SanderO @ 97

…
Pelly attitude was hostile and perhaps this is how CBS wants to be read.

CBS merely wants the ruling elites to know they are loyal and on board with the Administration.

Maybe it’s an indication they’re going to settle with Dan Rather and they don’t want to look like the weenies they truly are.

did anyone see or read hilary’s interview?

I didn’t see it but I read her answers and they hit all the right notes, emphasis are NOT added by me;

Well,” replies Clinton, “I cast a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that vote. I also said on the floor that day that this was not a vote for pre-emptive war. I thought it made sense to put inspectors back in.”

that’s an important distinction, look at this, this time emphasis ARE mine;

The Senator continues: “Now, obviously, if I had known then what[perris edit]… what the President would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did.”

that’s a great methid right there

“I also voted, Tim, to limit the President’s authority to a year. That was another one of Senator Byrd’s amendments which I strongly supported. It was not successful. I have seen, obviously now, what has occurred by this president’s use of the authority that he was given, and I regret the way that he used authority.”

that’s a great bit of stopgap she can use…nicely done and I’m surprised I haven’t heard that amendment before

more;

“It’s fair to say,” responds Clinton, “that the President misused the authority that he was given, and if I had the opportunity to act now, based on what I know now, I never would have voted that way. But I think it’s important to take responsibility, and then to try to deal with the situation that we face today.

here she missed a great oportunity to parry and attack
…

So, after all that talk about ‘misuse of authority’ where is the obvious conclusion that Bush should have been punished?

Where is the follow-through?

Where is the Congress exercising their oversight and due diligence to end the abuse?

So far, the only politician I’ve seen willing to say the Iran Prez should be allowed to speak at Columbia is Chuck Hagel. Everyone else is ducking for cover. This is one of the litmus tests that separates grownups from silly people.

Our government has an Office of Silly Talks. It’s known as the Press Secretary who speaks for the White House.

The “sense of the Senate” seems to have left the body.

I no sense is the Senate full of innocents who have no ’sense of the Senate’ statements to make about outrages currently being inspired by Bushies.

Their guilt spreads like an oil slick, ruining everything it touches.

Why does Cheney want to start WW3? He’s a total nutjob.

Will no prelate exorcise us of this venal VeeP?

Maybe Congress can imagine their retirement if they do nothing and Cheney starts a major conflagration? We who pay attention to such things would not be amused.

In addition I think history tends to show these events are manufactured all the time.

Is today’s world all about watching car wrecks in slow motion as they unfold and not being able to do anything about it? Hope not.

If the US were to provoke an attack by attacking Iran, and then used the response as a legal justification [sic] for war or further acts of war by claiming that the response is actually an “act of aggression” is exactly what one would expect from the Cheney Justice Department and David Addington.

That legal reasoning has been turned on its head. The original provocateur is, of course, the aggressor. The response is a legally justified defensive reaction to an act of war by a foreign power; if appropriately limited and proportional to the damage caused by the original American attack, it would not be a sufficient causus belli to justify further American action. The US would be at fault and, moreover, would very likely commit further crimes if it were to indiscriminately target civilians in its “precision” bombing of military targets. The officials carrying out such a policy would be guilty of war crimes.

“Cheney of errors”

http://news.independent.co.uk/…..993312.ece

hain of errors’ led to 36-hour US nuclear blunder
By Stephen Foley in New York
Published: 24 September 2007

Nuclear warheads capable of unleashing the equivalent of 10 Hiroshima bombs were mistakenly flown across the United States by a bomber crew who thought they were dummies, and the terrifying security lapse was not discovered for almost 36 hours, it has been revealed.