Democrats caught conspiring again!

[Apokalupsis]

I've said it previously, that with Democrats, politics is the endgame. That is, politics is all that matters, it's the power. Republicans on the other hand use politics to obtain the goal of a better government and country.

Evidence of this was seen given here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, that was on a local level. Now, we have the same thing, on a national level! When with this stop?

Recently, a Democratic strategy memo was leaked that showed how Democrats were going to politicize Iraq War intelligence for the 2004 election.



The memo, provided late Tuesday by a source on the Committee and reported by Fox News' Sean Hannity, discusses the timing of a possible investigation into pre-war Iraq intelligence in such a way that it could bring maximum embarrassment to President Bush in his re-election campaign.

Among other things, the memo recommends that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."

The last paragraph of the memo reads, "Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., appeared clearly shocked by the memo, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged was written in draft form and not meant for distribution.

Roberts said Tuesday a leaked strategy memo from Rockefeller's staff "exposes politics in its most raw form."

The memo discusses strategy for "revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war." It discussed how Democrats could press for an independent investigation that has already been
rejected by the Republican-led Congress or launch their own investigation.

In a statement, Roberts said that the memo "appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For Democrats, it's all about power, nothing more. Every one of the Democratic "hopefulls" run on Bush bashing platform. No democrat has a way to improve or change anything. We have no Democratic platform for the economy, nor for national security, nor for the war on terror. Instead, it's "Bush sux!".

The American people see past this. Democrats are becoming desperate. Last weeks accusations are forgotten, they didn't work, so something else will have to be drummed up. This is the weekly pattern for the Democratic slam campaign. It's sad, it's all they have to run on. It was clear that politics was all that mattered before, now there is actual physical evidence of it. When will they ever learn?

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

Here is what has been said about the memo::

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert commented today on reports that Senate Democrats were considering a strategy to politicize Iraq War Intelligence:

"It used to be that when our nation was engaged in a war, politics stopped at the water's edge. But it seems that Democratic leaders now want to play politics with our intelligence agencies, as those agencies help fight the war on terror.

"Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are charged with the responsibility of overseeing our nation's Intelligence Community. This is important business and it requires bipartisan cooperation. When bipartisanship breaks down, the Congresss ability to conduct oversight is greatly diminished."

"I would hope that Democrats would condemn this strategy memo. They should resist the urge to play politics with our nation's intelligence agencies. We are in a war against terrorism and terrorists, and our nation must be united as we fight to protect our freedoms."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The memo lists ways Democrats can highlight contradictions between Iraq intelligence and statements by the Bush administration.

One Republican senator calls it "blatant partisan politics" worse than he's ever seen. Another says the memo is an effort to discredit the Senate Intelligence Committee's work.To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years ending in 2002, today issued the following statement following disclosure of a Democratic strategy memo which plots to use classified intelligence information to wage a political attack on President Bush:

“This strategy memo lays bare what we’ve started to see for some time: an orchestrated effort by Democrats at a time of war to improperly use an intelligence investigation as a weapon against President Bush. The memo completely shreds Democrats’ claims of bipartisanship in this investigation and falsely attributes ugly motives to the President, members of his administration, and fellow members of Congress. It has reached conclusions about this investigation before it’s even been concluded.

“The Senate should examine whether its rules have been violated by this memo. It is, for example, improper under Senate rules to impugn the motives of fellow Senators. Additionally, committee staff should never be involved in partisan political scheming, most especially Intelligence Committee staff members, who in the past have always acted in a nonpolitical, bipartisan fashion.

“If Senators continue to attribute this memo to staff, then those staff members should be fired. Additionally, I call on Senator Rockefeller and Senate Democratic leaders to immediately disassociate themselves from this partisan attack plan. A failure to denounce this memo publicly would clearly seem to be an acknowledgement of its authenticity.”
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[bearkiller]

See this affirms my belief that politicians are inheriently evil. They will do WHATEVER it takes to get re-elected or put into power. Government is supposed to be for the PEOPLE. About what the people want. I just think that our goverment has lost sight of itself.

[Paddy]

See this affirms my belief that politicians are inheriently evil. They will do WHATEVER it takes to get re-elected or put into power. Government is supposed to be for the PEOPLE. About what the people want. I just think that our goverment has lost sight of itself.

Well, atleast more of the liberal politicians are (Mrs. Clinton, Feinstein, and many more)... If you've watched any of the democratic debates, they resort to conservative-bashing over debating on what their policies are going to be, just to gain media attention. And, since we've gone to war, etc. it's just feeding the liberal b|tching fire.

[Nostalgia]

I've said it previously, that with Democrats, politics is the endgame. That is, politics is all that matters, it's the power. Republicans on the other hand use politics to obtain the goal of a better government and country.

LOL, so true. Take a look at Mrs. Clinton.

Nos.

[Apokalupsis]

Yes, you both are right. It appears to be more of the modern, liberal democrat that this is applicable for. The 9 dem candidates right now seem to fit this mold.

Throughout history of US Presidential campaigns...there are 2 irrefutable facts regarding the traits of the front runners.

1) The less liberal of the candidate always won.
2) The less angry of the candidate always won (w/ exception of perhaps Truman, but it could be argued that the situation was quite different than any other time).

I think the 9 current dem's have a challenge in running against Bush in that that they are all incredibly left-wing and they are all running on an "angry campaign". Joe L. is the most moderate...but I don't think he has an honest chance.

[RTShatto]

I think the 9 current dem's have a challenge in running against Bush in that that they are all incredibly left-wing and they are all running on an "angry campaign". Joe L. is the most moderate...but I don't think he has an honest chance.
I think Dean is kicking there butts right now :)

[Apokalupsis]

I think Dean is kicking there butts right now :)Many Republicans and conservatives are HOPING Dean wins because they believe that Dean doesn't stand a chance with Bush. Dean is too far left, and runs on a VERY angry platform. They believe he is doomed from the start.

[Swedish]

You know, threads like this make me wonder if Republicans too have fun bashing Democrats.

Not that I'm saying this thread itself is bashing Democrats, but other incidents is what I'm thinking of. Like the death of a certain Liberal Politician in a plane crash. (I'll come up with a few from an Al Franken book when I get home.)

[RTShatto]

Like the death of a certain Liberal Politician in a plane crash. (I'll come up with a few from an Al Franken book when I get home.)
I always thought there was something to it, but then again one could say the same thing to JFK jr who died a couple years back :)

[Swedish]

I always thought there was something to it, but then again one could say the same thing to JFK jr who died a couple years back :)
LOL! :p

From Al Franken's (yes, the guy on SNL) "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

In this book, he raps out on Anne Coulter, Bill 'O Rielly, and Karl Rove to name a few Conservative Republicans.

Ah yes, Paul Wellstone was the name. He goes on to explain how the Right-Wing Media distorted his memorial as a Liberal Rally against Conservatives. Al Franken himself attended the funeral, and said it was extremely somber and sad except for one part:

Rick Kahn was the person who seemed to cause the trouble. A close aid of Paul Wellstone, he mentions something about paying respects to the memory of Paul by winning the election for him. He also embraces the Republicans at the event, and says:


Can you not hear your friend alling you one last time to step foward on his behalf to keep his legacy alive and help us win this election for Paul Wellstone?

That's not the only things he said, he also said his tribute to Paul as his friend, etc. Not really anything politicial related, after what I posted earlier.

However, it left alot of people with a bit of bad taste in their mouth after that. Yeah, it was a bit partisian but get this:

[Swedish]

Mostly the ten seconds of Paul Wellstone's speech was played throughout on TV to add salt to Paul Wellstone's true memorial.

Vin Weber, writer of the Star Tribune and a Republican was calling the entire memorial of Paul Wellstone a politicial event used by Democrats to get politicial gain, a "complete, total, absolute sham."

Al Franken then calls Vin Weber over the phone and asks him if he watched the entire event and any of the eulogies. He says, "Yeah, there was some very nice stuff." LOL.

That's not the only thing, quote:


Republican politicial analyst and lobbyist Sarah Janacek said that what she found most outrageous were the screens inside Williams Arena prompting audience reaction-when to laugh and how loudly to clap.
She was referring to the closed-captioning for the hearing impaired provided at the service. Of course, it doesn't matter to her that the captions appeared 5 seconds after they were said/happened. Either she mad a big mistake or a blantant lie.

Kellyanne Fitspatrick Conway spiced up the lie and claimed that it was also used to jeer and laugh at Republicans. The Republicans were not laughed and jeered at all.

There's much more of this stuff I could post, but anybody else wanna debate that Republicans like to bash Liberals and Democrats too?

[Telex]

My opinion is that both sides - Democrats and Republicans - are playing the political game. I'd be willing to wager that for as many Democrats that view 'politics as the endgame,' there's just about the same number of Republicans. Of course, I don't have any proof of this, it's just what I think.


Can you not hear your friend alling you one last time to step foward on his behalf to keep his legacy alive and help us win this election for Paul Wellstone?

I would say this remark is in poor taste, no matter if the rest of his speech was a decent one. Maybe some conservatives focused on it a little too much, but the Mr. Kahn should have known that would happen.


You know, threads like this make me wonder if Republicans too have fun bashing Democrats.
I think it's fairly obvious they do. It just so happens that they're in power now, and don't need to be "bashing" to gain public support.

On Dean: I think he's spending too much time saying what President Bush did wrong, and not enough on what he'll do right. I havn't been following the Democratic primaries too closely, besides reading some magazine articles, though.

[whynot]

I am amused when I read posts or hear the right leaning pundits express shock and dismay at democrats playing politics. Be it the disbelief of republicans that senate democrats are "playing politics" by not confirming republican judicial nominees or, now, the fact that dems may use the war as politcal ammo.

See: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. on Clinton (the use by both dems and reps)

How about the use of the Iran hostage crisis by the Republicans against Carter.

More recent history, mid term elections where any disagreement with Administration iraq policy is charactrerized as anti-american or not patriotic.(With Hannity one of the prime offenders). How about Bush showing up on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit. Surely politics were at play there.(perhaps the whole flight deck thing might not work out)

Point being that "power," as the orginal poster characterized it is the end game for both parties. Without power neither party gets to promote their agenda.

The historical record is repleat with examples, on both side of the aisle. A more useful debate would seem to be the merits of the underlying issue i.e. should we have gone to war against Iraq in the first place.

Whynot

[Apokalupsis]

With Hannity one of the prime offenders.
This is absolutely not true. I listen to him (and read him) often. He has made it a point to differentiate between protesting something in error (in his opinion), and someone being unpatriotic (or unamerican). He has NEVER stated that it is unpatriotic to protest or dissent. People call up at times and attack him for that...and he, of course, insists on evidence that he has ever done so. He will then state right then and there that there is a big difference, and that he does not believe that protesting is anti-american.

Now he does call 'em boneheads, idiots, etc... So what? He disagrees with their reasons for protests. He's seen as an idiot extremist by the left...so what? This isn't the issue though. The issue is whether or not Hannity and others claim that protestors or those in opposition to the war, are un-American. And to that...the answer is NO. They haven't claimed such a thing.

This is a very large straw man that has built up by the left. However, even though it's "large"...like all straw man...it's easily knocked over.

[whynot]

This is absolutely not true. I listen to him (and read him) often. He has made it a point to differentiate between protesting something in error (in his opinion), and someone being unpatriotic (or unamerican). He has NEVER stated that it is unpatriotic to protest or dissent. People call up at times and attack him for that...and he, of course, insists on evidence that he has ever done so. He will then state right then and there that there is a big difference, and that he does not believe that protesting is anti-american.

Now he does call 'em boneheads, idiots, etc... So what? He disagrees with their reasons for protests. He's seen as an idiot extremist by the left...so what? This isn't the issue though. The issue is whether or not Hannity and others claim that protestors or those in opposition to the war, are un-American. And to that...the answer is NO. They haven't claimed such a thing.

This is a very large straw man that has built up by the left. However, even though it's "large"...like all straw man...it's easily knocked over.

Ok, this sound like fun, let me try using this logic:

This is absolutely TRUE. I listen to him (and read him) often. He has made it a point to EQUATE protesting something in error (in his opinion), and someone being unpatriotic (or unamerican). He has ALWAYS stated that it is unpatriotic to protest or dissent.

Now, I am not a debater, so I am only picking up what I have read here. But doesn't this form of argument resemble:


Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): The next two fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that some connection exists between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. Here, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in an another area of expertise supposedly guarantees the truth of a conclusion.

Example: Apok is the Admin, so if he thinks something is illogical, it must be illogical. The fact of Apok being the admin has no bearing on whether something is logical or illogical.


Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam): This proposes we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise.

Example: No one can conclusively prove God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists. Of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition isn't enough to secure its truth.

The last part of the post is serious(well sort of) If you refer to yourself as the basis of info (I listen . . . he never said) Does that really constitute a valid argument?

Also, I must admit the comment about Hannity was more of a throw away statement than the main premise re: the characteriztion of folks as anti-american. See the ads run against Max Cleland.

Whynot

[Apokalupsis]

Not at all. The problem is, you have made a claim. You haven't supported it. I don't need to give great detail, because you haven't provided an adequate argument to refute formally.

Now...let's see how your call to fallacys don't work here. ;)


Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): The next two fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that some connection exists between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. Here, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in an another area of expertise supposedly guarantees the truth of a conclusion.

Example: Apok is the Admin, so if he thinks something is illogical, it must be illogical. The fact of Apok being the admin has no bearing on whether something is logical or illogical.
In order for this fallacy to exist, there must be an "appeal" to my authority (since you used me as an example). I've not appealed to any authority whatsoever. Had I stated "Believe me, I'm the admin here, Sean Hannity loves everybody", well...then it'd be a valid call of fallacy. ;)


Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam): This proposes we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise.

Example: No one can conclusively prove God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists. Of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition isn't enough to secure its truth.

This fallacy takes the form:

There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

You claimed p (not me).
I stated non-p in the same manner that you did, but gave personal testimony as to why I believe non-p. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that p is true.

We do not have to accept p, because as of right now, it is merely opinion, it is not fact. And since we are debating, facts are what are most important here for support and refutaiton. Non-p stands by default as p is unsupported. p was your claim.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

I don't have to prove that Sean didn't say these things...you have to prove that he did.

Neither fallacy is applicable here.


The last part of the post is serious(well sort of) If you refer to yourself as the basis of info (I listen . . . he never said) Does that really constitute a valid argument?
It is exactly the same as you saying that he did. You don't have to accept my word on it (that Sean never said such a thing)...I don't expect you to. But since you didn't support your claim, there is no need for me to come up with an exhaustive refutation with sources.

Does you saying that: "Sean says protestors are unamerican." constitute a valid argument? Absolutely not. We didn't have an argument to start with...we just have "your word".

It is up to the one making the claim to support it...not the opposition to refute it. It is the same as me saying: God exists. You respond with "No he doesn't"...then my try to call "foul" because you didn't prove God doesn't exist. It is up to ME, since I made the claim, to support it.

I'm not claiming p...I'm claming non-p which is the direct refutation of p (the subject of the debate, which you claimed).


Also, I must admit the comment about Hannity was more of a throw away statement than the main premise re: the characteriztion of folks as anti-american.
Good. Then we can both agree that there is no weight to this claim and it is untrue. ;)

On to Max Cleland. Why did the RNC make the ads? Why did they call him unamerican?

[CC]

I've said it previously, that with Democrats, politics is the endgame. That is, politics is all that matters, it's the power. Republicans on the other hand use politics to obtain the goal of a better government and country.


Absolutely laughable...the grand daddy of all the "sink low-dirty politics was a republican!

Anyone remember Nixon? Watergate? Bugging the DMC's phones?

No one poitical party can any longer claim the high ground. As far as parties, each will do whatever is in their arsenal of dirty tricks to grab any power lost or needed. To claim anything else is naive (or blinded) to the extreme. This is why the average citizen should be far more involved with our political process. No matter who the politician is, or how "clean" he may have been, at some point all must wallow in the mud that is US politics, and only diligence from the voters without regard to any party will help rectify the system to whatever degree it can be salvaged.....:O)

[Apokalupsis]

No one claimed that any party is innocent. It is just claimed, that this is an example of how Dems seem to be more about control, than actual governing. It's a specific instance. I think it's interesting how the focus is on "passing the blame for all parties", and not what they are guilty of here in his report.

[CC]

I think it's interesting how the focus is on "passing the blame for all parties", and not what they are guilty of here in his report.

I'm for it (focusing on the report), so long as we make it a policy to continue to hold feet to the fire across the political board..........:O)

[Apokalupsis]

Absolutely! Hey...the Republicans aren't necessarily guilt-free here. There is absolutely no doubt that both parties WANT control and often times will do "what is necessary" to gain that control. There is also no doubt, that there are members of both parties that have upstanding character and integrity.

Yes, this was an attack against the Dem party using a specific example of how they screwed up. This is the same sort of attack that is made against any belief system or group. It should be understood, that an entire party cannot be defined by a single instance or event...whether it is a positive or negative event.

btw, I'm a registered independent. IMO, both parties are screw-ups. But admittedly, I do lean towards Rep positions that I do Dem. I don't expect perfection...just a party that agrees more with ME. ;)