led to his departure from office or any real consequences at all ?

Well the above, in addition to being an extremely long sentence, is a question loaded with your opinions. Johnson's actions weren't loophole-justified, so far as I know. They were illegal, everyone involved knew it and nobody cared. The CIA had been operating that way for years, which is precisely why the CIA director at the time, a man named Richard Helms, later destroyed as much documentation about the domestic spying as he could before he left office. You like to bash Nixon? How about the fact the Kennedy's used the CIA to do precisely what Nixon was caught doing at Watergate? That is they spied on their political opponents. The Gulk of Tonkin documents, which the author of the book I cited has published for the first time, weren't made public until a few years ago.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a history of misdeeds that either you are ignorant of or choose to overlook in your rush to condemn the Bush presidency. Most of Bush's clandestine foibles have been made public, because the manipulation of pre-war intelligence aside, that haven't been that serious. Wiretaps? Give me a break. The NSA has been listening to incoming traffic for years. The CIA and the FBI used to sift through each piece of incoming international mail arriving in this country (again, according to Legacy of Ashes). Did you know that?

I particularly find it funny you talk about "no real war" for Bush, yet a few paragraphs earlier were trying to argue that Iraq is a worse conflict than Vietnam. Which is it?