Sunday, April 09, 2006

Who's Making The Partisan Arguments?

This is the part I have been waiting for. When the lies are exposed an they squirm with every flimsy logic justification. John Kyl was on Late Edition speaking of the "release" of information in the Valerie Plame issue. He basically stated that British intelligence HAD said that Saddam had tryed to obtain..blah blah. Of course the French and Germans said it was bunk. Which it was. More interestingly to me though is the sudden reliance on British intelligence by America. If you drop in Supreme Court justices and laws you get a completely different reaction from the wingnuts.

But right now out of the sight of most Americans is a quiet movement to allow the legal decision making process of the U.S. Supreme Court to incorporate judicial findings of law from countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Aruba or even Jamaica in determining American constitutional questions in cases that come before it. ........Seems far fetched? Well, maybe not for long.

Ron: But right now out of the sight of most Americans is a quiet movement to allow the intelligence decisions of war and peace and the use of our countrys' military might to incorporate the findings of intelligence from countries like Britian, even when our own intelligence questions theirs(why the Pres said british intelligence instead of OUR intelligence.). Seem far fectched..well maybe not for long. The mighty wirlitizer is crankin up.

Update: Here


Anonymous DC said...

Did anyone else watch Kerry on "Meet the Press" this am? Pretty good and he says he would vote for censure and that he regrets his vote for the Iraq War profoundly. Also that the unilateral cowboy "diplomacy" of Bush, etc. re: Iran is going to cause major problems. Also, the deal with the immigration is that an agreement had been reached and that it is a standard procedure in the Senate not to let amendments be added once this has happened. The problem is those in the majority who sought to do so. Y'know the ones who like to add things to bills in the middle of the night so no one in the Senate really knows what he or she is signing cuz if he or she did he or she wouldn't go along with it. (Think-The Patriot Act, as explained by Michael Moore in F/911)

5:43 PM, April 09, 2006  
Anonymous DC said...

Re: Dem nominees-MY opinion
John Kerry* in '08!
I'm OK with Feingold and Edwards, too.
Would LOVE Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi as VP, but nation still too sexist to vote a female in (Hiss!) and we gotta play it safe.
Richardson would be OK as VP, but his tax cuts worry me (Rep. Lite?). He seems to be pretty self-interested like Hillary-a savvy politician. I actually like his Lt. Gov, Diane Denish much more. Plus he seems to have been pretty vindictive toward Chaves Co. when handing out the capital outlay funds. 'Course we can blame
Rep. Dan "FLYOVER FOLEY" for that, right? Also, anybody who's so chummy with Ron's boss-just about have to wonder how Democratic he really is. :-( Bill would get the Hispanic vote, tho, so that would be a plus. Warner would be OK, too.
Hillary is FAR down my list. As a woman, she won't win (see my previous comment); plus she is too self-interested; plus hanging around with Newt after he savaged her and Bill...that is a little much. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I am not thrilled with her.
*Wish the Kerry bashing would STOP. The exit polls showed he won. Kerry could've done better in his campaign. He admits it. But the GOP gets muchos dolares from the corporations who are running the show, plus Bush and the GOP fight dirty. They're all basically sewer rats-vicious campaigners who will stoop to doing and saying anything. John Kerry has more honor in his pinky toe than the bunch of them put together. He is a gentleman. Don't diss him for that. Anyway, it's Bush and his gang of thugs we should be hating not our own-right?

2:00 PM, April 14, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home