USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[xawery 0]

Sorry for posting this funny! but it is damn funny to watch. I wish the germans would capable to make this sort of political satire, unfortunately we suck at it!

(if you cant open it, then download it)

Brilliant! Andy Dick was excellent, as per usual

While this may be rather off-topic in this thread, I would like to add something to the discussion of the supposed 'objectivity' of RTL News. I find it to be more comprehensive than NOS news (public broadcasting). I find NOS news to be often too brief, too summarising. Only the 8 o' clock edition fares better in that respect. Still, one cannot complain about its journalistic integrity.

I don't think that RTL News is an opinion show in disguise. Calling it Fox News Lite is simply incorrect - in no way does it resemble the biased ramblings of Fox. Still, it is a commercial channel, so there is a fair bit of entertainment present. For example, they often round up the news with some trivial, but supposedly 'humorous' bit of news. Nevertheless, the important items are dealt with in a professional manner.

When you think about it, how well can you deal with news in a quarter of an hour? It all is brief by default. My recommendation is, skip the tv news and read a paper... NRC Handelsblad, preferably:)

[Ironsight 1]

Didn't came as a suprise but anyway:

Quote[/b] ]Cheney's top aide quits after indictment

Lewis Libby indicted on 5 counts

Friday, October 28, 2005; Posted: 1:24 p.m. EDT (17:24 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, resigned on Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges related to the CIA leak investigation.

Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show.

The indictments were not related to the actual leak of operative Valerie Plame Wilson's name. (Read the full text of the indictment)

These indictments are the first in a nearly two-year investigation. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a 2 p.m. ET news conference. (Watch possible ramifications of an indictment -- 2:49)

A news release by Fitzgerald said Libby allegedly lied "about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency."

It said Libby "lied to FBI agents who interviewed him" in October and November 2003; committed perjury "while testifying under oath before the grand jury" in March 2004; and "engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation into the unauthorized disclosure -- or 'leaking' -- of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003."

"When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth," Fitzgerald said in the statement. "Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens."

There was no immediate response from Libby to the charges. His attorneys have previously denied that he was guilty of any criminal conduct.

Meanwhile, President Bush's top political strategist Karl Rove will not be indicted Friday by the federal grand jury investigating the leak, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. But, the sources said, Rove is not out of legal jeopardy as the matter is still under investigation. (Full story)

Lawyers involved in the case have told CNN that Fitzgerald is focusing on whether Rove committed perjury. Rove testified four times in front of the grand jury.

Impact of indictments

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."

'No decision'

Rove's attorney Robert Luskin issued a statement Friday that Fitzgerald "has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges."

"Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation," Luskin's statement said. "We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

As Rove departed his home in Washington Friday morning, he told reporters, "I am going to have a great Friday and a fantastic weekend and hope you do too."

Libby's indictment came at a time when Bush's approval ratings already are at a low ebb.

This week alone the president's embattled Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, withdrew, and the number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war surpassed 2,000.

Bush suggested at the beginning of the investigation that he would fire anyone on his staff who was involved in the leak.

He appeared to set a higher standard in July, saying, "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." (Full story)

The event that triggered the legal and political quagmire that has put the White House on edge was a syndicated newspaper column by Robert Novak, published on July 14, 2003, about Joe Wilson.

A week earlier, Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat, publicly claimed that Bush administration officials, intent on building a case to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hyped unsupported claims that Hussein sought to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger.

Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, was writing about the CIA's decision to send Wilson to the African nation in February 2002 to investigate the claims, which later wound up in Bush's 2003 State of Union address.

About midway through his column, Novak noted that Wilson "never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

An angry Wilson accused administration officials of deliberately leaking his wife's identity as a CIA operative -- thus ending her career as an undercover agent -- to retaliate against him for going public with his criticism.

Both Rove and Libby have denied leaking Plame's name.

Deliberately disclosing the identity of a CIA operative can be a crime, and Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was named in September 2003 as a special prosecutor to investigate after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused his office to avoid any conflict of interest.

Reporters subpoenaed

Trying to pin down the details of discussions between administration officials and reporters about Plame, Fitzgerald subpoenaed Washington journalists.

Two of them -- Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine -- sought a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their confidential sources but the court refused to take up the cases.

Facing jail for contempt of court, Cooper testified after accepting a waiver of his confidentiality pledge from a source -- who turned out to be Rove.

Cooper later disclosed that Rove told him in July 2003 that Plame was a CIA agent involved in weapons of mass destruction issues, although Rove never used her name and never indicated she had covert status.

Cooper said he later asked Libby "if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger," and Libby said he had, which Cooper said he took as confirmation of Rove's information.

Miller went to jail for 85 days but was released after her source -- Libby -- assured her that he had no objections to her testifying.

Dick Cheney's name surfaced in the case earlier this week. The New York Times reported that notes of a conversation indicated Cheney gave Plame's name to Libby ---which appears to contradict Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard Plame's name from reporters.

Cheney's office had no comment, and the White House would neither confirm nor deny the Times report.

CNN.com

[Balschoiw 0]

When will they go for Cheney now ? He is apparently the man behind that intentional leakage.

Can they force Cheney to testify under oath ? And Bush ?

Wouldn´t be a hard loss for Cheney anyway. He´s made his deals, he´s granted money to the right companies and ensured that the right wars have been started for the right reasons

Mission accomplished !

I see a good chance that this affair (with Rove being next on the row) will push Bush from the throne.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Hmmm, in a worst-case (in my opinion, anyway) Cheney could be forced to resign either after having been forced to testify or under sheer pressure from the Republican Party as a grumbling mass; then a man no one knows about would become Vice President (Tom Delay fortunately being out of the picture now, thank you Texas); then President Bush being forced to resign over one or many consequences of his leadership.  Then a totally unelected official would rule the U.S.  No offense to Gerald Ford, long may he live, who came up exactly the same way, but unless by a fluke it were John McCain, I know I wouldn't be happy.

This is totally hypothetical by the way, but I'm sure that in 1972, no one thought that Gerald Ford was going to be President instead of either Nixon or Agnew, and I'm sure the same goes for the poor misguided people who voted for Bush-Cheney last November.  It will be very interesting to see how things turn out...

[billybob2002 0]

Hmmm, in a worst-case (in my opinion, anyway) Cheney could be forced to resign either after having been forced to testify or under sheer pressure from the Republican Party as a grumbling mass; then a man no one knows about would become Vice President (Tom Delay fortunately being out of the picture now, thank you Texas); then President Bush being forced to resign over one or many consequences of his leadership.  Then a totally unelected official would rule the U.S.  No offense to Gerald Ford, long may he live, who came up exactly the same way, but unless by a fluke it were John McCain, I know I wouldn't be happy.

This is totally hypothetical by the way, but I'm sure that in 1972, no one thought that Gerald Ford was going to be President instead of either Nixon or Agnew, and I'm sure the same goes for the poor misguided people who voted for Bush-Cheney last November.  It will be very interesting to see how things turn out...

I don't think Bush would resign before selecting a new VP. In addition, you know it would be a cold day in hell before Bush steps down... FYI, the Speaker of the House is second in line of succession and then President pro tempore of the Senate.

Anyway, Balschoiw, the president has nothing to do with this investigation.

[Supah 0]

I am considered past centre left here but if I was an american and john mc cain ran for president he'd get my vote

[EiZei 0]

I am considered past centre left here but if I was an american and john mc cain ran for president he'd get my vote

Wonder if the good ol' boys will do some push polling about adopted dark-skinned daughters in certain states again..

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Bush nominates Alito to high court

Top Democrat says choice could pose a 'lot of problems'

Monday, October 31, 2005; Posted: 8:21 a.m. EST (13:21 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he has nominated 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America," Bush said from the White House, with Alito by his side. "And his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience."

Alito, a former U.S. attorney who has been a judge for 15 years, is considered a favorite of the conservative movement and is Bush's third pick for O'Connor's seat.

His first, Judge John Roberts, was later nominated and confirmed to replace the late William Rehnquist as chief justice of the United States. (See video on Bush effort to rebound -- 2:27)

The second nominee, Texas lawyer and White House counsel Harriet Miers, withdrew from the process Thursday after weeks of opposition from both liberals and conservatives, who questioned her qualifications and record.

Legal experts consider the 55-year-old Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."

In 1991, in one of his more well-known decisions, he was the only dissenting voice in a 3rd Circuit ruling striking down a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they planned to get an abortion.

He also wrote the opinion in 1999 in a case that said a Christmas display on city property did not violate separation of church and state doctrines because it included a large plastic Santa Claus as well as religious symbols.

Alito was put on the circuit court bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 after his service as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

He also served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee from 1981 to 1985, where he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court.

He was deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese from 1985 to 1987.

A Trenton, New Jersey, native, Alito graduated from Princeton in 1972 and earned his law degree from Yale in 1975.

Monday's announcement returns focus to the Supreme Court after a week of political difficulty for the White House and Republicans, with Miers' withdrawal coming a day before a grand jury indicted Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff on charges including perjury and obstruction of justice. (Full story)

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday he had been consulted by the White House about Miers' replacement but had not been informed of who the president plans to nominate.

Specter said he is "very worried" that Democrats could filibuster a candidate they perceive as an extreme right-wing jurist.

The topic that "dominates the discussion," Specter said, is abortion.

Both sides of the debate want to know in advance how a nominee will vote on the issue, but that is an answer that "no one is entitled to," he said.

Confirmation could be tough battle

"There could be a real tough battle here and a real tough fight, depending on whom the president puts up," said Specter, who supports abortion rights.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid -- a Nevada Democrat who had recommended Miers -- said Sunday he feared Bush would "try to placate the right wing" with his next nominee, "and that's a mistake."

"If he wants to divert attention ... he can send us someone who's going to cause a lot of problems," Reid told CNN, saying the "radical right wing" was "pushing all his buttons, and he may just go along."

Reid said the choice of Alito "would create a lot of problems."

"That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," he said. "In fact, I've done the opposite."

Bush nominated Miers on October 3 to replace O'Connor, often a moderate swing vote, on the high court.

O'Connor, who has announced her retirement, will stay on the court until the Senate confirms her replacement.

A senior administration official told CNN last week that the next choice will be based at least in part on the "lessons learned" from Miers' nomination.

In addition to Miers' perceived lack of conservative credentials, the White House also could consider two other points of criticism on her nomination: her lack of experience as a judge or with constitutional law; and her close ties to the president, which prompted Democratic concerns about her judicial independence.

Poll: Experience important

A poll released Sunday suggests Americans consider experience as a judge as more important than choosing a woman or a conservative.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of 800 adult Americans, conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday, found that only about one in seven said it is essential that Bush nominate a woman, and one in five said it is essential he nominate a conservative.

But half believe it is essential that Bush nominate someone with experience as a judge.

Sixteen percent said it is essential that the nominee would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and another 16 percent said it is a good idea.

But 42 percent said a nominee who opposes Roe v. Wade would be a bad idea.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this story.

[Ironsight 1]

Seems that Libby leaving wasn't enough.

Quote[/b] ]Rove's Future Role Is Debated

White House May Seek Fresh Start In Wake of Leak

By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page A01

Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.

If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.

While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.

Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.

But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war.

"Karl does not have any real enemies in the White House, but there are a lot of people in the White House wondering how they can put this behind them if the cloud remains over Karl," said a GOP strategist who has discussed the issue with top White House officials. "You can not have that [fresh] start as long as Karl is there."

A swift resolution is needed in part to ease staff tension, a number of people inside and out of the White House said. Many mid-level staffers inside have expressed frustration that press secretary Scott McClellan's credibility was undermined by Rove, who told the spokesman that he was not involved in the leak, according to people familiar with the case.

Some aides said Rove told Bush the same thing, though little is known about the precise nature of the president's conversations with his closest political adviser.

McClellan relayed Rove's denial to reporters from the White House lectern in 2003, and he has not yet offered a public explanation for his inaccurate statements. "That is affecting everybody," said a Republican who has discussed the issue with the White House. "Scott personally is really beaten down by this. Everybody I talked to talks about this."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, will be arraigned today on five counts, involving three felony charges, in the leak probe. Libby also told McClellan two years ago he was not involved, a denial that was also relayed to the public.

White House communications director Nicolle Wallace said that there have not been any White House meetings to discuss Rove's fate, and that the senior adviser is actively engaged and "doing an outstanding job." She said "there is no debate" over Rove's future.

Rove has long been regarded as the most influential and feared Bush aide and has enjoyed the fervent backing of the president and influential conservatives. Republicans with firsthand knowledge of the private talks about Rove's political problems said there have been informal discussions involving people inside and outside the White House, and that they reflected the views of a large number of administration officials who are concerned about Bush's efforts to start anew in 2006 with as little interference from the scandal as possible.

Full article on Washington Post.com

[Bordoy 0]

George Bush didn't pick Harriet Miers so he shouldn't have any blame. If you recall the search commitee looking for a nominee was head by Harriet Miers. Miers picked Miers, and I think we all know how incompetant Miers is. And by with-drawing her own contoversial nomination, Miers demonstrated tremendous loyalty to the president, the kind of loyalty that Bush could reward with a supreme court nomination.

[EiZei 0]

George Bush didn't pick Harriet Miers so he shouldn't have any blame. If you recall the search commitee looking for a nominee was head by Harriet Miers. Miers picked Miers, and I think we all know how incompetant Miers is. And by with-drawing her own contoversial nomination, Miers demonstrated tremendous loyalty to the president, the kind of loyalty that Bush could reward with a supreme court nomination.  

So I assume I am not the only one watching colbert report?

[Bordoy 0]

George Bush didn't pick Harriet Miers so he shouldn't have any blame. If you recall the search commitee looking for a nominee was head by Harriet Miers. Miers picked Miers, and I think we all know how incompetant Miers is. And by with-drawing her own contoversial nomination, Miers demonstrated tremendous loyalty to the president, the kind of loyalty that Bush could reward with a supreme court nomination.  

So I assume I am not the only one watching colbert report?

Yer, some of his things are still on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It's well funny, in the UK here so it's either watching late night/early morning CNN or watching it on the internet which is what I do.

You watch the Daily Show?

[EiZei 0]

George Bush didn't pick Harriet Miers so he shouldn't have any blame. If you recall the search commitee looking for a nominee was head by Harriet Miers. Miers picked Miers, and I think we all know how incompetant Miers is. And by with-drawing her own contoversial nomination, Miers demonstrated tremendous loyalty to the president, the kind of loyalty that Bush could reward with a supreme court nomination.  

So I assume I am not the only one watching colbert report?

Yer, some of his things are still on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It's well funny, in the UK here so it's either watching late night/early morning CNN or watching it on the internet which is what I do.

You watch the Daily Show?

Have been watching for 1.5 years now.

[Jinef 2]

I find all political commentary shows a bit tedious. All they do is moan and argue over trivial issues and things that are non debatable.

For example I watched a board of 'experts' debate the burning of a CiA agent's cover for political intent.

Non debatable. Burning intel operatives is treason. In a time of war it is legally punishable by military law, for which you can be shot for. Yet they have big debates and talk about how she wasn't very important.

Fuck em all.

I get pissed off with rear echelon mother fuckers. In positions of power comes responsibility. Mr. Bush as CINC US Forces is responsible for each and every action of every US Soldier, yet he accepts little responsibility if any when his forces run rampant.

If this was North Korea, Cuba or North Vietnam or any other sensible country there would be no shit like this. A 9mm bullet through the head of any traitors and send the bill for the ammunition to the family.

I hate it all.

[EiZei 0]

I find all political commentary shows a bit tedious. All they do is moan and argue over trivial issues and things that are non debatable.

For example I watched a board of 'experts' debate the burning of a CiA agent's cover for political intent.

Non debatable. Burning intel operatives is treason. In a time of war it is legally punishable by military law, for which you can be shot for. Yet they have big debates and talk about how she wasn't very important.

Fuck em all.

That's excatly the point, the daily show and colbert report are just parodies of those shows and news media in particular.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

Am I the only one who gets little concerned when a supposedly secular leader has more fundamentalist ideas about creationism than the vatican?

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

F... you BUSH

that sign says: Terror Free Zone

[Ironsight 1]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/SgtEversman/americanerroristsmall666.jpg

F... you BUSH

that sign says: Terror Free Zone

What is that post referring too? Looks like spam to me and find it slightly offensive (not to me by the way, but other people might experience it as offensive)

[EiZei 0]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/SgtEversman/americanerroristsmall666.jpg

F... you BUSH

that sign says: Terror Free Zone

What is that post referring too? Looks like spam to me and find it slightly offensive (not to me by the way, but other people might experience it as offensive)  

Not offensive, just plain stupid and pointless.

[Ironsight 1]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/SgtEversman/americanerroristsmall666.jpg

F... you BUSH

that sign says: Terror Free Zone

What is that post referring too? Looks like spam to me and find it slightly offensive (not to me by the way, but other people might experience it as offensive)

Not offensive, just plain stupid and pointless.

Besides that. I think everybody can see that

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/SgtEversman/americanerroristsmall666.jpg

F... you BUSH

that sign says: Terror Free Zone

please do not post spam.

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

made that picture in art lesson.

Think that it shows what some people think about bush and the government...

think about it what you want, with that Picture I tell my opinion about Bush and the way he acts

I guess in america such pictures won't be seen ... but I don't live in america!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Don't knock yourself out in the originality department there buddy.

[Bordoy 0]

made that picture in art lesson.

Think that it shows what some people think about bush and the government...

think about it what you want, with that Picture I tell my opinion about Bush and the way he acts

I guess in america such pictures won't be seen ... but I don't live in america!

Tex is from Texas and therefore from the USA, and he HAS saw it.

Anyway did you miss your 'T'? What is an 'errorist'?

But pictures like that seem to make a joke out of a serious situation.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Tex is from Texas and therefore from the USA, and he HAS saw it.

Anyway did you miss your 'T'? What is an 'errorist'?

But pictures like that seem to make a joke out of a serious situation.

My ex-roommate had a bumper sticker with that exact wording that he decided would look good on our refrigerator. God he was a moron. What I gathered from him was that an 'errorist' is one who commits errors (he wasn't the brightest guy but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this particular point).