gerryhatrick

Here's a question for Jerry. If the media is so "lefty" - as you say - why have they let this story languish? More apologetic behaviour for the Bush administration? The media allowed Bush to waltz into Iraq with hardly a peep or a challange. Now we have this new story of a secret prison riddled with detainee abuse and it passes on by. 'splain for us JS?

One guy...one little cog in the wheel sends what he thinks is a private message about Bushs BS (which makes me sick quite often also, btw) and now the entire media establishment is proven to be "lefty"? JS, you need to start basing your topics and points in more logic and fact. This constant departure from reality is a little old.

Most things that are done begin with talk KK. Start paying attention and you'll see where it goes. As the topic points out...it's growing. And November mid-terms are coming.

I only repeated them because you quite obviously missed them the first time and repeated the idiotic assertion by Monty that the poll somehow indicated soldiers wanted to personally get home to thier comforts. That ignores the poll question and insults soldiers. Oh. I guess you still don't get it.

As I said betsy, maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you? Four posts in a row and you're nowhere nearer to answering or seemingly even understanding the issue. You believe the media is the enemy...that the CBC is "terribly slanted" for example. I got the latest on the Gomery inquiry day after day on CBC radio. Guess they didn't get the memo, oh well. It's not really the point anyway, and it's immature and short-sighted to focus on it. The media is the vehicle for accountability. You conveniently claim that it's "liberal" as a way of throwing support behind Harpers decisions. It doesn't stand up betsy, and I've demonstrated that by suggesting he just allow SunMedia and National Post. Throw in CanWest. We can have a pissing contest over the media if you want, but in the end there's no excuse for what Harper has done.

You got a lot to learn about politics in the US. As I said...the argument by the AG to protect his President thus far is that the Constitution allowed Bush to step outside of lesser laws. We'll see if that holds up.

It's always the same thing with rightwingers.....answer the same points for them over and over and over. The poll was specific. It had nothing to do with soldiers wanting to get out for personal comfort reasons, it was asking if the US should completely withdraw within a year. I'll repost the same answer I gave Monty since you are reduced to using his posts as your own: So, now Monty AND you have insulted US troops. Nice work.

So what's your point? Because some of the sponsorship money was stolen, we should let the Conservatives spend money irresponsibly? Get out of the past JS, your partisan one-liners are a waste of your time.

That's the point KK, the November elections are nearing and the proverbial sh#t is poised in front of the proverbial fan. You're saying that because the AG hasn't drawn up an indictment that means Bush didn't act illegaly? Is that seriously your point? we're talking about impeachment. If those proceedings begin, the illegality will be established. The argument by the AG to protect his President thus far is that the Constitution allowed Bush to step outside of lesser laws. We'll see if that holds up.

Krusty, your last post was nonsensical. Here's the topic for you: and here are the facts that support it:

Ah, the "liberal journalist" rightwing mantra. Like it or not the press is our vehicle to government accountability. Maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you? "Spill his guts"? All we're talking about is freedom of MP's to speak. You're assuming that anything your MP is going to say will somehow undermine the PM. You assume MP's are all unprofessional publicity-hungry opportunists if they speak to the press (or write letters to the editor) without having the content of what they say or write approved by the PM. It is a bizarre position taken for one purpose, to support your beloved Stephen Harper. I don't think you have the courage or honesty to critisize Harper even if it's deserved. So, I guess you can save it. Your credibility is gone.

I haven't noticed that. Maybe you're confusing the fact that it's been on the back-burner with indifference. It will move to the front when they start to move on it. It was a big issue in the election and it will be a big issue soon enough again. You can see we're just starting to hear the Premiers speak up on it.

How so? My sources are scientific polls. The majority of US troops want the US out of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want the US out. Nearly half of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified. Insurgents and terrorists are fighting US troops...US troops are the common enemy. Where is the opinion in this KK?

David Asper threatening the Liberals, how original. Harper faces a tough political battle on this. If the government falls over it the next election will be on child care. Don't think for a minute the last one was. Here's an interesting little soundbite from Harpers meeting with Premier Calvert: Harper's already seeing daycare protesters turn up at his public events, and groups are lining up against him. Not exactly just a Conservative vs. Liberal fight as Mr. Asper would like us to believe.

You need to try to focus in on something and address it KK. This is undeniable. Not opinion, fact. It's also fact that insurgents and terrorists have the USA as a common enemy. Also a fact. If you want to pin your hopes on a think tank anecdote about some Sunni insurgents turning on the terrorists they've previously helped go ahead. It doesn't change the facts I've provided, which support the wisdom and logic of a US withdrawal. The US wants to help...wants to make things better in Iraq, yes. In spite of all good intentions it's no longer possible for them to help there. They have broken too much china in the shop, so to speak. They want to help clean up and, but the shop-keeper just wants them to leave.

I agree with both statements, and if it's shown that he acted illegaly by going outside of the FISA law to wiretap then that would be a serious criminal offense.

I don't know anything about Rockerfeller gathering dirt on Bush and frankly don't care. The calls for impeachment are becoming more common in the mainstream, that's undeniable. The reason it's never been talked about much before is likely due to the Repubs having control of both houses, making it a complete impossibility. This November might change that situation. And wire tapping is something that came out very recently and it's the clearest case of illegal behaviour, so in all likelyhood that would figure prominently in any future impeachment hearings. And anyway, did you think Presidents got impeached for old "dirt" that's dug up on them?

OH yes, that evil press! Danger! Danger! I'm seeing honest conservatives get their knickers in a knot over it, and rightly so. I want to know what our government is doing, and if all the press is ever going to be fed is campaign 2006 redux then we're not - as a nation - being kept informed. Seeing people defend it is stunning. He doesn't need to worry about alienating the press, as you say. He needs to be careful about alienating his own caucus and the Canadian public. Nobody likes being told they're not able to speak out on what they choose, and we don't like finding out our government is muzzled.

Yes, that's it. I guess you just don't get it. Or you've decided you will support Harper on all things regardless of the details. So they should shut up about anything else. I for one would be a little dissappointed to know that my MP cannot speak out on the issues concerning his constituents without PM approval. Not exactly what I'd describe as a democracy. You see nothing wrong with this dictatorial control over elected MP's. That's where we digress I guess. You see a "true leader" because he's muzzling his MP's and constricting them to 5 issues. I see a paranoid lack of trust in his collegues.

So any information other than the 5 campaign platform planks is "sensitive" in your view? The topic is about Harper muzzling his MP's...telling them no inverviews or even letters to the editor can occur without his approval. Are you in a state of denial over this?

I'm sure there's a few of those out there, but if you think that's what this is about you're fooling yourself. And no, it's new news. The talk of impeachment has recently been moving off of the blogs into the houses of power and the mainstream press. You only wish it was "old news" perhaps.

Oh, so the US has to stay in Iraq or the entire region will go to hell? Sure KK, if you say so. In my "world" when it makes logical sense to leave then you leave. It has nothing to do with the "going gets tough". The going has been tough for a while, but that's not the issue. The issue is can the USA effect any positive result by staying, and clearly the answer is no. Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq. You can throw out your little stories from a think tank and claim that the insurgents are turning on thier terrorist pals, and that is true in some cases I'm sure. But don't wrap yourself in a Rumsfeld-ish optomism over it. There are thousands who will never put down arms or turn against the Jihadists until the USA is out of Iraq. Newsflash for KK: It is failing. If the USA stays it is guaranteed to fail. If they leave there's a chance for Iraq. Perhaps you and other militarists aren't considering the wellfare of Iraq itself when you speak of "success" or "failure". I sense that. I sense that what you're really talking about is the perception of power the USA can maintain. Saving face, as it were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6032402248.html Not a bad idea if you ask me. The guy has pissed on the world, what price does he pay besides sleepless nights? The little fool should be in jail.

Harper is being critisized from all sides for putting a noose on information flowing out of his cabinet. It is quite 1984-ish. I don't know what you want, a sugar-coat? Even letters to the editor need to be cleared. And you're comfortable with that? If Harper reverses his bizarre edict I will be the first to stand up and sing his praises.

What information are you talking about?