Plamegate Nothing Compared to Whats Coming (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The indictments over the outing of Valerie Plame are going to hurt the Bush administration, but it is a tempest in a teapot compared to an even bigger story - that of high powered GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The big story has been under the mediawhores radar during the last couple of weeks, while everyone has been holding their breath waiting for the indictments of Rove, Libby, and possibly others, to be returned. However, once the commotion of Plamegate dies down, the perfect storm will come to full intensity. What makes the Abramoff scandal orders of magnitude more damaging to the Republican Party than the indictments courtesy of Patrick Fitzgerald? The Abramoff story has all the elements of a modern day suspense thriller.

1) Influence peddling in Washington, which extends all the way to the White House itself.

2) The murder of an Abramoff adversary in Florida by members of the Gambino Crime Family. Yes, thats right, the Mafia.

3) Real estate swindles and fraud.

4) Close ties to Tom Delay and other high profile Congressional Republicans.

5) Political lawbreaking in Guam, of all places.

6) The selling of political favors, along with promises of passing bills in Congress, to corporate interests for vast sums of money.

7) Defrauding American Indian Tribes out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while promising them influence in Congress and the White House.

8) And lets not forget all the junkets that big names in the GOP took, with Abramoff picking up the tab on behalf of corporate interests.

The investigation of Abramoff has already resulted in serious indictments of bank fraud against him, charges of obstruction of justice against David Safavian, Bush's former chief procurement officer, who attempted to derail the Abramoff investigation, capital murder charges against 3 members of the Gambino Crime Family in Florida, and other charges. At least one Bush nomination has been derailed due to the nominee's ties to Abramoff, and not so ethically challenged Republican members of Congress, such as Rick Santorum and Tom Davis, are returning Abramoff donations faster than hot potatoes.

And guess what? This investigation is just getting off the ground. Others in the crosshairs of the investigation include Tom Delay (this time, on Federal charges), Republican congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, Republican party strategist Grover Norquist, Republican strategist Ralph Reed, who is running for governor in Georgia, and many, many more well known Republicans.

The Republicans are extremely nervous, while waiting for Fitzgerald's shoe to drop. However, many more Republicans are absolutely terrified of the other shoe, which will be dropping like a bomb very soon. This second shoe will be the complete unraveling of the Neocon movement in the United States. When that happens, the GOP will once again turn to its Conservative roots, and they will have much work to do. It wont be easy rebuilding the party with the legacy of dozens of jailbirds on their backs.

Article is here.

 

[TurtleDude]

I find it interesting how many posts you make whining about Bush (Abramoff has plenty of dealings with dems too) and yet you claim to be a conservative.

Do you think whining about Bush and perhaps helping the dems win the congress in 06 is good for the GOP cause? Or do you do this to gain some sort of credibility as being a equal opportunity whiner?

 

[danarhea]

I find it interesting how many posts you make whining about Bush (Abramoff has plenty of dealings with dems too) and yet you claim to be a conservative.

Do you think whining about Bush and perhaps helping the dems win the congress in 06 is good for the GOP cause? Or do you do this to gain some sort of credibility as being a equal opportunity whiner?

:spin:

Now tell me, which facts do you disagree with?

As for whining, I have never been a whiner, and never will be. But, I think this guy is these days:

:rofl

 

[Diogenes]

Now tell me, which facts do you disagree with?

What facts? So far you have posted nothing but allegations, which are no more than flatulence in a hurricane. When you get to the kind of hard evidence that there was in the Clinton investigation, I'll take more of an interest... :roll:

 

[danarhea]

What facts? So far you have posted nothing but allegations, which are no more than flatulence in a hurricane. When you get to the kind of hard evidence that there was in the Clinton investigation, I'll take more of an interest... :roll:

So you deny that Abramoff has been indicted? Been living in a cave?

:rofl

 

[TurtleDude]

:spin:

Now tell me, which facts do you disagree with?

As for whining, I have never been a whiner, and never will be. But, I think this guy is these days:

:rofl

you avoided the question. the issue involves not the fact that Bush is not perfect (he isn't) or that his administration has made mistakes (they have) versus the reasons for constantly harping on them without analyzing what the alternatives-the reasonably expected alternatives are. Also posting facts without posting the context can be misleading as well-such as claiming abramoff is somehow solely involved with the GOP: its like the moonbats whining about Enron and its ties to Bush while ignoring the fact that Enron's CEO-Lay had lots of dealings with clinton

with the country as divided and politics as hateful as it is now, I don't see much utility in whining about a GOP president when there is no evidence he has been dishonest. I don't believe Kerry would have done any better and he would have done plenty of evil things-like appointing more bader-ginsburg or lani Guineer type judges and appointed anti gun justice department honchos etc

 

[danarhea]

you avoided the question. the issue involves not the fact that Bush is not perfect (he isn't) or that his administration has made mistakes (they have) versus the reasons for constantly harping on them without analyzing what the alternatives-the reasonably expected alternatives are. Also posting facts without posting the context can be misleading as well-such as claiming abramoff is somehow solely involved with the GOP: its like the moonbats whining about Enron and its ties to Bush while ignoring the fact that Enron's CEO-Lay had lots of dealings with clinton

with the country as divided and politics as hateful as it is now, I don't see much utility in whining about a GOP president when there is no evidence he has been dishonest. I don't believe Kerry would have done any better and he would have done plenty of evil things-like appointing more bader-ginsburg or lani Guineer type judges and appointed anti gun justice department honchos etc

I have yet to see you refute a single fact... Keep spinning. It wont stop your ship from sinking, but it will be fun to watch.

gurgle gurgle. :lol:

 

[TurtleDude]

I have yet to see you refute a single fact... Keep spinning. It wont stop your ship from sinking, but it will be fun to watch. :lol:

I didn't come here to refute your "facts" I came to ask why a supposed conservative comes to a board like this to engage in hard core Bush bashing.

I guess you either are lying about your politics or you are a troll. either way you aren't credible.

Facts are funny things and after 22 years of being a trial attorney-many of them as a prosecutor I know what you omit is often as important as what you say

I could say MAN SHOOTS Child in the back

sounds pretty bad doesn't it. Until I also state that a 60 year old homeowner in a wheelchair shoots a 17 year old gangbanger just before the criminal stabbed his wife a second time

You have a hard time proving that say the war could have been run better -you can alway second guess every IED death but you can't say with certainty that any other CiC would have done a better job

so again the question is what is your goal? are you too cowardly to tell us

 

[danarhea]

I didn't come here to refute your "facts" I came to ask why a supposed conservative comes to a board like this to engage in hard core Bush bashing.

I guess you either are lying about your politics or you are a troll. either way you aren't credible.

Facts are funny things and after 22 years of being a trial attorney-many of them as a prosecutor I know what you omit is often as important as what you say

I could say MAN SHOOTS Child in the back

sounds pretty bad doesn't it. Until I also state that a 60 year old homeowner in a wheelchair shoots a 17 year old gangbanger just before the criminal stabbed his wife a second time

You have a hard time proving that say the war could have been run better -you can alway second guess every IED death but you can't say with certainty that any other CiC would have done a better job

so again the question is what is your goal? are you too cowardly to tell us

For a trial lawyer, you dont seem to be good at rebutting the facts. And as a trial lawyer, you should know as well as I do that mere rhetoric is not very good compared to hard facts, and I am not even a lawyer and I know that. So let me ask you, how many of your clients have you ended up sending to death row? Question withdrawn.

 

[TurtleDude]

For a trial lawyer, you dont seem to be good at rebutting the facts. And as a trial lawyer, you should know as well as I do that mere rhetoric is not very good compared to hard facts. So let me ask you, how many of your clients have you ended up sending to death row?

none-I never defended felony defendants. I guess you don't read very well.
I guess I will take it from your evasions that you aren't willing to explain your Bush bashing which is what you constantly engage in. I criticize Bush but I always note that he is better than Kerry and the judges he picks are certainly better. You apparently are a faux conservative

I note that the far left flamers-Ben and Jerry-advised people to write letters, post messages and call talk shows claiming to be republicans or conservatives and then Bash the administration since most people find bashings from a conservative to be more useful than the rantings of a far left hack

it appears you are one of these

the proper context of facts would be this

2000 people have died in 2.5 years-one of the LEAST costly military operations in US history (do you know how many people we lost just securing the Tarawa beach head?) The other inquiry would be what would have kerry done different and then make a reasoned extrapolation as to whether this would have saved lives

 

[danarhea]

none-I never defended felony defendants. I guess you don't read very well.
I guess I will take it from your evasions that you aren't willing to explain your Bush bashing which is what you constantly engage in. I criticize Bush but I always note that he is better than Kerry and the judges he picks are certainly better. You apparently are a faux conservative

I note that the far left flamers-Ben and Jerry-advised people to write letters, post messages and call talk shows claiming to be republicans or conservatives and then Bash the administration since most people find bashings from a conservative to be more useful than the rantings of a far left hack

it appears you are one of these

the proper context of facts would be this

2000 people have died in 2.5 years-one of the LEAST costly military operations in US history (do you know how many people we lost just securing the Tarawa beach head?) The other inquiry would be what would have kerry done different and then make a reasoned extrapolation as to whether this would have saved lives

And you are still talking around the Q, and you have been during this whole thread. First of all, I dont give a damn about Clinton, and he, along with his penis, have been out of office for 5 years. Kerry? The Democrats? They are not running this country, are they? The Iraq war? That is not even this subject. The subject of this thread is the Jack Abramoff scandal, the indictments resulting from this investigation, and the continuing investigation. You do know that, dont you? If not, then read the first post, and take some time to read the link I provided too. For an attorney, you are extremely unprepared, arent you?

OK, so you never defended felony defendants. I will take you at your word. I will also take you at your word that you have been a prosecutor. You must have let a boatload of defendants walk, as unprepared as you are to debate the subject at hand.

 

[TurtleDude]

And you are still talking around the Q, and you have been during this whole thread. First of all, I dont give a damn about Clinton, and he, along with his penis, have been out of office for 5 years. Kerry? The Democrats? They are not in office, are they? The Iraq war? That is not even this subject. The subject of this thread is the Jack Abramoff scandal, the indictments resulting from this investigation, and the continuing investigation. You do know that, dont you? If not, then read the first post, and take some time to read the link I provided too. For an attorney, you are extremely unprepared, arent you?

OK, so you never defended felony defendants. I will take you at your word. I will also take you at your word that you have been a prosecutor. You must have let a boatload of defendants walk, as unprepared as you are to debate the subject at hand.

You are an evasive little clown aren't you. I didn't come here to debate you -I came here to ask why an alleged conservative goes around these boards constantly bashing Bush

Nothing more nothing less. YOu ought to not make assumptions about other people-I base what I say purely on your posts.

 

[danarhea]

You are an evasive little clown aren't you. I didn't come here to debate you -I came here to ask why an alleged conservative goes around these boards constantly bashing Bush

Nothing more nothing less. YOu ought to not make assumptions about other people-I base what I say purely on your posts.

Temper, temper. No need for you to throw a hissy fit, and namecalling will get you nowhere. Is this also your manners in the courtroom? Not very professional of you.

Now once again, please respond to the facts, and leave the namecalling out of this.

And why am I bashing Bush? Hint: Bush is no Conservative.

 

[TurtleDude]

Temper, temper. No need for you to throw a hissy fit, and namecalling will get you nowhere. Is this also your manners in the courtroom? Not very professional of you.

Now once again, please respond to the facts, and leave the namecalling out of this.

this is a typical debating tactic of a professonal liar. YOu make statements which I have no interest in refuting. I merely noted the context in which you pose them is less than honest. I merely ask you why a supposed conservative is one of the more hard core Bush bashers on this board. This would lead reasonable people to conclude you are dishonest about your political leanings. Rather than respond to this, you attack me and claim I can't refute facts that I never challenged to begin with

Can you tell us why you are so dishonest?

 

[danarhea]

this is a typical debating tactic of a professonal liar. YOu make statements which I have no interest in refuting. I merely noted the context in which you pose them is less than honest. I merely ask you why a supposed conservative is one of the more hard core Bush bashers on this board. This would lead reasonable people to conclude you are dishonest about your political leanings. Rather than respond to this, you attack me and claim I can't refute facts that I never challenged to begin with

Can you tell us why you are so dishonest?

Once again, where do you disagree with the facts. Oh, BTW, better people than you have tried to bait me and failed. Good luck on that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Once again, where do you disagree with the facts. Oh, BTW, better people than you have tried to bait me and failed. Good luck on that.

I didn't say I disagreed with the facts. I asked you what motivates you to constantly post anti bush "facts" and post them in the worst possible light as to the administration and to omit context

nothing more nothing less

maybe I should ask you-what was the purpose of starting this thread?

 

[danarhea]

I didn't say I disagreed with the facts. I asked you what motivates you to constantly post anti bush "facts" and post them in the worst possible light as to the administration and to omit context

nothing more nothing less

maybe I should ask you-what was the purpose of starting this thread?

My purpose in starting this thread is irrelevant to the topic. If I give you the reason, you are just going to use that as an excuse to try and hijack the thread, as if that is not what you are trying to do now. Typical of you and your ilk. Cant debunk what is posted, so you attack the poster. Pretty lame, and not very effective either.

So here is my purpose - I voted for Buchanan in 2000, voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, support the second amendment, believe in the 10th amendment, believe that Federal government is way to big for its Liberal britches, and know for a fact that Bush and the Neocons are not Conservatives.

So now that you know a little of my politics, try an honest rebuttal of what I posted? Do you disagree with my first post? If so, then why do you disagree. It shouldnt be that hard, especially for someone who tells everybody he is a lawyer.

 

[TurtleDude]

My purpose in starting this thread is irrelevant to the topic. If I give you the reason, you are just going to use that as an excuse to try and hijack the thread, as if that is not what you are trying to do now. Typical of you and your ilk. Cant debunk what is posted, so you attack the poster. Pretty lame, and not very effective either.

So here is my purpose - I voted for Buchanan in 2000, voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, support the second amendment, believe in the 10th amendment, believe that Federal government is way to big for its Liberal britches, and know for a fact that Bush and the Neocons are not Conservatives.

So now that you know a little of my politics, try an honest rebuttal of what I posted? Do you disagree with my first post? If so, then why do you disagree. It shouldnt be that hard, especially for someone who tells everybody he is a lawyer.

i believe its stupid to speculate about this issue until I can review any indictments that are issued by the grand jury and what the facts are supporting them. I also find it interesting you supported a populist like Buchanan and then a libertarian. I realize that BUsh is not a pure conservative and the alleged neocons aren't either but they are better than the dems and right now that is the only two choices. You like guns-you ought to compare the records of the Bush DOJ and the last dem DOJ

you also think that voting for people who have ZERO chances of winning is going to advance your pro life agenda better than say allowing the dems to win

 

[danarhea]

i believe its stupid to speculate about this issue until I can review any indictments that are issued by the grand jury and what the facts are supporting them. I also find it interesting you supported a populist like Buchanan and then a libertarian. I realize that BUsh is not a pure conservative and the alleged neocons aren't either but they are better than the dems and right now that is the only two choices. You like guns-you ought to compare the records of the Bush DOJ and the last dem DOJ

you also think that voting for people who have ZERO chances of winning is going to advance your pro life agenda better than say allowing the dems to win

There you go again, talking around the Q. I could give a rats ass about the differences between the Republcans and the Democrats. Right now, they are birds of a feather, but when Bush is gone, there will once again be differences. At that time, we will be on the same side, supporting an HONEST Republican administration for a change, but until then, I consider it my duty as a citizen to point out in no uncertain terms that the biggest lie of all from the Bushneviks is that they dare to call themselves Conservatives.

 

[Diogenes]

So you deny that Abramoff has been indicted? Been living in a cave?

Like I said, so far nothing but allegations... :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

There you go again, talking around the Q. I could give a rats ass about the differences between the Republcans and the Democrats. Right now, they are birds of a feather, but when Bush is gone, there will once again be differences. At that time, we will be on the same side, supporting an HONEST Republican administration for a change, but until then, I consider it my duty as a citizen to point out in no uncertain terms that the biggest lie of all from the Bushneviks is that they dare to call themselves Conservatives.

I dont care what they call themselves. I appear in front of federal judges continually and I know for a fact that the rulings we get-be it criminal cases or civil ones-are better -for the most part-from GOP judges.

that is the issue to me-winning. voting for Buchanan (who is one of the most loathesome losers in politics) or someone who didn't even get 1% of the vote is a waste of time

I guess the difference is that while we probably philosophically agree on many issues I am a pragmatist and I can't afford to deal with pillow headed idealism while you have no perspective on reality

bashing Bush because he doesn't meet your definition of conservative only helps the left

 

[danarhea]

I dont care what they call themselves. I appear in front of federal judges continually and I know for a fact that the rulings we get-be it criminal cases or civil ones-are better -for the most part-from GOP judges.

that is the issue to me-winning. voting for Buchanan (who is one of the most loathesome losers in politics) or someone who didn't even get 1% of the vote is a waste of time

I guess the difference is that while we probably philosophically agree on many issues I am a pragmatist and I can't afford to deal with pillow headed idealism while you have no perspective on reality

bashing Bush because he doesn't meet your definition of conservative only helps the left

The Left? Thats a good one. Did you know that Irving Kristol, the founder of Neoconservatism, was a card carrying member of the Communist party? His son, William Kristol, the founder of PNAC, has stated on more than one occasion that he would support a leftist hawk over a Conservative? That Bush has increased the size of government more than JFK and LBJ ever did? That Bush's spending, even after considering the War on Terror and the Iraq war, is still more than FDR's? I know you dont want to hear this, but the Bush administration is Liberalism on steroids.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Left? Thats a good one. Did you know that Irving Kristol, the founder of Neoconservatism, was a card carrying member of the Communist party? His son, William Kristol, the founder of PNAC, has stated on more than one occasion that he would support a leftist hawk over a Conservative? That Bush has increased the size of government more than JFK and LBJ ever did? That Bush's spending, even after considering the War on Terror and the Iraq war, is still more than FDR's? I know you dont want to hear this, but the Bush administration is Liberalism on steroids.

the things that annoy me most about liberalism-gun banning first (I was on the US shooting team and still enjoy recreational shooting almost weekly) taxes, and the judiciary-are all addressed far better by the current admnistration. Dems or GOP-both are spending like drunken sailors. I know that. I hope to see the government start to starve to some extent. furthermore, at least BUsh's spending doesn't create the vast hordes of dem dependent voters like the same wasteful spending that kerry's idiotic health care plan would have

 

[danarhea]

the things that annoy me most about liberalism-gun banning first (I was on the US shooting team and still enjoy recreational shooting almost weekly) taxes, and the judiciary-are all addressed far better by the current admnistration. Dems or GOP-both are spending like drunken sailors. I know that. I hope to see the government start to starve to some extent. furthermore, at least BUsh's spending doesn't create the vast hordes of dem dependent voters like the same wasteful spending that kerry's idiotic health care plan would have

Believe it or not, we are in agreement. My greatest fear is the Democrats taking everything back because of the corruption inherent in the Republican party, corruption brought in by Neocons, parasites which are using the party as their host. Our best chance is to cut the cancer out of the party ASAP. If we are unwilling to do that, then we are looking at one hell of a Democratic backlash. That would be tantamount to death for Conservative views. That cannot be allowed to happen.

 

[TurtleDude]

Believe it or not, we are in agreement. My greatest fear is the Democrats taking everything back because of the corruption inherent in the Republican party, corruption brought in by Neocons, parasites which are using the party as their host. Our best chance is to cut the cancer out of the party ASAP. If we are unwilling to do that, then we are looking at one hell of a Democratic backlash. That would be tantamount to death for Conservative views. That cannot be allowed to happen.

I guess the issue then becomes are we better off bashing that cancer-which clearly exists and taking the risk that the left will gloat over this and use it to its advantage or trying to cut it out without so much publicity.