Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain on Immigration

GILFORD, N.H. -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was peppered with questions about illegal immigration at a town hall event in this small lake town an hour north of Manchester.

McCain was the first to broach the subject, addressing his support for a bill being pushed by President Bush. "We agree that our borders are broken," said McCain. "We agree that the issue must be addressed. My job is to do the hard things."

It was a theme he returned to repeatedly as he fielded questions from a crowd of several hundred whose cars lined Cherry Valley Road and who stuffed into the Gilford Fire House. Most of the questions were polite -- how illegal immigration had overloaded the healthcare system, when did it become such a big problem and why -- but occasionally the passion that the issue arouses was on display.

One man asked McCain bluntly: "Why should the American taxpayer subsidize illegal immigrants?"

McCain retorted that the legislation that bears his name would not do that and in fact would impose a number of hurdles for illegal immigrants to become citizens including a "torturous" 13-year wait at the back of the line.

The back and forth over immigration was a likely precursor to tonight's third Republican debate at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown. McCain has focused heavily on selling his immigration bill over the last week - an effort that culminated Monday with a speech to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. Over that same period, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) has turned up his criticism of the bill, insisting that it provides amnesty to the 12 million immigrants here illegally.

"I would say to the others running for president: 'What is your proposal? What is your idea?'" McCain said in a preview of his likely response to any attacks from Romney on the issue tonight.

He stressed his willingness to take on tough challenges and work in a bipartisan way throughout his remarks, whether the question was healthcare, immigration or veteran's benefits. "I know how Washington works," McCain said, highlighting his dedication to solving big problems. Lest any base voter thinks he is a Democrat in Republican clothing, however, McCain quickly added: "I have never betrayed my conservative principles."

With the McCain event concluded, we are headed back to Manchester to prepare for tonight's debate. Make sure to tune into The Fix where we'll be live-blogging all the action.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 5, 2007; 11:20 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Let's Talk Politics
Next: Republican Debate Preview

Comments

online Microsoft Exchange Server Enterprise 2003

Posted by: FancyYork | August 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Steinberg Nuendo 3.2 software

Posted by: FancyYork | August 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 06:31 PM (anon) - "...you are willing to sell out the environment, give up on gender and racial equality, ignore the sorry state of public education, allow for the privatization and inequal distribution of Social Security, allow fat white televangelists to dominate any cultural or moral discussion...." IN A HEARTBEAT. And, most traditional liberals would agree with me and *every* IT person I know of would, too. Choice, the environment, racial equality, good schools, all sound great, but if I don't have a job, to be blunt, I could give a r*ts *ss. Something the Democratic Party had better understand, I am more than a little sick and tired of training my replacement workers from India! It has happened three times in six years now, and Senator's Kennedy and Obama and Clinton have no idea of just how angry I am right now. They have no idea of just how many MILLIONS of hi-tech workers are plotting revenge. Do you think I am alone here? Nope! Go look around the web. There are hundreds upon hundreds of very angry and disappointed engineers and programmers just hammering the Democratic Party and the current crop of candidates. If we can, we will wreck the Party, we will undermine every candidate, we will point to the hipocracy of their blathering about family values while passing legislation to undermine those very families. They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Well, here's a new one for you - take workers for granted, mistreat and mislead us and there WILL BE hell to pay. It's early in this election cycle. Between now and election day, IT workers alone are going to crash the Democrats "party" and create more grief, more headaches, and cost them more than they ever dreamt if they continue to ignore us.

Posted by: MikeB | June 5, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 - Stop making the claim that you have credibility because you were an infantryman.

I was one also, it gives me credibility on being an infantryman and nothing else.

Stop it! You're embarassing your brothers.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

It's about jobs. It's about simple econimcs. If you flood the job market wages go down. If you flood the housing market rent goes up. Not to mention public schools. Socail programs are flooded with illegals. How is this possible?

I am not a racist at all. I am cool with all AMERICANS. The prblem is a lot of these people are not americans. All AMErcians should stay. If anybody wants to stay a chinaman or a mexican or nigeria they should go back to THEIR country. If they want to be an American they need to take legal steps to make that happen. They cannot be allowed to strong arm the system

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, all I was trying to say was that in the minds of roughly 40-45% of Americans - still! - the two are linked, and Bush and the GOP have in the past exploited that fear to win support for their Iraq policy.

Posted by: Cochise | June 5, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, you describe yourself as a 'traditional liberal,' yet you are willing to sell out the environment, give up on gender and racial equality, ignore the sorry state of public education, allow for the privatization and inequal distribution of Social Security, allow fat white televangelists to dominate any cultural or moral discussion...? All so you can keep your union job? It's not all about you. Anyway, you have to know that the commitment of any Republican to stand up to employers to keep jobs in this country - when their big campaign contributors want to move their work forces to India or elsewhere - is worth less than nothing. This is probably not news to you, but a key part of the Republican constituency is made up of industrialists, brokers, CEOs etc. They fund the GOP and Republican candidates, and no matter what the candidates say, if the businessmen feel they can save by using foreign labor, they will. Can you really not see that?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't waste your time on exact quotes. This is the game they play. While razor has you jumping through hoops he is giggling like a 9 year old school girl. If you are speaking truths you know you are right. Only liars and propogandists have to prove they are not lying constantly.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Again, the illegal immagration issue is an issue of the right. The last amnesty was offered by reagen. Bush's plan has always been this. Why did reagan not secure the border after amnesty, Bush 41, bush 43 after 9/11. The reason is slave labor. It is good for business. The american worker has been sold out. The dems are to blame on this as well but not to the extent of the republicans. They need their slave workers so they can play hteir golf and still pull profits. They have sold this country out. Again, they are not enforcing laws that already exist. I see a common theme here

Posted by: rufsu1133 | June 5, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Cochise, now you are moving the target. Bush has said that the Iraq war is related to the war on terror. That is not the same thing as saying Iraq was behind 9/11.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, there isn't that much difference between Clinton/Obama and Edwards on those issues.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, not currently... but Bush is on record saying that the reason we went to Iraq is that "we can either fight them over there, or we can fight them here as we saw on 9/11." (Not an exact quote, but that's the idea of it. He did use the "here... there," and he did mention 9/11.)

Posted by: Cochise | June 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

That is my fear mikeb. When did this illegal immgration issue become big? Right before the last election, right? The right has nothing right now. Nothing. They are against America on most sujects. The only thing they can do is CREATE and issue they are for, or perceived to be for. Hence the illegal immargation debate. How come this wasn't an issue in 2002? IT is the republicans only chance to keep power. Create a new issue. They are hoping for the Mikeb reaction. It is a choice between Iraq and the border. This is a false choice, handpicked to give the republicans a fighting chance. The republicans and democrats are differant sides of the asme coin. They are one party. They have sold us out. Our only hope is a real third or fourth party OF the people. What a novill approach

Posted by: JKrish | June 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The right, and by extension Razor/Zouk, have no souls anymore. They are atheists and anarcists posing as christians. They are treasonous sell-outs posing as patriots. At least the right has shows us what evil looks like. At least now the rest of us no WHAT IS NOT IMPORTANT IN LIFE. It's like the old Scarface "I'm the bad guy. You need me so you can point and say, THERE IS THE BAD GUY." Not me. Not simple little sean hannity. Not poor little ann coulter. Not poor little defensless Elisebeth Hasselbeck. In five years these people are going to look like clowns. They will be the ones who are out of touch with reality. Truth WILL reign supreme again. One day. As long as the right doesn't lose power and try to take everybody in their frustration. We will see where the republicans hearts really lie, and how much they really hate America's freedom, when they lose the presidential election

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - YES! I would gladly vote for a Republican Presidential candiate, Republican's across the board, if they came out against guest workers, H1-B visas, and vowed to deport all illegal immigrants. The number one issue in this country is jobs. Without them we have no security nor stability. If candidates would ween themselves away from corporations playing Amercian citizens against illegals and cheap foreign workers, we would have jobs, good jobs, and security. I care about Iraq. I have two sons in Iraq and I want them home. But what kind of home are they coming home to with Indian workers taking engineering and science jobs, illegals beating down wages and benefits for other job, and a new, just beginning wave of other guest workers taking other jobs. So, "YES", immigration is the deal breaker for me. The Democrats, MY Democrats, have abandoned me and every other worker (except for public employees) and I am seriously considering if they care about me or this country or our future. Domocrats blindly supporting Clinton and Obama, especially in light of where they stand on immigration, and their abandonment of the working class, makes me angry enough to switch parties. It, by the way, makes A LOT of other traditional liberals just as fed up as me.

Posted by: MikeB | June 5, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary, which is it? Bush misled you into voting for the war? Or you had all the information you needed, so you didn't need to read the national intelligence estimate?

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

That is the conservative movment in a nutshell.

"Others seriously want to discuss the issues, or at least used to before you began to concentrate exclusively on name-calling"

Look at their idols. Rush Limbaugh O'Reilly Coulter Hannity. If you lay with dogs you get fleas. Rush has over 10 million listeners. O'Reilly has almost 5 million viewers. Huge audiences. oRWELL'S NIGHTMARE. All news comes from one or two sources. AND THE RIGHT ACCEPTS THIS WILLINGLY as A FREE MARKETPLACE. Unbelievable.

Posted by: rufsu1133 | June 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I see some stuff about alleged links between Sadam and al Qaeda and Iraq, I see some stuff about alleged links between Atta and Iraq.

What I do not see is a statement which quotes ANYONE saying that Iraq/Sadam was behind 9/11.

The only people that I ever hear saying that Iraq/Sadam was behind 9/11 is the idiots who use that as a straw man on this blog. Bush doesn't say it, Hannity doesn't say it, Rush doesn't say it and Cheney doesn't say it.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I see some stuff about alleged links between Sadam and al Qaeda and Iraq, I see some stuff about alleged links between Atta and Iraq.

What I do not see is a statement which quotes ANYONE saying that Iraq/Sadam was behind 9/11.

The only people that I ever hear saying that Iraq/Sadam was behind 9/11 is the idiots who use that as a straw man on this blog. Bush doesn't say it, Hannity doesn't say it, Rush doesn't say it and Cheney doesn't say it.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, your willful lack of understanding is exceeded only by your spiteful nature. Others seriously want to discuss the issues, or at least used to before you began to concentrate exclusively on name-calling. I hope it gives you great joy to be a nuisance - I'm sure it must, because you must know that almost no one else here takes you seriously as a source of information or reasoned argument. Do you really get such satisfaction from preventing others from discussing and debating the issues? That's what this blog is supposed to be for, but it has increasingly become a window into your small, self-satisfied mind. Because I can't imagine that you believe you're changing anyone's mind, I must conclude that your goal is merely to be annoying, in much the same way that an 8 year old boy knocks over sand castles that were built by other people. I try to ignore you, and I think others do as well, but you seem to have nothing better to do than to post crude, not-very-well-thought-out insults on this blog, every day from noon on. Why must you ruin it for the rest of us? Is your world really that small?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The problem is. The right's "facts" are anything but. Propoganda. Any real evidence they shred. They look like criminals to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, did you see Michael Crichton on Charlie Rose last month? If not, I think you could watch the interview at Rose's web site. I heartily recommend the interview to you and if you watch it, I would look forward to your take.

When I was an undergraduate economics major, @1963, I studied some work by an "Austrian school" economist named Von Mises. He was a thoughtful but very laissez faire economist.

I just wonder if Zouk's "vaunted Von Mises
Institute" is named after a dead Austrian economist, and not after some dead German physicist. Von Mises the economist would be at least 120 if he were alive...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I've done enough today. Dittoheads are lost to antiquity
. There is no is communication with a person who willingly calls themsleves a dittohead. I hope future generations care about their country more than their fathers and mothers do.

Peace in the middle east. I'll talk to you all tomorrow

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I hear you debra. But why after 9/11. If you don't know, the right doesn't liek to report this, Rumsfield and the right had a long alliance with Saddamm. We gave him most of his weapons to fight Iran. This is a set-up for contract dollars. Why then? Why in 92"? Oil money, contraact dollars. If you don't know you can read about it, if you even care

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: Jkrish | June 5, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Facts with links versus dufas' ranting and raving. you decide.

If you prefer facts you are an R, if you only trust feelings, you are a D.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Just because nobody is getting thrown in jail doesn't mean they are not breaking laws. Time will tell. We have history books. Once Bush is out of office this house of cards will fall. I pray for that day.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

296-to-133 House vote and 77-to-23 Senate vote

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is Bush's war, the Democrats claim, because that dunderhead president misled them -- which is interesting, because presidential frontrunners Clinton and Edwards told debate host Wolf Blitzer that it did not matter that neither of them had read the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate before they voted for the war resolution. They had been briefed. Edwards read the five-page summary. (Maybe he was busy getting his hair done)

Clinton believed firmly that Iraq had WMD.

Of course she did. Her husband launched more than 400 cruise missiles at suspected WMD sites in Iraq when he was president.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton said of Saddam Hussein's WMD arsenal: "Someday, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Sen. Clinton claimed Sunday that she had expected that her vote for the war resolution would allow U.N. inspectors to finish their job -- even though Bush had made clear before the Senate vote that he was prepared to strike Iraq if Hussein did not back down. (She is still exploring reasons that her base will swallow)


Let me add, the figure who was really wrong was Hussein for his refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Hussein misled the world into thinking he had WMD.

Posted by: Debra | June 5, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

This is great today. We're really seeing how gone the republicans in this country really are.


"There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions"

"rufus1133, if you can prove your allegations, you can get rich off of it. "

"The Democratic Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of single, secular people. They are people who are on their own physically, as they may have a commitment problem where people of the opposite sex are concerned"


"Libby was not convicted of exposing the name of a covert operative. Please get the facts straight. Fitzgerald brought no charges related to that and a fair assessment makes it unclear as to whether she was covert or whether what happened vis a vis revealing her identity was even a crime. "

The lies and propoganda of these people never stops. Ever. I know it gets old for a lot of you, but that's the point. That's how they stole democracy. Keep talking. Keep saying the same thing over and over and over, until people believe it. I really hope when a democrat is elected they go back to serving ALL americans not just republicans. I alos hope they lock all these "extended" new power the president "has" back in the closet. I really hope people out there don't think Bush is setting new president in America. If so things are going to all go downhill. I hope all politicains get back to reality. This dreamworld stuff is scary. How can you talk to a martian?

Posted by: JKRish | June 5, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

dufas - were you wounded in the head?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

tRUE VOICE. I am a former Army infantry soldier, so I can say this. The right is propogating in regards to the troops. If the right really supported teh troops they would not trade OUR blood of little pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents on it. That is not the free trade you love so much. That is called treason, regardless of what name you put on it. For example, Ann COulter wears a cross eveytime I see her, hannity often CALLS himself a christian. Does that make it so. The right says they are for the troops. What are they doing though. The opposite OF EVERYTHING THE RIGHT SAYS IS TRUE. I wish there was a candidate THAT CARED ABOUT WAHT THE REPUBLICANS CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT. But currently that party doesn't exist. Everything the repubs have told you is a lie. They are closet facists with a plan of total domination. If the right supported the troops would ALL teh generals coming back be talking against the war. Would their voices be silenced, not only in service but when they get home also. Gen Batsite fired from CBS for speaking agianst the war. Anti-war Soldiers being re-evaluated AFTER AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE for speaking out against the war. The right are nothing but walking dollar signs. You arte lost. I will lead you to the light, today. If you choose to be free. That first step toward freedom is scary GOP, I realize that. "You have nothing to fear but fear itself." :)

Posted by: RUFSU1133 | June 5, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

PARTY OVER COUNTRY

you mean like hoping for defeat in war, wishing for economic downturn? your own prescription is your only hope for victory.

sorry to break the NO MOONBATS pledge.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 5, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

WOW. Now that is denial. But somehow the polls say 80% believed that. I guess it was magic

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry - if you are too stupid for society, you get stuck in Iraq. But I want to thank you for your service

Harry Reid - the war is lost but I want to thank you for your service

Dems in general - we will eliminate the military but we want to thank you for your service, you bunch of torturers, misfits, deralicts, killers, blood-thirsty monsters and imperialistic jingoists. Did we mention that we appreciate your sacrifice? Will saying that get me elected so I can pull the rug out from under you camoflouged ninkompoops?

Posted by: the true voice | June 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

dufas - None of your quotes says that Saddam was behind 9-11. The question was not 9-11 and Iraq, not Al-Qaeda and Iraq, but SADDAM behind the attack. No repub has made that claim.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 5, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Bush/the conservative movement and Al-Queda have a lot of similar interests. The Bush's are great freidns with Saudi Arabia, right razor? The laws the right are trying to impleament here lead to teh same state that we are fighting in Iran. Iran is the big winners in the middle east right now.

If you don't care about this treason razor, I'm not sure anybody can say anything to change you mind. YOu select PARTY OVER COUNTRY. It should be pointed out. All of you SHOULD be pointed out. Treason used to be a very serious offense

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, that article comes from the vaunted Van Mises institute. you can continue chanting but scientists don't really go along with ignorance.

And as usual, when Libs get caught on facts, they go after personalties. how does the background of the poster have anything to do with cosmic rays?

I suppose you will have to add Demonomics to your ignorant science views. Raise taxes to achieve prosperity. hire administrators to improve schools. spend money to balance budgets. Ignore corruption to clean up congress. Vote to fund the war to end it. the most amusing is "I want to thank you for your service" before every sniper attack on the military. do you really think that forgives you for your treachery?

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 5, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Do you need more? I know the right often doesn't believe theri own eyes or ears sometimes. I got more for you


The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - I don't think voting your conscience is a waste. If more people did it we would have less problems. You hear a lot of that in the "electable" arguments that are bandied about by both sides. By saying we prefer one candiate over another because that candidate is electable, we are really conceding that we aren't voting for the person that we think would do the best job and that is a shame.

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

do any of you conspiracy nuts think it is strange that the R debate is only two days behind the D one. that means the media will be forgiven for not digging into the details of all the moronic ideas advanced by Snow White and the 7 dwarfs. Is there a single journalist out there who will ask:
1. How much
2. consequences
3. Actual need

I am sure it is easier to elaborate on why some R candidates support evolution, even without asking them about it. Perhaps if I have 1/3 of my brain removed I could be a journalist and vote D.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Somehow I doubt you're a 'Dem'"

bsimon - Zouk's just late today. Don't feed him, he's already reached his sugar high limit.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

All from this paper. You can do the research on your own. You know I speak only truth Razor. You know if you fact check me at all adds up. You know that. Come on now :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."


"As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq. "

"And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

"In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved. "

Posted by: i can go on all day | June 5, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

'no science, we're dems' writes
"For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere -- but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring!"

Somehow I doubt you're a 'Dem' but I have no doubt that you have no background in science.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Razor- that is our friend ignorant coward. He is so beneath stupid, he is a Dem. If you volunteer to have 3/4 of your brain removed, you can vote for hillary. 7/8 gets you a spot on edwards staff.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

concerned repub, you are the dumbest repub I know.

I challenge you to find any statement from any repub that says sadam was behind 9/11.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

and sadamm was behind 9/11. That's what Rush tells us and he would never lie

Posted by: concerned repub | June 5, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Edwards revealed that he prays -- and sins -- every day.

Finally something to agree with Edwards about, at least half agree.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/democrats.religion.ap/index.html

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere -- but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.

The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!

Posted by: no science, we're Dems | June 5, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

as you are america razor. NEw Orleans is America. New York is America. Cindy Sheehan is America. The conservative movement is nothing but politicains pretending TO BE America. Liars facists propogandist. We have been sold out for $$$$$$

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133, you don't have to keep the money, you can just get it back from Haliburton. Wouldn't that be worth it? Give your share to the homeless, but get it back from Haliburton. Unravel the conspiracy rufus. IF you can prove it.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"rufus1133, if you can prove your allegations, you can get rich off of it. "

I told you. I am a REAL christian wil no ego. Money does not move me as it would you. There are more important things in the world than me making money. Much more. That's why I'm here today, and yesterday. I don't care about money. If I did I would sell myself out (to the republican movement) and make money. Istill have my soul. It is precious. There is more important things to some people than money. What happened to truth justice and the american way? HAs that principle been traded for lies/propoganda, injustice and the capitalist way? The right needs to do some serious soul searching if it wants back into american politics. If you don't know, right now, they are done for at least ten years. Another before it happens "crazy" warning. I am not out of touch with america. I AM AMERICA

Posted by: rufus | June 5, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away."


http://www.mises.org/story/2571

Posted by: warming lies | June 5, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

So I'm in New Hampshire for the Democrats' debate Sunday, watching on two huge screens. The instant Hillary appears, the woman behind me whispers, "Oh look at Hillary. She's had work done!"

I put the question to WBZ's political guru Jon Keller: Notice anything about Hillary? "Botox," he replied, not missing a beat. "But it's time for Botox to win one."

He was referring to John Kerry and Botox. And elaborate dental work. And chin reduction. Google our senator, before and after.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause.
Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3242551&page=1

the more we learn, the less we like. I always said all it takes to eliminate the Dems is to let them air their beliefs. It's working.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 5, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133, as I have explained to you numerous times, you have to PROVE your allegations in court.

As I have told you before, if in fact money has been fraudulently obtained from the government, and you can prove it, you get to keep a percentage of the money.

Under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.), someone reporting fraud receives 15 to 30 percent of whatever amount the government recovers as a result. A private individual with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the U.S. federal government is authorized to bring suit on its behalf.

rufus1133, if you can prove your allegations, you can get rich off of it.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

clearly. Same can be said of you zouk/razor. I hear O'REilly once say," only the nuts were against going into Iraq." I guess I am crazy. I guess those in the know, don't understand how the world "really" works. You are living in a dreamworld zouk. Read 1984 again. Please for all our sakes. Tell your freinds they are being lied to. Please for all our sakes

What a strange world we now live in. Truth=craziness.
intuition=not knowing what you are talking about.

Double think. Newspeak.

OWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 5, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, there is clearly much you don't understand.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

at least people aren't dying as a result of their corruption

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

You can't surrender fast enough to please me. I also hope for lots more spending and taking of the wealth for the poor. It doesn't matter if Dems are corrupt, they have their heart in the right place.

Posted by: Dem primary voter | June 5, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

It's not mine or your job razor to take these issues to court. That's what wrong with the right. "If we don't get caught, no crime occured." I don't live by that mantra. Crime is crime whether it's George Bush or John Gotti. Both should be held responsible for their CRIMES.

I have a job. It is not a lawyer with the responsibility to take down corrput officials. If I go after them I will be broke and on the street. Where is our legal system? Where is the media? Where are Congress and the Senate. It is their job to do something. If thye don't OUR job is to vote them out and put someone in their WHO WILL DO THEIR JOBS. It's not my job to police Bush. What would happen to me if I tried? Bush defenders make no sense to me. How does someone like Razor profit from his actions? I understand those making millions off this propoganda and lies. What I don't understand is why people like razor and zouk follow them FOR NOTHING.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The great thing about the law is that if you have an argument, you can take it to court, as I have pointed out numerous times to leftists psuedo lawyers with nutty ideas about the law.

Rightwing psuedo law is no better. redheadclaudine, if you took that argument about babies and citizenship to any court in America, you would get laughed out of the building. Even a judge who was against immigration would laugh you out of the building.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"The Democratic Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of single, secular people. They are people who are on their own physically, as they may have a commitment problem where people of the opposite sex are concerned."

Really -- this is one of the stupider statements I have ever seen. I live in a community full of married Dems with kids who fill our many churches and synagogues every sabbath. Really dumb, whoever posted this.

Posted by: Diana | June 5, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I take offese to "And they are on their own spiritually, not belonging to any community of faith"

The conservative movement do not include christians. It has people claiming to be christians, just as muslim bombers "claim" to be muslims. You are a christian because of your actions and words, not because you say you are a christian. The republican movement is anti-christian if anything.

1. love of money, as opposed to shunning of.
2. intolerance of those not like you
3. hate (muslims, liberals, socialist,poor)
4. lies, propoganda

The right used christianity to held a large part of the popolation WHO WANTED TO BE HERDED. A real chrisitan follows the Christ, not Rush/Newt/Coulter/Hannity/Dbsen/Bucahnnan

Posted by: JKrish | June 5, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

redheadclaudine - Your organization has some fairly alarming views. The premise of your attack on "alien babies" suggests that they are not citizens because they were born here, if their parents are not legal immigrants too. hogwash. The 14th Amendment makes no such claim.

For all the legal scholars out there, here's the "proof" they cite to justify blatantly zeonphobic views:
"She (Michelle Dallacroce, founder of MAIA)
has uncovered the clear defense which, without a doubt - PROVES that Illegal Alien Infants. aka. Anchor Babies - ARE NOT citizens. Based on the first sentence in Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is.....a citizen of the United States." In the book titled "Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation," Page 1672, Par. 3, line, 5, states, "The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation," or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal law."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf

I am in favor of ending chain migration, but your stance is going to result in more of the staus quo.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 5, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward asks
"What I want to know is, seriously, why didn't who ever actually outed Valerie Plame punished? That is a serious crime, after all."

According to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, who was appointed to investigate that crime, the efforts of certain individuals obstructed his investigation. Scooter Libby was accused, tried and convicted of that crime (obstruction), and others. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has said that a 'dark cloud' still exists over Vice President Cheney, but due to the actions of Libby (and possibly others), he is unable to effectively complete his investigation. Perhaps if Mr Libby serves every day of his 30 month sentence, it will be well worth having kept Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald from completing the task to which he was assigned.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"The Democratic Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of single, secular people. They are people who are on their own physically, as they may have a commitment problem where people of the opposite sex are concerned."

WOW. It must be true because that book says so. He/She would lie to you to make a fotune selling you that book :). Blanket false ridiculous statments like this is what it has come to. Thanks to Bill O'Reilly and his blind accusation/statements. Bill Loves to tell you who liberals are. They love to tell you what they think. Propoganda lies. I am not a conservative. I have no idea why you people do the things you do. I don't pretend to. What O'REilly and the right love to do is put false labels on people. This way it gives you a galvanist. Someone or something to hate. How can you hate that which you don't know? Democrats are single therefore needy? WOW. No wonder the right is done in this country for at least ten years.

What if I were to say ALL republicans are clone dittoheads who cannot think for themselves therfore must give their freedom to an avatar who lives for them. Is that a correct statements by saying "all" republcians? No, it isn't is it. I hope independant thinks see what you and you people are doing on your own. I think they do. The last election was disastorous for you. What propoganda will you say if the presidential election is a landslide against republicans? What about after the next senate and congress sweep? Will all of America be "out of touch" with OURSELVES. You people need to wake-up. This is not 1957. The red scare is over. You cannot tell people what THEY are or what thye THINK. That is facism. No a lighter note. Bill O'REilly/Hannity/Rush are all facists :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

'Dems, campaigned on ending the war and eliminating corruption. 0 for 2'

yeah, repugs campaigned on eliminating corruption in 1994 and we ended up with jack abramoff. your point, koz? and dems will end the war, just in a slower fashion than some want. but we are no longer talking about staying the course, are we? everyone is talking at least about how to get out. so we have changed the conversation. you just hate to see a war end, don't you zouky? expecially one you wouldn't dream of fighting yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

So how many of you even know that Arizona
Republican US Senators Amnesty John McCain
and Two Face Jon Kyl are right now,the
Targets of A Recall Sponsored By MAIA the
Mother Against Illegal Aliens and others
in Arizona since all of our so-called
mainstream newsmedia has already swept
this story under the carpet? So much for
a Free Press Here Folks!

Posted by: redheadclaudine | June 5, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of single, secular people. They are people who are on their own physically, as they may have a commitment problem where people of the opposite sex are concerned. They are, as the book by Robert D. Putnam says, Bowling Alone. And they are on their own spiritually, not belonging to any community of faith. Not surprisingly they want government to fill the gaps in their lives and make up for the lack of a safety net that a family or a church community provides. In short, they want other people to pay for their safety net. As a good Democratic politician, Senator Clinton understands and encourages this.

I thought Team Clinton announced the "Era of big government is over." Was this another unadmitted mistake?

Posted by: on your own | June 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

It's impossible to get the info with Rove and Cheney sherreding the documents. They are breaking law after law without any repercussions at all. I'm with Cindy Sheehan on this one. If Bush were a Democrat how far would he have gotten. how many times would he have been able to lie and break laws with impunity? Not many. Because of the dems lack of backbone I cannot support them. So whould do I support instead? Bush? The one breaking the laws and destroying democracy?

So in retrospect I am not represented in this government. MOST americans are not represented in this government. Yet the republicans and democarts love to tell us how we have a low voter turn-out. I wonder why. I'm not voting for someone I don't agree with, no matter how bad the other side is. I guess I'll continue to vote independant and "waste" my vote until I die. :)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 5, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi allowed Rep. Alan Mollohan (D) of West Virginia, who was also facing a federal investigation, to keep his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Dems, campaigned on ending the war and eliminating corruption. 0 for 2

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know is, seriously, why didn't who ever actually outed Valerie Plame punished? That is a serious crime, after all.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

drindl, yay. You and I completely agree on something; internally planted chips are a complete invasion of privacy, and should be...well, the libertarian in me doesn't think they should be outlawed, but anyone who would consent to getting one implanted as a condition of employment is an idiot.

For the record, I think a national ID card w/biometric is the only viable solution to controlling illegals, SS fraud, ID theft, etc. I'm banking that REAL ID will eventually happen, a DHS program that will force states to get real with their drivers' licenses if those licenses will be used for federal purposes, like opening a bank account or getteing on a plane. Yes, there are privacy issues. I guess to paraphrase, it's the 2nd worst choice, with all the other choices tied for first.

Posted by: JD | June 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

TG writes
"The republicans go to great lengths to cover up what in the end may not have been a crime."

It would seem that Tricky Dick & his trusty sidekick Scooter badly misplayed that one.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - I am not sure how to respond to that. I mean honestly, I am not being glib. You may be right that there was a cover up but there is a difference between what we think went on and what the facts bear out. We can't punish libby for something that can't be proven or wasn't attempted to be proved can we?

I mean this is kind of akin to the LAPD framing a guilty man in the OJ trial right? The republicans go to great lengths to cover up what in the end may not have been a crime.

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

' Are you then in favor of some kind of national system, including ID card w/biometric'

This is a legit question, JD -- and I think it's something we'll be wrestling for for some time, both in terms of immigration and enforcing border security... but the bio questions are very scary. Here is an area I know quite a bit about, having written technical marketing info for an electronic surveillance company. You would recognize the name. They have a system where any company can provide mandatory badges for employees with a chip in them, so that security personnel can monitor each employee's movements on a computer.

You can see how long someone stays in the bathrom, for instance, or outside smoking, or at the water coooler. Now of course this is handy for monitoring employee productivity and preventing theft, etc -- many useful applications, it is a tad creepy to me. I would have trouble with the feeling of something watching me every minute.

But the worse part is the newer stuff -- the internal chip. If you have a pet, you may have discovered that the vet will offer to implant a monitoring chip under your pet's skin, so that you can track them if they are lost. This product is now being marketed to companies who are involved in very security sensitive areas... and it involves mandatory implantation of the chip so that the user cannot remove it. I never had access to their internal sales so I honestly don't know how many of these are in use.

But what creeps me out is once we have such a system in place is how easy it would be to go to a mandatory implantation system.

Posted by: drindl | June 5, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Razor, would you vote for a D who agreed with you on immigration instead of a R who disagrees with you on immigration?

I don't think it is in our interest to manufacture a new litmus test for candidates this election cycle. Especially since Ds don't care as much about it as they do about global warming, for instance.

I hope someone can pin down Fred Thompson on his immigration stance. he's getting off scot free for now.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"and then you went and said this: "It is implausible that a fence will appreciably diminish the number of people who arrive here and work without proper documentation. "

I guess my comment to that is... HUH?!?? "

My point is that the majority of people coming into the country to work illegally are not arriving by walking over the border. They are arriving by other means for which a fence will not be an obstacle.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Before things got sidetracked, I believe the story was on McCain in Gilford, NH. The post didn't mention the third question asked, which was about global warming. More details are here: http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog/index.php .

70% of likely Republican primary voters polled considered global warming a serious or very serious threat today. 164 NH towns passed a resolution calling for federal action to address climate change. It would be nice if the Republican candidates get a chance to address this issue during the debate tonight.

Posted by: Toby in NH | June 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

TG. The libby verdict was the same as a mfia cover-up. I hear they are trying to apply RICO laws to going after the Bush administration. That is the conservative movements champion? American government now follows the , "I plead the fifth" MAfia mold. And your with that, attacking me for pointing it out. If all the republicans would stop attcking all disent and looking at the facts, rather than hidin gonly watching fox and listening to rush, they may be moved to do somehting. The left isn't holding up justice for this administration. Who is?

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I think an 80% solution is all we can do through the private sector - all employers of more than x employees covered. Further, there should be an immunity for private employers from civil rights suits generated because the DHS database continually says Juan is illegal because someone in DC keypunched in an incorrect SS#.

Small subs - e.g.; legal alien sheetrockers with illegal alien family members working for cash, totally off the rolls are not going to self-report.

Eventually we may have biometric ID cards but I would not want to hold a general responsible for his sub's employees in any event - although your idea that with biometric IDs the General could be held to check one time might be workable. On a big job, the sub's guys may actually be different every day!

Bsimon, an employer cannot now learn whether a flashed SS card is legit. When the employer sends money to a phony SS account for matching, the employer gets no refund and I believe that the money goes into a general account. I do not think SS now tells anyone that the deposit made was to a phony account.

IF someone knows different about SS, please feel free to chime in.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 5, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I don't know how many each year, not sure anyone does. I went with Time's number, which this site says might be inflated.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca

No matter, regardless it's really big, and a really big problem for America. It would clearly be whacked way down from doing the things you and I both suggest. I guess we're in violent agreement here...

and then you went and said this: "It is implausible that a fence will appreciably diminish the number of people who arrive here and work without proper documentation. "

I guess my comment to that is... HUH?!??

Posted by: JD | June 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, immigration is a powerful issue in Republican primaries, but it is not the new "third rail" of politics because it is irrelevant in Democratic primaries.

The Democrats in the race rarely talk about it. Democrats who oppose immigration are mostly union activists and the Democratic candidates know that these union activists will vote for them in the general election regardless. The Democrats in the primaries will try to appeal to union activists on other issues and will leave immigration alone.

MikeB, would you vote for a Republican who agreed with you on immigration instead of a Democrat who disagrees with you on immigration?

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Rufus,

I got most of my info on the case from the washington post. Wasn't it armitage and not libby that has admitted to disclosing the name inadvertently? Also, does any of this distract from the fact that Libby was not prosecuted for disclosing her name. If you are worried about propaganda, why is it that you try to paint Libby's prosecution as something that it clearly wasn't?

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Golgi - that rufus comment was about as subtle as a two by four offside the head.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 02:09 PM "

Yes anonymous -- it is the concept that is subtle. As I said, I like the phrasing because it communicates the concept simply and effectively. Another way to say that is that the statement is as simple as a two by four.

So anonymous and I agree.

Posted by: Golgi | June 5, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

that's what propogandists say. Her eis the truth.

"First, Maguire says that all we have to rely on is the prosecutor's opinion. Wrong. Maguire links to but bizarrely fails to note that Fitzgerald's assertion that Plame qualified as covert was based on the "Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson's CIA Employment and Cover History" attached to the sentencing memo and itself based upon the investigators' review of Plame's classified CIA personel file. Maguire probably doesn't tell his readers about this document because it makes his continued skepticism clearly insane. The summary states:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the chief of a CPD component which responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity- sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias-but always using cover-whether official or non-official cover (NOC)-with no ostensible relationship to the CIA. At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship which the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

So your not milead by propoganda. They are still saying Plame was not covert.

The right-wing noise machine spent the last two years repeatedly, continuously and emphatically telling their followers the exact opposite:

Fred Barnes, Fox News Special Report, November 3, 2005 (via Lexis):

The CIA made such a big deal out of Valerie Plame and her name being published. She wasn't even an covert agent or anything.


Fred Barnes, July 17, 2005 - Fox News roundtable (via Lexis):
Well, wait a minute, though. I mean, look, if they were really pushing this case, really trying to get her name out and discredit and disclose that she was a CIA agent, really out her -- and I don't think she was a covert agent. She worked at a desk in Langley at CIA headquarters.


Mark Levin, National Review, July 18, 2005:
Despite all the hype, it appears that Plame works a desk job at the CIA. That's an admirable and important line of work. But it doesn't make her a covert operative, and it didn't make her a covert operative when Bob Novak mentioned her in his July 14, 2003, column, or the five years preceding the column's publication, during which time she hadn't served overseas as a spy, either.


Washington Times Editorial, July 19, 2005:
What is known thus far suggests that . . . In July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak first mentioned in passing that Mrs. Plame worked for the CIA, she was not functioning as a covert agent and her work for the CIA was common knowledge.


Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, July 15, 2005:
Since it seems as clear as anything in this affair that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent the day before Novak's column either, I think we can chalk this up to Joe Wilson's habitual disingenuousness. . .

Nobody ever said that she wasn't working for the CIA -- the question is whether she was a covert spy or a paperpusher, and the answer seems pretty clearly to be the latter.

Rich Galen, Republican strategist, CNN's Situation Room, October 6, 2005 (via Lexis):
GALEN: At the time she was not undercover. She was not a covert -- and we call them officers, not agents. . . We're arguing whether or not she was a covert agent at the time and I'm saying she was not.


Alexander Haig, CNN, October 30, 2005 (via Lexis):
Now, let me tell you, he didn't lay a finger on anyone about a conspiracy associated with the war, or about an effort to get the so -- called State Department official's wife, who was really a bureaucrat and not a covert operator.


John Hinderaker Powerline, November 5, 2005:
When CIA leaks hurt the administration, these papers have gleefully passed them on. It was only when Scooter Libby mentioned the name of a non-covert CIA employee, Valerie Plame, that the Post, the Times, and other MSM outlets suddenly developed a faux concern about lapses in security.


Barbara Lerner, National Review, March 19, 2007:
The charge was false, and the CIA knew it was false from the get-go. Valerie Plame was their employee; they knew she was not a classified agent because she was not covert and had not worked abroad for more than five years.


Robert Novak, CNN's Crossfire, September 29, 2003 (via Lexis):
According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about? Pure Bush-bashing.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 5, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

McCain continues his 2 pronged sure fire losing campaign strategy:

1. Continue the Bush policy in Iraq.

2. Support for an immigration proposal that gives those who remain here illegallly an advantage over those not currently here when it comes to gaining citizenship.

Regardless of whether he is right as a matter of policy, and regardless of the extent to which positions on these issues should be based on political calculation, this is a horrible political strategy.

Posted by: Razorback | June 5, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"But by definition, sealing/securing the border will stop illegals, or at least greatly staunch the flow. Not to say that some can't get in through some kind of student-visa back door, but building a real wall will turn the 3mil/year into something far more managable; perhaps in the hundred-thousands. Obviously we can't get a perfect solution within limited resources."

JD, you imply that 3 million people per year are walking into the US on foot - and are never caught. That's over 8200 per day. I find such numbers to be extremely difficult to believe. It is implausible that a fence will appreciably diminish the number of people who arrive here and work without proper documentation.

Instead, take away the draw - jobs - and people will stop coming. You have to make it difficult to acquire fraudulent work documents & you have to make it easy to enforce labor laws.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"It contains a trap for the unwary - it would make building contractors responsible for policing their subcontractors' employees through the DHS positive id system."

That sounds like a real PITA. Perhaps the burden should not be on business to enforce the law. Perhaps instead, given that employess must have a federal tax id number (i.e. SSN), the employer should be able to verify the validity. Then, the burden falls on the gov't, who can start to make comparisons like "hey, this Javier dude from Puerto Rico has jobs in all 50 states... maybe we should follow up on some of these to see if this guy is really holding down that many concurrent jobs." In other words, the data is already available - but nobody's doing anything with it. Why not?

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark, as one of the few people on this board who refrains from namecalling and invective, I really enjoy your posts (even if you are from Texas....am I the only one from the DC area on a WASHINGTON POST board?... LOL)

I understand your issues with making the gen contractor responsible for subs, with major league liability should they screw up. Are you then in favor of some kind of national system, including ID card w/biometric, that can imm status? Or will REAL ID (if it ever gets implemented) take care of that for us?

Then, all the prime or subcontractor needs to do is verify the ID cards (each day, once a week, at the start of a job, randomly...don't know that yet). If there's doc fraud, or someone uses his brother's ID, then the company is off the hook.

Again, not the perfect solution, but it would be at least an 80% solution, and the chilling effect could be huge.

Posted by: JD | June 5, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Libby was not convicted of exposing the name of a covert operative. Please get the facts straight. Fitzgerald brought no charges related to that and a fair assessment makes it unclear as to whether she was covert or whether what happened vis a vis revealing her identity was even a crime.

He was convicted of perjury/obstruction and that should carry jail time. I was in favor of prosecuting Martha Stewart, Libby, Lil Kim, or anyone else that lies under oath, to investigators or otherwise. The entire process breaks down when people lie and when caught, we should make examples of them no matter who they are. The poster who said 30 months was at the high end of what Judge Walton was presented with is correct. Probation officials recommended up to 21 months, prosecutors up to 33 months and the defense asked for probation. Reggie B is a hard nosed judge that gave him close to the max of what prosecutors recommended. I think that is perfectly justified and appropriate.

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

bsimon and JD - now I will add something I know about this bill - it provides that most employers enroll in the DHS positive id program, which is supposed to have the bugs removed 18 mos from now when the mass registrations would start.

It contains a trap for the unwary - it would make building contractors responsible for policing their subcontractors' employees through the DHS positive id system.

I and my clients will actively oppose that provision in the bill. I think it was included because some subs would be too small to be covered under the main provision. However, making employers responsible for subcontractor's employees is completely unworkable. The employer does not pay the sub's employees or cover them with comp, and the sub may show up with different crews than he "listed" on his bid, which would be the only way the employer would even be able to check the sub's employees' bona fides before giving the sub the job.

I hope you get the idea...I could write more.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - that rufus comment was about as subtle as a two by four offside the head.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like the McCain advance team screwed up this event.

How hard is it to line up quetions a forum that you are hosting? Give me a break...this is another sign of a crumbling organization.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"jefferson kick? You have no idea what you are talking about...NOBODY ON THE RIGHT GETS ANYTIME." - rufus1133

Libby just got 2 1/2 years.

Your comment is just the kind of ammunition toads like Zouk look for to go off and say Democrats ignore crime among Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Thank Golgi. I try :). I just want to open the converation. I'm pretty sure nobody here is as left as me. With me here for the republicans to attack, it free's other voices. They may not be scared to say what they really mean because, nobody is more left than refuse. My goal is so we don't have to play that game. We should all be FREE to say what we want without a rufus in the argument. Unfortunaly you have the right dittohead clones who HAVE to attack anyone bringing truth. I'll take that. I am a christian, I can do that for everyone else here :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

mikeB says immigration "is the new third rail of American politics..." What a sorry state of affairs we have. Two of the most complex yet critically important issues of our time, immigration and Iraq, must be dealt with by our elected leaders, yet all we do is criticize and complain that everything is not just as we would like it to be.

As a McCain supporter since 2000, I will restate my confidence in his leadership, in no small part due to his willingness to tackle tough issues that no one else has the guts to.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 5, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"The republicans refuse to take a strong stand because they want SLAVE labor."

I like this phrasing -- it is simple and communicates a subtle point effectively. Thanks rufus, I will remember it! Not sure I agree with everything else you have posted today, but this one is a keeper.

Posted by: Golgi | June 5, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I agree we should *also* enforce existing laws, including going after companies that hire illegals. Maybe we need a national ID card as you imply, I don't know. This might help tackle the issues your wife talked about.

But by definition, sealing/securing the border will stop illegals, or at least greatly staunch the flow. Not to say that some can't get in through some kind of student-visa back door, but building a real wall will turn the 3mil/year into something far more managable; perhaps in the hundred-thousands. Obviously we can't get a perfect solution within limited resources.

The lack of a perfect solution is no reason not to aspire to something, however.

Posted by: JD | June 5, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

L.Sterling summarizes thusly:
"There is no "immigration problem", there is an "enforcement problem" of existing law."

True enough. In my opinion, effective enforcement of existing law would suppress the job supply for illegal/undocumented workers. This would reduce the number of people trying to sneak in, to the degree where additional border enfocement measures would not be necessary. To the extent that our borders need to be protected from other threats (i.e. terrorists vs. people looking for work), the existing plan is pointless anyway.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

My point above about Clinton was quite obvious, I thought. Clinton got impeached for the same thing Thompson is saying Libby should be pardoned for. The problem is that is nothing. what Clinto did was nothing. Bush is doin gMAJOR damage. Major damage to every aspect of this country. The conservative movement had their chance. They followed their model. It failed. I hope it stays in the closet from here out. Or better yet, I hope they move outta that closet and keep moving. Somewhere where they can all live like clones and be happy. Don't infringe on the rest of our freedoms though. The right only has free speech/actions. They are clones. Everybody else has a consequence for speacking up. Whether you get black-balled in reagrds to economy or get jail time. We need to open the jails. That's how we save moeny. We put CRIMINALS in jail. People responsible for crime and or deaths. Right now if you break conservative code you may be in damge, legally. People don't know what is really going on because they choose to live in a cave. This is Orwells worst fear. If the populance doesn't care, or hates, politics the politcians can do anything they want. This is where we are right now. If you try to speck politics, do you get the stinck eye? Are you a trouble maker? How did this happen. This is facism. The republican movement has been gravitated toward facism, on the low. This was their take-over attempt. They failed. Watch the next election. Watch what happens when the republicans get thumped again. Watch the spin. "EVERYBODY IN AMERICA IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA." That will be o'reilly hannity. Watch. Facists traitors sell-outs.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

McCain has wrecked any chance he had at the nomination because of this stance. In a lead story in the Post yesterday, the writers tout that the opposition to "immigration reform" is loosing steam. Then, the statistic... It shows that only 53% of respondenets now support any sort of amnesty for illegals, even with a fine, the return to their native country for the head of the household, provisions for never having used welfare or other social services, and no illegal acts whatsoever, etc. This is, of course, down from the 70% support a bit more than a year ago. Now, it's beside the point that this is a piece of journalistic trash, a transparent propaganda piece in support of the anti-labor and anti-family and anti-Amercian immigration legislation, but that never seems to trouble the two authors of this sort of doggeral. Wasn't ti they who wrote the trash last year about illegals not taking jobs from American workers?

Couple this with Kennedy's outright insane addition of provisions to remove current caps on H1-B visas and allow for other "guest workers" and we are witnessing a conservative-liberal, Republican-Democratic union of voters that will punish any sort of immigration legislation. Kennedy, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Gulianni, Thompson, most of the ratbag "leaders" we have are in far more serious trouble than they realize. This is the new third rail of American politics and McCain touched it to see if it was real. It is and he is toast.

Posted by: MikeB | June 5, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Word is born sterling. We don't have an immigration problem. We have an enforcment of current policy problem. How does that differ from any other policy that the conservative movement chooses to ignore, if it's fits in with their political model

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I thought Clinton got impeached for lying under oath at a deposition taken on behalf of Paula whats her name? PERJURY... It also got him disbarred for 2(+?)years from the Arkansas State bar, (not that he ever practiced anyway). BSimon is onto the core problem with this federal government, this version of the MSM and the general tenor of society: It is "politically incorrect" to enforce existing law against large numbers of illegal immigrants, AND the employers who exploit their illegality. Those of us not in the opinion making class, don't flinch from such enforcement. It should be done. Nothing that the "Teds" or the "McCains" put together is going to cover that fact. Start with the employers; a six month plan to hit different "sectors" of targetted exploitation should get the message across.(Like the IRS "exemplary" audits). NEXT Move on to what passes for the "visa system" and the INS. Clean it up or change it,(six to ten more months) LASTLY... work on the borders and deportation, if appropriate, and streamline the process. (It may not be appropriate in all cases. This will take the longest, maybe 2-5 years?). There is no "immigration problem", there is an "enforcement problem" of existing law. It undermines everything when a person's very presence on this soil is a crime, and no-one acknowledges the fact, much less does anything about it..............

Posted by: L.Sterling | June 5, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I have not read the bill -

BUT commentators say that the bill calls for the borders to be secured first - and then leaves the certification of secured borders to simple presidential fiat!

If that is a true representation of the bill's process for finding that the borders are secure, then it must be seen as no process at all.

Even with my strong doubts about this bill and my deep skepticism of relying on a troop surge to pacify Iraq, I count McCain among the good guys. There has never been a President in my lifetime with whom I agreed on all major issues. Why should there be one now?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 5, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I have not read the bill -

BUT commentators say that the bill calls for the borders to be secured first - and then leaves the certification of secured borders to simple presidential fiat!

If that is a true representation of the bill's process for finding that the borders are secure, then it must be seen as no process at all.

Even with my strong doubts about this bill and my deep skepticism of relying on a troop surge to pacify Iraq, I count McCain among the good guys. There has never been a President in my lifetime whom I agreed with on all major issues. Why should there be one now?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 5, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

jefferson kick? You have no idea what you are talking about. Another conservative trick of divide and conquer. Sabotage the conversation with lies and propoganda, right? That is the way of the right in america, and they wonder why nobody believes them anymore. I hope Jefferson gets time. I hope anyone defrauding the government gets time. How else can you ensure this won't happen. The problem is, NOBODY ON THE RIGHT GETS ANYTIME. you are destroying the not only the credibility of the media but also our legal system. This is federal and local. The right has twisted the legal system into a poilitcal wing. Can andy or anybody else tell me why Gonzales/Rove/Bush/Cheaney/Tenant don't get time. Why should republicans not have to follow law. No wonder they think they can get away with anything. Who is watching these people, their OWN CRONIES. I hope the republican party is done in this country.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

While I would not be mean spirited in dealing with illegal aliens, I would insure we had tight borders and stiff penalties, for both alien and those who hired them. Every man deserves a fair shot at success, but not out of my wallet.
Sergeant Major

Posted by: Sergeant Major | June 5, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

President Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury. The exact same crime that Libby just got sentenced for.

Posted by: Andy R | June 5, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 - I'd get off the Jefferson kick. It's a losing proposition.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The republicans are giving away the house to illegals. Then they come and say" this amnesty is going to wipe out the republican party." You are a fool if you think all these new "legal" citizens are not going to vote for the party of the president that made them legal. Take into account reagen granted the last amnesty. Why would the illegals vote democrat? Who got them here? Who's giving illegals jobs? The right is trying to hijack the political system in this country. If they can't do it legally thye will blur the legal lines or worse, destroy the laws prohibiting them.

Posted by: JKrish | June 5, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

'considering the crimes for which he convicted' -- you mean like exposing the covert head of nuclear non-proliferation operations in Europe, and endangering everyone else in the program? Not to mention alerting a number of dangerous enjtities that they were being surveilled? Libby is a traitor of the first magniture. He should have gotten 30 years. And since he betrayed his country at Cheney's behest, Cheney should be punished.

Actaully, prison is too goood for both of them. So is Guantanamo.
If you want to talk about EVIL, just look at cheney.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I hear you bsimon. If it wasn't part of a greater trend I may agree with you. Clinton gets impeached for lewinsky. Enough said.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

McCain says that his legislation will not subsidize illegal immigrants.

That means this legislation will not grant immediate legal status to those aliens that came here illegally?

With legal status, is McCain saying that they will not be eligible for government funded social services?

With legal status, is McCain saying that they will not be eligible to attend public schools and get government grants for colleges and universities?

With legal status, is McCain saying that after gang bangers sign a statement saying that they won't gang bang anymore that the citizens won't have to pay for the many crimes that they will commit?

While the platitudes are very entertaining, if we wanted comedians in office we would elect them!

Posted by: Cdalealden | June 5, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 writes
"YEah libby got under 3 years. Jefferson may get 240 years."

Had they committed the same crimes, the comparison might be valid. Libby's sentence reflects the higher end of the Judge's options, considering the crimes for which he was convicted.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Democrats should combat those who tear down democracy and support evil.
Like the Republicans overthrew democratic governments in Iran to support the evil Shah, supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980's, overthrew a democratic Chilean government to support Pinochet.
Evil's right here in the Republican Party.
Let's combat the real evil.

Posted by: Combatting Evil | June 5, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The right, including Paris hilton, get no time or reduced sentences everytime. If they do time it's usually in a club med atmosphere. Justice is no longer the american way. What has taken it's place? $$$$$$. Money will cure all? The right needs to stop the assult against america and eithe rjoin the rest of us of move to austrailia where Murdoch can create a dream world for you

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

YEah libby got under 3 years. Jefferson may get 240 years. Rosie of the air, imus. Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'REilly still making millions off the blood of our troops. Free speech is only free for republcians. Anybody who is not a conservative has a consequence for their words.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats apparently believe we are not justified in taking military action to address evil in the world unless our national interest is not at stake..."

Where in our Constitution does it say that the U. S. is required to combat Evil?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Prison for Libby in leak case
By Matt Apuzzo, AP

"WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation."

How long into his next press conference before the President gets the first question about pardoning Libby?

The sooner the President does it, the quicker it will be behind him.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Democrats apparently believe we are not justified in taking military action to address evil in the world unless our national interest is not at stake, like in Darfur.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"They need to secure the border, first. Period. No excuses, and there's no legit reason why anyone should be against that."

Sure there are. 1) Securing the border won't stop the flow of illegal immigrants. 2) Its a waste of money (see 1, above). Why not spend $900 million on enforcement of existing labor laws instead? Why not spend that money on improving the system that verifies' workers' legal status? My wife works in HR and has called the SSA about suspect social security cards. Their response? If the applicant has a card, give them a job. The problem doesn't require new laws - we have existing laws that aren't being enforced. Therein lies the problem.

Posted by: bsimon | June 5, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

JD,
First off the Washington post had a poll yesterday that said that 52% of people polled support this type of legislation.

Also the bill that is up for debate says that the border must first be secured BEFORE the rest of the law comes into effect.

What is the difference with what you propose than what is now on the table? Other than the fact that the legislation is grouped togethor.

Posted by: Andy R | June 5, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Wait till Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs and the Wallbangers figure out that up in New Hampshire "thems ain't talkin' 'bout them Spanish but 'bout them Frenchies."

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | June 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

of course the right is sacred of John edwards, and promoting Hillary by attacking her. Edwards is for the helping poor. That goes against conservative principles. The right should fear him. Him winning would be a good thing, imo. The more I hear him speck the more I am coming around. Even with tough questions he has on point answers. News flash conservatives, a haircut is not going to derail him as much as you hope it would. It's about a rich man giving back. Learn from that. I know paying money goes against conservative princiles of horde your wealth buy hey. You say this is a republic. Read up on the foudning of the roman republic. A democracy CANNOT function if the top fish don't feed the bottom. It will not and cannot happen without just wages. Dont get me started on the need for REAL valid news as part of a strong democracy, and the right's destruction of said media with lies and propoganda

Posted by: JKrish | June 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

TG, I don't think it was the arrest that was wrong, but the hoopla following it that was misleading. I definitly think these four should have been arrested and tried, but what they were planning just wasnt a serious threat since they didn't have the know-how, equipment, money, or resources, and it wouldn't have worked even if they did.

Posted by: Andy R | June 5, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

AndyR, you may feel that this bill is McCain at his best, but most of America is against it, including an overwhelming majority of Republicans. It seems the politicians are just moving this along for the stated earlier reasons (GOP because it provides cheap labor, Dems because it enfranchises a new class of liberal voters). Fortunately, most regular Americans realize that it's a bad bill.

They need to secure the border, first. Period. No excuses, and there's no legit reason why anyone should be against that.

Secondly, if they want to debate the merits of some path to citizenship, some kind of guest-worker class, fine, let's debate that. But don't lump them together (legalization thru z-visas first, and trust us we'll secure the border some day...) with legislation created in some smoke-filled backroom in the dead of night.

That's my idea, McCain. You said to come up with our ideas - that's one.

Posted by: JD | June 5, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Back in control of the purse strings after more than a decade, congressional Democrats are pursuing billions in new domestic spending, setting up another clash with President Bush, who has threatened to veto any measures that exceed his budget

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

TG- I'll enlighten you. ETP's point was that over-hyping the terrorist threat creates fear and paranoa. The only people in my lifetime who welcomed fear and paranoa were the leaders of Soviet Bloc countries. Is that clear enough for you?

Posted by: Kevin | June 5, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I am about a day late on this but on the dem debate. I am in the "anybody but Edwards camp." Is there a bigger phony out there? Read the Shrum article in Time magazine last week. Then consider this from a first-hand source in this industry.

"Edwards for the past year or two has been on the payroll at Fortress Investment Group - one of the smartest, toughest, most ruthless private equity/hedge fund shops in the world. Edward's salary was like 500k a year plus he has $15 of his $30 million in personal money invested with Fortress. One of the areas Fortress has made a killing in is subprime mortgage lending, which is now public enemy number one in the class warfare debate edwards is championing. When asked about the conflict of interest posed by Edwards profiteering from the various actions of Fortress, Edwards claimed he had no knowledge that Fortress was making such investments. In fact, Fortress derived about 20% of its profit from these activities and used Edwards political connections' as leverage in the legislature to help prevent more onerous rules that would protect subprime borrowers. He's such a dirtbag. My favorite line though is how edwards claimed that his 500k salary enabled him to better understand capital markets and wealth so that he could better help the poor. Now that's some snakeoil."

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

electing newt would be a disaster. Nzi style facism

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Exactly the Point - are you suggesting that it was a bad thing to arrest people who intended to and were plotting an attack just because they didn't have the wherewithall to pull it off?

I am not sure exactly what the point of your post was. Please enlighten me.

Posted by: TG | June 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

i do not intend in this election - or ever - to vote republican, but i will say that john mccain is the one republican who if elected would not cause me to despair in our electoral process, and indeed, democracy itself. yes, including newt and fred.

Posted by: meuphys | June 5, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Is it just me or has McCain regained his stride. In the past couple of weeks he has shown some of the fire that independents and moderate GOPers like about him. He seems to have dropped this religious right pandering act and is back to the core issues he's good at. I said a few months back that the fund-raising troubles he was having may help him in the long-run because he is now the underdog.

The new immigration reform bill is McCain at his best. He can show that he can be bipartisan and can take criticism. Not to mention it gives him a great oppurtunity to attack Romney. I would look for a strong showing on this issue from McCain in this debate.

Also no matter what we (poltiical junkies) think the majority of Americans think highly of John McCain, and if he can make it through the primary would be a formidable candidate.

Posted by: Andy R | June 5, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the JFK plot, saying: "The fantasy that I've heard about the people saying 'they will blow the tank and destroy the airport,' is nonsense."

"There are people out there responding to hysteria, I think. But from an engineering point of view, if someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank.

"There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that is nonsense. It just won't happen."

Besides the alleged plotters' capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe -- a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending as part of his cooperation with police.

Neal Sonnett, a federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.

"There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases," he said. "To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia," he said.

Posted by: exactly the point | June 5, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The republicans refuse to take a strong stand because they want SLAVE labor. It was reagen who offered the last amnesty bill. Bush is trying to get another in because his ratings can go any lower. Democrats are cowering because they want the benefiets of the bill. Unfotunatly all americans lose out. Rent will continue to rise. Wages will continue to drop. This is the consevative dream model. Masters and slaves people masters and slaves. Just remember we are all free. a wise man once said, " A free soceity is one in which no man/woman is subserviant to another. Where labor is a reciprical beneifit to both the worker and the owner"

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE. Slaves rise rise rise

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 5, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company