What is a definition of "neo-conservativism"?

Barbarian points out Bush's lack of moral fiber in failing to meet his Guard commitments:

The TANG removed him from flying status, for failure to report as ordered for a physical in which a drug test might have been performed.

His supervisor, on Bush's OER documented that he had not been seen at his assigned duty station for an entire year.

And the secretary to his commander verified that the Col. Killian had indeed ordered Bush to take a physical, had been upset that Bush was using political pressure to avoid consequences, and that everyone was talking about Bush's behavior.

That's pretty solid, um? Incidentally, the colonel's secretary said that the notes Rather had were fakes, but the information on them was correct.

And she should know, she typed the originals.

Nope. We have the testimony of the person who actually did the originals.

Perhaps you would like it better at any of those boards that censor any negative comments about Bush. You might enjoy it better with all those other bitter neocons.

It's always better to deal with the facts than go ad hom. People immediately realize why you've done it.

 

Galatian,

You can ride a dead horse further than any Texan I've ever heard of!

 

NOVAK?

This is the second time in as many days that I have seen someone reference Mr. Novak. How are you not appalled by the despicable act this man committed?

If you are not familiar with the incident in question, read his article from July 14, 2003. Or you can do a google search on "novak" and "Mission to Niger."

 

Oh, I was just answering Joseph's question. He's still in denial about it.

 

Very well, then. I was attempting to obtain definitions rather than smart-aleck remarks to my question. Sorry for this outburst, but after battling the liberal whiners on skyscrapercity.com for two hours left me with a very short wick. The moderator there has a grudge against me since I oppose the liberal snobs there, and has edited or deleted the posts I left there.... probably out of anger because my arguments trumped theirs. </font>[/QUOTE]I've had several posts deleted from several leftist blogs. And I don't swear, or call anyone neames, either. Most of those are hateful, misinformed kids spouting off, just like I used to in my days as a democrat.

I ask myself, "was I EVER that stupid" ?

Apparantly I was. I cringe when I think I actually voted for Mondale/Ferraro, Dukakis/Bentsen, & especially Clinton x2.

And don't worry. I know folks like me, who actually voice and stand by convictions, get lambasted here, all the time.

 

The TANG removed him from flying status, for failure to report as ordered for a physical in which a drug test might have been performed.

His supervisor, on Bush's OER documented that he had not been seen at his assigned duty station for an entire year.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you have any primary source evidence to prove those assertions besides forged documents and moveon.org?

And the secretary to his commander verified that the Col. Killian had indeed ordered Bush to take a physical, had been upset that Bush was using political pressure to avoid consequences, and that everyone was talking about Bush's behavior.

That's pretty solid, um? Incidentally, the colonel's secretary said that the notes Rather had were fakes, but the information on them was correct.

And she should know, she typed the originals.[/QUOTE]

The col.'s family has refuted that. This is not evidence.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Baptist in Richmond, I am not bothered by Novak because he is a smart newspaperman. I don't believe the Democrats can prove their charges against him.

StraightandNarrow, the problem with your definition is that the original neo-cons were probably Jews. It is not a Christian worldview that defines them. I would say that the GOP wants to use American power to support American interests. The UN cannot even clean themselves up from the corruption that they accumulated from Iraq. We cannot count on Europe anymore. France, for example, is a second-rate military power. Better to go with the emerging nations in Eastern Europe who understand freedom and are happy to help the USA.

 

Barbarian points out Bush's lack of moral fiber in failing to meet his Guard commitments:

Barbarian observes:
The TANG removed him from flying status, for failure to report as ordered for a physical in which a drug test might have been performed.

His supervisor, on Bush's OER documented that he had not been seen at his assigned duty station for an entire year.

The documents were posted here, as you should remember, but here's a link to a hi-res copy:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
(AWOL when ordered to take a flight physical)

It was the following month that his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base wrote that they could not complete Bush’s annual evaluation covering the 12 months ending April 30, 1973 because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.”
http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html

Not unless the Air Force has begun to forge documents.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
And the secretary to his commander verified that the Col. Killian had indeed ordered Bush to take a physical, had been upset that Bush was using political pressure to avoid consequences, and that everyone was talking about Bush's behavior.

That's pretty solid, um? Incidentally, the colonel's secretary said that the notes Rather had were fakes, but the information on them was correct.

And she should know, she typed the originals

They can't. You see, they weren't involved. They weren't there, and they didn't type the memos or even see them. The only person who can say his his secretary. You may not like the truth, but denying it does you no good.

So Air Force documents, and eyewitness testimony aren't evidence? Denial time...

 

What happened was that everyone was discharged at the end of the Viet Nam War because there was no more work. Bush had flown twice as much as was required of him for the six years. His plane was obsolete and had killed a half dozen men in his unit. To retrain an aging pilot like Bush would have cost a quarter of a million dollars. The military decided that it was cheaper to discharge him since he had already proven himself a capable pilot who had flown twice as much as necessary to fufill his commitment to the military.

Case closed. There are thousands of cases just like his in the USA.

 

So, his despicable action does not bother you "because he is a smart newspaperman?" That is quite a disturbing statement.

Ah, now I see: these are nothing more than unproven charges by the Democrats!

Well, let's look at the facts:
FACT: Mr. Novak wrote an article called "Mission to Niger" that was printed on July 14, 2003.
FACT: In this article, Mr. Novak "outed" a CIA operative who happened to be married to Joseph Wilson.
FACT: Not only has Mr. Novak "outed" this CIA operative, he managed to compromise everyone associated with this "outed" CIA operative.
FACT: The CIA operative who was "outed" as well as everyone whose identity has been compromised are on OUR TEAM!!

Are you so polarized that you would dare to ignore this and honestly suggest that you "don't believe the Democrats can prove their charges against him?"

To quote Bruce Springsteen (again): "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."

 

No, the military decided to bust Bush from flying status, because he refused an order to take a flight physical.

That's what the Air Force says. The documents are still available. His supervisors say he wasn't seen at his assigned duty station for a year. That's documented in his OER.

That's what happened. How did he get a mere slap on the wrist for it?

His commander's secretary says that everyone was talking about it; he was using political pressure to stay out of trouble.

Those are facts. And that's how it happened. He wasn't RIFed. He was toss out for refusing to take his physical. Why? Hard to say for sure, but that year, the AF started checking for cocaine usage. And Bush won't deny he was a user, except to say he's not used it in the last (depends) years.

 

Question:

How did Mr. Novak "Out" anyone if:

1. Mr. Novak does not work for CIA and is not privy to that information.
2. Mr. Novak depends on CIA interviews and Bush Administration contacts for his information.

If Mr. Novak did what is alleged then it appears that someone at the CIA or in the Bush Administration deliberately leaked the information to Mr. Novak. That is where the crime if any crime was committed occurred.

Was Mr. Novak more than just a pawn? Who knows?
Washington, DC is a foreign country that I would not be comfortable living in at all. They play by different rules.

 

Oh, I was just answering Joseph's question. He's still in denial about it. </font>[/QUOTE]Galatian, you obviously misunderstood me. Let me put it down on a lower shelf for you.

"Yore dog won't hunt."

 

Read the article. It is readily available. Mr. Novak published the name of a CIA operative who happened to be the wife of Joseph Wilson. He wrote the article. He "outed" the agent. What did mentioning her in the story do for the article in terms of credibility? Why was her identity included? And why would Novak include this when Wilson would not offer any quotes with respect to his wife?
How can anyone possibly condone this?
[note: I am not saying that you condone this, as you didn't offer an opinion either way.]

Do some homework and you will discover that this wasn't the first time that Mr. Novak was fed information.....

 

Well, Novak is not wrong about his definition of a neo-con just because the Democrats don't like him.

The Wilson cse is all a bunch of lies. The British said that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. Actually, there was no doubt about it. Wilson had his 15 minutes of fame and now he is forgotten. I don't think his wife was any more than an office worker anyway. She herself was the one who suggested her husband for the job. No one bought his book and Kerry lost the election.

Does Novak have links to the GOP? Probably. Does he have links to The Vatican? I doubt it.

 

BIR,

If something fishy is going on at the CIA or in the White House, I want to know about it.

Therefore if a Journalist "outs" somebody or names names in a high profile case then is that journalist not doing his duty?

Did his treatment of Wilson's wife put anyone in real physical danger? Was the whole deal nothing more than an embarassment rather than a breach of national security?

 

When the Justice Department opened their investigation, they asked the CIA if the agent was covert, and if anyone was endangered. The agency replied that yes, she was involved in covert activities, and that a felony had been committed in exposing her. The law only applies to covert operations and agents involved in them.

"According to former CIA analyst Larry Johnson, leaking the name of a CIA employee puts her and the people she has come in contact with, in danger.

"She works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised," Johnson said. "When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised," he said.

Knowingly disclosing the name of a CIA agent, according to CNN reports, is a felony and could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec03/leak_10-01.html

Assuming Novak is telling the truth, someone high enough in the Bush WH to have access to that information was sufficiently disloyal to America to expose a covert CIA agent to get even with her husband.

 

Absolutely amazing. The only reaction to the Novak article was CMG's response. BIR and Galatian are riding their tangential horse all the way to the horizon. Hey (tap, tap) you guys want to take a look at the thread topic?

I would ask how many of you agree with the following statements:

1. "A more closely integrated Europe is no longer an unqualified American interest."

2. "We should start a debate within Europe over the French ambition to build the European Union into an anti-American counterweight."

3. "We should calibrate the nature and extent of our cooperation with France to reflect French behavior."

4. "We should seek a defense partnership with Japan, Australia, and other willing Asian democracies as intimate and enduring as the NATO alliance."

5. "We should maintain a credible military guarantee for Taiwan."

6. "We should promote an Asian regional defense system against ballistic missiles."

7. "We should seek greater South Korean responsibility for its own defense."

8. "We should accept India and Pakistan's nuclear weapons as an unwelcome but unalterable fact and drop all remaining sanctions against them."

9. "We should promote peace by promoting subcontinental economic integration."

10. "Our claims to world leadership rest not just on our power and wealth but on our moral authority."

11. "The UN must commit itself to the proposition that harboring, supporting, or financing terrorists in itself constitutes an Article 51 act of aggression against the country those terrorists target. If not, we should formally reject the UN's authority over our war on terror."

12. "We should never be too proud to appeal for help and to be grateful when we receive it, but we should not make the mistake of relying on it."

 

I'm wondering why you think a list of unrelated questions is sufficient answer for the question of why the WH is harboring someone who would out a covert CIA agent for revenge.

It should make you wonder what else he or she might do, if sufficiently provoked.