I was right about the Gannon story. The DEMs gave Bush another free pass.

[Dr Fate]

I predicted that the story would die and that no top DEMS would back Conyers.

Of course, scores of DUers accused me of "DEM bashing" for stating the obvious.

This is the one story that could have destroyed Bush's political & moral capital. It's the one story that would have gotten the "Desperate Housewive", "Taxicab Confessions" swing voters watching the news.

It's the one story that was our springboard to other stories that would expose Bush propaganda & media bias and would have helped us win on other issues.

Once again, the top DEMS left Conyers twisting in the wind- he did all the work, all they had to do was back him up- repeat his questions.

I understand why the republican owned media wont talk about Gannon, but I wonder why the top DEMs also refused to talk about this scandal.

Oh well- one more Bush/media scandal that got a free pass from DEMs.

[DulceDecorum]

1. Look at it this way

Miller AND Miller Lite both belong to the same company.
Same goes for Bud and Bud Lite.



You might want to take a look at the French wins -- I mean FREEDOM wines.

[Dr Fate]

2. I dont buy it. DEMs are losing election after election on purpose?

I dont buy the notion that they are "in on it" and therefore they are letting Bush get away with these things.

That would mean they are losing power (and their jobs/seats) on purpose-which makes no sense.

I think they are just mostly idiots who who dont know which buttons to push.

[mitchum]

6. Corporate payouts to Vichy Dems could be A LOT more $$$...

than their Congressional salaries

[Dr Fate]

11. But they have less power/influence if they lose elections.

I don't buy it.

That is the easy way to explain this.

[mitchum]

22. And there's something to be said for Occam's Razor :)

I don't want to believe it either, but it does seem feasible.

[Eloriel]

98. Some of them ARE Vichy Dems -- but some of them are just

fucking clueless AND seem to either have no strong moral center or their moral center is nearly as closely aligned with corporatism than we would like.

So it's not like this is a conspiracy, although if you're talking DLC I wouldn't say that (they ARE "the enemy within" AFAIC, and the rightwing funding they've received along with other little nuggets of interaction just seals the deal for me).

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slaveplanet]

104. I like the WWF

wrestling analogy better , all kinds of fiery speech ...but the outcome is so predictable.

[halobeam]

3. Its freakin' frustrating to say the least.

Unless there are things being done that I haven't heard about. I don't think it's dem bashing to say what you did. IMO, we are being bitch-slapped at every turn, that we lose direction. In every single lousy area of this government, there are SERIOUS problems.. just as you dig in on one, another one knocks you over. I think it's the Rove strategy quite frankly, its their own shock and awe of their own country.

Who the hell can keep up? I sure can't.

[MissWaverly]

4. Dr. Fate, hate to say you're wrong but you're wrong

heard today that Jimmy/Jeff is going to have a tell all book about his adventures in the WH published in a Russian press, apparently the Russians have contacted Louise Slaughter about his "journal" they thought she might want to look at the material regarding her investigation before it's published, ha, ha!

[halobeam]

7. I don't think a book is the same thing.

That is NOTHING compared to our own people asking the RIGHT freaking questions for a change.

A book will be poo-pooed JUST LIKE THAT.

[MissWaverly]

19. This book will explode all over the globe

esp. when he has actual tapes of those involved, this is going to make Monica Lewinsky look like Little Bo Peep.

[Quakerfriend]

27. Are there tapes??

and, are they audio or video???

[MissWaverly]

31. the article said that they are audio

but they are of different people, all vips

[pbartch]

34. Are these tapes / information going to take down Bush?

What do you mean by

"this is going to make Monica Lewinsky look like Little Bo Peep."

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

8. I'll believe it when I see it on Red State TV screens.

A Russian Book?

So Gannon & Russian writers are now responsible for spreading DEM talking points?

How about having the top DEMs talk about it, say, TODAY and lets get the ball rolling.

A great start would be demanding that Bush answer Conyer's questions.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

17. No, it wont do. My aunts & uncles dont read Russian news.

And neither do my neighbors, co-workers or people behind me in the grocery ine.

[MissWaverly]

18. The Russian are printing this in both English and Russian

Notice this article from Moscow gazette is translated into English!

[Dr Fate]

30. great- who needs Dean or Kerry- we have "the Russians" as our spokesmen

As I said, call me back when this is on TV screens in the Red States.

[eridani]

106. linkylinky? n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Domitan]

52. How valid is the Moscow Gazette?

Is it as prone to far-fetched stories as the Pravda is?

[Dr Fate]

53. Either way, no one in the Red (or Blue) states read it.

If it aint "on the TV", it didnt happen.

[MissWaverly]

54. I have found some things in Pravda accurate about Bush

Moskovskie Vedomosti" <"Moscow Gazette"> is known among the students
there as pro-government and conservative, I do not think that it is as hard line as Pravda. It's not the official line, I think it's more cultural.

[Domitan]

87. I'm still skeptical about the Moscow Gazette

I don't see any reference to the Moscow Gazette as a regular periodical, much less any sign of it being a legitimate one. Until I can see that, I'll give this one a miss.

[MissWaverly]

97. Believe you are right

I goggled under the Russian name and came up with 400 articles but
they are not translated into English frequently and I see only references to this article in American blogs, Moscow news does not
have it either.

[Eloriel]

99. I'd like a link for that info, please

Just a little too juicy for me, without verification.

Thanks in advance.

[paineinthearse]

5. You need to research the work done by Rep. Louise Slaughter

She has been in the forefront since the beginning.

[Dr Fate]

9. No, Kerry, Dean & Obama need to TALK ABOUT Slaughter's research...

ON TV. NOW.


Alone, Slaughter & Conyers are easiliy wriiten off as "Micheal Moore conspiracy nuts"- they need all the top DEMs backing them up if this is to go anywhere.

Of course, the story is dead. They have made up their minds.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

15. I'm tired of the "Karl Rove will send them Anthrax if we fight" excuse.

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Some people need a way to rationalize why

their heroes do not do exactly as they would do.

[paineinthearse]

14. That is unfortunate

Guckert is to * as the electrical tape was to the Watergate scandal. It is a most significant piece of evidence.

Maybe I can get Ted Kennedy's attention for a few seconds at the party convention next weekend.

[SpiralHawk]

13. My 2 cents; the 'GANNON' story ain't over

For reasons metaphysical, I feel we will be hearing MORE MORE MORE before the year is out, maybe even in the Merry Month of MAY.

Although I hasten to note that I agree entirely with the original post in this thread: the Dems laid down on this one, wimped out.

[peacetalksforall]

16. Do you know something about it being dead? I thought is was in a

percolating stage. The list of ins and outs at the WH was just released. Didn't someone match up 41 columns written for GOPUSA before Talon News just today or yesterday? There appears to be more stuff about the sponsorship of Jeff by the right wing that will come out. I don't think it's gone away...I think Dems are at a critical place in the fight to keep SS and fight the filibuster vote....it may not be appropriate to be talking sex (as well as access and motives, plus right wing connections)right now. Of course, if reversed, they would have found a way to combine it all in one grand scandal against Clinton.

I think there is time. It's 'educating others time'! His websites are still up and there are timelines and details to check against? And, Jeff keeps saying strange things. People always speak out later. Journalists and bloggers are still digging. No?

[Dr Fate]

23. That's great- but would it hurt if the rest of the DEMs backed Conyers?

So far, the rest of the DEMs, especially the top, high-profile ones have been silent- and the result has been an absense of this story form Red State TV screens.

I hope I'm proved wrong and they are- as the popular excuse goes "giving them more rope to hang themsleves with."

[satireV]

25. No!!!

When you have the opponent on the ropes, it is NOT the time to back off.

Finish them off!

satireV

[Wizard777]

20. We must do what the Republicans won't.

Police our own. It's not Dem bashing. It's crook and idiot bashing. We are not immune to them. I'm fearing that some in the party are putting their own design the power Bush has amassed. They are acting like they are trying to depose Bush without hurting the power. It's won't ever happen. You have to destroy the power before you can get to him. We can't ever use the power. It will corrupt us just as easily as it corrupted them.

[lala_rawraw]

21. Because of the way it was handled...

I am sure I shall be smacked silly for stating this, but I expressed concern that the research was done in the open given that he was "outed" for a reason and by someone. I suspect he is a partial truth abortion or a honey pot. He is a small piece of a truth attractive enough to focus on (the truth, not him) that leads away from a more dangerous truth.

I was never comfortable with how quickly and almost forcefully he was pushed on "us". Since public forums are open to all eyes and all sorts of people can "be" someone sincere, a serious investigation becomes almost impossible.

That is not to say that what was found thus far was not important on any level. In fact, it was extremely important and driven by extremely talented and capable people. But the hooker thing, as scandalous as it is and illegal as it is and which came complete with photos, burst out onto the scene overshadowing really serious issues that were also uncovered: plame-connection, FOIA record, etc.

But imagine what he is the iceberg of? Political extortion, money laundering, etc. As soon as sex became the focus and the blogs became the sources, the Dems (I speculate here, this is just my theory) pulled out.


I have repeatedly asked skinner to provide a place for people doing research on a particular topic and for that area to be password restricted and for the researchers to be picked by the person heading the particular research project. Now I don't mean each and every project, I mean the really explosive and dangerous stories.

That way, you can still collaborate, but you do so in a more controlled environment and potential sources are not outed, research is not misled on purpose, and so forth. You then get all of your research together or you invite a journalist you trust to review it and they have a story to run with. When a reporter breaks a story, the politicos are more likely to take it seriously (yeah, one would argue that the MSM is hardly a bastion of credibility).

Raw Story operates in much the same way using several "places" to research a single story and no one place has "all" of the information.

Plus, and I am not trying to frighten you or to sound remotely paranoid. I am speaking from experience. The moment you start publicly digging into something that is highly dangerous, you automatically appear on radar. I should define dangerous here. What I mean by this word is that it poses political loss, identification of criminal activity, possibly treasonous activity, etc. It is dangerous to people who value their power and/or money not to mention appearances. Like any creature, when faced with danger, they tend to react in various ways.

For example, when John wrote something about Gannon after the hooker stuff came out and involving Eberle, the propaganda machine went after him and Raw Story very quickly. We were called the Homo Press and people questioned John's credentials, suggested that he was a paid operative. When I was digging, quietly, into Clermont a sudden turn of events where a single source leaked turned into a seriously dangerous situation including some calls and such to me.

Anyway, that is my take and I assume the smacking will begin shortly. That said, I have invited several DUrs to collaborate in a secure environment and it has worked very well. Some research into hot topics is still well under way, just off radar.

I suggest you guys write skinner and request a private area for one group, as a trial, and that group can specialize in the Gannon issue or something else. I think a trial run would be great and perhaps it will lead to more secure collaboration.

my 3 cents (i included an extra penny for consulting, lol).

[NightOwwl]

26. Philadelphia Post has an editorial today... "Press Takes a Pass on Gannon"

See my post on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=122875&mesg_id=122974

[SpiralHawk]

28. A Post tidbit of note

"Meanwhile a gay prostitute (who posed as a Marine, no less) seems to have as much access to the White House as the President, and this goes unmentioned. And for god's sake, the fact that he is/was a gay prostitute is a huge part of the story. "Moral values" and "evil homosexuals" are the buzzwords of the right. This guy had pictures of himself pissing in the wind, spread-eagled with a hard-on for crying out loud. Hannity et al would be showing these pictures 24/7 (with the "offending" parts censored, of course) as he ranted about Democrats despicable values and the degenerate homosexuals they hung out with. (Anyone still think Alan Colmes has any say at all in this show?)"

[Dr Fate]

29. Well, if Kerry, Dean & Obama wont speak of it, why should Wolf & Tweety?

I EXPECT the press to try to ignore a story that exposes their bias.
Since when is it the Republican owned medias job to spread DEM talking points?

I am dismayed that the top DEMs let Bush get away with this by remaining silent and ignoring Conyer's charges.

[pbartch]

55. See my post about the Jeff Gannon poem that is on the Buzz-Flash Website

Even though it's a humorous little ditty....there is alot of truth in this little poem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1758928

[Catherine Vincent]

32. What makes you think it's over?

I think it's just simmering.

[Dr Fate]

33. I hear "the Russians" are on this one for us.

So I guess I should stop worrying.

;)

[mogster]

39. Me too! It is doing damage still

It has made a lot of impact on the rw grassroot--in combination with the Schavio-case and the DeLay-moral. They do have internetS too, and I'm sure no one missed the point. Pictures/webpages like the one where he's spreading nude does speak for themselves, and it is more or less confirmed, even by the media they prefer, that the person on the pages are Guckert and that he was a hired journalist by GOPUSA.
Turning that into something worthwhile seen from a rw point of view, must be very difficult. Not that they didn't try, Blitzer and the other guys exonerating his acts by cuddling interviews.

Eroding support from ground up, instead of from the MSM and down - that says something of the accelerating penetration power of the internet.

I've seen several freepers retire, and, well, doesn't it seem that the tone has changed among the rw somewhat? I can tell you the Bush garden walk with the Saudi prince didn't go down well among the necons and the Bush suckups here where I live.

[ClassWarrior]

37. Why do you feel you need to distort other people's positions...

...to make your point? I for one never questioned your assertion that "no top DEMS would back Conyers." As a matter of fact, I agreed that they probably wouldn't jump into the fray until some solid evidence came out. And none has come out. Yet. But who, besides you, says it's all over?

In fact, if I remember correctly, that same thread declared this issue dead and over, just like this one does. And if the pattern holds, you'll be posting another thread restating the exact same thing a couple of days from now.

So tell me, what's your point?

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

38. If the shoe dont fit, dont wear it.

I've started many threads & posts since the election where people accuse me of DEM bashing. I'm sure it willhappen again too.

My point? That should be pretty clear by now- I dont think the Top DEMs go after Bush scandals enough. I hope to be wrong about this- but as more days pass, I fear I'm not.

[Disturbed]

40. Top Dems.

Edward Kennedy
Boxer
H. Clinton
Palosi
Reid
Feinstein
Feingold
Kerry
Dean
Levin
Lieberman
Obama

Any others?

[ClassWarrior]

41. But you're not talking about MANY threads in which you've bashed Dems...

...you're talking about the one in which you bashed the Dems for not going after Guckert. And - as I said over and over in that thread - if you don't think "the Top DEMs go after Bush scandals enough," why are you telling us, who can't do a damn thing about it, instead of putting all that time and energy into telling "the Top DEMs??!"

:crazy:

What's more, if people are constantly accusing you of Dem bashing, and that's not your intended goal, then you might want to reassess how you talk about people.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

42. I can encourage others to let their reps know.

I already HAVE contacted my reps.

I hope that my posts will atleast get 5 or 10 other people to do the same.

I'm glad my last thread was at least somewhat memorable to you-that means others remember it too.

I hope folks will think back on it when they are wondering "where did the Gannon scandal go?"

Thanks for the free advice-I've already considered those things though.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

44. Sorry if my pom-pom moves are a little rusty for your taste.

Start you own thread about this with your own ideas & tactics if you are so concerned. If you think the positive approach will get a discussion going- fine- good luck- I've tried it and it does not work on DU.

Until I see a change,my constant theme will be:

"Don't blame the media for what Top DEms wont/cant/dont say..."

- put me on ignore, help me kick my threads by arguing with me, start a counter thread-do whatever- I'm not going to stop.

[ClassWarrior]

45. I never suggested a "positive approach" - I suggested a strategic one.

We can be forceful and demanding and relentless - and we should. But we don't need to throw temper tantrums and trash our own house to do it.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

46. I agree- thats why I dont throw tantrums or "trash" DEMs.

I have, however demanded that DEMs speak up on issues/scandals where the Republican owned media will not.

I want the Top DEMs to back Conyers- a great start would be for them to at least MENTION his letter-somewhere, in some format- and voice agreement with the fact that his questions should be answered.
Even better would be for ALL the DEMs who go on those debate shows to mention his letter and re-ask those questions.

Thanks for the advice, but I like my current method.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

48. Whatever- I'm right.

Turn on your TV and see how many Gannon stories are out there.
Ask the lady behind you in the grocery line if she knows who Jeff Gannon is.

If 20 top DEMs were talking about it, you would see plenty of coverage-and the lady buying groceries would have a chuckle with you about it- its just a fact.

[Q]

49. I don't understand...

...why you and a few others around here go from thread to thread trying to chill discussion and free speech with which you disagree? Why aren't you celebrating the fact that Americans still have the 'right' to say what's on their minds?

I would imagine that many Democrats would agree with 'Dr Fate'. We see Democrats being TORN TO SHREDS by RWingers and it's painful to watch them NOT FIGHT BACK.

Beyond mere politics...it's the RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY of every representative to uphold the laws of the land and represent the BEST INTERESTS of the people. When did it become acceptable for ANY representative to ignore crimes committed by the executive branch?

Worse than Democratic leaders who won't do their jobs are their rank and file apologists.

[Dr Fate]

51. "Dr Fate" IS "the Democrats" where he comes from...

...as you know from our many past discussions/arguments, I am a rank and file, very active, organization Democrat.

You correctly point out that I'm not the only one who won't except excuses any longer- I've heard them all- I freaking WROTE some of them when I was raising money.

It's time for the Top DEMS to start LISTENING to folks like me who have been demanding we cease the excuses and take the gloves off when it comes to Bush scandals.

[ClassWarrior]

64. It's awfully hard for them to hear you, considering you're talking...

...to someone else entirely. So, assuming that you truly are, as you say, "a rank and file, very active, organization Democrat," I'm guessing you're at least reasonably smart. You'd have to figure that someone like you would know full well that trashing the Dems here on DU does absolutely NOTHING to influence those Dems. So, I wonder again, what's your point?

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

70. It's all about changing Dr Fate- he is the problem.

I see that now. Thanks for the advice.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

75. Or you can stay & help me keep my thread kicked.

Which is all you are doing- I thank you for that. You certainly are not making any argments as to why I'm wrong.

Thanks again.

:)

[ClassWarrior]

59. Why do you feel you need to distort other people's positions...

...to prove your point? Not enough confidence in it to let it stand in all honesty?

NGU.

[sendero]

58. You hang in there Dr...

... I agree with you 100%.

I don't know why our Dem leaders are such fucking candy-asses, but they are and anyone who disagrees is suffering from rectal-cranial inversion.

My theory is that they like their cushy-ass perk-packed jobs and don't want to risk them by pissing anybody off.

[ClassWarrior]

61. Maybe if we hold our breath and stomp our feet long enough...

...they'll change too!!

Theory?? It's all a theory?? I got news - those of us who take the time and effort to get in the faces of our elected officials don't have to depend on dreamt-up theories to explain the real world.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

68. Mabey if you focus on ME instead of our leaders it will change things.

It is apparently all about ME, after all.

:)

[ClassWarrior]

71. Thanks for being honest.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

74. I'm going to be on the Wolf Blitzer show tomorrow.

As the offical spokesperson/medium of the DEMS, I'll be sure to mention all your concerns.

:)

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

50. Oh, no...!...

...you sound like me a couple years ago. After other DUers posted dozens of threads about the lastest Bush Scandal, Misdeed or Crime that would supposedly and finally 'bring him down'...I would predict that:

A. Bush was above the law

B. Democratic Leaders would do nothing about it

So here we are nearly five years later with the Democratic leadership still playing the whipped dog for the RWingers/Neocons and Theocrats.

The problem is...like so many times before...that the Bushies more than likely broke the law in some way. It's too bad that both Investigative Journalism and Brave Democrats have become extinct.

[senseandsensibility]

56. I have to say that I completely agree

with your points, and really can't understand how anyone could not. It's a matter of plain fact that the Dems in leadership positions will not speak out on TV (the only place that matters) about ANY * scandal. It also seems that the more likely the scandal is to hurt the chimp, the more they run from it. This scandal has everything to puncture that balloon of "likability" and "decency" that falsely envelopes the idiot in chief. But the Dems are afraid to take a needle, and let the air out.

I received my share of "Dem bashing" taunts when I criticized the Kerry campaign for not attacking the swiftboat liars. They should have hit them with everything they had. They did nothing. Look how well that turned out.

I have to say, I am confused about the controversy here. There is none, in my opinion.

[Dr Fate]

57. In fact, why didn't Kerry call them "liars" just like you just did?

It's 100% true, and they were calling Kerry "flip-flopper" anyway.

It's exactly the "free pass" that I'm speaking of.

I'm sick of DEMs giving Bush/media free passes, and I'm tired of DEM supporters who give the DEM leadership free passes for not going after Bush.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LuPeRcALiO]

62. "These Guys Are the Most Crooked, Lying Group I've Ever Seen"

is what Kerry had to say.

[Dr Fate]

67. And the GOP response was : "Tell us what lies we told"

Kerry's counter response: SILENCE.

I remember that moment too- and when the GOP called his bluff, they all teamed up- and held a press conference and asked Kerry to "tell us what lies we have told." Kerry never responed, to my knowledge.

[Dr Fate]

66. He wont answer my one email. Mabey he will respond to thousands.

Thanks for the advice.

[ClassWarrior]

69. EMAIL??? LOL!!!

:rofl:

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

72. Oh- sorry- I'll dial his direct number then...

...I know it's programmed in my cell phone somewhere...

And remember- everything is MY fault- I take full responsibility for not doing more to make Kerry & DEMs aware of the obvious.

[ClassWarrior]

76. I have it right here: 202-224-3121. Ask for Senator Kerry's office.

Or your own Senators' offices for that matter. It's a shame to waste all that angry energy on a bunch of schmos like me sitting on their rumps in front of a computer when you could be calling and requesting a personal appointment with him or her.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

77. Please.

A personal appointment?

I'm offically asking you to get off my tip.

You can blame me for all the dropped balls all you want- I've held up my end of the bargain for years.

Peace to you & yours.

[ClassWarrior]

78. Your Senators won't give you a personal appointment?? Please.

Where are you from, anyway? Your profile is rather scant.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

79. Well, I did meet Max Cleland (GA) twice.

But those were at fundraisers. I shook Kerry's hand once at a SF fundraiser as well- I also met McCullife once (briefly) and campaigned on CA street corners with Sean Penn one day.

I also suggested that Cleland run ads showing a split screen- one image with him in a uniform, the other with an image of Chambliss coaching girls basketball. I emailed his manager point by point refutations of the negaitve ads against him.

The campaign stuck with the positive ads- the rest is history.

I'll politely ask you not to continue this pissing match with me over my personal activism or my profile. Stick to the subject or stay off my tip.

[zulchzulu]

63. You can blame the MSM before throwing darts at the Democrats

Statements have been made from leading Democrats about the issue as well as stories have been exposed by some in the MSM...but until we have a responsible, journalistically professional standard in the MSM...one of the most bizarre political stories (that would be clogging the airwaves under a Clinton administration) since Watergate are cut on the editor's floor.

Why hasn't 60 Minutes done a story on Gannon? What aren't other major news programs looking into it?

They are the ones who have dropped the ball.

[Dr Fate]

65. Sorry- I cant blame Wolf & Tweety for what Kerry, Dean & Obama wont say.

I already KNOW that the Republican media is covering for Bush- now I want top DEMs to talk about it- on TV- now.

Why are we blaming the Republican owned media for not attacking/exposing fellow republicans?

Kind of silly. Next you will be telling me to blame Karl Rove for not publically backing Conyers.

If you are waiting for Republicans to spread DEM talking points, all i can say is dont hold your breath. Top DEMs, on the other hand, should be shouting this from the mountain tops.

[Geek_Girl]

80. This best democrat to speak out on this

would be Reid. If democrats really wanted to make political points and take back power they can't pull punches.

[Dr Fate]

81. Thats a great idea- perhaps I'll get a personal appointment with him.

;)

Serioulsy though- I'd love for Reid to back up my main man Conyers on this one.

[NVMojo]

82. I agree. We don't know how to do a "Karl Rove" on the Repukes

even when there is good reason....

[Dr Fate]

83. Rove lies. All I am asking is that we present the truth.

We dont have to make shit up like they do- all we need to do is present the facts.

The problem is we wait for the Republican owned media to define & present the facts. Not good.

[gulfcoastliberal]

84. Expect the dems to continue the whipped dog routine...

The "moderates", such as the "new dems" in the House who sent a letter to Hastert complaining for not allowing them to vote for the anti-consumer, credit card company drafted bankruptcy legislation fast enough. These "new dems" are the splinter group, not a Dr Fate.

[Jose Diablo]

85. It is important to choose battles carefully

I am not saying Gannon story is not important. Maybe it is. However, from the standpoint of 'winning' a war, not every battle should be fought. Sometimes winning the war amounts to conserving resources so that the really important battles can be won.

I won't presume or second guess which battles should be fought in most cases. Clearly you believe the Gannon story should have been fought harder by Dem's. I won't disagree, but still how much damage could we hope to inflict?

OK, so what if Gannon is a hooker? Does that do serious damage to this administration or can it just be blown-off as some very minor player in the administration ends-up holding the bag. I don't think the hooker aspect does that much damage, above whatever damage has already been done, with the internet. Is anybody going to jail over letting a hooker into a press conference? I doubt it.

Is there something else though about Gannon, and the Hooker aspect is just a smoke screen covering the real story? Maybe. I thought the GOPUSA ties to Talon and also strange money flows using campaign money was a serious breach of election/campaign money laws. This is the sort of things that can get a politician put in jail. And the hooker aspect only adds fog to the clear understanding of what the Gannon story was showing. Also the Plame angle was interesting as Gannon being the one to 'out' Plame with Gannon being the path to Rove. Again the hooker aspect fogs that angle too.

But can the Dem's afford to air the real story? I don't know, because I am not sure what the real story is. I imagine the Dem's know though and for some obscure reason they are reluctant to touch it.

Like Plame though, this Gannon story is placed on the back burner for now. Maybe it will be brought-out later when it's time to drive the final nail in the coffin. I don't know. I hope this is the case.

[Dr Fate]

94. How about Conyer's brand new Iraq Query?

Will we choose this battle- or let Conyers twist in the wind once again?

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Congressman John Conyers
http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

[BigBearJohn]

95. COME ON PEOPLE - LET'S SHOW CONYERS *OUR* BACKBONE

Please support the effort to get this information out to the
general public in any and everyway possible.

Please don't leave him standing alone!

Let's show him OUR spine for a change!

SPREAD THE WORD

[Jose Diablo]

100. I think this warrants a Dem fight, the secret war plans long before

IWR and shortly after 9-11. Why is Fitz taking so long with the Plame grand jury? The lies told to Congress to support a 'preventative' attack should have upset a lot of people. Where is the outcry? Here is what I think, don't think that just because a Senator or Representative is a Democrat, that they are against war. There have always been Hawks in both parties. War is profitable for some.

As for the election fraud in Ohio, in which Conyers tried to fight the illegal election. Also Boxer fighting to not seat the electors from Ohio was a good one to fight. But remember, debate is limited on seating of the electors to what, 1 hour? How can a majority that is intent on putting Bu$h in the driver seat be stopped by preventing electors from being seated? The majority cannot be stopped because election fraud is normally handled at the state level, not federal.

Then on to why Ohio couldn't stop the election fraud. One name stands out, Blackwell. I still don't understand why Blackwell (Sec State Ohio) hasn't been indicted. The law says the recount must be random selection of precincts. The recount was not a random selection of precincts, by his own admission, and on that alone should have prevented the certifying the electors in Ohio, before going to Washington. Where were these thousand legal eagles that supposedly descended on Ohio from the Dem party headquarters? They were probably at the Hustlers club in downtown Columbus, thats where. It seems to me they were as effective as they were in 2000. Zilch. But remember, the supreme court in Ohio would have stopped any effort to keep the electors from being certified. The judge should have reclused himself, but he didn't. What then? On to Scalia? Hey, we been there and done that.

What should have happened was extreme social unrest in the streets. Like in the Ukraine. But we hear from the Dem's, "oh my, we must be civil, our behavior must be decorous". Bah. Thats the fighting I am talking about, like in the Ukraine, not that Mickey Mouse horseshit coming from Washington. They cannot stop thugs and hooligans.

But nowhere do I see anything in your post about Gannon and that is what I was talking about choosing the battle. I don't think there is enough on the Gannon deal to fight with and what could be obtained, would it warrant a fight? Who cares about a hooker in the press corps? Hell almost all of them are hookers in one way or another anyway. Gannon was the purpose of the thread, right?

In the end though, I think we are gonna see that a remedy to the situation will not be found in congress nor the election booth. The current Republican party is not the same party it was 25-30 years ago. Of course, people will disagree and point out one here or there, but I think by and large, they are crooks. Does anybody think anybody in this administration is even close to being legal? Now if the government is so corrupt that elections mean nothing, how will the Republicans ever be unseated? They won't be by any election they control regardless of how the people vote. Remember how in 04 the Dem's went in with what, a 3 point lead, that turned into a 2 point loss. A 5 percent change. Think about it. Even if it had been a 10 point lead, the outcome would have been a 2 point loss. The machines are rigged with backdoors, remote access, plus the 'normal' fraud like not enough machines, moving polling places, the White Chappel precinct, whatever. Even with Conyers fighting as hard he could, it didn't matter.

Think about this, the word 'politics' means what? I believe it means to form consensus, find agreement. Is it possible to find a half way point with crooks? Can there even be a way to say, hey, its only half illegal? If one party is in control and that party is not interested in forming a consensus, but is interested in gutting and bankrupting this country, do you think it's even possible to form a consensus with that? But to a politician, whose whole life is dedicated to forming consensus not fighting, do you think they will admit that it has gone too far. I don't think they will admit it, to do so is an admission that sometimes diplomacy does not work, that sometimes there are things that they cannot solve. I don't think they will admit their opposites across the aisle are crooks. "My admired colleague this and that". Do you now see what I am talking about?

If the Dem's had 'nads, they would shut this whole thing down and force, I mean force a re-election, just like 2004, but this time with paper and pencil. That would be the only way to stop what I see coming. But they won't, thats too hard, besides they might not get re-elected. They will hope for the best that somehow we will get through this. Besides, think of how profitable it will be, for some.

Nixon tried to pull this shit 35 years ago. If you don't think Nixon wouldn't have pulled his own 9-11, you need to study him more. Him and Bu$h were 2 peas in a pod, except Nixon could speak. He was stopped then.

The best thing the Republicans could do now, would be have 5 of their members go to Bu$h and tell him the score, replace Cheney then Bu$h resign. Because if they don't, there will not be a Republican party in the future. Make no mistake, in the USA there is a giant, and it is not the government. It is the people and when they wake-up and they will very shortly, it will be over for the Republican party. This is who they fear, all the politicians, both sides.

[Dr Fate]

101. I disagree 100%. GOP/Media propaganda is THE number one issue.

We lose on ALL issues until we expose the propaganda machine.
Gannon is the tip of the ice-berg. But a very interesting figure.

And this was our one chance to expose the GOP manipulation of news- it had enough senationalism to keep the "Wacko-jacko, Blue Dress, Run-away bride" types (most Americans) interested too.

I disagree that we should ignore this scandal- and I hope the top DEMs dont ignore Conyer's new query as well.

[sadiesworld]

86. It's their job.

But, I'm thinking you already figured that one out.

[Q]

89. It's too bad that we don't have more 'Dr. Fates' in the party...

I see what you're doing as NEEDED in a party that has seemingly lost confidence and direction. I don't understand why some call it 'trashing' Democrats. I see it more as holding their feet to the fire and challenging them to do better.

Some on this thread have suggested that the Dem leadership is simply 'choosing their battles'. But four years later...it seems there were few battles they thought were important enough to fight.

[Al-CIAda]

90. kick

[earth mom]

91. KICK!

[SGBL]

92. It was over

the moment idiots in the party let it become more about gay prostitution than rove and bushco hiring someone to deceive the american people for propaganda purposes.

[Dr Fate]

93. "Idiots in the party" never made it about ANYTHING.

In fact, besides Conyers and a few other unknowns, no one of note has even mentioned it.

I dont understand your post.

I do agree that if they were to bring it up, they should focus on the propaganda angle- but you have to have some of the "the sex" thrown in to keep the swing-voters interested.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Al-CIAda]

102. kick

[Catherine Vincent]

103. Dont' blame it on the Democrats. Blame the media

Once you own the media, you own everything.

[Chicago1]

105. The Dems ARE DOING THEIR INVESTIGATION, that's why they're quiet

You can't do an investigation out in the open because of KKKarl Rove. They're just being quiet about the investigation. Please be patient. The house of cards will come crashing down SOON. There's ALOT OF EVIDENCE. They can't stay in office with all this garbage against them. The Dems are BUILDING THEIR CASE.

Waiting for the IMPEACHMENT WHILE THE SCANDLS KEEP UNFOLDING
America's Work Stories
http://usaworkstories.blogspot.com
[e-mail]