Meet Fred Thompson: Friend of Felons

Here is the latest from the front page of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, the group that has been shaking down Republican donors for the money needed to maintain the convicted felon's silence until an appropriate moment arrives for him to be pardoned by President Bush:

"Former Senator Fred Thompson, a member of the Advisory Committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust has graciously offered to host another fund raiser for the Libby Legal Defense Trust. We will be providing additional details in the coming days."

Thompson's schedule is getting busier and busier these days, as the man who reversed Ronald Reagan's career trajectory by going from the Senate into acting prepared to bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

But, hopefully, Thompson will find time to further identify himself with Libby, who the TV attorney identifies as "a man with nothing to hide."

The Thompson-Libby relationship, particularly Thompson's recent statements regarding it, tells Americans everything they need to know about the man who seeks to replace George W. Bush in the Oval Office.

Thompson is either a longtime acquaintance of Libby or someone who rushed to the side of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff when he determined that an injustice was being done.

According to a February 23 report by Associated Press, "Trust spokeswoman Barbara Comstock says Thompson knew Libby from serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee and dealing with top White House staff."

According to Thompson, in a speech delivered May 12 to the Council for National Policy, "I didn't know Scooter Libby, but I did know something about this intersection of law, politics, special counsels and intelligence. And it was obvious to me that what was happening was not right. So I called him to see what I could do to help, and along the way we became friends. You know the rest of the story: a D.C. jury convicted him."

Whatever the facts of their relationship, however, there is no debating Thompson's loyalty to Libby. He is the leading proponent of a presidential pardon for the convicted felon. And he regularly uses his prominence as a TV lawyer to accuse the man who brought Libby to justice, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, of "perverting the rule of law."

In the faux-conservative circles that define the modern Republican Party, Thompson is more closely associated with the defense of the disgraced White House aide than with any particular stand on the issues facing the nation. That's one of the reasons why so many of the true believers in the Bush presidency are so very enthusiastic about Thompson's now likely candidacy to replace Bush

Since Libby was convicted in March on four counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements about how he learned the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame -- the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was targeted for attack by Cheney's office after he exposed the administration's manipulation of intelligence when it was lobbying for war with Iraq -- Thompson has maintained that special counsel Fitzgerald, the federal judges associated with the case and the federal grand jury that decided it were all part of "the Beltway machinery" that railroaded an innocent man because "he worked for Dick Cheney."

"The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever -- a status even the Attorney General does not have," Thompson explained in his May 12 speech. "The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody -- the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset."

Thompson was, of course, speaking as an experienced player in courtroom dramas on ABC.

Here is what an actual prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in the 18-page Libby sentencing memorandum released two weeks after Thompson asserted that "everybody knew" Plame-Wilson was "not a covered person" under the rules that protect covert agents: "[It] was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent."

Fitzgerald also detailed how Libby had blown Plame-Wilson's cover in conversations with reporters and White House aides, and explained that, "Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

To all of this, Thompson says, "In no other prosecutor's office in the country would a case like this one have been brought."

Fitzgerald says: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President. To state this claim is to refute it. Peremptorily closing this investigation in the face of the information available at its early stages would have been a dereliction of duty, and would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary persons implicated in criminal investigations."

This is, frankly, a better debate than any that will broadcast during the course of the presidential race.

Thompson, a career politician who plays a prosecutor on TV, says that it is wrong to prosecute someone who knowingly used a position in the White House to punish critics of the Bush administration and then lied about his abuses of authority and the public trust.

Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor who tends to avoid the cameras, disagrees.

Thompson is preparing to seek the presidency as the standard bearer of the wing of the Republican Party that turns a blind eye to official misconduct.

Fitzgerald is preparing to return to his work as one of the nation's most trusted enforcers of the rule of law.

Here is a real contest for Americans to decide. They can choose between two tickets: Thompson/Libby versus Fitzgerald/Rule of Law.

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

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (72)

1. Ah...another "crony" supporter and an actor that would be king (like Ronny) Kinda seems like he'd be the intelligent version of GWB - the thought doesn't make me sleep any better.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 05/31/2007 @ 2:02pm

2. per the Wiki entry:

   A 1994 New York Times profile described his character roles in the following terms:

   "The glowering, hulking Mr. Thompson has played a White House chief of staff, a director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a highly placed F.B.I. agent, a rear admiral, even a senator. When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to him."

   Posted by leftofcenter at 05/31/2007 @ 2:07pm

3. I'm starting to think Thompson will get the GOP nomination, if he goes for it.....

   and starting to think he scares the bejeezus out of some of the folks here at "The Nation", more than Guiliani or Romney ever could.

   Two articles in one day, going after Thompson, a day after he "hints" at an announcement on the 4th of July??? Lotta Republicans hinted at running and didn't engender such a response.

   So, now the charge against Thompson here is.....he was...FRIENDS WITH SCOOTER LIBBY!!!!! Dun-dun-dunnnnnnnn! (dramatic music...or play that "boingggg" sound from "Law & Order"...hehe)

   Ari Berman hit him on the crime of ...being a lobbyist and being re-married to a younger woman (a charge Ms vanden Heuvel likely won't bring up anytime soon...hehe). Now, Mr Nichols with "guilt by association"? Hmm...hope there aren't any DEMOCRATS running who are friends with people who have convictions against them and they defended them.

   Again....Thompson hints at running....and puts the skeer (to sound Tennesseean a bit) into "The Nation"?

   I don't think any Repub will win in 2008....but maybe Mr Nichols and Mr Berman...think differently?!??!?

   Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 2:09pm

4. Mask....I think the concern is he's a good actor and will garner the votes of the ignorant sheep-like masses, the fundyvangenuts (perhaps) and the South of the Mason-Dixon Nascar/terbaccy-chewin crowd - which, when added together, is a pretty large bite.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 05/31/2007 @ 2:37pm

5. Some of The Nation writers have certainly taken the phrase "Rule of Law" as their own, which is odd since most of the policies they subscribe to have little to do with it. (Not that Bush does either, though). "Social Justice" is rather more to their liking.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/31/2007 @ 2:43pm

6. "and starting to think he scares the bejeezus out of some of the folks here at "The Nation", more than Guiliani or Romney ever could. "

   Yup...and for good reason..he should keep Frank awake at night for very obvious reasons...

   and combine him with a good VP and all here are reduced to hating yet another Repub president, lamenting once again the "voters not voting in their own intertest", stolen elections from H because she is a woman, economic lies,...and on...

   It's gonna be fun....

   Posted by john maasch at 05/31/2007 @ 2:49pm

7. Fitzgerald says: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President. To state this claim is to refute it. Peremptorily closing this investigation in the face of the information available at its early stages would have been a dereliction of duty, and would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary persons implicated in criminal investigations."

   I guess my "conservative" friends applied a rather selective reading to that part.

   So then, it's ok to commit treason, but not OK to get a blow job?

   Christ guys, find some ethics and TRY to retain them, OK?

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/31/2007 @ 3:12pm

8. Freddie is not exactly Sam Waterston, is he?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 3:19pm

9. "I too was the friend of a felon."--Ethel Rosenberg

   Posted by BlueSpark at 05/31/2007 @ 3:19pm

10. Freddie is not exactly Sam Waterston, is he?

    ---- apparently he has decided being just another political hack is good enough. Of course, if he is following in the tradition of the great Ronnie Raygun, that makes perfect sense.

    It's only treason when a Lib is on trouble.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/31/2007 @ 3:22pm

11. "So then, it's ok to commit treason, but not OK to get a blow job? "

    Treason? No and when we find it, we should convict that person for treason, but so far...no one charged, not even Libby...

    Part 2..

    It is always OK to get a blow job...If from a woman of your choice(and hers) of course..

    ....but it is not OK to lie on tape, in front of the nation when they have the hard evidence against you, where even your mother would vote guilty...many here keep forgeting..Clinton was not impeached for sex, but rather lying..period..it is his(Clintons) responsibility, as President, to say, "yup, did it,I enjoyed it willingly,we are both over 21,I hit the dress,send me the bill, my business and I will not answer another question about it...."

    I would have led the cheering section..instead we got..er, depends on what is, is...shit.

    Everyone was given the Fitz treatment and they came up with a guy who didn't even remember what he was lying about...parking tickets??

    Fred may be the winner you all fear here...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/31/2007 @ 4:23pm

12. I suppose Fred Thompson is a good actor, but when you are mostly playing yourself, it's not so hard. I am thrilled that he will not be on Law and Order any more. I always liked that show, but he pretty much spoiled it for me.

    I hope they get a good one next time.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 05/31/2007 @ 4:29pm

13. "Thompson also backed down when Michael Moore challenged him to debate. If he's afraid of MM, imagine how he's shake in his boots when having to deal with evildoers.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/31/2007 @ 4:20pm "

    You might want to review that video again Frank...I am not sure it played out in the country as you see it...

    And you should try to educate yourself as to what conservatives really believe and how we feel we haven't had one since Reagan...it will earn you some respect from our side instead of eye rolling regarding your psots, Frank..

    "Understand everyone, there are millions of wingnuts who will vote for Thompson simply because he is an actor like Reagan was."

    Statements like this one regarding your belief system leave you looking a little dim...

    Watch what happens when I replace 4 words to your statement above...

    "Understand everyone, there are millions of left wingnuts who will vote for Clinton simply because she is an actor like Bill was."

    How does this sound to you?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/31/2007 @ 4:30pm

14. Everyone was given the Fitz treatment and they came up with a guy who didn't even remember what he was lying about...parking tickets??

    ------- ah, then you DIDN'T read the article. Seems pretty damned cut and dried to me. Libby is a cocksucker, and the tool of a cocksucker.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/31/2007 @ 4:32pm

15. I suppose Fred Thompson is a good actor, but when you are mostly playing yourself, it's not so hard. I am thrilled that he will not be on Law and Order any more. I always liked that show, but he pretty much spoiled it for me.

    I hope they get a good one next time.

    Posted by LEEANNG 05/31/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

    Amen, sister, amen!

    Posted by edwriter at 05/31/2007 @ 4:34pm

16. "the ignorant sheep-like masses, the fundyvangenuts (perhaps) and the South of the Mason-Dixon Nascar/terbaccy-chewin crowd."---Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/31/2007 @ 2:37pm

    You know, it's always amazing how Leftists get tarred with this "stereotype" that they're a bunch of Northern/West Coast elitists who really DON'T like "the masses" in "fly-over country"......Hmmmmm?!?!? Wonder how that "myth" keeps from dying out?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 4:34pm

17. BTW, as I've said, if it's Hillary or Thompson....I'll vote for Hillary. Sorry, right-wing friends, can't let you pack the Supreme Court.

    As for "Thompson's a friend of a felon"....oddly, I don't think Mr Nichols will bring that up if Hillary gets the nomination....

    or the names "James MacDougall", "Jim Guy Tucker", or "Webster Hubbell".

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 4:37pm

18. "------- ah, then you DIDN'T read the article. Seems pretty damned cut and dried to me. Libby is a cocksucker, and the tool of a cocksucker.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 05/31/2007 @ 4:32pm "

    My only point is if he was that guilty, why didn't they "get" the guilty of the non existant crime of outing? It seems hollow to me...

    I think the Clintons were guilty of all kinds of shenanigans...but with out hard evidence in a court...and no arrests,or backed up charges...there is nothing, no convictions and Bill/Hillary get a pass from me...

    and so does Rove, Cheney, Bush, Rummy....see my point?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/31/2007 @ 4:42pm

19. BTW FRANKGRITS....

    I noticed we didn't get any comments from you on "BLOG | Posted 05/30/2007 @ 11:43am "Her Way, Her War" by Ari Berman"....or "BLOG | Posted 05/29/2007 @ 10:29am Colombia's Plan Clinton by Ari Berman"

    Some reason for that? Seems those topics might have inspired you to write down a sentence or two???

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 4:45pm

20. Gonna have to agree with Mask. Thompson must scare the holy tar out of The Nation for them to write two defamatory articles on a guy that's not even running yet.

    BTW, didn't we discover that Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage revealed Plame's name first, yet buried that little morsel of information and persisted in going after someone who had done nothing more than have a different recollection of events than others?

    If this really was about revealing the identity of a CIA agaent, what exactly did happen to Armitage? Certainly, the democrats have gone after him, haven't they? They wouldn't let him off the hook simply because he's agrees with their side, would they?

    BTW, does anybody here remember exactly what they said on May 31st, 2006?

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 4:47pm

21. My only point is if he was that guilty, why didn't they "get" the guilty of the non existant crime of outing? It seems hollow to me...

    -------- because of the narrow writing of the law. So he escaped treason charges on a mere technicality. But that's ok, right, because he's on your side then? Who cares the damage to the counter proliferation program they destroyed for political payback, or REVENGE as it is more commmonly called?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/31/2007 @ 5:04pm

22. Posted by USC1 05/31/2007 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person

    Geez, are you still beating that dead horse?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 6:15pm

23. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/31/2007 @ 6:15pm

    Geez, do you guys still think Clinton got impeached because of a blowjob?

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 7:00pm

24. Geez, are you still ducking the questions?

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 7:00pm

25. Geez, are you still...aw, I'm still just wasting my time with you.

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 7:02pm

26. Frankgrits: Here's hoping that this nation can find another Ronald Reagan---whoever and wherever he is---The greatest American President since Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman second-----everyone else average to very below average.

    Also here's hoping that you can post a message that does include some reference to Rush Limbaugh---is it possible?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/31/2007 @ 7:03pm

27. ...Reagan ended the cold war all by himself. No-one else had anything to do with it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/31/2007 @ 4:18pm

    All by himself? No. But there's no question he spear-headed the movement, when the democrats either wanted to appease the Soviets or worse genuflect to them.

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 7:20pm

28. Ronald Reagan=amiable dunce

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 7:26pm

29. Too bad Arnold can't run. He would take it by a landslide.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2007 @ 8:39pm

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/31/2007 @ 8:14pm | ignore this person

    none of this will happen. Freddie ain't goin' nowhere. exactly what was it that I posted that was childish? so I can do it again, you two bit Elmer Gantry.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 9:12pm

31. Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 4:34pm

    You purposely co-mingle my categories to make your point it seems. "Ignorant sheep-like masses" could be anywhere, "fundyvangenuts" are where you find them (and we know how most of THEM vote, right....facts and leadership abilities are pretty much irrelevant. As long as they protect babies from evil abortionists, champion creationism in schools, and sound real "preachy" about Sunday mornin...well, he'll make a fine President - and we see where THAT got us) and as to the "South of the Mason-Dixon Nascar/terbaccy-chewin crowd" - if you don't think that's how it is down South...well, you don't get out much. (I lived in in "deep Red" for 9 years thank you very much.)

    Some stereotypes ARE earned. I mean, who are cops more likely to pull over and hassle at night? And take a flying guess who gets searched more often at airports....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/31/2007 @ 9:19pm

32. Too bad Arnold can't run. He would take it by a landslide.

    Posted by ONEVOTE 05/31/2007 @ 8:39pm | ignore this person

    dreaeeem, dream, dream dream, dream, dreaeeem.

    you Reagan worshippers are a laugh, the first term he was criminal, the second term Alzheimered out. and an awful actor to boot.

    the best pres sine FDR was Kennedy, he was a Profile in Courage during the Cuban missile crisis. no pres since could have handled the closest we have come to nuclear war with such tact and finesse.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/31/2007 @ 9:20pm

33. Little is known about Fred Thomson accept the fact that he was said to be a lazy senator. However, the right wing corporate media, which includes Washington Post, is tremendously excited and has started to build him up by writing positive stories but with little substance. Even people like Chris Mathews, the king of the kiss ass commentator with little brain, has jumped on the band wagon.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 05/31/2007 @ 9:42pm

34. Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/31/2007 @ 9:35pm

    Oh come on, FRANK....you made a showing on OTHER threads that were NOT Ari Berman going after your girlfriend.

    Or is it that you don't REALLY want to defend her against writers at "The Nation"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 10:06pm

35. There is at least one thing you like about the right. And that is they would never trade their principle. Hey, who is one Mr. Giuliani with all of his divorces, love affairs, and those kinds of things. This is your president. Read this. ----------- Kuhner: A Giuliani victory will drive Christians out of the GOP Commentary by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

    Rudy Giuliani's candidacy threatens to shatter the Republican Party. The former New York mayor remains the party's front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination. If this trend continues, his victory will mark the end of the modern GOP.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 05/31/2007 @ 10:59pm

36. Posted by HELEN DAO 05/31/2007 @ 10:59pm

    I wouldn't say it would end the GOP, but I for one would not vote for Giuliani if he is the nominee.

    Posted by usc1 at 05/31/2007 @ 11:11pm

37. I love how Conservatives, once in love with the "Rule of Law", justify apologizing Libby's conviction by misstating two issues.

    Issue One: Valarie Plame was not a covert agent. Read Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation. Right wing spin, of ignorant talking point regurgitaters, does not a fact make. Mr. Fitzgerald, is a Republican, who, prior to the indictment of Libby was trumpeted by the right as a prudent and low key prosecutor.

    Issue Two: There was no underlying crime, so poor Scooter shouldn't have been prosecuted. First, see issue number one. Second, Bill Clinton lied under oath, about having sexual relations with Monica. Adultery is not a criminal charge in D.C., otherwise the Republican Presidential candidate pool would be considerably smaller.

    Perjury is in and of itself a crime. (Again, refer to Bill Clinton), Obstruction of Justice is as if not more important to our justice system, (Remember "Rule of Law"?). Lying to a federal agent during the course of an investigation is a crime. All Scooter had to say was "I invoke my rights under the 5th amendment." Instead, he chose to try to deflect the investigation away from this administration, thinking that he was above the "Rule of Law".

    Of course, with the way this administration has run over the truth without accountability, who can be surprised?

    One other quick point for you apologists. If I plan a robbery with some friends (it's called conspiracy to commit) and on the way, we get caught with the plans and the tools, am I still guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery? The answer is yes. The underlying crime does not need to occur. Otherwise, we should probably empty Gitmo, let Padillo go, and those numbnuts in New Jersey. Last time I checked the New Jersey morons in New Jersey did not successfully attack Ft. Dix.

    I know, thinking these things through can cause your logic and talking points to fall apart.

    To you right wingnuts. Chose! Is the rule of law the rule of law, or only convenient to attack your opponents.

    Posted by Thomas Paine at 06/01/2007 @ 12:10am

38. Dumpy Fred Thompson's head looks a penis. Icky. Look at it and see what I mean, if you must have the evidence.

    Indeed, Thompson looks like what I assume JOHN MASSCH looks like, although MAASCH cannot claim the mantle of having been an undistinguished Senator from some the state of DELIVERANCE (and that's unevolved RIO WARREN JEFFS on the porch twanging with the banjo, by the way, between bouts of uninhibited love with the relatives) ....

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 08:01am

39. Dumpy Fred Thompson's head looks a penis.

    amusing to be sure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 09:15am

40. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 08:01am

    So GLENN we can mock candidates on their looks now?

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 09:29am

41. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/01/2007 @ 09:15am

    Amusement aside, JOHANNES, it's true. From the shiny tip of the pate, to the wrinklage below, Fred Thomspon's head looks like a penis. It's like a penis popping out of a suit and tie where his (other) head should be. Dunno, maybe it means he is in for a lot of BJs and impeachments since that is the lone impeachable crime.

    But it is too bad that Fred ThompsaPenis cannot "look French", as J. F. Kerry was characterized. In the Murdoch lexicon, that would translate into meaning that he accurately percieved that invading and occupying Iraq would set the US back for a generation with the self-inflicted maiming that the Cheerleader and the NeoClowns were eager to unleash on America -- as the French wisely foresaw.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 09:34am

42. those hollywood types should stay out of politics, we have heard that often from repubs. unless of course it's one of theirs, such as Arnold and Freddie. it's most amusing how they're fawning over this underachiever, the second coming of Reagan. not that the first one wasn't bad enough. the newly published diaries of Saint Ronald should make for some jolly reading.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 09:34am

43. Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 09:29am

    MASK,

    (Notice MASK has implicitly agreed that ... Fred Thompson's head looks like a penis, otherwsie there would be no need for further comment. But that aside ...).

    Yup, sure can comment on candidates looks. No doubt about it. See above, notice reference to Kerry. Any rarified commentaries about that?

    For the moment, we'll put aside the standard rightwing form of commentary on apperences that are race-based since we would not want to dredge up, oh let's see Helms-Gantt in NC 1990, and have get you defensive or into vigorous verbal break-dancing spinning on your head ... or anything like that ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 09:41am

44. the newly published diaries of Saint Ronald should make for some jolly reading.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/01/2007 @ 09:34am

    Say more.

    One of my favorite Reagan tales comes from Bob Woodward's book on William Casey, VEIL; Bob Woodward the former aid to a Repub MC and Navy intelligence officer, that is, a renegade Repub. Anyway, early in his first term, Reagan was at an effette (perhaps gallic-style) Washington party and ran into some black dude whom he did not recongize; turns out it was a member of his cabinet, WhatsHisName Pierce, the Sec of Housing and Urban Development.

    Engaged leadership ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 09:46am

45. Yup, sure can comment on candidates looks. No doubt about it.

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 09:41am

    Okay, just want to make sure that next time somebody mentions Dennis Kucinich looking like Gilligan...or Edwards having poofy hair....

    you won't act all indignant and complain about it, since obviously it's "fair game".

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 09:52am

46. After reading your posts here, on this thread, focusing on somes looks in your opinion is supposed to work against him? Think Hillary looks good? Obama's taxi cab door ears? Breck boy? Algores voice droning on like a 6 year old? All the things I mention have nothing to do with the people orf their ideas.

    Glen, it easy not to take you seriously. Show us your picture...maybe we have some comments...

    Posted by john maasch at 06/01/2007 @ 10:28am

47. Phred would be going nowhere were it not for his tv, movie career. The rich, creamy irony of the LVlibs and RIokoreshes about tv stars is moving. Add in the fact that Phred is raising money for a convicted felon makes it even more delicious.

    face it LUVVY, the documents Chimpy based his "16 words" on was a bad, childlike forgery. Just because Blair is ticking to it means nothing. It was passed through the Italian tv magnate/PM's propaganda machine.

    there were NO wmd's in Iraq. Libby LIED under oath. Libby, Armitage and probably others exposed a CIA agent working to keep you safe from wmd's.

    Sicko neo-cons. Anything is a go if it makes them feel safe or makes the a buck.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2007 @ 10:31am

48. Billy pardoned Marc Rich, Libby wrote the paper that was given to Billy to get him to pardon Marc.

    Pardoning Marc was evil, according to the neo's.

    Libby lied under oath, multiple times. Libby outed a CIA agent, during a war.

    Hypocrisy knows no boundaries in neo-con world.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2007 @ 10:35am

49. But hey, much like Gonzales, Libby served to pleasure the VP.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2007 @ 10:46am

50. you won't act all indignant and complain about it, since obviously it's "fair game".

    Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 09:52am

    Interesting your muted reaction to the comments on E-Edwards and her bodily issues when they came up here. Want to elaborate your thoughts on the easy assumptions of transparent vote-mongering? Or -- let me guess -- you want leftwingers to carry water via unilateral surrender by adapting the right's talking points for them AND to discourse like uptight boyscouts when we know from the record that failure-loving rightwing fiends will take it as weakness rather than principle. Let me remind you that rightwingers have hijacked the plane and are attempting to crash into the neoClown disaster zone; no time for nicities, situation not normal, all forms of defense of truth and nation reserved to route them.

    Aside: Have you noticed that David Cameron's man-tits have become a simmering issue in the UK? Probably won't cost him the PMship, however, although that depends mainly on how Brown performs. But if man-tits are empowered, perhaps MAASCH has a future in parliment ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 11:19am

51. face it LUVVY ... Sicko neo-cons. Anything is a go if it makes them feel safe or makes the a buck.

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/01/2007 @ 10:31am

    CRAB,

    It may be worse than you think: Did you see LV-SEPTEMBER-11's rousing, "bible-based" defense of FailureWell's "analysis" of 9/11, after FailureWell croaked a week or two back?

    "They will know we are christians by the way that we 'love' ..."

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 11:23am

52. Show us your picture...maybe we have some comments...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/01/2007 @ 10:28am

    If you want to compare busts, don't worry ... you "win" ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 11:25am

53. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 11:19am

    Don't want "unilateral surrender", GLENN.

    Just don't want any "unilateral HYPOCRISY", when somebody on the Right says something about some Democrat or "progressive" and you get all huffy and shout "What does the fact they're bald (like Henry Waxman) have to do with anything?!?!?!?!"

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 12:34pm

54. Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 12:34pm

    Hurrah for Henry Waxman! Hurrah! Hurrah! Henry is the balls.

    He has been doing great service to the people who hired him, his constituents, even while in opposition. H-Wax's investigations of missing billions of benjamins in Iraq and the rightwing mullahs of US sex education that have put teenagers's health in jeapordy for their sick social experimentation are the work of a man of substance in government. No one should be distracted from that.

    As for not wanting "unilateral surrender", MASK, I have my doubts. It seems to me you want people from the left to raise the ante of rightwing criticisms of, say, Cuba when they have already said quite enough about it -- while maintaining staunch silence on the rightwing Cuban Miami mafia and its drug and terror networks (you could ask the DEA for details). Or in the case of CHIMI, for whom I do not speak but for whom you seem to have special animus, the 'tude that comes across is: "Love it or leave it -- and, if you leave, shuddup about it to boot", a demand for a form of surrender, methinks.

    Shall carry no water for them since my vision is to kick the living shit out of the right while it's skidding, falling, now with one knee done. This will require taking the high road, conceptually with ideas, along with just plain spitting on and humiliating them. No mercy. I have no problem with it since the idea is to castrate the right for the next generation until it evolves into something else. The future of the nation is at stake and these sick bastards have been humoured and dealt with in half-hearted fashion for far too long.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

55. Waxman is a true patriot. He is one of the few congressmen/women that care to fid out what is happening to our tax dollars. One would imagine that the anit-guvt types would welcome his inquiries.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2007 @ 1:15pm

56. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 11:23am

    Falwell, Bin Laden, Dobson, al Sadr

    birds of a feather.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2007 @ 1:17pm

57. Bush never had to "lobby" for war. As President and Commander-in-Chief, he did not even require UN or Congressional approval for what amounted legally to a resumption of hostilities under International Law on Material Breach.

    Except that the last UN Security Council resolution prior to Bush's attack, 1441, explicitly said that the Council "[d]ecide[d] to remain seized of the matter.", meaning that it within its jurisdiction, not Bush's.

    Further, it was only the preliminary cease-fire that was signed by the military representatives of the countries you mention. This was superceded by UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and 688. These were the terms that Iraq had to adhere to.

    A fact that has been substantiated in the Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq.

    Actually, the Senate's sole assertion regarding the truth of the assertion is its quoting of the Nigerien minister's assumption that the Iraqi representative wanted to discuss purchasing uranium. He had nothing solid and neither do you. Further, Bush didn't say that British intelligence thought that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger, he said that they had "learned" that Iraq was doing so. That isn't just mentioning their opinion on the subject, it is stating it as fact.

    I don't believe that even a leftist would honestly claim Saddam needed to import goats from Niger into Iraq.

    Overlooking two things. First, Iraq had an interest in encouraging countries to bust the sanctions regime, and Niger does purchase oil. Second, the same trip also included the countries of Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville, none of which export uranium.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/01/2007 @ 1:37pm

58. Cuba when they have already said quite enough about it --

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

    What "quite enough" have they said, GLENN? Last thing you said about Cuba was how wonderful it was on health care, education, SHOES, etc. compared to the rest of Latin America...and discussed the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights and how in the "short term" (48 years I guess) it was okay that Castro did SOME of the UNFDH rights and not others.

    and THEN you spend a few paragraphs on the "right-wing Cuban Mafia".

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 1:50pm

59. Posted by BRUNOWE 06/01/2007 @ 1:37pm

    BRUNO, next time LVLIB or some other 30% Crowd brings up that "Bush had a perfectly legal right to attack Iraq without UN or Congressional approval, they were attacking us as far back as 1997!"....ask them two questions---

    1. So WHY did he (and the Admin) GO to the UN and Congress for resolutions for the use of force? If he didn't need to legally? If they answer "political reasons", then ask why does Bush need political "cover" to protect Americans from terrorists???

    2. (even more fun) Why did Bush WAIT until 2002 to invade Iraq then? Why did he wait until after 9/11 to even mention invading Iraq....if he had the "legal authority" to resume the war and topple Saddam....when he was inaugurated in January 2001????? Why did Bush WAIT....and risk American lives by letting Saddam stay in power?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 1:56pm

60. MASK,

    I see that you have your break-board out and are now furiously spinning on your head trying to get me to talk to your ankles while you attempt to "rap" in the idiom of New Kidz da Block. To wit:

    "short term" (48 years I guess) it was okay that Castro did SOME of the UNFDH rights and not others.

    Fact: No, it is YOU who have confabulated the "short term" with regard to Cuba when I referred to rights and security in Iraq -- as in, "in the short term" security should be prioritized there over a relative luxury of civil liberties enabled elections. Last time I shall say it: the reference is to Iraq, stop playing stupid about it because Cuba was mentioned in the same para. In other words, get off your break baord, start standing upright, cease trying to do rap versions of Donnie Wahlberg.

    By the way, the embargo and the hostility that it clearly and materially transmits -- and to which you have clearly stated your opposition -- has been ... "short term"?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 2:04pm

61. and THEN you spend a few paragraphs on the "right-wing Cuban Mafia".

    Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 1:50pm

    Any reason that you left out the word ... Miami? As in Miami ... Florida? Go back and look in the original post and -- he he geez Louise -- there it is. Yet ... it disappears in MASK's rendition. Or how about this word (acronym): DEA, also in my post.

    Let me guess: MASK in the guise of FLASK would not want to make it too obvious that I am talking about activity under US jurisdiction, in our own country in other words.

    Whyzat? Again, a guess: he thinks that we are all supposed, indeed obligated, to purport to dictate the character of government and economic system to other soveriegn states as one's first and foremost duty. If so: Is Cuba anywhere remotely near the top of the charts for bad governance?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 2:11pm

62. . (even more fun) Why did Bush WAIT until 2002 to invade Iraq then?

    Posted by MASK 06/01/2007 @ 1:56pm

    MASK has put the FLASK away here but a factual error nonetheless: The elective neoClown invasion was launched with shock and awe in March 2003 (not 2002).

    BUT it was clearly being telegraphed during the last half of 2002, including the necessary massing of troops. And yes this does beg the question of why Saddam did not launch the nukes that Blair said could be unleashed at 45 minutes notice against Britian (for real, he said it) ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 2:15pm

63. My stint here for the day is finished.

    I am very proud to have articulated the Truth about Fred Thompson, that his cranium looks like a penis stuffed uncomfortably into a suit, among other important matters of the day. Carry on, out there, hopefully without a reprise of that woeful "debate" between BARRY and RESE the other day; Lincoln-Douglas, it was certainly not ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/01/2007 @ 2:23pm

64. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/01/2007 @ 2:03pm

    FRANK, it's not "bizzaar". Two large Ari Berman posts on Hillary ("Her War, Her Way", "Columbia's Plan Clinton")...both critical of Her Nibs and you....a no-show. On OTHER threads, with no starter criticism of HRC by a "Nation" writer....sure, plenty of Hillary love.

    But when "The Nation" goes after Mrs. C....you don't defend her and point out where Ari (or others) are mistaken.

    It begs the question....why not?

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 3:41pm

65. GLENN,

    Cuba when they have already said quite enough about it -- Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

    as if you (and others) have been "criticizing Cuba quite a lot" and I just "missed it"....

    then, in Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 2:04pm and Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 2:11pm

    you spend...ZERO...as in "no" time criticizing Cuba, but continueing to defend it and even ask the misleading and false dilemma question "Is Cuba anywhere remotely near the top of the charts for bad governance?"

    You are Cuba/Castro apologist...period. And your claims (GLENN LEMON 06/01/2007 @ 12:52pm) that somehow "OH, I've criticized Cuba plenty...I've got CYA cover for telling people how great it is"....is b.s.

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2007 @ 3:45pm

66. everything is about Cuba, ain't it? the alpha and omega. you are constantly railing against Cuba apologists, but you are the only one who keeps bringing up the subject.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 4:11pm

67. with apologies to Joey Dee:

    what kind of blog is this? it's that bitchy bitchy feeling that they have inside, I wanna know, oh tell me, what kind of blog is this?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/01/2007 @ 4:13pm

68. Yeah, Chip, the distinction between enforcing the "rule of law" and supporting "social justice" seems critical, but it's the same old dualism between form and substance n'est ce-pas?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 9:08pm

69. You're humorous Glen. Any relation to the actor/comedian Jack Lemon?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 9:16pm

70. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/01/2007 @ 4:11pm

    JR, GLENN brought it up discussing Iraq...not me. Ask him.

    So I'm not the "only one" who keeps bringing it up....now, keep in mind you're NEVER wrong, so figure out how your post is actually right despite the facts.

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2007 @ 07:22am

71. those hollywood types should stay out of politics, we have heard that often from repubs. unless of course it's one of theirs, such as Arnold and Freddie. it's most amusing how they're fawning over this underachiever, the second coming of Reagan. not that the first one wasn't bad enough. the newly published diaries of Saint Ronald should make for some jolly reading.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/01/2007 @ 09:34am | ignore this person

    Lets not forget that these "Hollywood types" are politics. Interesting read on Hollywood and its influence on our politics can be found in Supermob by Gus Russo. Seems like our Repub darlings like Nixon and Reagan and Demo darlings like Kennedy had no qualms about associating with the mob and letting the mob help them advance their careers. Reagan, without mob sponsorship,would have gone nowhere. Reagan was just a figurehead front man. Of course Kennedy lovers chose to ignore Pappa's humble bootlegger beginnings, and Kennedy's life long consorting with organized crime figures. Hollywood and MSM is all about politics. It is make believe, where perception is more important than reality.

    You really don't think the Terminator would win? Well, years ago when California was really in an economic pickle, I would have said that even Californians have more sense than to elect another movie star. Now, Arnie is working on his second term.

    Dems are worried about Thompson not because he is qualified, but because he has "face" recognition. Thats the only reason that Hillary is doing well...former First Lady....and her mug has been on the boob tube for years.

    We get what we deserve. But there is no getting Hollywood out of politics. Politics is Hollywood.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2007 @ 09:01am

72. Nice post, One. Just yesterday my Italian-German sage, K, agreed we're engaged in our "cosa nostra," willing or not.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/02/2007 @ 11:04am