"Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.* ewastud:
These haven't been open questions for decades if not centuries. They've been settled as intrinsic values that define our country. Yet nothing is settled or resolved any longer. Everything -- even the most extremist and authoritarian policies and things which were long considered taboo -- are now openly entertained, justifiable and routinely justified."
"I read Madsen's post about Ney and his ME dealings. It seems partly plausible at least about Ney working with Plame and Brewster Jennings to a certain point. But Ney was probably doing considerable self-dealing, too, IMHO.great post. i don't follow madsen - so i don't really know how to read him - some smart people tell me that he's useful to read to help get a read on things, and at least a reminder to 'follow the money' - but he generally just makes me dizzy. I agree with ewastud here - madsen seems to have drawn distinct good/bad lines here for whatever reasons.
However, I don't buy Madsen's take that Ney is pretty much an innocent in this. Ney is a very dirty fellow, too. He was the one who got the Israeli telcomm firm into the House in the first place, and who has been the key figure in our crooked electronic voting systems installed throughout the country which has helped mostly the GOP to steal elections. How can Madsen forget about that? On the other hand, Madsen portrays Patrick Fitzgerald as somehow corrupt and being blackmailed by BushCo. I don't buy that line either.
Even if there was more criminality involved in the 1993 WTC car bombing that did not get prosecuted, it does not necessarily mean he had the evidence or ability to prosecute with a free hand. Or perhaps Fitzgerald intended to gather more evidence or opted to wait for a more opportune time.
I find it much more plausible that Fitzgerald is "clean" and Ney is "dirty," than vice versa.
It seems hard to believe that Madsen could actaully be serious in that spin that he delivers. It makes me wonder if he is taking that line to confuse and throw off the GOP/neo-con intriguers who are nervous about Fitzgerald and what card he may play next.
There has been a lot of wingnut criticisms of the movie Syriana. I saw it and the plot is complex and difficult to follow. If it is unrealistic, though, it is because reality is actually considerably more complex than fiction, not less, as the wingnuts would have us believe -- life is a mere contest between good and evil. Syriana ironically left out for the most part much about the large scale flows of narcotics involved in the international oil/weapons trading/"terrorism" nexus, even though one the director's previous films was Traffic. "
the idea of an israeli telecoms company wiring up the whitehouse is kinda outrageous, given israel's status as the number one 'friendly' espionage-engager, and given the sponsors of the project (not unlike the wilkes crew providing WH office furniture)