Karl Rove said to be the Plame leak

[Magneto_X]

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4002916

Thought you guys would be interested in this.

[fumetti]

The only surprise here is that Goebbels, I mean Rove, might have actually gotten his own hands dirty in the ordeal.

I do so very much hope this proves true. The politics of Rove is a cancer on this country. I don't know the penalty for revealing our own spies, but it's about as close to treason as you can get. Life in prison would only be too kind.

The question remains whether the American people can get a fair trial out of it. Rove's loyalty oaths reach all branches and agencies.

[Magneto_X]

IIRC in America to reveal a spy during wartime the penalty is death.

[Lurch]

There may be a difference if the act is committed during wartime, but this is what the Wikipedia says about it:

Under certain circumstances, the exposure of a covert government agent would violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who "learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

Ten years or death, the important thing to me is that Rove's propensity for this type of retaliatory ugliness gets pasted all over the mass media.

[Magneto_X]

Assuming Rove gets convicted, and Bush jr. doesn't pardon him, he's going to get the ten years unless the government is purged of his "friends".

[Steven Grant]

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4002916

Thought you guys would be interested in this.

Umm... I sort of hate to sound like a Republican here, but...

This is news?

A number of journalists have come forward to say how Rove offered them "the scoop" (they also claim they turned it down) and that Valerie Plame was "fair game"... This should have been a big deal well over a year ago...

Better late than never, I guess.

I've also never spoken to anyone in the media who thought the leak was someone other than Karl Rove...

[Magneto_X]

Thanks for joining the conversation, Steven.

I only found out about this a few days ago. That's why I thought your board might be interested in hearing about it.

[Paul McEnery]

Umm... I sort of hate to sound like a Republican here, but...

This is news?

A number of journalists have come forward to say how Rove offered them "the scoop" (they also claim they turned it down) and that Valerie Plame was "fair game"... This should have been a big deal well over a year ago...

Better late than never, I guess.

I've also never spoken to anyone in the media who thought the leak was someone other than Karl Rove...
Well, the news, if it is news, is that this might mean we've got Rove bang to rights.

But who would prosecute him? Wouldn't this be Gonzales's turf?

[Inkthinker]

Hrrrmmmm... should be interesting to see what happens with this. These guys still gotta lotta teflon, and it's not as if they don't have a lot of power over the law itself.

Should be doubly interesting to see how much actual play this gets in the news. A lotta online articles so far...

If Rove goes down, does anyone think that perhaps Downing and Bush's personal "what did he know and when did he know it" issues will come more to the forefront?

[Magneto_X]

Hrrrmmmm... should be interesting to see what happens with this. These guys still gotta lotta teflon, and it's not as if they don't have a lot of power over the law itself.

Should be doubly interesting to see how much actual play this gets in the news. A lotta online articles so far...

If Rove goes down, does anyone think that perhaps Downing and Bush's personal "what did he know and when did he know it" issues will come more to the forefront?

If Rove goes down it will make the Bush administration a lot more vulnerable to other investigations, IMO. Which would make it easier to impeach Bush jr. Not that it still wouldn't be tough as hell to do it & take a long time to get things rolling.

[badMike]

A number of journalists have come forward to say how Rove offered them "the scoop" (they also claim they turned it down) and that Valerie Plame was "fair game"...That was always the "talk of the town." (I think one of the journalists you're thinking of is Chris Matthews.) However, there's never been any physical evidence that the leaker was Karl, which Matt Cooper's emails are said will provide. So, that's the important distinction here. Plus, with the physical evidence, they can hopefully charge Karl not only with the crime of leaking but of perjury since he officially denied he was the leaker.

[Magneto_X]

That was always the "talk of the town." (I think one of the journalists you're thinking of is Chris Matthews.) However, there's never been any physical evidence that the leaker was Karl, which Matt Cooper's emails are said will provide. So, that's the important distinction here. Plus, with the physical evidence, they can hopefully charge Karl not only with the crime of leaking but of perjury since he officially denied he was the leaker.

If they have proof that Rove leaked Plame couldn't that also open up a possible manslaughter charge if any of her people killed afterward?

[badMike]

If they have proof that Rove leaked Plame couldn't that also open up a possible manslaughter charge if any of her people killed afterward?I don't think so. That would be a real stretch.

The other thing I just read is that the prosecutor (Fitzgerald) is after Rove not for the initial leaking, but for some other charge like perjury (as I said) and possibly conspiracy.

[fumetti]

Let's not forget Robert Novak. The IIRC applies to him as well. He also revealed Plame's name to people (millions of people, so is that millions of counts to be tried for?) who didn't have security clearance to know it. I want his wretched ass on a gallows. Electric chair is too good for him.

To Steven: There's knowing, and there's proving. Now it can be proved Rove is guilty. Just like the Downing Street Memos, this gives legs towards getting justice.

And I want conservatives to try to defend this. Clinton was impeached because of perjury about sex. Surely to God they admit this is a thousand times worse. Rove must go to jail. (I prefer the death penalty, mostly because he's been calling ME a traitor for four years now, the sumbitch.) He sold out an American spy for his own (political) gain. I don't see how this could be anything BUT treason.

Bush pardoning Rove wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. It would absolutely set this country on FIRE. He would hand the Democrats the entire gov't inside four years. Do it, Dubya. Pardon the bastard and give us our country back!

[CaptChucky]

"W" owns the courts and the Congress and big business and the churches and the voting machines. Nothing will happen. The power of the dark side is complete.

[WatsonGlenn]

The only surprise here is that Goebbels, I mean Rove.


And yet another NAZI referance from the Democrats. You guys never learn.

[Inkthinker]

And yet another NAZI referance from the Democrats. You guys never learn.


He's right. Comparing people to Nazis just makes one sound melodramatic.

State it clearly and without hyperbole: If Karl Rove is responsible for leaking the name of an active CIA agent during a time of war, then he's guilty of treason. At the very least, he's guilty of perjury and endangerment. He deserves real jail time, if he's guilty.

[Lurch]

"W" owns the courts and the Congress and big business and the churches and the voting machines. Nothing will happen. The power of the dark side is complete.


My parents said the same thing about Nixon. The sad comparison is, Dubya believes it now. To me, the most telling point in F911 was the late 1980's interview with Bush where he talks about the power of being able to pick up the phone, call his dad, and make things happen. I don't believe that mindset has changed very much, except that he's calling different people now.

[Magneto_X]

He's right. Comparing people to Nazis just makes one sound melodramatic.


Even if it's true?

[Lurch]

Even if it's true?

But it's really not true. Webster's puts "Nazi" under two definitions; dictatorial and revolutionary, using various synonyms to describe both. The interesting thing about the revolutionary definition is that it's described as "left-wing". Of course the totalitarian definition describes Nazi's as; absolute, authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, fascistic, monolithic, one-party, oppressive, total, totalistic, tyrannical, and undemocratic.

While many of the latter definitions may very well be fitting, the term Nazi has a very evil connotation in most peoples minds, and dredging up images of genocidal madmen to describe people we don't agree with doesn't help anyone's cause.

I'm not trying to be a nit-picker, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has the Democratic party floundering so badly. While the conservative right has a clear and concise agenda, (consisting mostly of painting issues in black and white terms) the Democrats have failed miserably at communicating their beliefs in a clear and succinct manner. This is most likely because being intellectual, thoughtful, and fair-minded is not an easy platform to boil down into a fifteen second sound bite, but it's all the more reason that liberal thinking people need to be careful not to engage in careless rhetoric.

[Magneto_X]

But it's really not true. Webster's puts "Nazi" under two definitions; dictatorial and revolutionary, using various synonyms to describe both. The interesting thing about the revolutionary definition is that it's described as "left-wing". Of course the totalitarian definition describes Nazi's as; absolute, authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, fascistic, monolithic, one-party, oppressive, total, totalistic, tyrannical, and undemocratic.

Aren't the Nazis (the real ones, not the neo-Nazis) right wing? They were Christian and they seem to be (in D & D alignment) "lawful evil".

While many of the latter definitions may very well be fitting, the term Nazi has a very evil connotation in most peoples minds, and dredging up images of genocidal madmen to describe people we don't agree with doesn't help anyone's cause.

That's true. But you've got to understand that the Democrats have been called Nazis by (Neo) Conservatives, from the man on the sreet to government official (like Karl Rove) all the time when its the administration whose actions eerily mirror Hitler's rise to power. Calling half the country traitors or liberals traitors (Anne Coulter) but crying foul whenever a liberal does the same (not you, Lurch) is very fraustrating.

I'm not trying to be a nit-picker, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has the Democratic party floundering so badly. While the conservative right has a clear and concise agenda, (consisting mostly of painting issues in black and white terms) the Democrats have failed miserably at communicating their beliefs in a clear and succinct manner. This is most likely because being intellectual, thoughtful, and fair-minded is not an easy platform to boil down into a fifteen second sound bite, but it's all the more reason that liberal thinking people need to be careful not to engage in careless rhetoric.

I agree. The Republicans PR machine is down right invincible these days. It doesn't help that most of the high profile Democrats (Kerry, Gore etc) act arrogant, don't seem to know what the people want and don't give clear messages on subjects and have no personality whatsoever.

The only man in the Democrat party who seems to know what he's doing these days is Conyers. While I like Dean his outbursts just make him an easy target for his political opponents.

[Lurch]

That's true. But you've got to understand that the Democrats have been called Nazis by (Neo) Conservatives, from the man on the sreet to government official (like Karl Rove) all the time when its the administration whose actions eerily mirror Hitler's rise to power. Calling half the country traitors or liberals traitors (Anne Coulter) but crying foul whenever a liberal does the same (not you, Lurch) is very fraustrating.

To quote Captain America; "That's what makes us better than them." (Or will, if we try ardently to take the high road.) :D

[Magneto_X]

To quote Captain America; "That's what makes us better than them." (Or will, if we try ardently to take the high road.) :D

True. But they've been using that against us, as well. Democrats/liberals don't fight back & they use that to just keep hammering away until they break us (re: Durbin).

[Lurch]

True. But they've been using that against us, as well. Democrats/liberals don't fight back & they use that to just keep hammering away until they break us (re: Durbin).

So perhaps fighting fire with fire isn't the answer here. Maybe we need a rhetorical fire extinguisher. As in someone who can clearly state the opinions and ideology of the party. You yourself said the Democrats are sorely lacking in that department. I'm not so cynical as to believe that the American people are too far gone to respond to a refreshingly intellectual plea for compassion and tolerance. That was really Clinton's forte, and as I recall, people responded despite all the Republican attempts to discredit him. But with no one to fill that void, we replaced a Rhodes Scholar with a C student. (By the way, John Kerry was a C student in college also. So there goes his portrayal as the "smart" candidate, as the Democratic PR machine attempted during the debates of the last election.)

[badMike]

And yet another NAZI referance from the Democrats. You guys never learn.Give me a break. Repubs make the same comparisons all the time. Santorum called Dems Nazis just a couple weeks before he was complaining about Durbin doing it. Also, who coined the term "Feminazi"? Wasn't a liberal. It was Rush Limbaugh. So, when the Repubs start chastizing him for saying that, then I'll take them seriously about being mad at Dems comparing people to Nazis.

[Magneto_X]

So perhaps fighting fire with fire isn't the answer here. Maybe we need a rhetorical fire extinguisher. As in someone who can clearly state the opinions and ideology of the party. You yourself said the Democrats are sorely lacking in that department. I'm not so cynical as to believe that the American people are too far gone to respond to a refreshingly intellectual plea for compassion and tolerance. That was really Clinton's forte, and as I recall, people responded despite all the Republican attempts to discredit him. But with no one to fill that void, we replaced a Rhodes Scholar with a C student. (By the way, John Kerry was a C student in college also. So there goes his portrayal as the "smart" candidate, as the Democratic PR machine attempted during the debates of the last election.)

No problem here. I'm all for the "fire extinguisher" tactic.

[Lurch]

Give me a break. Repubs make the same comparisons all the time. Santorum called Dems Nazis just a couple weeks before he was complaining about Durbin doing it. Also, who coined the term "Feminazi"? Wasn't a liberal. It was Rush Limbaugh. So, when the Repubs start chastizing him for saying that, then I'll take them seriously about being mad at Dems comparing people to Nazis.

That's the problem. Name calling seems to get through to the American people, yet it really goes against the basic Democratic ideology. I'm not saying Democrats don't engage in dirty politics, but it seems that when they do they lose more credibility because of 180 degrees it veers from what their stance is supposed to be. And it's sad, but on the flip-side many people seem to be quite comfortable with a Republican engaging in this kind of politics, because they are expected to be tough, hard-nosed, and get-the-job-done types of politicians.

That is really one schizophrenic constituency. Because weren't so many of them screaming about the "character" issue during the Lewinski scandal?

[Inkthinker]

If people keep calling each other "Nazi", it cheapens what that means to a point where using it just makes you sound cliche.

The only group that really compares to the Nazis are the Nazis.

[cactusmaac]

And the communists.

[bartl]

"W" owns the courts and the Congress and big business and the churches and the voting machines. Nothing will happen. The power of the dark side is complete.
I think you are confused about who owns whom.

[bartl]

He's right. Comparing people to Nazis just makes one sound melodramatic.
Godwin's Law once again proves itself to be true, however.

[Steven Grant]

State it clearly and without hyperbole: If Karl Rove is responsible for leaking the name of an active CIA agent during a time of war, then he's guilty of treason. At the very least, he's guilty of perjury and endangerment. He deserves real jail time, if he's guilty.
Even "treason" might be a bit far. What he's specifically guilty of is breaking a well-established Federal law (enacted, as it happens, in the '70s to shut down a magazine called COVERT ACTION INFORMATION QUARTERLY, which wasn't shut down because they had plenty to write about without revealing the names of CIA agents) with a specific and harsh penalty for anyone who reveals the identity of a CIA agent, because it's harmful to national security. Whether it's specifically treason or not isn't exactly established. The interesting thing about the law is that it exists to squelch journalists, and don't know whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on that aspect of it. Which could make it interesting for Rove's lapdog press (ie, Robert Novak and Judith Miller) among others, but even if their convictions -- provided they're convicted -- are overturned, it wouldn't be a First Amendment issue for Rove, so he's got no Constitutional defense...

[bartl]

Which could make it interesting for Rove's lapdog press (ie, Robert Novak and Judith Miller) among others, but even if their convictions -- provided they're convicted -- are overturned, it wouldn't be a First Amendment issue for Rove, so he's got no Constitutional defense...
If he's guilty, he's not only guilty of criminal revelation of the name of a CIA agent, he's guilty of criminal stupidity.

[Steven Grant]

The only group that really compares to the Nazis are the Nazis.

True. It would be far more accurate to simply call them fascists, on the Mussolini model.

(The myth of the Nazis being leftists is a continually amusing one, springing mainly off the use of the term "Socialist" in the name, and it's true that the party did start as a socialist party, one of the dozens cropping up through Germany in the wake of WWI. But once the German government sent Hitler in to infiltrate and spy on the group -- the plan was apparently to transform it into a magnet group to attract other German socialists so the government could keep tabs on them -- the leftist leadership was purged, and the goals restructured by Hitler and crew until there was nothing "socialist" about it, except for the name the notion of the state owning everything, but it was not a socialist state but a corporate state, a modified Mussolini model, with, in fact, corporations making most of the policy decisions on disposition of resources while Hitler and his crew focused on military, political and social topics. It has always been a habit in America to downplay the very strong and tight interaction/integration of German -- and American -- corporations with the Nazi machine. Which does sound kinda familiar, now that I think about it...)

(For those wondering about the difference between a socialist state and a corporate state, theoretically in a socialist state the people are the state and therefore the owners. (Don't bother bringing up the Soviet Union, which was a totalitarian state, not a true socialist state, regardless of its name. It's just the name of the shop, dear.) Theoretically, in a corporate state, the people are assets of the corporation -- which is to say the state -- to be used in whatever way the leaders of the corporation view as the corporation's best interest. It's their job to do whatever is asked of them to make the corporation strong.)

[Steven Grant]

If he's guilty, he's not only guilty of criminal revelation of the name of a CIA agent, he's guilty of criminal stupidity.

Or criminal arrogance, which amounts to the same thing.

But it wouldn't be the first time smart guys have done stupid things, even criminally stupid things, in a fit of pique. Most of them do it because they think they can get away with it. And, often, they do.

[cactusmaac]

True. It would be far more accurate to simply call them fascists, on the Mussolini model.

(The myth of the Nazis being leftists is a continually amusing one, springing mainly off the use of the term "Socialist" in the name, and it's true that the party did start as a socialist party, one of the dozens cropping up through Germany in the wake of WWI. But once the German government sent Hitler in to infiltrate and spy on the group -- the plan was apparently to transform it into a magnet group to attract other German socialists so the government could keep tabs on them -- the leftist leadership was purged, and the goals restructured by Hitler and crew until there was nothing "socialist" about it, except for the name the notion of the state owning everything, but it was not a socialist state but a corporate state, a modified Mussolini model, with, in fact, corporations making most of the policy decisions on disposition of resources while Hitler and his crew focused on military, political and social topics. It has always been a habit in America to downplay the very strong and tight interaction/integration of German -- and American -- corporations with the Nazi machine. Which does sound kinda familiar, now that I think about it...)

(For those wondering about the difference between a socialist state and a corporate state, theoretically in a socialist state the people are the state and therefore the owners. (Don't bother bringing up the Soviet Union, which was a totalitarian state, not a true socialist state, regardless of its name. It's just the name of the shop, dear.) Theoretically, in a corporate state, the people are assets of the corporation -- which is to say the state -- to be used in whatever way the leaders of the corporation view as the corporation's best interest. It's their job to do whatever is asked of them to make the corporation strong.)


Hitler was a Keynesian if anything.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_4_31/ai_55343571

Hitler's solution for both the rearmament and unemployment problems was the same: massive deficit spending. In fact, by Kershaw's account, the Nazi government guaranteed some 35 billion Reich-Marks to the German armed forces alone over an eight-year period, along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.

It's not that Hitler lacked contrary advice. Kershaw tells us that in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler in October, 1935, "a devastating analysis of Germany's economic position." According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive - in his view at the root of the economic problems. ... If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936." But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Goring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.

Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Goring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs."

[CaptChucky]

I think you are confused about who owns whom. Actually, they all seem to be part of one empire. The churches and business have no place else to go, so they continue to give W more power.

[outlander78]

True. It would be far more accurate to simply call them fascists, on the Mussolini model.

(The myth of the Nazis being leftists is a continually amusing one, springing mainly off the use of the term "Socialist" in the name, and it's true that the party did start as a socialist party, one of the dozens cropping up through Germany in the wake of WWI. But once the German government sent Hitler in to infiltrate and spy on the group -- the plan was apparently to transform it into a magnet group to attract other German socialists so the government could keep tabs on them -- the leftist leadership was purged, and the goals restructured by Hitler and crew until there was nothing "socialist" about it, except for the name the notion of the state owning everything, but it was not a socialist state but a corporate state, a modified Mussolini model, with, in fact, corporations making most of the policy decisions on disposition of resources while Hitler and his crew focused on military, political and social topics. It has always been a habit in America to downplay the very strong and tight interaction/integration of German -- and American -- corporations with the Nazi machine. Which does sound kinda familiar, now that I think about it...)


That's interesting. I'm reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (great book - I like how the author writes in a professionl manner, yet manages to include his contempt for the Nazis), along with Churchhill's World War II, and have not read that Hitler had anything to do with the Weimar Republic (as an employee, that is). Is that a definite fact, or one of the many theories about Hitler that have not been proven?

[MushMouth]

The only group that really compares to the Nazis are the Nazis.

Lord's Resistance Army compares pretty well in terms of evil committed, IMO.

[Steven Grant]

"massive deficit spending"

And that sounds more than vaguely familiar as well...

[Steven Grant]

That's interesting. I'm reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (great book - I like how the author writes in a professionl manner, yet manages to include his contempt for the Nazis), along with Churchhill's World War II, and have not read that Hitler had anything to do with the Weimar Republic (as an employee, that is). Is that a definite fact, or one of the many theories about Hitler that have not been proven?
I believe it is proven and fairly widely known now, yes, but it wasn't when (William Manchester, right?) wrote RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. Hitler was still in the army after WWI when the German military put him into anti-Socialist service, since they were greatly concerned on the possibility of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the broken and very disgruntled nation. (And not without cause, I might add.)

[WatsonGlenn]

Give me a break. Repubs make the same comparisons all the time. Santorum called Dems Nazis just a couple weeks before he was complaining about Durbin doing it. Also, who coined the term "Feminazi"? Wasn't a liberal. It was Rush Limbaugh. So, when the Repubs start chastizing him for saying that, then I'll take them seriously about being mad at Dems comparing people to Nazis.


If Santorum called anyone a Nazi, which I doubt, then that was wrong. I could care less what a radio talk show host says. He is not an elected official and does not represent the party.

[WatsonGlenn]

The myth of the Nazis being leftists is a continually amusing one, springing mainly off the use of the term "Socialist" in the name, and it's true that the party did start as a socialist party

Then whats so amusing about it? The truth is the Nazis were not liberal or conservative in the way Americans think of the words so why even bring it up? Its an emotional arguement nothing more.

[MushMouth]

I believe it is proven and fairly widely known now, yes, but it wasn't when (William Manchester, right?) wrote RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. Hitler was still in the army after WWI when the German military put him into anti-Socialist service, since they were greatly concerned on the possibility of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the broken and very disgruntled nation. (And not without cause, I might add.)


"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." - Adolf Hitler, 1932

[badMike]

If Santorum called anyone a Nazi, which I doubt, then that was wrong. I could care less what a radio talk show host says. He is not an elected official and does not represent the party.Why would you doubt it? Why would I lie?

When Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Rick Santorum, on the other side of the same debate, said of Democrats objecting to the GOP's stand, "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine,'"http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/07/01/news/local/nazi0701.txt

Plus, you don't care if a Repub operative uses a Nazi term on the radio, but then you DO care when some guy on some message board does it? I don't understand your standards.

[bartl]

If Santorum called anyone a Nazi, which I doubt, then that was wrong. I could care less what a radio talk show host says. He is not an elected official and does not represent the party.
I have met women for whom the term, "feminazi" fits. However, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have used the term for ALL feminists, rather than those who wish to remove rights from men.

[outlander78]

I believe it is proven and fairly widely known now, yes, but it wasn't when (William Manchester, right?) wrote RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. Hitler was still in the army after WWI when the German military put him into anti-Socialist service, since they were greatly concerned on the possibility of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the broken and very disgruntled nation. (And not without cause, I might add.)

Thanks, Steven. Rise and Fall was written in the mid nineteen sixties, so I'm other details have also been determined since then - that hadn't occured to me, but it should have. The author had the benefit of access to the raw data (notes, documents etc) and having lived in Germany before the war, but not of all the historians' work since then. Similarly, Churchill left out a lot of information related to data gleaned from code breaking, as it was still secret in the nineteen fifties when he wrote most of his books on World War II.

Now I have to go find more thick books to read .... :)

[badMike]

I have met women for whom the term, "feminazi" fits.So you know women who have rounded up men, put them in concentration camps, starved them and then gassed them in chambers? Where did this take place?

[WatsonGlenn]

I have met women for whom the term, "feminazi" fits. However, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have used the term for ALL feminists, rather than those who wish to remove rights from men.

The term is juvenile but again Rush is not an elected official. He is a radio personality. He does not represent anyone but himself. When dean say he hates white Christians thats a different matter. He represents Democrats.

[WatsonGlenn]

Why would you doubt it? Why would I lie?

No offence intended but I take most things I see on message boars with a grain of salt.

Plus, you don't care if a Repub operative uses a Nazi term on the radio, but then you DO care when some guy on some message board does it? I don't understand your standards.

Rush is not a Repub operative, whatever that is. But as I said anyone that uses that type of terminology is IMO making an error.

[badMike]

When dean say he hates white Christians thats a different matter.Pull me the quote where he said that. Thanks.

[WatsonGlenn]

Pull me the quote where he said that. Thanks.

I've already done it somewhere else. I'm not doing it again.

[Karl J. Barnes]

The term is juvenile but again Rush is not an elected official. He is a radio personality. He does not represent anyone but himself. When dean say he hates white Christians thats a different matter. He represents Democrats.


I thought that he said that the Republicans are MADE up of White Christian men. I don't remember him saying that he hated them though that might be surmised by his being a Democrat, maybe.

[WatsonGlenn]

I thought that he said that the Republicans are MADE up of White Christian men. I don't remember him saying that he hated them though that might be surmised by his being a Democrat, maybe.

He said "I hate Republicans

He then said "Republicans are all white male Christians."

Google makes it easy to find.

Let the spin begin.

[Karl J. Barnes]

He said "I hate Republicans

He then said "Republicans are all white male Christians."

Google makes it easy to find.

Let the spin begin.

Okay didn't hear that, but at least, you know were he stands on republicans. It's, in a weird way, kind of nice in that he's making no bones about how he feels.

Not prudent, mind you, but still....

[badMike]

Google makes it easy to find. Let the spin begin.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/276020p-236422c.html

Both times Dean was talking about the Repub leadership.

[TCJohnson]

He said "I hate Republicans

He then said "Republicans are all white male Christians."

Google makes it easy to find.

Let the spin begin.

Flaw in logic.

He said that republicans are made of white christians.
He did not say that all white christians are republican.


Therefore, Dean did not say he hates all white christians.

[Magneto_X]

The Republican party has white Christians in it? The hell you say! :)

[Inkthinker]

The Republican party has white Christians in it? The hell you say! :)

I know, shocking, right? Actually, they only make up something like 80% of the party.

At any rate, regarding Dean's venemous hatred of all things white and Christian:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization," the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.

But Dean said the Democrats should not change their beliefs to be "Republican lite."

"We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said, echoing themes he sounded in his presidential bid. "We need to be people of conviction."

And the other infamous quote being:

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same and they all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Logic fails to hold up that those two statements, made months apart, is equal to "I hate all white Christians". Which would be ironic, given that Dean is both white and (I believe) Christian.

[WatsonGlenn]

It's, in a weird way, kind of nice in that he's making no bones about how he feels.

Yes, lovely. Just the kind of guy we need as president.

[WatsonGlenn]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/276020p-236422c.html

Both times Dean was talking about the Repub leadership.

I don't know what he was thinking at the time he said it but his words do not match that assertion.

[WatsonGlenn]

Flaw in logic.

He said that republicans are made of white christians.
He did not say that all white christians are republican.


Therefore, Dean did not say he hates all white christians.

And I did not say he did. I said, he said, he hated white male Christians. Whether he hates all of us I do not know. Does it really matter?

I should not use the world "all" and I don't remember if Dean did, but he did say he hated Republicans.

[WatsonGlenn]

Logic fails to hold up that those two statements, made months apart, is equal to "I hate all white Christians". Which would be ironic, given that Dean is both white and (I believe) Christian.


Wow, I'm stunned?

[Magneto_X]

And I did not say he did. I said, he said, he hated white male Christians. Whether he hates all of us I do not know. Does it really matter?

Wouldn't that mean he hates *himself* since he's (IIRC) a Christian?

[WatsonGlenn]

Wouldn't that mean he hates *himself* since he's (IIRC) a Christian?


Ask him. I sure you would get a straight answer.

[Paul McEnery]

And I did not say he did. I said, he said, he hated white male Christians. Whether he hates all of us I do not know. Does it really matter?

I should not use the world "all" and I don't remember if Dean did, but he did say he hated Republicans.
Oh for goodness sake.

When you said Dean said he hated white male Christians, you weren't telling the truth.

It really is that simple.

Does it matter that you misrepresented Dean?

Yes, it does.

Does it matter that you're either unable or unwilling to accept that?

Even more so. Before, it was possible to believe you were mistaken. Now, it isn't.

[Adam Crocker]

Ask him. I sure you would get a straight answer.

Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Personal_background) was raised Episcopolian and is now a member of the United Church (since 1982), though he states that he does not attend church very often. When asked to name his favourite book from the New Testament he offered the Book of Job from the Old Testament, whereupon he corrected himself.

Of course either way, he didn't state he hated all white, male Christians, especially since the statements were made months apart. In any case it is possible to be a white, male Christian and criticize a major political party in a large, culturally diverse nation for catering only to that group.

[WatsonGlenn]

Oh for goodness sake.

When you said Dean said he hated white male Christians, you weren't telling the truth.

Clearly I was telling the truth, but you do have to understand English to see what he said. Now I do not know if he meant it but he clearly said it.

[WatsonGlenn]

In any case it is possible to be a white, male Christian and criticize a major political party in a large, culturally diverse nation for catering only to that group.

Sure it is. Listen, I can see how you could read those two statements and give Dean a pass but don't deny he said it.

[bartl]

So you know women who have rounded up men, put them in concentration camps, starved them and then gassed them in chambers? Where did this take place?
No, but I know women who would like to.

[Inkthinker]

Yes, lovely. Just the kind of guy we need as president.

Isn't his forthright, tell-it-like-it-is manner supposed to be one of George W's more lauded characteristics? He pulls no punches, speaks from his heart, and so forth.

[WatsonGlenn]

Isn't his forthright, tell-it-like-it-is manner supposed to be one of George W's more lauded characteristics? He pulls no punches, speaks from his heart, and so forth.


Thats true and if Bush said he hated Democrats, or all Democrates were black females I would laud him for his honesty. I also would NOT vote for him.

[WatsonGlenn]

No, but I know women who would like to.


So they are Nazi wannabees. The worst kind.

[Inkthinker]

Thats true and if Bush said...all Democrates were black females I would laud him for his honesty.

Really? 'Cause that's a lot farther from the truth than saying that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party". I know I've heard it stated as fact that 80% (or something in that area) of Republicans claim to be both, though I can't recall where... if someone else could find the statistic for me, I'd be obliged.

But even so, I'm sure there is a larger percentage of white Christian Republicans than black female Democrats.

[Samurai]

Really? 'Cause that's a lot farther from the truth than saying that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party". I know I've heard it stated as fact that 80% (or something in that area) of Republicans claim to be both, though I can't recall where... if someone else could find the statistic for me, I'd be obliged.

But even so, I'm sure there is a larger percentage of white Christian Republicans than black female Democrats.
Considering half the party is women, I highly doubt that... I'm an Agnostic and I'm still a Republican...

[Wig of Doom]

Really? 'Cause that's a lot farther from the truth than saying that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party". I know I've heard it stated as fact that 80% (or something in that area) of Republicans claim to be both, though I can't recall where... if someone else could find the statistic for me, I'd be obliged.

But even so, I'm sure there is a larger percentage of white Christian Republicans than black female Democrats.

It was a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. 82% of Republicans self-identify as white christians. 57% of Democrats self-identify as such.

If you mean a larger percentage of citizens overall, then your supposition is correct, as only about 12% of the population is black.

Of course, if you mean a white christian is more likely to be Repub. than a black female is to be democrat, then you're wrong, as about 90% of blacks vote Democratic in general, and more than 50% of women do.

It is the case that in state legislatures, Republicans are 98.9% white and 82.2% male. Democrats are 80% white, 72.6% male. So, at this level, Democrats have a more egalitarian representation in the sense that the proportions are closer to that of the actual populations.

Ok, enough fun with numbers

[fumetti]

And yet another NAZI referance from the Democrats. You guys never learn.

I refer you to your own post in THIS thread: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=65255&page=4

You hypocrite.



(But what should we expect from someone who can't read. I'm not a Democrat, never have been.)

[TCJohnson]

Say what you will about the neocons, they are great at misdirection. Wasn't this thread about Karl Rove?

[fumetti]

While many of the latter definitions may very well be fitting, the term Nazi has a very evil connotation in most peoples minds, and dredging up images of genocidal madmen to describe people we don't agree with doesn't help anyone's cause.

I'm not trying to be a nit-picker, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has the Democratic party floundering so badly. While the conservative right has a clear and concise agenda, (consisting mostly of painting issues in black and white terms) the Democrats have failed miserably at communicating their beliefs in a clear and succinct manner. This is most likely because being intellectual, thoughtful, and fair-minded is not an easy platform to boil down into a fifteen second sound bite, but it's all the more reason that liberal thinking people need to be careful not to engage in careless rhetoric.

Well put, but I'm not being "careless."

I find little difference between the GOP and the Nazis in their extremist and deceitful approach to politics.

If this message fails to resonate, it's because the listener is ignorant of the details of Nazi procedures. The parallels are staggering. Their rhetoric is nearly identical.

The only thing stopping the GOP from night raids to incarcerate critics is our "liberal" tradition of due process and checks & balances.

And tell me the GOP isn't trying to eliminate BOTH of those!

[fumetti]

If Santorum called anyone a Nazi, which I doubt, then that was wrong. I could care less what a radio talk show host says. He is not an elected official and does not represent the party.

Right-wing radio and FoxNews ARE the Republican party.

The GOP would be forever the minority party in Congress without them.

[fumetti]

He said "I hate Republicans

He then said "Republicans are all white male Christians."

You LIE when you add them up. Dean never said he hated Republicans BECAUSE they're "white male Christians." Those two facts are coincidental.

I hate Republicans too. And Republicans use elephants as symbols. But I do not hate Republicans BECAUSE they use elephants as symbols.

(Lemme interject here that WatsonGlenn once offered the quote "There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics." to condemn the use of technical truths to support inaccurate assertions. And, like a good Republican, abandoned that principle the moment it served his purpose.)

With a little more effort (and liberal use of ellipses), I'm sure WatsonGlenn can put together even more enjoyable quotes from Dean, like maybe this: "I...eat...jew...babies...." or "Moses...was...a...Marilyn...Manson...fan..."

Just give WG time, I'm sure he'll find it for us all.

[Wig of Doom]

(Lemme interject here that WatsonGlenn once offered the quote "There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics." to condemn the use of technical truths to support inaccurate assertions. And, like a good Republican, abandoned that principle the moment it served his purpose.)


Actually, he used that quote as a way of claiming that data verifying a claim he didn't like wasn't actually true. It's more along the lines of "If the facts disagree with me, then the facts are wrong."

[Inkthinker]

I hate Republicans too. And Republicans use elephants as symbols.


You hate elephants?!!

Heartless bastard!! How can you hate elephants? I mean, aside from yard-wide elephant poo-patties?

[Inkthinker]

It was a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. 82% of Republicans self-identify as white christians. 57% of Democrats self-identify as such.

If you mean a larger percentage of citizens overall, then your supposition is correct, as only about 12% of the population is black.

Of course, if you mean a white christian is more likely to be Repub. than a black female is to be democrat, then you're wrong, as about 90% of blacks vote Democratic in general, and more than 50% of women do.

It is the case that in state legislatures, Republicans are 98.9% white and 82.2% male. Democrats are 80% white, 72.6% male. So, at this level, Democrats have a more egalitarian representation in the sense that the proportions are closer to that of the actual populations.

Ok, enough fun with numbers

I am truly schooled. :D

But I'm still not sure that those numbers add up to their being a greater percentage of black females in the Democratic Party than there are white Christians (of either sex) in the Republicans.

Given that 82% of Republicans are white Christians, what percentage of the Democrats are black and female? It can't be over 80%... I mean, it says above that Dems are 80% white and 72% male to begin with.

It's not important, anyway... I was just tweaking a hyperbolic statement (we're all guilty of those at one time or another), not really making a strong point.

:D

[fumetti]

Actually, he used that quote as a way of claiming that data verifying a claim he didn't like wasn't actually true. It's more along the lines of "If the facts disagree with me, then the facts are wrong."

Oh that's even worse.

[badMike]

Breaking news: Cooper to testify who his source was after source gave him permission, while Miller is getting thrown in the slammer for keeping her mouth shut. Two different sources, then?

What a bizarre case.

[outlander78]

Say what you will about the neocons, they are great at misdirection. Wasn't this thread about Karl Rove?

I think they call that "staying on message" (ie not answering the question). The best part is when they complain when others do it too.

[WatsonGlenn]

I refer you to your own post in THIS thread: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=65255&page=4 You hypocrite.

I'm not sure what post you are refering to. Are you claiming I called someone a nazi? You linked to an entire thread.

Oh I see now. You were refering to the post where I mentioned the growth of the NAZI party in the Weimar government. And incredibly, you are unable to make a distinction between that and calling someone a Nazi.

Thats truely amazing. I wish the board had an ignore feature.

[WatsonGlenn]

I find little difference between the GOP and the Nazis in their extremist and deceitful approach to politics.

And people who feel like you do will continue to lose in the arena of ideas because of the inabilty or unwillingness to tell the differance between Nazis and Republicans.

[WatsonGlenn]

Right-wing radio and FoxNews ARE the Republican party.

The GOP would be forever the minority party in Congress without them.

Thats ridiculous.

[WatsonGlenn]

You LIE when you add them up. Dean never said he hated Republicans BECAUSE they're "white male Christians." Those two facts are coincidental.

You know I am sick of you calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Control your emotions. Grow up a bit.

[bartl]

I find little difference between the GOP and the Nazis in their extremist and deceitful approach to politics.

If this message fails to resonate, it's because the listener is ignorant of the details of Nazi procedures.
I'm beginning to see the reason behind the popular corollary to Godwin's Law.

[WatsonGlenn]

I'm beginning to see the reason behind the popular corollary to Godwin's Law.

Take a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[fumetti]

You know I am sick of you calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Control your emotions. Grow up a bit.

Your two-faced approach to using Nazi references has been properly documented.

Your conjuncture of separate Howard Dean quotes with the undeniable intent to falsely attribute messages he did not say is also properly documented.

If you don't like the labels, stop being an example.

[fumetti]

I'm beginning to see the reason behind the popular corollary to Godwin's Law.

That only applies if the argument has been lost.

Any criticism of the Bush administration's tactics being parallel to classic Nazi propagandizing is dead on the mark. That argument has been won for some time now.

[Steven Grant]

Okay, enough. Thread's over.