Town Square

Post a New Topic

Condoleezza Rice hints at returning to Stanford

Original post made on May 23, 2008

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Thursday that she will return to her faculty position at Stanford University once President George W. Bush leaves office in January.



Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 23, 2008, 2:57 PM

Comments (142)

Posted by Jane, a resident of Professorville
on May 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm



It will be great to have her back, and to have her firm hand on governance @ Stanford again.


Posted by Forum reader, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Her experience will be invaluable if we decide to invade Berkeley.


Posted by Not a fan, a resident of Professorville
on May 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Oh goody. What school wouldn't want someone of her accomplishments and vision?

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."


Posted by CondiStayAway, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Bearing in mind that she will be indicted, with many others, for war crimes once the Bush regime is out of office, it would be quite embarrassing for Stanford. Couple that with the fact she has been the worst, most incompetent and most inept National security adviser and Secretary of State in US history, allowing her to come back would be a disaster. Her presence within a thousand miles of Stanford would be awful for an otherwise great university. Condi, we don't want you, stay in D.C. where you belong, until they send you over to the Hague.


Posted by How Unfortunate, a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on May 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Stanford houses the bastion of conservative ideas that have failed this country and Rice has done nothing to break from it. Stanford will shamefully welcome her back with open arms just as it did Donald Rumsfeld. How very unfortunate and very embarassing for Stanford.




Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Contrary Success, a resident of South of Midtown
on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Any class Condi teaches - the student needs to internalize that an opposite is actually a successful policy.
Does Stanford want her back?




Posted by Howard, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 24, 2008 at 7:59 am

Put her in charge of the Children's Theatre.


Posted by No lickspittles, please, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 24, 2008 at 10:41 am

"firm hand on governance" Jane, thanks, you cracked me up.

Thank god for Condi's firm hand in the administration. If not for her tenacious foresight, first as nsa then as sec state, the country under bush could have wobbled into serious errors abroad.

Hahahahahhahahahha. Thanks jane.



Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 24, 2008 at 10:50 am

As usual, the hatriots and lefties are whining, and irrationally so. No surprise.

Condi Rice was an important element of the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the attack on al qaeda. So was Rumsfeld. Good for Hoover/Stanford for inviting them back.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 24, 2008 at 11:57 am

And Condi will go down in history...


Posted by freddie, a resident of another community
on May 24, 2008 at 12:22 pm

what will condi go down for--in history-I, mean


Posted by Peter Dow, a resident of another community
on May 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm

The world still needs Condi. Unless Stanford can somehow arrange things so that Condi can still lead the world from there (and I don't see how, maybe some kind of "Foundation", like the Gorbachev Foundation?) then we need Condi east of the Mississippi, and preferably Washington D.C. as Vice President elected via a McCain - Rice ticket.

Peter Dow - Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
Web Link

"Condoleezza Rice for President in 2012. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web."
(Also pressing for a McCain - Rice ticket, Condi for VP.)


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm

There he goes again--our buddy Gary once again attacking anyone that does not agree with his dogma and/or criticizes anyone in the Bush administration as a "hatriot" or "leftie".
I guess you should be honored, Gary is interuprting his "military training" (aka Memorial Day weekend, dungeons and Dragons tournament) to "address" your points in the manner he is so good at.
the only other thing that will tear him away from D&D are when mommy serves him his PB&J sandwiches with the crusts cut off of the bread.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Freddie,

Condo will be put down in her rightful place when the history of the Iraq/Afganistan debacle is written, as well as the "better late than never" push to cobble up an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement and give George II at least one positive accomplishment -- not on the participants' schedule, on his. Her lackluster performance as national security advisor will also be noted.


Posted by Jack, a resident of South of Midtown
on May 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

You need to get a life. At least "Gary" makes rational arguments, and backs them up with defensible facts. I don't agree with his use of the word "hatriot", but he backs it up with his definition of it. You, on the other hand, make ad hominem arguments, which are tired.

If you cannot make a real argument, at least spare the rest of us from you complaints.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm

I suggest we rename Sand Hill Road Condoleezza Concourse and that we deny access to any floor above second in the Hoover Tower to anyone of liberal persuasion.


Posted by SkinnyAl, a resident of Green Acres
on May 24, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Condi was not very popular her first time around in the Stanford administration (I know because I was there). She may be interested in returning, but I think she will get a rather cool reception from everybody outside the Hoover Institute.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 24, 2008 at 11:00 pm

This is quite a sacrifice. Condi would do better as a lobbyist especially if McCain is elected. She should stay in D.C. where her connections might be worth something.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 25, 2008 at 2:51 am

Dr. Rice would bring the Super Bowl to Palo Alto.


Posted by Nancy C, a resident of College Terrace
on May 25, 2008 at 11:18 am

I wonder how this spectacularly untalented woman got her doctorate, who approved her dissertation and what she had to do in return. She was the worst ever in many categories while serving her fascist masters. A morally and intellectually bankrupt person. She was an enabler in the process that made the USA the worst country in the world, universally and justifiably despised and hated. She will be undoubtedly indicted as a war criminal along with her masters. The only appointment she merits is one with the war crimes court in the Hague. Stanford should avoid her like the plague. Moreover, Stanford must purge itself of neocon Right wingers, they are the enemies of the civilized world and the new Nazis.


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2008 at 11:22 am

We already had a super bowl wally-
in case you forgot-
but don't fret- many elders begin to "lose it"
like yourself- first the mind- then the body...
perhaps condie could simply come and be your
permanent house guest- she could help you with
your online postings- when she's not baking you
your favorite cookies- oatmeal raisin-
she's so sweet!


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 25, 2008 at 11:33 am

Nancy C,

Thanks for another example of hatriotism. I like to collect them...for later use.


Posted by Steve Cohen, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 25, 2008 at 11:42 am

Accepting Condi the war criminal back in our community would be an insult to all the civilized residents of this area and diminish us as a progressive community. It would be the equivalent of allowing a Tim McVeigh to settle here. Stanford, please sever all ties with this awful woman.


Posted by Jay, a resident of Barron Park
on May 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Bless Dr. Rice, a resident of Midtown
on May 25, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I am so proud that there are women of Dr. Rice's caliber and courage. I am impressed that she is coming back here, and impressed that Stanford is showing the kind of courage academic diversity which is lacking in most of the rest of the nation's universities.

Dr. Rice, as I have already noticed, you never let the nutcases of America, or those abroad, such as hamas, hezbollah and al-qaeda, intimidate you. I am sure you will continue to have the necessary courage. And, any students you have in your classes will be lucky to have you.

If you ever offer a class through the Continuing Studies program for people not actually in Stanford University, I will be there.

Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of America.


Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

The first time I was made aware of Rice was during the 1992 presidential campaign. She debated Michael Mandelbaum on foreign policy(I believe it was on CNN) and he ate her alive. I remember wondering why the Bush campaign would employ the services of such a bumbling, untalented surrogate. Her ascendancy in the GOP is a scary reminder of how slow we have been in putting this bankrupt and profoundly corrupt political party to pasture. Rice back to Stanford-NO WAY.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Jack--this forum is open to anyone,with any opinion. If you do not like my comments about Gary, then skip them. I am sure that Gary does not need you to defend him.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 25, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Steve Cohen and Jay,

Thanks for even more hatriot ammo. My quivver and dry powder pouch are overflowing! Keep it coming! BTW, Jay, that little racist slur was icing on the cake...some hatriots are also racists. I will use that one in the future.

sarlat, your missive does not quite reach the hatriot level, but it does show how gullible you are. I suspect that Condi would eat you alive in a debate (on any subject). Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, just like the Iraqi citizens are now entitled to theirs, thanks to Condi and GWB.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 25, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

"I am sure that Gary does not need you to defend him."

You finally made a rational statement. Good for you. I may even deign to respond to your comments, in the future, if you keep up the good work. However, try to inject some defensible facts into your opinions, if only to humor me.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Thanks, Gary. I have to admit I do enjoy these threads just to get amusement from your comments and use of the term "hatriot" and "leftie".
It never ceases to amaze me how some people manage to paint everyone with an opinion they disagree with, with the same brush.


Posted by Esteban Atilio PEGNALOZA, a resident of Community Center
on May 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Dear Sir: Miss RICE is the best State´s Secretary the Union ever had. I´m in Argentina. After being cronical student of laws and political science here. Having a previous admiration before Henry KISSINGER. Sure this woman, best of the best, is the natural sucessor in every kind of political consideration among any future administration. As Mr KISSINGER could be, and still being.
Maybe, Why not...? Miss RICE could run for the Presidency of the Union. Why not ...? With Mitt ROMNEY, or some other hard minded mormon to complete the formula of the future.
GOD BLESS AMERICA in ... OUR ... Memorial Day of 2008.
Yours. Esteban Atilio PEÑALOZA. DNI 12.639.909. Mormon LDS 014-0262-1068. P.S.: Read The Book of Mormon.!


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

That's a little better! At least it is a plausible argument.

My use of the terms "hatriot" and "leftie/leftist" have been explained before, by me. Yes, they do paint with a bit of a wide brush, but they are hardly at the level of "fascist" which is used on a regular basis by the hatriots/lefties.

BTW, how will you be honoring the vets and soldiers, tomorrow? I will fly the American flag, and send a supporting email to GWB and a few soldiers I am in touch with in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will also send a check to the USO. Even if you want to send a message in the other direction, please try to support the troops (for example, connecting with vets who oppose the war). Memorial Day is not just about bar-b-ques and car races.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Gary--I will agree with your comments about BBQs and car races and Memorial Day--although I do not support the war in Iraq and disagree with the Bush/Cheney/Rice dogma, I do support our troops. I think you can even agree that there is a difference between not supporting the war and supporting our troops.
Fortunately we are not seeing the vilification of soldiers that occured during Vietnam war.
I think we need to do a better job taking care of the troops that come home injured. THE VA scandal is not another dark moment for Bush/Cheney.

Getting back to the original discussion on this thread. Of course Rice will return to Stanford--she has nowhere else to go--no university will touch her, she cannot run for political office--she has no choice but to come back here and hope that her image will be rehabilitated in the future. Let's face it, she may have been a good Eastern European strategist, but she was clearly out of her league with the Arab world.
But she gave Bush what he wanted, loyalty and blind worship.


Posted by Andres, a resident of Community Center
on May 25, 2008 at 3:53 pm

It's simple:Condi has been an enabler of the worst administration in our history. This administration, which lost two elections but bullied itself to power through fraud, intimidation and scandalous supreme Court intervention is a bona-fide fascist regime. As a pseudo-academician, Condi provided them with an veneer that pretended they weren't comprised solely of oil company thugs. She is an enabler just like Adolph Eichmann had been. The notion of this soon to be indicted war criminal residing and working at Stanford is nauseating, unacceptable and it shall not pass.


Posted by julie, a resident of Midtown
on May 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this....

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland's aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.

While men-only gentlemen's clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging 'Muslim women only' sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true...

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates...

Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace.

Strange to witness one of the oldest and most successful of nations commit suicide without even being aware of what it's doing.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Julie

You have it right. The other side of this is that anything that is vaguely Christian (or Judeo-Christian) like the cross symbol, the fish symbol, the rainbow symbol, the Bible, are all open for either use by some other group or used elsewhere to provide a source of humor. If even the slightest blight is used against any Muslim personage, text, or symbol, it is a source of religious contention by the Muslim world.

These sort of attrocities happen all the time and when someone honorable tries to make sense of it and do something about it, the "pacifists" and those with "America should stay out of the rest of the World's problems" views get self-righteously narrow minded.

We are one world with many problems and the problems in this world belong to all of us. If we don't think that there are going to be any problems here, let's just look back 10 years ago and see what has happened here. The general populace back then went through a very large wake-up call and the same will happen again if someone doesn't do something about it.

If Gore had won instead of Bush, we would have a very sorry state of affairs in place.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

Yes, absolutely, we should be taking care of our vets who were wounded in battle. The advances in battlefield medicine, and evacuation, have improved their chances of survival and recovery. However, some will never recover fully, or even partially. They deserve our full support.

The VA system does a good job, in general, but it is in a very tough situation, because it is subject to bogus claims, and it must make a judgement in each case.

Besides our vets, and our soldiers, I would hope that you, and others, could honor their sacrfices by acknowledging their success, namely the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, even if you don't support the effort. You don't need to agree with a war, in order to recognize its success.

Our vets and soldiers deserve that, at least. Their sacrifice was not in vain, and they should be honored for it.


Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 26, 2008 at 7:16 am

"If Gore had won instead of Bush, we would have a very sorry state of affairs in place."
Firstly, Gore had wnn, not Bush. The loser who became president through fraud, intimidation and the SC intervention, inflicted on our nation unprecedented political, diplomatic, military and economic disasters that may be impossible to fix. Get it into your head-the greatest enemy of the US is the fascist Bush/Cheney/Rice regime and their neocon backers.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 7:21 am

sarlat,

Just as I thought you were starting to gain control...then you spew forth with more hatriot venom. That's not nice. However, I will bank it for future use.


Posted by Steve Cohen, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 26, 2008 at 9:24 am

Over the Bush years, there has been damaging drift toward absolutism. You're with us or against us, diplomacy is appeasement, tax cuts forever, the axis of evil, markets always work best (and government, worst)...all of these have become mantras of the right, and McCain appears to be not only carrying this mantel, but hoisting it even higher.

Certainly, after 9/11, it was hard not to see things in black and white. When our nation was attacked, the instinct of the body politic was to strike back hard and fast, without a lot a nuanced analysis. But that was almost seven years ago, and if anything, our national disparagement of nuance or balance has gotten to the point where it is clearly blocking our ability to address the challenges we face, both internal and external.

Here is a brief survey, citing a few policy debates that have fallen prey to this reductionist thinking, followed by a plea to return some balance to the system.

Diplomacy Equals Appeasement: Under the Bush/McCain regime, the ultimate goal of diplomacy is to draw a thick line in the sand between us and our growing list of enemies, and tarnish-then politically bash-anyone who considers crossing that line as an appeaser. You then cast such opponents as naïve and soft, unable to protect us from the evil that lurks in the heart of...Raul Castro.

Rice has been an enabler of that suicidal mindset. We shouldn't give her another outlet.


Posted by Carioca, a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2008 at 9:43 am

Memorial Day is not actually a day to pray for U.S. troops who died in action but rather a day set aside by Congress to pray for peace. The 1950 Joint Resolution of Congress which created Memorial Day says: "Requesting the President to issue a proclamation designating May 30, Memorial Day, as a day for a Nation-wide prayer for peace." (64 Stat.158).

Peace today is a nearly impossible challenge for the United States. The U.S. is far and away the most militarized country in the world and the most aggressive. Unless the U.S. dramatically reduces its emphasis on global military action, there will be many, many more families grieving on future Memorial days.

The U.S. spends over $600 billion annually on our military, more than the rest of the world combined. China, our nearest competitor, spends about one-tenth of what we spend. The U.S. also sells more weapons to other countries than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. has about 700 military bases in 130 countries world-wide and another 6000 bases in the US and our territories, according to Chalmers Johnson in his excellent book NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (2007).

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports nearly 1.4 million active duty military personnel today. Over a quarter of a million are in other countries from Iraq and Afghanistan to Europe, North Africa, South Asia and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The DOD also employs more than 700,000 civilian employees.

The US has used its armed forces abroad over 230 times according to researchers at the Department of the Navy Historical Center. Their publications list over 60 military efforts outside the U.S. since World War II.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 9:59 am

Bush used an effective diplomacy with N. Korea, by insisting that China become part of it. It was the weak and naive diplomacy of Clinton that allowed N. Korea to move forward with its Nuke program.

Not all diplomacy is appeasement, just that diplomacy that is not backed up with serious intentions. bin-Laden laughed off any threat from the U.S., before 9-11. Nobody is laughing anymore. Al qaeda is in retreat, especially in Iraq.


Posted by albert, a resident of College Terrace
on May 26, 2008 at 10:09 am

Al Qaeda is in retreat in Iraq? There wasn't any before the US occupation, it's a problem we have created. Bin Laden is certainly laughing some place while continuing to make those tapes. He was trapped in Tora-Bora and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld allowed him to escape...possibly because they were implicated in the 9/11 and were afraid he would be caught alive. Bush/Cheny made us more hated and despised around the world than any country since Nazi Germany, and created more enemies for the US than all previous administrations combined. We are less safe than ever because of those traitors and war criminals. Little Condi was a brown nosing minor accomplice.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 10:31 am

Pro-Bush leaders were recently elected in some European countries, including France and Germany. Al qaeda rushed into Iraq, in order to gain power (having been kicked out of Afghanistan, by Bush). AQ is now getting crushed in Iraq. BTW, both Afghanistan and Iraq are now free, thanks to Bush.

Bush was not implicated in 9-11. That is just more hatriot talk. We are safer now than on 9-10-01.


Posted by albert, a resident of College Terrace
on May 26, 2008 at 11:05 am

Neither the German or French heads of states are "pro-Bush", they were elected for domestic reasons that are entirely unrelated to Bush. There are no "pro-Bush leaders anywhere in the world, he's despised universally. AQ is being kicked out of Iraq by the Sunni who were never fundamentally religious and who were victimized by AQ which established a presence in Iraq because of the Bush/Cheney occupation. More and more Sunni war lords and tribal leaders are threatening to cooperate with AQ against the American occupation if the Shiite government continues to shut them out.
If Bush/Cheney weren't implicated in 9/11 they wouldn't have allowed OBL to escape Tora-Bora and the Bin Laden family to flee the US on 9/12/01 while preventing any FBI investigation of those Bush family friends.

Only insane ditto-heads are in denial that Bush/Cheney are traitors and enemies of the USA.


Posted by Steve Cohen, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 26, 2008 at 11:17 am

Surely nothing that President Bush has done in his two wretched terms of office—not the invasion and destruction of Iraq, not the overturning of the five-centuries-old tradition of habeas corpus, not his authorization and encouragement of torture, not his campaign of domestic spying—nothing, can compare in its ugliness as his approval, as commander in chief, of the imprisoning of over 2500 children.

According to the US government's own figures, that is how many kids 17 years and younger have been held since 2001 as "enemy combatants"—often for over a year, and sometimes for over five years. At least eight of those children, some reportedly as young as 10, were held at Guantanamo. They even had a special camp for them there: Camp Iguana. One of those kids committed suicide at the age of 21, after spending five years in confinement at Guantanamo. (Ironically and tragically, that particular victim of the president's criminal policy, had been determined by the Pentagon to have been innocent only two weeks before he took his own life, but nobody bothered to tell him he was slated for release and a return home to Afghanistan.)

I say Bush's behavior is criminal because since 1949, under the Geneva Conventions signed and adopted by the US, and incorporated into US law under the Constitution's supremacy clause, children under the age of 15 are classed as "protected persons," and even if captured while fighting against US forces are to be considered victims, not POWs. In 2002, the Bush administration signed an updated version of that treaty, raising the "protected person" age to all those "under 18."

Treaties don't mean much to this president, to the vice president, or to the rest of the administration, but they should mean something to the rest of us.

But capturing and imprisoning children isn't even the worst of this president's war crimes when it comes to the abuse of the young. Under Bush's leadership as commander in chief, the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan has been considering any male child in Iraq of age 14 or older to be a potential combatant. They have been treated accordingly—shot by US troops, imprisoned as "enemy combatants," and subjected to torture.

I can think of only one way in which our nation can atone for the Bush regime:indictment for war crimes and treason, trial and execution.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 11:38 am

Ms. Royal, Sarkozy's opponent sounded much like the hatriots that post here:

"After all, she said during the campaign that she would never kneel before Mr. Bush the way she suggested her opponent had done. She tried to tar Mr. Sarkozy as an imitator of what she called Mr. Bush's phony compassionate conservatism. She even told a Hezbollah lawmaker in Lebanon last December that she agreed with him when he talked about the "unlimited dementia" of the Bush administration."

( Web Link )

Sarkozy was openly pro-American, even though he would not have sent troops to Iraq. The French voters were quite well aware of his feelings of warmth towards Bush.

Guess who won?


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Pro-Shrub for people seeking political office outside the US is not the same as pro-US. Gary seems to use the terms interchangeably.

One can run for office elsewhere in the world, be pro-American and anti Shrub. It may not be something to run on, but there is a clear distinction. Blair is gone from the UK, who is running on a pro-Shrub, not a pro-US platform? Merkle and Sarkzoy are proUS not pro-Shrub. Elections elsewhere, such as Taiwan, Japan and other countries do not demonstrate a pro-Shrub trend.

One can support our troops and not support the Iraq debacle they have been sent into

One can question the reasons why we are in Iraq and still support aggressive actions to address the terrorism issues that the world and US face.

One can even support foolish ideas such as the Shrub folks have teed up, and be disgusted with how poorly they have carried out their agenda, a failure on most measures

I credit Gary with carrying the pro-Shrub mantle in an unfriendly territory, and marvel at the energy he draws from the likes of people like me to respond to his largely marginal POV about how this administration is doing its job and what the outcomes of its policies will actually result in.

Condi is a light weight, which I confirmed as recently as last night with people in this community who know her from her time at Stanford before she hooked up with W. Like Gary, she is taking up too much energy.

Bring her back to Stanford, where she will quickly be seen as a scholar of limited capacity, an administator who defines issues well but does not solve their challenges effectively, and will fill classrooms and hone her muscial skills. Stanford needs to improve its music program.




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 2:48 pm

A Boomer,

It almost sounds like you are still smarting over the defeat of that silly petition at Stanford...you know, the one that attempted to suppress free expression of Rumsfeld and the Hoover Inst.

If Stanford wants to enhance its history dept., it should get rid of Bernstein, and replace him with Rice (or Rumsfeld). Neither of the latter would dare to make statements about the paucity of potential casualities of an invasion of Japan, in WWII, like Bernstein did. They both have street cred, and Bernstein is a fluff piece. Stanford lefites, and their sycophants, like yourself, are in no position to judge liberators like Reagan, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney. The lefties at Stanford have spent their lives appologizing for and supporting socialist totalitarians.

Condi will bring a breath of intellectual freedom, and acuity, to Stanford. Good for her.


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Gary,

My sources at Stanford say she is viewed as a light weight intellectually. What do your sources tell you about her ability to bring about a useful intellectual discourse on matters she has some experience with?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 3:23 pm

A Boomer,

First let me say that I appreciate your concern about my energy expenditures. I can only say that my opponents are like putty in my hands, thus it is like doing wrist and forearm exercises, something I prefer to do, compared to long distance running or stationary cycle. Actually, I still like sex better than any of the above!

OK, you ask about Condi's intellectual heft. The truth is, I don't know. She was more of an administrator at Stanford, before she joined the liberation movement, with GWB. However, I am confident in saying that the intellectual heft of those who tend to lead the charge against her (e.g. Bernstein) is very low. What do you think about Bernstein?


Posted by jr, a resident of Professorville
on May 26, 2008 at 3:36 pm



Boomers source is one of the janitors @ stanford, he is well connected you know and speaks another language

In a Foreign Affairs article she authored back in 2000 as a representative of the Bush presidential campaign, Rice criticized the Clinton administration for a foreign policy so obsessed with diplomacy that it seemed to disregard U.S. national interests. "Multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves," she warned. Today, her critics claim that Rice has lost sight of her own admonition. "We have gone from a policy of preemption to a policy of preemptive capitulation," says a disillusioned State Department official.


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2008 at 3:39 pm

The topic is the Secretary of State, and her fitness to come to Stanford after the Shrub Adminstration ends.

The name Bernstein means nothing to me, and my sources at Stanford are people I know and talk to who are her former colleagues and are themselves regarded well for their work. She is not well regarded, for a variety of reasons.

There are places for people with her experiences and predelictions. I don't see a position on the Stanford faculty as one of them.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm

A Boomer,

If you don't like the heat, get off the grill. But don't dodge. Bernstein is a tenured prof at Stanford, very outspoken in public affairs, who earned his spirs by making fallacious arguments about WWII casuality projections. He also led the charge against Rumsfeld.

This is hardly the time to claim amnesia, Boomer.

Perhaps you can name some names, among "her former colleagues and are themselves regarded well for their work". If they are telling you about it, you must be a big time insider. Perhaps you could just provide their departments at Stanford, along with their initials. Whadya say?


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I know nothing about Bernstein, and cannot base my observations about Condi Rice with regard to what he has said. Big place, Stanford, my amnesia generally applies to things that my wife finds I forget about matters domestic.

Nice try Gary. Naming names does not work that way. I do harken back to a conversation I had with someone in the international relations department a few years back, where there was a shaken head, and a comment that some in that deparrment don't really quite understand what had become of her.

The topic is if she is fit to be part of faculty at Stanford after completing her time in the Shrub Administration. Methinks not.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 4:27 pm

A Boomer,

Good, you are now backing away from your assurance that Condi is intellectually deficient. Now, it is "with someone in the international relations department a few years back".

Have a nice Memorial Day, Boomer.


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I am backing away from a characterization that you make up but cannot attribute to me? I did not use the words intellectually deficient, let alone assure you or anyone else of such.

I did assert that she is not fit to be part of Stanford faculty. Lack of academic rigor and integrity, and peers who will not support her on such measures. Evidence being the last 7 years while working for the USG.

There is no dispute about her inate intelligence. It has more to do with intellectual integrity.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Boomer,

A distinction without a difference.

I never said anything about her genetic/nurtured intelligence. You just did.

You questioned her "intellectual integrity". Then you base this standard on her peers, who you seem to know almost nothing about, espeically Bernstin, a major billboard for Stanford leftist bona fides.

Please name those Stanford intellectuals, who claim that Condi is insufficient. You claim to know. I am all ears.

Let freedom ring!


Posted by Daniel, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 26, 2008 at 5:10 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2008 at 5:32 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Villemar, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2008 at 7:22 am

Obviously, no member of the Bush-Cheney regime can be allowed to be part of Stanford anymore than a member of the 3rd Reich can. let's boil down the idea of Condi returning to Stanford to 2 words:HELL NO.


Posted by Villemar, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2008 at 7:46 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Coulter Loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2008 at 9:04 am

Come on, Gary. You are claiming the VA mess has to do with false claims?? Will you never criticize or accept criticism of the Bush administration? This is a monumental screw up--the terrible treatment of returning vets is scandalous, but not surprising, considering the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney/Rice did not feel the need to send in properly prepared and armed troops to Iraq to begin with. Remember Rumsfeld's comments about going to war with the army you have? Remember families having to buy armor for the troops themselvas and send it to them. remember the "hillybilly" armor to fortify vehicles in Iraq becaus ethey were not properly armoured?
the treatment of our troops by the gang of 4 above has been despicable. Too bad Bush's daughters couldn't stop partying long enough to serve their country--maybe then we would have gotten some respect for our troops by Bush. The gang of 4 has seen our troops as disposible commodities. Shocking and revolting
I realize Bush made a sacrifice by giving up golf, but he and his stooges need to do more for our troops.


Posted by worst president in hisory, a resident of Stanford
on May 27, 2008 at 9:39 am

Will we ever find out if Condi was ordered to ignore Richard Clark's pre 9/11 warnings about an impending AQ terrorist attack on US soil or was it her own intrinsic ignorance and lack of gravitas, or possibly a combination of her brown nosing, ignorance and cluelessness? And why would Stanford employ a person about to be indicted for war crimes. Why would Stanford wish to employ such a lightweight? There are only downsides to having her back. Good riddance.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 12:20 pm

"the treatment of our troops by the gang of 4 above has been despicable"

Coulter Loves Limbaugh,

If that's true, then the military should have voted against him in 2004. Further, the military should vote against McCain in 2008. As I recall, it was the Dems who did not want miilitary votes, from overseas deployed, to be counted in FL in 2000. Are you suggesting that the military will vote for Obama in 2008?

The VA system has been under criticism, as long as I have been alive. Same old complaint: It doesn't treat all vets the way they want to be treated. My father is a WWII combat vet. He has friends from that war who were wounded, and several of them continue to complain about the VA, as they always have.

Rumsfeld went with the army that Clinton left him. It seems that the "peace dividend" was not spent on up-armoring, or even body armor. However, given your concerns, will you support a major increase in the military budget...just in case Obama wants to send the army he has into a foreign conflict?

As to my adoration of Bush, I don't think so. However, I do support his liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Two major countries in the middle of Islam, becoming free to express their individual wills, is a stake in the heart of al qaeda. I also think that Saddam needed to be taken out. GWB lead they way, and I do respect him, very much, for doing so. Most of my arguements, on behalf of Bush, are about his war policies, not his domestic policies. For example, I disagree with his stance on stem cells.

BTW, I would like to commend you for starting to make some rational arguments. I like to argue with rational people, instead of the run-of-the-mill hatriots.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I assume the US government receives many threats every day. Appologists for Kimmel and Short for their failure to respond appropriately to the war warnings they received cited the non-specific nature of those warnings. If you are going to cite one warning that came true, you must also cite all the warnings that did not come true or you are being intellectually dishonest. But that never stopped the Bushaters yet. The only objection I have to this type of debate is that it obscures real criticism of policy.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Gary--I did not make the "you adore Bush comment" (for the record).
The military vote has nothing to do with how the military has been treated by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice. Much of this, especially the VA issues, have come to light since 2004 anyway.
ALso do not blame Clinton for the military that Rumsfeld inherited. rumsfeld had plenty of time to get the military in shape once he took charge. Plus Bush was the president and as Truman said, the buck stops with him. There was no real rush to invade Iraq--no weapons of mass destruction etc and once we were in Iraq it is clear that the entire mission was bungled, leading us to the situation we are in now.. Meanwhile the gang of 4 let Bin Laden escape.
The gang of 4 has treated the military very shabbily in all respects. If the threat to the US was so great, the gang of 4 should have instituted a draft, focused our industries towards getting the military properly outfitted and insuring that the Bush daughters were the first in line at the draft board.

Shame on them.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Coulter loves Limbaugh,

Just for sake of rational discussion, let me assume that you argument is correct, viz a viz Rumsfeld/Bush having plenty of time to get the military in shape, before they used it. My question for you is, how much would it have cost to do so, over a period of about 1 1/2 years? Would Congress have agreed to such an expenditure? This country does not like to spend on the military, in peacetime. Remember when Truman went to war in Korea, with a laid-back peacetime army in Japan? If you are going to make the argument that there was plenty of time to build up the army, then you need to defend that statement.

The Iraq war is a relatively low-cost war, as American wars go, both in the terms of blood and treasure. Its implications, however, are huge (both postive and negative). If Obama is elected, I think he will just admit that he told his supporters a lie, and that he has gained a new understanding of the costs of cutting an running. I noticed, today, that McCain invited Obama to join him on a joint tour of Iraq. Obama should agree to go, even if his advisers have a heart attack about it. Leaders need to lead, not follow.

The military vote is reflective of how the military enlisted feel. Apparently, they feel prety good about Bush, probably McCain. VA issues, whatever they may be, are not enough to dissuade them from supporting a Commander in Chief that supports them, and their mission, in battle.

On the draft issue, I actually agree with you. I think that all people who have not served should be drafted into national service, both military and civilian, with the military able to pick out the warriors among them. Gay/straight, male/female, old/young, abled/disabled. Perhaps Obama will want to lead the charge, along with Charley Wrangle. Of course, those who get drafted into the military should get special benefits, when they return (GI Bill, including offspring, FHA, etc.); the non-military will get the emotional value of having served their country. Will you be a draft dodger, Coulter? I won't.


Posted by Bush to the Hague, a resident of Stanford
on May 27, 2008 at 1:44 pm

"The liberation of Iraq", that's a good one. 3.5 million refugees, 1.5 million dead and wounded. Even now, most Iraqis say they were better of under Hussein than they are under the US occupation. And who the hell gave the US the right to change regimes at will in the first place?
Gary, you are a grotesque Bush sycophant, part of the 27% of deadenders who still support the shrub. Very much like Joseph Goebbels who fanatically supported Hitler in that fetid Berlin bunker while Germany was collapsing above them.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Gary--after 9/11 Bush could have gotten anything he wanted for the military--invading Iraq could have been put on hold (especially now that we know that Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice/Rumsfeld etc were lying with regard to WMDs).
No Congress, regardless of who is in charge will vote for a reinstatement of the draft ( but I bet you it would shorten the war and would have put Bush and Co on a shorter, tighter leash).

BTW, I did my military service.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Coulter,

The invasion of Iraq was put off...by Clinton. Saddam laughed off many UN decrees. Clinton was not a war time president. He was like Carter.

One the things lefties like to do is to insist that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Hillary Clinton, et al lied about Iraqi WMD. Could you please provide some examples of such lies?


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Gary--just a couple of sites with some quotes:

Web Link
Web Link


Posted by Judy, a resident of Community Center
on May 27, 2008 at 3:57 pm

My reaction to the possibility of Rice renewing her association with Stanford:no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no way, end of story.


Posted by THANK GOD FOR GARY, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Gary, I finally believe that you actually were a leftist..only a former leftist would have the patience to bother answering the same silly, repetitive, emotionally heavy and intellectually light hate ..over and over and over and over. I know that is how leftists try to "persuade"...they just wear good people out, people who are working and raising families and thinking of the future of the country, and are just too tired to answer the silliness over and over.

When I retire, I will take up your mantle. I assume you are retired or semi-retired now to be able to have the time to help our cause so much. (??)

I give. I finally understand the pearls before swine expression.


Posted by LMAO, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Cracks me up...accusing Condi of being an "intellectual lightweight"..when if there were any honesty at all in these folks they would be rejecting Obama as an empty suit.

Did you all hear the latest comments from his Memorial Day speech?

Goodness..to think this ..person...wants to be in charge of our military?

BTW, I have to LAMO also at the belief that we are the most militarized in the world. I guess someone hasn't been learning too much about PERCENT of annual budget spending on the military in ...CHINA....ANY DICTATORSHIP....RE-EMERGING RUSSIA...

We are not the most militarized country in the world. We are the biggest policemen, the ones everyone calls when they are in trouble, then spits on when their financial interest is threatened by us helping another country out ( anyone remember who the top 2 countries were that benefited from Saddam?? Oh yes..the 2 biggest anti-invasion countries, Russia and France!)

Try to think a little bit folks. Hate in, hate out.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2008 at 5:47 pm

When you are dispensing trillions of dollars, you need rules to keep the mice out of the grannery. Does government spend money where they should not? Of course, but the actual dispensing of cash is vewry tightly controlled. My grandson did two tours in Fallujah, so I was more than idly curious about the body armor and hillbilly up-armoring of Humvees. More people died because of attempts to molify unjust criticism that died because of deficiencies or purchasing problems. Whenever they come up with another scandal, I wait for the in depth study but it never happens.
As fr the draft, no way Jose. I was RA all the way, and the volunteer Army shows that is the way to go. The draft is good only to get cannon fodder and cheap labor.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Coulter,

I was only able to open your first link. I didn't see any lies. Could you point one out to me?

Bush/Blair and teams told it like they saw it. Turns out they were wrong about stores of WMD. However, Saddam did his best to make everyone think he still had them (as a posture against Iran, apparently). He certainly had had them, and had used them previously. The only way to be sure was to invade. The UN (Hans Blix) fiasco, following the first Gulf War is testament to that fact.

BTW, I am always curious about how the left would paint a picture of the world, if, say, Obama was elected in 2000. Assume the 9-11 attack happened (unless, of course, you think that diplomacy with al qaeda would have prevented it). What is your concept? I am not trying to trap you on this one...serious question. However, please avoid trivial answers like "Anything would be better than Bush!". Give it a shot, Coulter.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm

THANK GOD,

Indeed I am a former leftist. Part of my previous training was to outlast 'em. This is one of the few benefits of the leftist experience.

Semi-retired. All kids out of the house. I do this, becasue it is fun to do.


Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush "veered terribly off course," was not "open and forthright on Iraq," and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be "badly misguided."

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff — "had at best misled" him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

There's no doubt that the full truth is a thousand times more criminal and obnoxious. "Propaganda" means fraud, lies and deception, "misleading" means bold faced deception of the White House press corp, etc. Speaker Pelosi ran out of excuses as to why she won't initiate the impeachment process. Condi was part of that cabal of those Über-criminals. She belongs in prison, not in the faculty of a great academic institution.


Posted by Bin Laden's Family, a resident of Evergreen Park
on May 27, 2008 at 7:17 pm

"Al qaeda is in retreat, especially in Iraq."


Bin Laden's family was allowed to fly out of the U.S. immediately after the 9/11 attacks. They were not questioned, they were not detained. They flew out with full blessings from this Bush/Cheney/Rice government. Where are they now? Why were they allowed to leave when the all American planes were grounded?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm

"Why were they allowed to leave when the all American planes were grounded?"

Bin Laden, maybe it was because the USA was, understandably, upset with that happened on 9-11, adn there was a sober attempt to get them out of here, before they got hurt. The Bin Laden family has not been shown to be responsible for its wayward son. In fact, that family is part of a major construction firm in the Middle East, and it has been highly critical of Osama...not good for business.


Posted by McClellan's Book, a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm

I'm looking forward to this one. :)


Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 27, 2008 at 8:39 pm

"Bin Laden, maybe it was because the USA was, understandably, upset with that happened on 9-11, adn there was a sober attempt to get them out of here, before they got hurt. The Bin Laden family has not been shown to be responsible for its wayward son. In fact, that family is part of a major construction firm in the Middle East, and it has been highly critical of Osama...not good for business."

This statement above is totally illogical.

This was all after they had already left the U.S. How did the U.S. know of their denouncement merely hours after 9/11? They should have been detained and questioned.

I wonder why the U.S. hasn't been able to capture or kill Bin Laden. I can only imagine the headlines - U.S. kills son of Bin Laden family, the family of a construction firm in the Middle East. Sorry about your son, though we let you go before we could question you as to his possible whereabouts. Thing is, Bin Laden's whereabouts are still unknown....I wonder why?

It would have been better to detain the family. Let his family go, but let more than 3,000 American soldiers die? Doesn't seem right to me.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 27, 2008 at 9:54 pm

LAMO, some military numbers for you and a useful weblink:

* US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world's total military spending
* US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined
* US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
* US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)
* US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.
* The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world's total.
* The six potential "enemies," Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.

Web Link


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 5:18 am

"McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.'
What a howler! If there was one major defect in the Bush approach to the renewal of hostilities in an ongoing war it was the failure to vigorously defend his positions. Propaganda can be lies, but it can also be the vigorous defense of an action.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 5:36 am

"I'm concerned," said Mr. McClellan, "that, like Bush, I may have engaged in self-deception and convinced myself to believe what suits my needs at the moment — mostly my need to convert my undistinguished White House tenure into an endless stream of cash."

Mr. McClellan said he plans to "ask a lot of questions and get to the bottom of this, as soon as the checks all clear."

Thank you, Scott Ott


Posted by JP, a resident of College Terrace
on May 28, 2008 at 7:01 am

It seems very obvious that McClellen is trying to save himself from a future war crimes indictment. He knows damn well that after the new president is inaugurated next January, Bush, Dick, Rumsfeld, Rice and some of their enablers will be indicted for war crimes. What he describes, and far worse, has been known to most people for a very long time now, despite the corporate media's meekness and capitulation to this fascist regime. Right now this long time Bush family friend is trying to avoid being sent to the Hague.


Posted by villemar, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 7:07 am

Consider how remarkable that is. George Bush's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being "too deferential" to the right-wing Government "in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington"? If one were to set about with the goal of debunking the "Liberal Media" myth - as Eric Alterman specifically did four years ago and other media critics have more generally done before that- one couldn't dream up evidence more conclusive than McClellan's admissions.

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would - for any rational person - forever negate the "Liberal Media" myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were "allowed to stand unchallenged." The Washington Post's own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as "independent analysts" spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media's pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals - which led to his impeachment - stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.


Posted by Andrea Kimmel, a resident of Los Altos
on May 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

It's infuriating to note that these excerpts don't contain any apology, or contrition by McClellan for the death and injury of our armed services women and men in Iraq, and to their families, or to the over million Iraqi civilians killed or injured in this immoral and illegal war. He is still a despicable person unwilling to admit his culpability in the death and destruction of the war. He's no different than any of the vile warmongers of the Administration, war profiteers, and duplicitous corporate media. Utter contempt on them all. Where is his public penitence?


Posted by Gerald, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 7:37 am

I'm struck by the similarity between the Bush administration's and the MSM(mainstream media) response mechanism to criticism that they have failed in a fundamental way in their responsibilities to the American public. The Bush administration when confronted with visible evidence of their torture policies claimed it was only a few bad apples in Abu Ghraib. As abundant evidence mounted that these torture policies are systemic, the Bush administration went into denial mode (i.e. Mr. Bush, "We do not torture").

The media, when pressed on their terrible pre-Iraq war coverage, initially hid behind scapegoats such as Judy Miller. Then, as evidence emerged (such as the NY Times military analysts story) that suggested an inherent problem in how the MSM covers the Iraq war, they simply refuse to cover these topics. The underlying dynamic is the same. When confronted with initial evidence of a fundamental breach in responsibilities to the public, blame the first scapegoats that appear, then, upon discovery that these problems are structural within these bureaucracies, ignore all items that mention such things in hopes of sweeping all these problems under the carpet.

It is a testament to (a) either the pitiful state of journalism in the our country or (b) the great ability of the Bush administration to function in today's media world that both fall back on this defense mechanism to disturbing and unflattering criticism. All seriousness aside, this situation strikes me as remarkably ironic.


Posted by Falconer, a resident of Stanford
on May 28, 2008 at 7:45 am

Just goes to show that Repugnants only tell the "truth" when it's too late and they can make a fast buck off of it. I wonder what the excuse will be for not hoisting the Bush junta up on impeachment charges now. "Too many crimes to prosecute; where would we start, so let's just give up and continue to appease this criminal so he doesn't cancel the elections" is my bet.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 8:09 am

a resident,

You have been watching too many Moore movies. Your temperature is rising. The Bin Laden family, at least the vast majority of it, broke with Osama in the mid 90's. All of those who left this country are known entities, and available for questioning, should that make any sense, which it doesn't. OBL is one of over 50 children of the family patriarch. As much as I want to see him dead, I don't cast blame on the famiy as a whole.

"I wonder why the U.S. hasn't been able to capture or kill Bin Laden"

Clinton had a couple of opportunities, but not the balls to do it. OBL probably walked across the hills at night into Pakistan, then hid in a cave, which explains why he has not been captured sinse the invasion of Afghanistan. I wonder what the response will be, if Pres. Obama gains intel as to where OBL is in Pakistan...we he ordered him killed, or will he see it as a grand opportunity for diplomacy?


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 8:35 am

I would welcome a war crimes trial in faint hope that most of the accusations would collapse of their own insubstantial icompetence and ignorance. It could be a full time job to Fisk all the incompetent ignorances above, but as always the haters are impervious to reality.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

Gary--typical of you to blame the fact that Bush, post 9/11, failed to capture/kill Bin Laden on Clinton who finished his presidency prior to 9/11. After 9/11 Bush promised to get Bin Laden, he failed because he did not have the brains to finish the Afghanistan war before opening up a new, misguided front in Iraq.
I see also because Obama has suggested negotiating with the rest of the world instead of attacking first, you will constantly bring this point up to beat to death the "diplomacy" issue Obama raised.
There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement--talking to other countries/leaders does not mean they are being appeased.




Posted by ok, you're on..., a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

to person who claims we are the most "militaristic" because we spend so much more than other countries on our military.

Try thinking for just a moment..we also spend so much more than other countries on the UN and on foreign aid.

On a personal choice basis, we give more from our pocketbooks per capita than any other country's citizens when a disaster happens...(I noted how much money came pouring in from foreign citizens for relief after Katrina)..and without doing any research at all, I can guarantee our poorest 20% of our citizens spend more on leisure activities like eating in restaurants and going to movies, and on luxury items like $200 tennis shoes and name brand clothes.

Ok, now think a little bit.

If, based on comparative spending, we are the most "militaristic" ( do you know what that word MEANS??) country then this would also mean that we are the most generous country in the world and have the richest poor in the world, which would mean we are the best place to be poor in the world.

I will accept your new definition of militaristic, if you will accept that we are the most generous and the best place to be "poor".


Posted by To Coulter, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

So, if you really believe what you say, the next time your child is being threatened with being beat up by some bullies, tell him to just "talk to" the bullies.

Tell him to just keep talking, and with his brilliance he will convince them that they want to be nice people.

Then, tell him to keep talking while they beat him up.

Then, tell him to keep talking after they beat him up.

Seriously...do you think Obama would have done anything post 9/11 other than more talk, like we had been doing for 30 years already? And which, of course, had already proven so useful?

You guys are living in a fantasy world. Take over the country, and that will be the only world left to occupy.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

To COulter--you and Gary have found a new item to bash Obama with and you are running with it--clearly there is nothing else of merit for the republicans to stand and/or run on, so you nitpick comments and try to paint Obama as the next Neville C.
Nice try,, but will not work, neither will your bogus analogies like the one above
I guess in your fantasy world, we would be invading Syria, Iran and North Korea now also--of course your kids and bUsh's kids would not be fighting on the front lines.

By the way have you noticed that since Bush's speech to the Knesset about appeasement etc, it has come out the Israel is meeting and talking with Syria--one of Bush's axis of evil countries.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 11:01 am

The Kneset is just as falable as our congress, as they demonstrated in their foolish response to Lebanon and their surrender of Gaza. There is no better example of the foolishness of negotiations than our dance with the Norks.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 12:29 pm

"There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement--talking to other countries/leaders does not mean they are being appeased"

Coulter,

You are correct, there is a difference. However, talking to al qaeda only enhances al qaeda...it does not defeat them. GWB is currently defeating them. My question is what would Obama do to DEFEAT al qaeda? Do you have a rational answer?

With respect to foreign policiy, this is likely to be the central question of the presidential campaign. I would think that your side would have a rational answer.


Posted by Big Mama, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Big Mama,

I respect Walter, even if I don't always agree with him, for example on the draft issue. You should show some respect for your elders...it sounds like they could teach you something.


Posted by Big Mama, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 12:57 pm

gary- youz gots to earn it boy


you running for president?


Posted by Axiom, a resident of Woodside
on May 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

They lied. From soup to nuts. Many of us knew this about six years ago.
We knew the MSM was enabling the bloody bogus mess because war is good for ratings; CNN's viewership went up 500% after September 11, and if you think the fatcats in the advertising didn't connect the dots and forecast the ducats, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Those greedy bastards are at least as responsible for the current calamity as the wretched serial criminals in the White House, OEOB and Capitol Building.

They were the PR section, the means by which those Bush-borne monsters were able to terrorize an entire population into agreeing with a plan to commit mass murder in the first degree and grand theft writ large. Maybe they were just credulous dolts and didn't really know the score, and you know what? That's worse. At least the Bush guys had an ideology. These MSM whores were just along for the ride, hoping to capture their own personal White Bronco Moment on film and advance their God damned vapid empty worthless careers enough to get limo service and an anchor seat and fame and fortune and stock options. The Bush people were evil with intent. The media people were evil in their utter diffidence. Bastards with perfect hair and makeup. Butchers who neither knew nor cared about what was what.

McClellan spilled their beans...stone the creepy crows, right? Frankly, I'm shocked he had the stones to open his mouth. I barely remember his time at the podium because I make a point of never listening to deliberate liars who get paid to stare into cameras and flipp his country off behind his back day day after day; maybe I'm a slacker for it, but the hell with this. I'd rather take a ball-peen hammer to my forehead than sit down and watch someone verbally undo constitutional law, governmental integrity and public trust. McClellan talked a lot of people into savage and violent death, into having their arms and legs and faces blasted away, into having their minds get turned to insensate slop by explosive concussion, into having their lives shattered by PTSD nightmares they will never fully escape.
Scott McClellan, may he rot in hell. He might as well have told us the sun rises in the east. Down with the MSM. Nothing they say has been of any interest to me for a long, long time. I am many moons past needing to hear any of those ghouls acknowledge or confirm that which I have known to be brass-bottomed fact for years. If they said they lied, I'd think they were lying. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm

"GWB is currently defeating them." Ha, ha - what a joke. Part of Bush's culture of deception. Mr. Gary has been deceived.

"My question is what would Obama do to DEFEAT al qaeda? Do you have a rational answer?" Make America more respected in the world. He would engage the world.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 1:50 pm

"Make America more respected in the world. He would engage the world."

And how would that defeat al qaeda? Bill Clinton was well liked, yet Osama just laughed at him. While Bill was getting a Lewinsky, Osama was getting prepared. OBL is now hiding in a cave somewhere in NW Pakistan, and his plans have been highly disrupted by GWB.

If this is the best you guys can do, you are in trouble in November.


Posted by Dana, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Paul O'Neill who served the Bush Administration as Secretary of the Treasury was dismissed and subsequently wrote a book that was critical of Bush and his criminal co-conspirators. Specifically, he stated that the Administration was going out of its way to find a reason to invade Iraq, all of this being pre-9/11 of course.

The Administration's, as well as the right's response was exactly the same as in this instance...deny, criticize and attack the individual's character and credibility. I really wish it was harder for these scoundrels to do so, particularly because character is something the entire Administration lacks.

It's amazing how Bush's jerks rarely veer away from the playbook and even more amazing how the media and the public suck it up hook, line and sinker pretty much every time.


Posted by Coulter loves Limbaugh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Gary--again bringing up Bill Clinton--nothing to say so let's bring up Clinton. The 9/11 attack came during Bush's watch. bush promised to hunt down Bin Laden and has failed so far--in fact his ignoring of Afghanistan has let Al Qeida re-establish there, while Bush plays his little war game in Iraq.
Bush defeating Al Qeada?? Maybe in your fantasy world. Bush has also allowed Al Qaedea to establish a presence in Iraq--not a very good scorecard for Bush with regard to Bin Laden and his gang.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Coulter,

In case you haven't heard, al qaeda is on the defensive around the world, but especially in Iraq. It was defeated in Afghanistan, and had to find a new home (Pakistan, then Iraq). It is being crushed in Iraq, and being picked at (quietly) in Pakistan. It is also on the run in the Phillipines.

I know you like your mantra about 9-11 happening on GWB's watch, but nobody with two neurons touching buys that logic, becasue it is not...well...logical. OBL put his guys in place during Clinton's watch. Clinton refused to kill OBL, becasue he "lacked the legal authority". Bill's prissiness about legalities cost us about 3000 dead on 9-11.


Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm

"Bill Clinton was well liked, yet Osama just laughed at him"

Osama attacked during the Bush administration's tenure, not Clinton's. Pure laziness, Gary, pure laziness. Trying to outsource all your party's responsibility to someone else?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm




Osama attacked the Cole in Yemen during the Clinton administration's tenure, not Bush's

get your facts straight


Posted by Jane, a resident of Professorville
on May 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm



It has become obvious in a very short period of time that Senator Obama attended some very fine schools and learned almost nothing of American history.
He has, however, hung out with radicals for the past few decades, and their view of America and its history has sunk in, leaving Obama not only gaffe-prone, but wholly unprepared to be the Commander-in-Chief. He's a product of his years and years in the Chicago machine with its nonsensical view of why things are the way they are and how the county and the economy works.
This takes us back to the Rev. Wright and Obama's two decades of listening to and reading the pastor's worldview, and before that to his college years in California and New York, and working as a "community organizer" in Chicago.
Senator Obama has lived his entire life in places where the distorted history of left-wing radicalism prevailed, and the consequences of this long immersion in pseudo-history and pseudo-economics are easy to see and will be disqualifying for most voters.


Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm

"The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were "allowed to stand unchallenged." The Washington Post's own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as "independent analysts" spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media's pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals - which led to his impeachment - stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry."

Well said.

In a lot of ways we Americans brought our current state of affairs upon ourselves. Americans have become way too complacent. It's time now to change.

I don't blame others for the problems I got, instead I take care of them. If you want it done right, you've got to do it yourself.



Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm

"The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were "allowed to stand unchallenged." The Washington Post's own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as "independent analysts" spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media's pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals - which led to his impeachment - stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry."

Well said.

In a lot of ways we Americans brought our current state of affairs upon ourselves. Americans have become way too complacent. It's time now to change.

I don't blame others for the problems I got, instead I take care of them. If you want it done right, you've got to do it yourself.



Posted by a, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 28, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"Osama attacked the Cole in Yemen during the Clinton administration's tenure, not Bush's."

Yes, but the biggest blunder came during Bush's. And Mr. Bush has still yet to find him.

Tell me, where is Osama now? Even after 9/11...where is he now?

Osama is laughing at Bush, because Bush cannot find him. Bush is blind as a bat. Bush went to the finest institutions in the U.S. and drank his way through. He never learned anything about history, nor does he care.

Ms. Rice, where is Osama? Billions and billions of dollars, 6 years later, 4,000 dead in Iraq, 3,000 dead in New York - where is Osama?

Clinton never used up this many body bags.


Posted by Incompetence is Waste, a resident of South of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Bush is both incompetent and wasteful - both in his use of lives and money. Ms. Rice is the same.


Posted by ??, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2008 at 4:09 pm

All this is getting sillier by the post.

Clinton could have done a lot more than he did to prevent the rise of AQ and all we heard was impeach him impeach him for lying about an affair. If all those who wanted to impeach him and worried about his competency we may have had a president who was able to concern himself about world affairs rather than his sexual activities and AQ may have been prevented before 2001 from carrying out 9/11.

If Gore had been president, we have no idea whether he would have been in the same boat as Bush at this stage.

The sitting president is always a target for the silly brigade. Of course with hindsight it is always easy to say what should have happened and how wrong someone was.

My point is that Bush had a difficult hand thrown at him and although I am not saying he didn't make some mistakes, he at least acted as a president rather than a media hound or a figurehead glorying in his elevated ego giving him power in the bedroom or wherever.

Clinton was hated, now it seems that it would be nice to go back to a state of affairs where all we worried about was did he or didn't he.


Posted by Arie, a resident of Stanford
on May 28, 2008 at 4:15 pm

In What Happened, Scott McClellan offers withering portraits of George Bush, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, and Scooter Libby, confirms that we went to war in Iraq under false pretenses, and that we were serially lied to about the outing of Valerie Plame.

Interesting stuff, Scott. But about five years too late.

It's George Tenet déjà vu all over again. How many times are we going to have a key Bush administration official try to wash the blood off his hands - and add a chunk of change to his bank account - by writing a come-clean book years after the fact, pointing the finger at everyone else while painting himself as an innocent bystander to history who saw all the horrible things that were happening but, somehow, had no choice but to go along?

McClellan told the Washington Post that he wrote the book to "provide an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it." And he told Cox News Service, "My job was to advocate and defend [Bush's] policies and speak on his behalf. This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things."

Great. We need all the openness and honesty we can get. But it would have been a lot more helpful if he had taken the "opportunity" when it really mattered - say before the 2004 election, when it could have potentially saved thousands of lives.

What Happened is page-turning reading. What Didn't Happen - namely McClellan telling the truth in service to his country rather than in service to his book sales --is a stomach-turning disappointment.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm

"Trying to outsource all your party's responsibility to someone else?"

a,

Not at all. OBL has been on the hunt since the 80's. He got really pissed off during the first Gulf War against Saddam, when the U.S. put bases in Saudi Arabia, in order to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

Clinton steered clear of any serious confrontation with OBL. He had him handed to him on a platter, but he (Clinton) deferred to legalities. He had Monica on his mind, after all. Clinton punted to GWB.

Perhaps you agree with OBL, but I do not. Even the hyper-conservative Saudis and OBL's own family threw him under the bus. He found a home in Afghanistant, with the Taliban, until GWB kicked his ass out of there. Now, he is hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan.

GWB has established the right course for this country, with respect to the Islamists. He will be recognized by history for doing so.

It seems that Obama wants to punt, again. However, he is just lying about it, in order to get votes from his leftie friends. You guys are about to be very disappointed, if he gets elected.



Posted by happy for the second amendment, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Axiom: Yup, proving how intelligent the left is yet again.

This is why I own a gun..and know how to use it. This kind of fanatical hatred will one day overflow and I will be able to defend myself.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm

happy,

Try to keep your gun holstered. BTW, I own one, too, and have always known how to use it. But there is no reason to even consider using it, except against anyone who wants to invade my private property. The hatriots will be defeated by their own arguments. Use the pen, not the sword, against them...they cannot defend against the pen.


Posted by Ron P, a resident of Palo Verde
on May 28, 2008 at 4:44 pm

The most depressing aspect of this is that the majority of the public and the entire US Congress knew all along that Bush/Cheney were a hybrid of a murderous crime family&fascist junta, yet were still willing to behave like an ostrich and tolerate its horrors. McClellan doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. This isn't an indictment of Bush/Cheeny and their henchmen, they were indicted a long time ago. We knew they were our version of the Nazis. This is an indictment of the American public, its conformism and lethargy.


Posted by wow, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 8:23 am

Gary's comment about "prissiness about legalities" and such makes me wonder: is the president above all the laws, Gary? Or just the ones regarding murder and assassination?


Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 29, 2008 at 8:32 am

Scott McClellan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when she was White House national security adviser, gave in too often to Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"I felt that too often she was too accommodating ... of the other strong personalities on the foreign policy team ... and too deferential to those individuals," he said.

But of course we have known all that for almost 8 years now. Condi has always been a lightweight, an intellectual midget and a brown-noser with no principles except the perpetual desire to please her masters.


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 8:51 am

He has invented a new word- isn't that creative!
he took a little hate, mixed in some jigoism-
and walla- gary has some news toys to play with in
his sandbox-new words too!
By the way gare bare- you sound an awful lot like
joe mccarthy- in case you didn't know-
watch out for the kiity poop while you
splash around in there!
and wash your hands when your done!


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Hey, "Big" Al, everyone capable of learning knows that McCarthy was a piker. And, Sarlat, the comment "Scott McClellan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when she was White House national security adviser, gave in too often to Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld." indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of governance by the commenter. Concurence and agreement are not surrender.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 12:43 pm

"Gary's comment about "prissiness about legalities" and such makes me wonder: is the president above all the laws, Gary? Or just the ones regarding murder and assassination?"

wow,

What "murder and assasination" are you referring to? OBL? If so, then Clinton should have taken the executive action that other presidents have used, in order to protect this country. He did not, and we lost almost 3000 innocents.

Clinton was well aware that OBL was behind several events that cost American lives, but he was too weak to take him down, even when he was handed over on a platter. Clinton hid behind international legalities, prefering, it seems, to have The Hague offer a judgement before he acted. There were a variety of mechanisms available to Clinton, especially plausible deniability via cut outs, in order to kill OBL. Sadly, Clinton lacked the fortitude to act effectively. His mind was on skirts and thongs.

GWB probably also has an eye for the young gals in skirts (he seems to be a normal male), but he keeps his eye on the ball, which is the defeat of our enemies, especially the jihadists. He has been very successfual in acomplishing this task. Good for him. Bad for Clinton.


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 1:26 pm

if you think you know what your talking about
your most likey full of s___!


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Big Al,

Thanks for another example of hatriot speak. It comes in various forms.

This thread has been rich in it!


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm

G- u are the only one spewing hatred and vitriol while
you pretend to have a grasp on reality-

I suppose you must fit the bill described above-
is that what troubles you? the truth?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Big Al,

I am very confident with my grip on reality. You, on the other hand, have offered no rational facts or discussion to counter me. The ball is in your court. Be specific.


Posted by wow, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Once again a serious question dodged by Gary's sleight-of-hand. The question is whether the President of the United States is above the law. The question is not whether any or all presidents have broken any laws in the past. The question is: is the President, by virtue of the office of president, above the law?



In addition, it appears that a refresher course is in order: United States law prohibits murder and assassination.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm

wow,

In times of war, the simple answer is that the President decides which laws, rules and regulations he wants to follow, or reject, in order to protect this country.. Lincoln violated habeus corpus in a big way, yet the Supreme Court decided not to punish him. FDR violated the Neutality Act, but the Supremes decided not to act.

The essential function of the Presdient, as Commander in Chief, is to prtoect this country. Failure to act is an act of failure. Take it to court, if you disagree. Clinton failed to act, when he could, and it cost many innocent lives.


Posted by Dont Feed the Troll, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Gary has become a troll, just arguing so that he can be the center of attention.
Time to Stop Feeding the Troll.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 9:18 pm

"Gary has become a troll, just arguing so that he can be the center of attention.

Time to Stop Feeding the Troll."

Don't,

In fact, I don't understand when I suddenly became a troll. Care to explain? Alternatively, you could enter the discussion with at least as much articulation as I provide. However, try to be rational...hatriotism is no longer welcome...been too much of that from the leftie trolls!

Ball in your court. Take your shot. I'm not going away.






Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 29, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Gery, you've always been a troll.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm

"Gery, you've always been a troll."

The name's "Gary", not "Gery", Peter. Little tipsy tonight?

Hows bout you just come up with rational arguments, instead of trolling? I am willing, and able, as usual, to take you on.


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 30, 2008 at 8:26 am

G Dog-
wake up!
I felt like doing a little trolling this morning-
chime in after your fruit loops are gone-
I need some vitriol to get the vital flowing!
Nobody spews it out like you old sport!


Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 30, 2008 at 10:56 am

Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead
The Wicked Witch Is Dead!


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm

No, Gary, just a typo; I don't drink.


Posted by septicAl, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm



This Just In From The White House

Scott who? I'm sure this is devastating news to many, but I'm told by a White House insider that the president of the United States is in meetings today about urgent matters concerning the nation's business.

But what about, you know, Scott McClellan? Who? Oh, yes, Scott. Dear fellow.

Whatever happened to him?

He left the White House two years ago when it became clear that he was unable to speak coherently at the podium and, well, that was that.

Somebody said he wrote a book.

More breaking news to come . . .


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 30, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Gary, it's habeas corpus, not "habeus corpus." A little too much afternoon martini?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scott’s Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,021 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 10 comments | 1,287 views

Who Says Kids Don’t Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,202 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 330 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 305 views