Just the one criminal in the Bush administration? Right! |
| Posted by: h@ts | | Libby: guilty of purjury. Possible sentence25 years.
This Libby guy is just the tip of the iceburg, and sums up the Bush admininstration completely. Lying, cheating, vindictive criminals.
And Libby may now be a convicted criminal, but he's just the guy following orders. Those that gave those orders have, like always with this administration, cowardly managed to escape the consequences of their actions.
| quote: |
WASHINGTON -- Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, could be headed to jail after being found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Yesterday's jury conviction, after a four-week trial and 10 days of deliberation, is a humiliation for Mr. Cheney and a major victory for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, just more than a week before he begins his next big trial -- that of Canadian newspaper baron Conrad Black.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...tional/America/ |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #1 :
Libby: guilty of purjury.
|
Perjury about what?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | FOX News was at its best last night... the little headline deal was something like "What's Libby Guilty Of?"
So freakin' pathetic, all of them.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #3 :
FOX News was at its best last night... the little headline deal was something like "What's Libby Guilty Of?"
So freakin' pathetic, all of them.
-HECK! |
Well it seems like a resonable question. Otherwise, listening to most of the network news, you would get the idea that he was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame. After all, that was the theme of the whole investigation and prosecution.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #4 :
Well it seems like a resonable question. Otherwise, listening to most of the network news, you would get the idea that he was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame. After all, that was the theme of the whole investigation and prosecution. |
"Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, could be headed to jail after being found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq."
There's your reasonable answer. The rest is right wing crapola.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #5 :
"Lewis (Scooter) Libby,...found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq."
-HECK! |
Yes, but wasn't the heart of that case the allegation that the Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a secret agent as revenge for her husband returning from Nigeria and refuting Bush's claim about Iraq purchasing uranium from Nigeria? I think it was.
Yet many months into the investigation, we learn that it was Richard Armatage who leaked Plame's identity. He admitted it. And we also learned that the prosecutor knew, at the start of the investigation that Armatage was the leaker, but he told Amatage to not go public with that revelation. Then the prosecutor began his investigation, which was constantly reported to be about discovering who leaked Plame's identiity.
All of last night's news coverage highlighted issue of the leaking of Plame's identity as being the heart of the prosecution of Libby. I don't recall even hearing the name, Richard Armatage mentioned.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | Richard Armatage admitted leaking Plame's name but claimed he did it "accidentally". He seems to have got away with it. But Libby was convicted of lying about the Plame incident under oath before a grand jury in March 2004.
There is talk that Bush will pardon Libby when he leaves office. Why not, Libby did, after all, lie before a grand jury for the Bush administration, about their pernicious outing of a CIA agent, to punish her husband for daring to tell the truth to the US public about WMD. So for services to the US president, if not the US public, Libby clearly should be given a pardon 
If your interested there's audio stuff from Libby's trial here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=7256429 | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #7 :
Richard Armatage admitted leaking Plame's name but claimed he did it "accidentally". He seems to have got away with it. But Libby was convicted of lying about the Plame incident under oath before a grand jury in March 2004.
There is talk that Bush will pardon Libby when he leaves office. Why not, Libby did, after all, lie before a grand jury for the Bush administration, about their pernicious outing of a CIA agent, to punish her husband for daring to tell the truth to the US public about WMD. So for services to the US president, if not the US public, Libby clearly should be given a pardon
|
I now understand more about Libby's crime about lying to the grand jury. But I am skeptical of the vlaidity of a lot of the background leading up to Libby's perjury. Apparently (from what I have heard) a lot of people leaked Plame's identity. Also there seems to be an unresolved question of whether or not she was covert, and therefore, whether or not leaking her identity was a crime. I know the judge said she was covert, but this was never proven in the trial.
I have heard the suggestion that the prosecutor did not charge anyone for outing Plame because he could not prove that they knew she was covert. But how does one leak that an agent is covert without knowing that the agent is covert???
Although Wilson was reported as having discredited the Bush administration, I understand that he was proven to have been a complete liar by his subsequent testimony before congress.
I understand British intelligence still maintains that Sadam was trying to buy uranium from Niger, contrary to what Wilson claimed. I understand that Sadam's purchasing of uranium from Niger was clearly an established practice, according to an IAEA finding that, in 1993, Iraq possessed 500+ tons of unranium which Sadam had purchased from Niger.
I expect Bush will not pardon Libby.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #8 :
I now understand more about Libby's crime about lying to the grand jury. But I am skeptical of the vlaidity of a lot of the background leading up to Libby's perjury. Apparently (from what I have heard) a lot of people leaked Plame's identity. Also there seems to be an unresolved question of whether or not she was covert, and therefore, whether or not leaking her identity was a crime. I know the judge said she was covert, but this was never proven in the trial.
|
Libby isn't a convicted criminal because he leaked Plame's name. He's a convicted criminal because he lied to the Grand Jury, and that's perjury. If there was nothing to hide and no-one did anything wrong, why did Libby commit perjury?
Bush said in the state of the union speech, 2003:
| quote: |
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included", attributing the error to the CIA. |
Wilson was right about the yellow cake. Bush was wrong. It was an unfortunate "error" on Bush's part, but one that convinced the American public to back the war! How convenient these "errors" seemed to be for the Bush administration's agenda.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #9 :
Libby isn't a convicted criminal because he leaked Plame's name. He's a convicted criminal because he lied to the Grand Jury, and that's perjury. If there was nothing to hide and no-one did anything wrong, why did Libby commit perjury?
Wilson was right about the yellow cake. Bush was wrong. It was an unfortunate "error" on Bush's part, but one that convinced the American public to back the war! How convenient these "errors" seemed to be for the Bush administration's agenda. |
Yes I realize that Libby was not convicted for leaking Plame's identity. I believe Libby's motive is not known. He may have thought the he and/or Cheney had committed a crime.
I am not convinced that Wilson was right on the yellow cake. There is evidence to the contrary, such as what I mentioned. Just because Bush said the words referenceing the yellow cake allegation should have been omitted, does not mean that the story was not true.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #10 :
Yes I realize that Libby was not convicted for leaking Plame's identity. I believe Libby's motive is not known. He may have thought the he and/or Cheney had committed a crime. |
The guy's a crook, who could get 25 years in jail. He lied about the Plame incident. His motive was so that people didn't find out the truth. Why? Because it's an act of treason to reveal an undercover CIA agent's name.
| quote: |
| I am not convinced that Wilson was right on the yellow cake. |
Really? We actually started a war because of this yellow cake "information" so you'd think if anyone had the "real" documents they'd maybe present them to the public out of courtesy? What do you think they might be waiting for?
| quote: |
| There is evidence to the contrary, such as what I mentioned. Just because Bush said the words referenceing the yellow cake allegation should have been omitted, does not mean that the story was not true. |
So you're saying - just because there's no evidence it doesn't mean there's no evidence??
Neither the UK government nor British intelligence have offered anything to back up this spurious claim that they have or ever had any other evidence other than the discredited yellow cake documents. That's the stuff that Bush used to convince the US public that Saddam was the greatest threat to world peace since Ghengis Khan, and only a matter of time before we'd all see mushroom clouds over New York.
I think British intelligence are just hoping everyone will forget they ever said the had this "other" evidence.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #11 :
The guy's a crook, who could get 25 years in jail. He lied about the Plame incident. His motive was so that people didn't find out the truth. Why? Because it's an act of treason to reveal an undercover CIA agent's name.
|
If leaking Plame's identity was the issue, why was Armitage not prosecuted? The prosecutor knew that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity at the start of his investigation.
Your speculating as to Libby's motive. Nobody knows for a fact what it was.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #12 :
If leaking Plame's identity was the issue, why was Armitage not prosecuted? The prosecutor knew that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity at the start of his investigation.
Your speculating as to Libby's motive. Nobody knows for a fact what it was. |
The prosecutor obviously didn't think there was a case to be made that could stand a chance in court, or Artmatage would have been prosecuted.
I don't speculate about Libby's motive, I just say to lie is usually to hide the truth, and if you lie in front of a Grand Jury, and get found out - you go to prison. The guy's a criminal. He was Cheney's chief of staff, worked with Cheney, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's covering up for Cheney - that is speculation.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #13 :
The prosecutor obviously didn't think there was a case to be made that could stand a chance in court, or Artmatage would have been prosecuted.
|
Why would it be hard to make the case? Armitage confessed near the start of the investigation. The prosecutor told Amitage to not go public with his confession until after the investigation was over.
I have heard the contention that the prosecutor felt he could not prove that anyone outed Plame because he could not prove that the outers knew she was covert. And this knowledge would have been required in order to make the outing a crime.
But I have also heard that the prosecutor did not charge anyone with leaking Plame's identity, because no crime was committed. Maybe that is the same thing as the preceding paragraph.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #14 :
I have heard the contention that the prosecutor felt he could not prove that anyone outed Plame because he could not prove that the outers knew she was covert. And this knowledge would have been required in order to make the outing a crime.
|
There you have it. Unlike the Bush administration's chief of staff, Cheney's top aide and "friend", Scooter Libby, now a convicted criminal and liar, a case couldn't be made against Armitage. you've answered your own question.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #15 :
There you have it. Unlike the Bush administration's chief of staff, Cheney's top aide and "friend", Scooter Libby, now a convicted criminal and liar, a case couldn't be made against Armitage. you've answered your own question. |
Yes but the case that was not made against Armitage was not made against Libby either. You sound like you want to believe that it was.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #16 :
Yes but the case that was not made against Armitage was not made against Libby either. You sound like you want to believe that it was. |
Libby was convicted of perjury when questioned about the Valerie Plame case. He was never accused of leaking the name himself, just lying and obstructing justice.
Incidentally the jury did have sympathy for Libby, and saw him as the Bush administrations "fall guy" for their sordid campaign against Joe Wilson.
| quote: |
Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."
Added House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed -- at the highest levels of the Bush administration -- a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03...leak/index.html |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | | I understand what Libby was convicted of, and agree that it was a crime. However I keep hearing how he was covering for a larger role that Cheney was playing. I can understand how Cheney would have had animosity toward Wilson. But here is my question:
What role could Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #18 :
I understand what Libby was convicted of, and agree that it was a crime. However I keep hearing how he was covering for a larger role that Cheney was playing. I can understand how Cheney would have had animosity toward Wilson. But here is my question:
What role could Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime? |
Cheney could have orchestrated the whole smear campaign against Wilson and got other people to do the dirty work for him.
These guys are good at covering up their mistakes and blaming other people when it all goes wrong. Did Rumsfeld take the blame for the torture at Abu Grahb? Of course not. That was left for a few low ranking soldiers to shoulder. Did anyone in the Bush administration take the blame for the whole WMD fiasco? No, of course not - that was the intelligence agencies fault. Did anyone take the blame for what a disaster Iraq has turned into? No, that was the terrorists/insurgents/Iraqis/Iranians/Sadamists/ Syrians/foriegners etc etc fault.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #19 :
Cheney could have orchestrated the whole smear campaign against Wilson and got other people to do the dirty work for him.
|
Yes, or he could have been retalliating for what he saw as a smear campaign on the part of Wilson being directed at the adminstration.
But so what? What would have been Cheney's crime? Implying this overarching crime by Cheney seems like conncecting dots to reach an intended conclusion. Fitzgerald definitely left this impression in the minds of the jury. Some of them even complained that they went after the wrong guy.
So I ask again:
What role could Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #20 :
Yes, or he could have been retalliating for what he saw as a smear campaign on the part of Wilson being directed at the adminstration. |
You're not saying Wilson was carrying out a smear campaign? Wilson was telling the truth, and it was a truth the American people needed to know. For the Bush administration it was an inconvenient truth and they did not tolerate this kind of dissent or disagreement with their view and agenda - which was to wage war against Iraq.
| quote: |
| Implying this overarching crime by Cheney seems like conncecting dots to reach an intended conclusion. Fitzgerald definitely left this impression in the minds of the jury. Some of them even complained that they went after the wrong guy. |
Of course they were after the wrong guy. Do you actually believe that Libby was the only one involved in this whole Plame case? He was Vice presidnet Cheney's chief of Staff. He was heavily involved in the Bush admins push to attack Iraq.
| quote: |
So I ask again:
What role could Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime? [/B] |
Conspiracy to leak the name of a CIA agent is treason.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #21 :
Of course they were after the wrong guy. Do you actually believe that Libby was the only one involved in this whole Plame case? He was Vice presidnet Cheney's chief of Staff. He was heavily involved in the Bush admins push to attack Iraq.
Conspiracy to leak the name of a CIA agent is treason. |
You keep coming back to your supposed crime of treason, yet nobody was even charged with that crime. Moreover, there was no evidence that such a crime was committed. I know you don't like Cheney, but wishing that this Libby trial means Cheney is a crimininal is not going to make it so.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #22 :
You keep coming back to your supposed crime of treason, yet nobody was even charged with that crime. |
Because you keep asking me what role COULD Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime?
You don't seem to want to answer my questions: why would Libby lie? And do you actually think his involved in the Plame case (the lying in court at least) was done without anyone elses knowledge?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #23 :
Because you keep asking me what role COULD Cheney have been playing that would have been a crime?
You don't seem to want to answer my questions: why would Libby lie? And do you actually think his involved in the Plame case (the lying in court at least) was done without anyone elses knowledge? |
I don't know why Libby lied. And I don't know if others knew that he was going to lie. I have not seen the transcript to see how the lying actually occured. There are only two circumstantances that I can see that would explain why he lied.
1) He had a memory loss about the details and got tripped up during repeated lines of questioning.
2) He believed that either he or Cheney, or both of them, had committed a crime.
But I am not disputing anything about Libby's testimony or conviction.
I keep asking you what crime Cheney COULD have committed because I cannot see one. I cannot see a crime that I believe Cheney committed, nor can I see how anything he could have done pertaining to the Plame incident could have been a crime.
I keep asking you because you (as well as much of TV news) seem to be attempting to extend Libby's crime to Cheney just because your don't like him.
You implied this extended criminality in your title to this thread. The prosecutor implied it to the jurry and in his closing speech to the public. The jurry implied it in post trial interviews.
I don't see how you all can so surely surmise that Cheney committed a crime, and yet be completely unable to speculate what Cheney's crime might have been (other than being a member of the Bush administration).
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #24 :
I don't see how you all can so surely surmise that Cheney committed a crime, and yet be completely unable to speculate what Cheney's crime might have been (other than being a member of the Bush administration). |
I have speculated and surmising and concluded just like the jury and much of the media that the Bush administration's hands are not clean in this affair. You can surmise and conclude that Libby had a lapse of memory (usually legally a convincing and convenient getout for politicians in a tight spot) never talked about the Plame affair to anyone in the administration, and was just some rogue element in the Bush admin that got it wrong all by himself.
To me the Plame affair is another part of the whole package with this administration: the drive to war based on sexed up documents, non-existant WMD, the connections to terrorism, etc etc.
I've
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #25 :
I have speculated and surmising and concluded just like the jury and much of the media that the Bush administration's hands are not clean in this affair. You can surmise and conclude that Libby had a lapse of memory (usually legally a convincing and convenient getout for politicians in a tight spot) never talked about the Plame affair to anyone in the administration, and was just some rogue element in the Bush admin that got it wrong all by himself.
To me the Plame affair is another part of the whole package with this administration: the drive to war based on sexed up documents, non-existant WMD, the connections to terrorism, etc etc.
I've |
I am not surmising or speculating anything. The facts only go so far. You can go ahead and shape the trial to fit your belief system. A lot of people have.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #26 :
I am not surmising or speculating anything. The facts only go so far. You can go ahead and shape the trial to fit your belief system. A lot of people have. |
Of course you're speculating. You don't know what is going on in Libby's head. Maybe one day Libby will explain why he lied, or just as likely he won't. Until then there is only speculation.
I'd love to see Cheney in the dock. The guy's a dangerous war-mongering lunatic (my speculation).
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #27 :
Of course you're speculating. You don't know what is going on in Libby's head. Maybe one day Libby will explain why he lied, or just as likely he won't. Until then there is only speculation.
|
I don't care what is going on inside Libby's head, and I am not speculating about it. I only offered two possible explanations for Libby's lies. I cannot visualize any other possible explanations. But I do not speculate on whether either explanation is true.
What was going on in Libby's head makes no difference to the crime he was prosecuted for. I am pretty sure that Fitzgerald took his investigation as far as it would go in all possible directions. I don't speculate that he missed anything.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | What Louis Libby did vs what Sandy Burger did who's the real criminal here???
Burger steals secret documents by stuffing them in his pants and socks, takes them home and shreds them. Libby lied or forgot what he said.
And lets not forget that Senator (sorry I can't remember his name) who had $90,000 in his fridge and what did he get???? Yeah that's right NOTHING...no wait he got a BETTER JOB!!! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | | The outing of Valerie Plame is irrelevant to the case, that's not what he was on trial for, so trying to change the subject is just another deflection. And of course we all know the deflection, "Look at what X did, that's worse," is a just another deflection. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | The whole case boiled down to he said something different to one congressman than he said to someother congressman. So they said he lied and because he went on the stand and said he couldn't remember what he had said, they convicted him of lying which is a sentence of 5 years. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | This is what it boils down to:
Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, assistant to the Vice President for national security affairs, and assistant to GW Bush is a convicted criminal, a man convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair.
Also Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, said he has "been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby"
And this attempt to minimise Libby's crimes by claiming he just "forgot" to tell the truth might have worked with ditzy Ronald Reagan but thankfully this overused ploy has now reached it's sell by date. Too bad. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | It boils down to "They got nothin'" so they are going after whatever and whoever they can for whatever they can. The ONLY crime Libby is convicted of is lying to congress and that's really a stretch. They are unable to bring charges against anyone else because nobody else broke the law.
Now they are going after Gonzalas and of course Karl Rove again with the US Attorney firings.
I guess that's the only way for the demolibs to get their agenda through by trying to bring charges against eveyone they can in the Administration. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Then Rove should put his paw on the bible and testify under oath.
And this isn't no where near the witch hunt against Clinton so let's not get crazy.
Plus, didn't Bush say that whoever was responsible for the leak would go to prison? Oh wait- it's someone in his camp. Uh, okay, nevermind.
Capital Hill Crybabies.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #34 :
Plus, didn't Bush say that whoever was responsible for the leak would go to prison?
-HECK! |
Richard Armitage admitted to being responsible for the leak. He made his admission to the prosecutor near the start of the investigation. Why was he not prosecuted?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #33 :
I guess that's the only way for the demolibs to get their agenda through |
Did it ever irk you that the Republicans spent the whole of Clinton's 2 terms trying to pin anything and everything on him?
And what's your opinion on the Republicans forcing your President to say not only to the American people but to the whole world that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski?
You must have been almost livid with rage at the way the Republicans dragged Clinton through the mud, and if you weren't, aren't you being a hypocrite, considering your accusations against the Dems and the small matter of outing a CIA agent.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #35 :
Richard Armitage admitted to being responsible for the leak. He made his admission to the prosecutor near the start of the investigation. Why was he not prosecuted? |
Ask Dubbs. That was before his pants were pulled down and the congress & senate were yanked from his incapable fingers.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | They didn't spend 2 terms going after Clinton. And I wasn't happy that they went after a sitting President. However if you want to compare apples and apples, what did Libby do that Clinton didn't do to deserve a 5 year jail term. I respect the President no matter, I may not like the man but I respect his Position.
And if you want to get down to fact. Armitage didn't really out her. All he said was "I guess you heard that too?" or something like that. It wasn't a confirmation that she was a covert agent which is still under some debate. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | "what did Libby do that Clinton didn't do to deserve a 5 year jail term. "
I'm not sure I follow...
And with the Armitage thing, let's not split hairs.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Both lied, Clinton he stayed in office. Libby lied and get's to go to jail for 5 years. Isn't this a double standard??? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Now I think if we put all presidents who lied in jail then Senor Dubya would be up the river.
And Clinton lied about some fatty he was porking. Dude lied about something pretty big.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #38 :
They didn't spend 2 terms going after Clinton. |
The Republicans went after Clinton as soon as he became president, remember Whitewater? Kenneth Starr was appointed shortly after the initial push to incriminate Clinton and hounded him for years, until he finally succeeded in getting impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair.
This is the dirty game of politics and no-one does it better than the Republicans. Considering what Bush has actually done in his 6 year Presidency, and how many laws he's ridden rough shod over, not to mention Iraq, I think he's got away with it scot-free so far. Hopefully now the Democrats have gained more power in both houses, the truth of the Iraq war can be looked into more closely.
| quote: |
| And I wasn't happy that they went after a sitting President. However if you want to compare apples and apples, what did Libby do that Clinton didn't do to deserve a 5 year jail term. |
I'll accept both Clinton and Libby are sleaze-balls. But Libby obstructing justice in the case of a CIA agent being outed. Clinton was lying about a BJ. Do you see any difference in significance in what they were lying about?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #42 :
The Republicans went after Clinton as soon as he became president, remember Whitewater? Kenneth Starr was appointed shortly after the initial push to incriminate Clinton and hounded him for years, until he finally succeeded in getting impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair.
|
Whitewater was brought out by the Liberal Newpaper the NY Times and the investigation was requested by non other than President Bill himself. Whitewater was PRE WHITEHOUSE and focused mainly on Hillery. So it was mainly the DemoLibs turning on one of their own.
| quote: |
This is the dirty game of politics and no-one does it better than the Republicans. Considering what Bush has actually done in his 6 year Presidency, and how many laws he's ridden rough shod over, not to mention Iraq, I think he's got away with it scot-free so far. Hopefully now the Democrats have gained more power in both houses, the truth of the Iraq war can be looked into more closely.
|
If you can come up with the laws that Bush has broke then have at it. But consider all those lawyers in Congress can't seem to find one so if you have some sort of US Legal degree that they don't have I don't think you'll be able to come up with one. Credible one that is.
| quote: |
I'll accept both Clinton and Libby are sleaze-balls. But Libby obstructing justice in the case of a CIA agent being outed. Clinton was lying about a BJ. Do you see any difference in significance in what they were lying about? |
And Clinton didn't???
| quote: |
Perjury
In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky[citation needed]. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court."[citation needed] The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex[citation needed].
With the adducement of further evidence in the case President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright[2]. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court [3]. He was also fined $90,000 [4]. His fine was paid for by a legal fund raised for his legal expenses.
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #43 :
If you can come up with the laws that Bush has broke then have at it. |
Theses things take time. The bush government is corrupt to the core. Libby could well be just the first of many to face the courts, and possible prison time, and that's ignoring the Kenny Lay, Enron scandal, and the Jack Abramoff scandal, who you'd think were close enough to Bush for some of the stink to rub off. It isn't a crime being buddies with crooks (just so long as you can convince people you know nothing) but Bush seems to make a habit of it.
Now that the Democrats have power in both houses they can subpoena memos and emails, and this privelage that the Republicans can no longer stop has led to two recent people getting caught red-handed lying under oath in front of the grand jury: attorney greneral Alberto Gonzales, and Paul McNulty (Alberto Gonzales' deputy).
| quote: |
| And Clinton didn't??? |
Clinton did what? I think he lied but the impeachment failed. Does that mean he didn't lie? Because according to you, unless Bush is actually convicted of anything he's okay, which must mean Bill Clinton is okay? Or am I missing something here? btw - do you think lying about a BJ is on a par with lying about the outing of a CIA agent?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #44 :
btw - do you think lying about a BJ is on a par with lying about the outing of a CIA agent? |
No CIA agent was outed.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #44 :
Theses things take time. The bush government is corrupt to the core. Libby could well be just the first of many to face the courts, and possible prison time, and that's ignoring the Kenny Lay, Enron scandal, and the Jack Abramoff scandal, who you'd think were close enough to Bush for some of the stink to rub off. It isn't a crime being buddies with crooks (just so long as you can convince people you know nothing) but Bush seems to make a habit of it.
Now that the Democrats have power in both houses they can subpoena memos and emails, and this privelage that the Republicans can no longer stop has led to two recent people getting caught red-handed lying under oath in front of the grand jury: attorney greneral Alberto Gonzales, and Paul McNulty (Alberto Gonzales' deputy).
Clinton did what? I think he lied but the impeachment failed. Does that mean he didn't lie? Because according to you, unless Bush is actually convicted of anything he's okay, which must mean Bill Clinton is okay? Or am I missing something here? btw - do you think lying about a BJ is on a par with lying about the outing of a CIA agent? |
No your facts are wrong. Clinton most definetly was impeached. Impeachment doesn't mean out of office.
Just because the DemoLibs say the Bush administration is corrupt doesn't make it so. The DemoLibs also say Bush lied yet evertime they try to come up with the lie the proof comes out that he didn't. You see again just because the Demolibs say it doesn't make it so.
If it were so he would have been impeached and forced to resign then brought up on charges. Even the Hague doesn't have anything on him because the whole world had the same information. In fact it was the CIA who bought into all the intel that was given to them by the world.
Imagine being the leader of the most powerful nation of the world with every intelligence agency including your own telling you Iraq had WMD. Presenting documentation, reports and defectors telling you that it existed. Do you look the world in the eye and say, "I don't believe you?" No you have to believe that all those countries, intelligence agencies and the UN can't possibly be WRONG. Even all most all of the Demolibs saw the same intel, the same documentation and heard the same defectors and came to the same conclusion and thus gave the President permission to do what it takes.
At this point you have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and before you accuse Bush of a crime you have to bring up charges on a whole lot of other people and countries and the UN before Bush.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #46 :
[B]No your facts are wrong. Clinton most definetly was impeached. Impeachment doesn't mean out of office. |
The impeachment of Clinton was a failure in that he didn't resign and he remained popular with the US public, the two things the Republicans were hoping to achieve by dragging him through the dirt.
| quote: |
| Just because the DemoLibs say the Bush administration is corrupt doesn't make it so. |
You'r right, but Libby was found GUILTY on four counts.
| quote: |
| The DemoLibs also say Bush lied yet evertime they try to come up with the lie the proof comes out that he didn't. You see again just because the Demolibs say it doesn't make it so. |
Like I say, Libby was found guilty of perjury, which is lying to cover something up. He was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
| quote: |
| the whole world had the same information. In fact it was the CIA who bought into all the intel that was given to them by the world. |
The Bush admin and the Blair government cherry picked the intel etc blah blah blah.
The whole world did not see Iraq as the biggest threat to world peace and did not support attacking Iraq etc etc.
| quote: |
| Imagine being the leader of the most powerful nation of the world with every intelligence agency including your own telling you Iraq had WMD. |
Cherry picking means ignoring inconvenient intelligence that doesn't help the agenda, which was since the late 90's the need to start a war with Iraq.
| quote: |
| Even all most all of the Demolibs saw the same intel, |
Bush shared only the intel he needed to share.
| quote: |
| the same documentation and heard the same defectors and came to the same conclusion and thus gave the President permission to do what it takes. |
Bush steamrollered the agenda through, using 9/11, patriotism and cherry picked intel, to shut politicians and the media up.
| quote: |
| At this point you have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and before you accuse Bush of a crime you have to bring up charges on a whole lot of other people and countries and the UN before Bush. |
No problem with that.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | He was impeached but the witch hunt failed because he was not convicted.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
| In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president. |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
Imagine being the leader of the most powerful nation of the world with every intelligence agency including your own telling you Iraq had WMD. Presenting documentation, reports and defectors telling you that it existed. Do you look the world in the eye and say, "I don't believe you?" No you have to believe that all those countries, intelligence agencies and the UN can't possibly be WRONG. Even all most all of the Demolibs saw the same intel, the same documentation and heard the same defectors and came to the same conclusion and thus gave the President permission to do what it takes.
|
This line of bull is tiresome. One only has to look at this situation without jaded glasses to see that this Administration, yes including Bush was less than truthful. The reason, and only reason he got away with it is because of the GOP controlled houses and the reason and only reason democrats voted for Bush’s cherry picked intel was because of the politics.
Furthermore, I find it funny how so many deniers fail to see how Bush himself insisted on making a connection with 9/11 and Iraq and how he insisted that those investigating 9/11 “make it fit” in connecting Saddam to it.
Moreover, Bush has violated the law on more than one occasion. Let’s talk about the illegal wire tapping in which he believes he supersedes the constitution to do so. Or how about the way his administration outted Valarie Plume? Or was that something he didn’t know either?
Listen, I don’t suppose any of the die hard repub base will ever admit the destruction this man has cause around the world and to your own party. There’s been nothing but turmoil his entire tenure and quite frankly, I can’t wait to see this idiot disappear. He’s highly inept in both diplomatic or leadership skills and has done nothing but exacerbate an already difficult and dismal situation of his own making in the first place.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #50 :
This line of bull is tiresome. One only has to look at this situation without jaded glasses to see that this Administration, yes including Bush was less than truthful. The reason, and only reason he got away with it is because of the GOP controlled houses and the reason and only reason democrats voted for Bush’s cherry picked intel was because of the politics.
|
Okay smarty pants tell me which part of that statment was not correct. It is correct in every aspect. No prove to me that at any time the president LIED and back it wup bud. Just saying he lied is pure rhetoric and you know it.
| quote: |
Furthermore, I find it funny how so many deniers fail to see how Bush himself insisted on making a connection with 9/11 and Iraq and how he insisted that those investigating 9/11 “make it fit” in connecting Saddam to it.
|
Same beating of the drum and I again have to tell you Bush NEVER tried to make the connection. Some one in his administration did once and was raked across the coals for it. Bush NEVER stated that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Again you are presenting an untruth and pure rhetoric.
| quote: |
Moreover, Bush has violated the law on more than one occasion. Let’s talk about the illegal wire tapping in which he believes he supersedes the constitution to do so. Or how about the way his administration outted Valarie Plume? Or was that something he didn’t know either?
|
Put up or shut up... show me which laws and how he broke them. And by the way if Plame was outted by someone in the administration don't you think the DEMS would have brougt him up on charges???? The only thing that they can come up with is that Armitage answered a question with "I guess you heard that too" or "I heard that too". It's plain as the nose on your face that SOMEONE ELSE possibly Joe Wilson himself outted his own wife. He surely didn't keep it a secret.
| quote: |
Listen, I don’t suppose any of the die hard repub base will ever admit the destruction this man has cause around the world and to your own party. There’s been nothing but turmoil his entire tenure and quite frankly, I can’t wait to see this idiot disappear. He’s highly inept in both diplomatic or leadership skills and has done nothing but exacerbate an already difficult and dismal situation of his own making in the first place. |
Three words.... NO TERRORIST ATTACKS (on the mainland that is)
And in my book I only wish he could run for a third term.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #51 :
Okay smarty pants tell me which part of that statment was not correct. It is correct in every aspect. No prove to me that at any time the president LIED and back it wup bud. Just saying he lied is pure rhetoric and you know it. |
While Bush and Blair were running around claiming war was not a done deal, the Downing Street memo of 2002 shows otherwise. It also clearly states that the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the policy - ie regime change.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
| quote: |
| Bush NEVER stated that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. |
He wasn't stupid enough to state it directly. He didn't need to he just implied it over and over and over again.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.
| quote: |
| Put up or shut up... show me which laws and how he broke them. |
As I think I mentioned a few posts ago. Libby has just been convicted on four counts.
| quote: |
Three words.... NO TERRORIST ATTACKS (on the mainland that is)
And in my book I only wish he could run for a third term. |
Bush would sink America in a third term, if he hasn't already done so.
As for no terrorist attacks on your doorstep, great attitude. The US can set the rest of the world on fire as long as you're alright Jack? The relatives of 650,000 dead Iraqis might be a little upset at your view.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
Ed wrote
Okay smarty pants tell me which part of that statment was not correct. It is correct in every aspect. No prove to me that at any time the president LIED and back it wup bud. Just saying he lied is pure rhetoric and you know
|
You can’t fathom how someone can come to the conclusion that Bush lied about Iraq? How about the Yellow Cake? How about the claims that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda? How about him insisting to Richard Clarke that he somehow find a connection to Iraq and 9/11?
The entire world saw Bush stand before them and tie 9/11, WMD, Al Qaeda, to name a few, all to Iraq and you simply believe he was misled? I find that preposterous and if it were Clinton, the republican controlled houses would have had him impeached and thrown out on his keister.
| quote: |
it. Bush NEVER stated that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Again you are presenting an untruth and pure rhetoric.
|
I believe you suffer from the worse form of pure denial I’ve seen in my entire life. Bush constantly mentioned 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq almost in the same breath. Afterward, most people here believed Saddam was behind 9/11. I guess they just “drummed” up the idea.
Clearly manipulation at its best, just like the “Terror Alert” that has now mysteriously fallen into the abyss.
The objective of a lie is to deceive. America was flagrantly deceived by Bush and this administration. Therefore, he lied. End of story.
| quote: |
Put up or shut up... show me which laws and how he broke them. And by the way if Plame was outted by someone in the administration don't you think the DEMS would have brougt him up on charges????
|
I just pointed out 2. The law says you have to have a warrant to tap phones. Bush says he has a right to tap phones without a warrant. Don’t take a rocket scientist here.
Secondly, in their zealousness to discredit Joe Wilson, his wife’s name was outted. Absolutely this runs to the highest powers in that administration and the dems are trying but are being hampered by those protecting themselves yet again while some guy low in the chain takes the fall.
Let me take this time to mention that it’s no secret how this administration treats people they perceive as “un-loyal”. Richard Clarke, a registered republican, appointed by the Reagan administration, served under Bush Sr, Clinton & Bush Jr, suddenly because a Kerry zealot because he said Bush was stubborn about 9/11 and rushed into Iraq hastily.
Turns out Rich & Joe was absolutely correct but this matters little to those who believe Bush was “misled” by intel.
| quote: |
And in my book I only wish he could run for a third term
|
I think this speak volumes. No need for any elaboration from me. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #52 :
While Bush and Blair were running around claiming war was not a done deal, the Downing Street memo of 2002 shows otherwise. It also clearly states that the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the policy - ie regime change.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
OHHHH Those memos.
| quote: |
Update: Downing Street Memo
Update 6/20/05:
Stop the presses! I think the debate on these memos is starting to get muddled, so this is all you need to know about the "Downing St. memos" in order to discount them:
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
We will never know if the memos were authentic because the originals were destroyed. If the MSM had any standards at all that would be the end of the story.
But just in case you need another reason to discount the "memos", Strata-Sphere has an excellent report about the credibility of the British reporter involved, Michael Smith, who believes President Bush should eventually be impeached because of them:
I personally believe there are grounds for it but not yet, not in the memos we’ve seen. It needs U.S. reporters to get to work to take the documents and their implications forward.
Mucho thanks to AJ Strata for his excellent work on this story. Much like Rathergate, the more we learn about this story the more credibility it loses.
The Debate Continues (06/19/05):
Welcome Powerline readers. You can see the original post below, but first let me point out the biggest flaws in Hinderaker's logic. He writes:
Second, if the Downing Street memos were fakes, they would say more.
Why? The Democrats have gone so far as to throw out the possibility of impeachment based on the "Downing St." memos. What more does he want? Second, as Hinderaker himself acknowledges, the journalist who broke the story burned the original memos, but not before having his secretary retype them on an "old fashioned" typewriter. How convenient. Is this really the kind of evidence the MSM considers solid enough to report on (yes)? John then writes:
But, as I said, I will be very surprised if their content turns out not to be genuine.
I doubt it. That sounds like the old "fake, but true" standard that Powerline so excellently debunked on Rather's TANG story. Perhaps Dan Rather will come out of retirement and break the story regarding the authenticity of the Downing St. memos? Instead of debating whether or not the memos are true or not, something that at this point will probably never happen, we should be debating the worthiness of this as a story.
In regards to a lack of protest about the memo from #10 Downing Street, Captain Ed adds:
Despite what Truck says in the comments, a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings does NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity.
|
He wasn't stupid enough to state it directly. He didn't need to he just implied it over and over and over again.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.
| quote: |
| OHHHH so he didn't EXACTLY lie!!!! So you're suggest that IF he would have said it it would have been a lie. |
As I think I mentioned a few posts ago. Libby has just been convicted on four counts.
| quote: |
| And this applies to Bush HOW????? Maybe you're saying Bush commited a crime via PROXY? Oh and just what crime was it again??? |
Bush would sink America in a third term, if he hasn't already done so.
| quote: |
| Just wait until we get another Democrat in office if you want to see a sinking ship. In fact it's already started with the Democratic Congress. They are already working at undoing the GOOD THINGS that Bush has done like repeal taxes. Conceding the war as a loss and signalling to the enemy when we want to leave. |
As for no terrorist attacks on your doorstep, great attitude. The US can set the rest of the world on fire as long as you're alright Jack? The relatives of 650,000 dead Iraqis might be a little upset at your view. |
WAR ZONE!!!!
Things are so much clearer now ..... NOT!
Weak man very weak.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #53 :
You can’t fathom how someone can come to the conclusion that Bush lied about Iraq? How about the Yellow Cake? How about the claims that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda? How about him insisting to Richard Clarke that he somehow find a connection to Iraq and 9/11?
| quote: |
He said neither. He mentioned that Iraq tried to strrike a deal with the Nigerians. And we know that to be true.
Show me the info on the Richard Clarke thing. I don't think I've ever see that one.
|
The entire world saw Bush stand before them and tie 9/11, WMD, Al Qaeda, to name a few, all to Iraq and you simply believe he was misled? I find that preposterous and if it were Clinton, the republican controlled houses would have had him impeached and thrown out on his keister.
| quote: |
| Something else you'll have to show me because it's not true. |
I believe you suffer from the worse form of pure denial I’ve seen in my entire life. Bush constantly mentioned 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq almost in the same breath. Afterward, most people here believed Saddam was behind 9/11. I guess they just “drummed” up the idea.
| quote: |
| I'll actually agree that he did mention those in the same speeches however he also said that there was ot clear connection between Iraq and 9/11. |
Clearly manipulation at its best, just like the “Terror Alert” that has now mysteriously fallen into the abyss.
| quote: |
| The terror alerts are still there but keep in mind, they are mainly designed for Public Service like Police and Fire Fighter not the general public. |
The objective of a lie is to deceive. America was flagrantly deceived by Bush and this administration. Therefore, he lied. End of story.
No not entirely true. A lie is making a FALSE statement with the INTENT to deceive. An Untruth a Falsehood. An inaccurate of false statement.
I just pointed out 2. The law says you have to have a warrant to tap phones. Bush says he has a right to tap phones without a warrant. Don’t take a rocket scientist here.
| quote: |
| I think to some extent this is still up in the air or they have come to an agreement on it. |
Secondly, in their zealousness to discredit Joe Wilson, his wife’s name was outted. Absolutely this runs to the highest powers in that administration and the dems are trying but are being hampered by those protecting themselves yet again while some guy low in the chain takes the fall.
| quote: |
| By Who ??? I say Joe Wilson outted her. Again it's something that the Demolibs tried to pin on the President and have yet to figure out that it was one of their own. |
Let me take this time to mention that it’s no secret how this administration treats people they perceive as “un-loyal”. Richard Clarke, a registered republican, appointed by the Reagan administration, served under Bush Sr, Clinton & Bush Jr, suddenly because a Kerry zealot because he said Bush was stubborn about 9/11 and rushed into Iraq hastily.
Turns out Rich & Joe was absolutely correct but this matters little to those who believe Bush was “misled” by intel.
I think this speak volumes. No need for any elaboration from me. |
Richard Clarke quit as a discruntled employee because Rice put him in a position that he didn't like.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
| Edward Teach: OHHHH Those memos. |
OHHHHH, yes indeed, those memos. How about we actually find out if they were really fake?
Post the links to the articles you posted, please.
| quote: |
| OHHHH so he didn't EXACTLY lie!!!! So you're suggest that IF he would have said it it would have been a lie. |
OHHHHH, he certainly implied it. Here's an example to explian how implying something works.
Many Republicans are stupid. You are a Republican.
See how it works.
| quote: |
| And this applies to Bush HOW????? Maybe you're saying Bush commited a crime via PROXY? Oh and just what crime was it again??? |
Libby was high up in the Bush government, and the case he was involved in and was convicted for was linked to the Iraq war. When I say Bush, it's short hand for the Bush administration. Next time I'll make it clearer for you.
It's a war zone alright, on this at least we agree.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #56 :
OHHHHH, yes indeed, those memos. How about we actually find out if they were really fake?
Post the links to the articles you posted, please.
OHHHHH, he certainly implied it. Here's an example to explian how implying something works.
| quote: |
| Implied.... Right so you have nothing! |
Many Republicans are stupid. You are a Republican.
| quote: |
| Republicans don't make things up. |
See how it works.
Libby was high up in the Bush government, and the case he was involved in and was convicted for was linked to the Iraq war. When I say Bush, it's short hand for the Bush administration. Next time I'll make it clearer for you.
| quote: |
| The only thing Libby is convicted of is "Lying" and is facing 5 years in jail for it. And they got him on it because he couldn't remember exactly what he said over several years. It's like asking you what you said on Jan 7 1999 at 11:00 AM and if it's different than what you said on Oct 24 2006 at 5:30 PM then you go to jail. Now they want to put other Bush Administration people on the stand and you wonder why they don't want to testify. I wouldn't want to. |
It's a war zone alright, on this at least we agree. |
In a War Zone people die period. Nobody likes it including Republicans but all you need to do is ask anyone in the military why they are there and they will all answer the same thing. "Better there than here. They don't want the enemy to come to America. Keep the enemy occupied in the middle east and they wont come to the homeland. Is that too hard a concept to understand.
Now what you have is the DemoLibs want to pull out the troops before the job is finished. They want to BROADCAST to our enemies how long they have to wait until we are gone.
I saw a retired 3 Star General (I think he was a 3 star maybe a 2) on CNN this week who said, That is the dumbest thing they have ever come up with.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
Ed wrote
He said neither. He mentioned that Iraq tried to strrike a deal with the Nigerians. And we know that to be true.
|
Bush never claimed Saddam ties to Al Qaeda or he tried to buy yellow cake from Niger? You’re mistake. He claimed both in his State of the Union address in 2003. I suggest you read it.
As for Richard Clarke, read this.
| quote: |
I'll actually agree that he did mention those in the same speeches however he also said that there was no clear connection between Iraq and 9/11
|
Sure he did, but when did he say this, before or after we invaded Iraq and was called on it?
| quote: |
The terror alerts are still there but keep in mind, they are mainly designed for Public Service like Police and Fire Fighter not the general public.
|
Not for the general public? Can you answer then why the Terror Alert was being reported on TV every few minutes before we went to war with Iraq and before 2002 elections?
How can you even make this statement? Weren’t you here to see it or were you out of the country?
| quote: |
I think to some extent this is still up in the air or they have come to an agreement.
|
So this administration has to come to agreement about a law that has been on the books for decades? The law is quite clear. No taps without a judge’s signature. Bush claims he has to right to tap phones under the patriot act. Nothing in that act says he can tap phones without a warrant.
The only reason it’s up in the air is because Bush operated with impunity because of the republican dominated houses.
| quote: |
I say Joe Wilson outted her. Again it's something that the Demolibs tried to pin on the President and have yet to figure out that it was one of their own.
|
Here you go with that “one of their own” statement. You made this absurd statement to h@ts concerning White Water. For the sake of digression, I chose not to respond to that ridiculous statement.
However, I ask you to show me how Joe Wilson “outted” his own wife. Just like anyone else who shed differing facts than this administration, Joe has been attacked and all sorts of accusations levied against him for simply telling the truth.
| quote: |
Richard Clarke quit as a disgruntled employee because Rice put him in a position he didn’t like.
|
Very convenient isn’t it? I mean, here’s a guy who is a loyal republican for decades suddenly tries to sink a republican dominated administration because he’s “disgruntled”.
Anyone who didn’t believe what Bush’s administration believed or offered differing opinion were either minimized or “fired” and your assertion lends credibility to that claim and that Bush was narrow sighted and cherry picked his intel.
That “disgruntled employee” garbage was nothing more than damage control spun by White House aids just as they’ve done with anyone else who publicly descent in opinion.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
I said
So be it, we’re talking about this incident and all indicators thus far says Iran is lying. If that circus they’re showing on TV doesn’t convince you certainly nothing I say will ever do
to which h@ts responded
More twaddle
|
I hate repeating myself but apparently you’re not being responsive.
So I guess these sailors suddenly asked for a camera so they can tell the world how unjust their government is but if you’re saying it’s “twaddle” then someone can get the notion that you believe the soldiers.
So either you believe what the soldiers are saying on Iranian state sponsored TV or you don’t. Which is it?
| quote: |
I posted
So what’s the problem? I was responsive to your nonsense. Your statement would lead anyone to believe you hold some credibility in Iran’s “proof” with the confession of those British soldiers who now suddenly sees the light of their wayward government.
to which h@ts responded
Now you’re just becoming annoying
|
So help me out here h@ts, what is your position? Am I mistaken that you don’t know whom to believe? If that assumption is correct, then you must give equal weight to both positions. And if that is so, then you must believe that Iran could be telling the truth and that their proof of evidence is credible.
This process could be less “annoying” if you just be responsive instead of elusive in your retorts.
| quote: |
There is no reason to hold these sailors. Wake up. Iran is wrong to keep
|
Ok, so I think we’re getting somewhere. I’d hate to be “annoying”. So if Iran is wrong to keep them then that suggests they were wrong to take them in the first place doesn’t it?
| quote: |
Yes I want Blair to tickle the Iranian PM till he laughs so hard he doesn't notice the sailors have escaped
|
Now who’s being annoying?
[/quote]
Blair says the most important thing is the release of the sailors. Well that takes political skill and tact. Not shoving a bull in a china shop and wondering why all the plates got wrecked.
[/quote]
I don’t get it. So it’s Blairs fault that they illegally kidnapped these sailors and that he didn’t ask them nicely to return them.
Can I ask you a question? Is any of this Iran’s fault? I mean, besides them being “wrong for keeping the sailors” your retorts would lend the notion that all this is Blairs fault.
| quote: |
Fancy me wanting to give equal weight to who's telling the truth when I don't know any facts. What ever was I thinking?
|
You know enough “Fac.” to blame Blair for, how you say “shoving a bull in a china shop” it would appear.
Ok, so what do we know? British soldiers are kidnapped. Iran says they were in our waters. British and Iraqi government says they were in Iraqi waters. Good so far?
British offers proof by way of showing charts of where the sailors were. Iran then show charts that say the sailors were .3 miles inside undisputed Iranian waters.
British then show their helicopter hovering over the ship and position where the soldiers were accosted along with GPS readings that confirm their earlier claims.
Iran then response with charts saying they were almost 2 miles within their borders. Then Iran show the British soldiers on TV saying how unjust their (British) government is and how the US and British should leave Iraq. How they were sacrificed by their selfish government to favor their policies in the M.E. and how they are the aggressors and should be condemned.
There’s more, including the letter that the female soldier wrote farther condemning their own government but what’s the point right? I mean, I can see how a reasonable minded person could come to the conclusion that Iran is possibly telling the truth. After all, the British on soldiers went on Iranian TV and told the world how we entered into Iranian waters.
You know, I think I had enough. Not without respect to you personally h@ts but your position seems too ridiculous to entertain at times. Either that, or you’re just playing devils advocate. I think it’s the latter but again, without the “facts” how could I know?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
Do you think a personal blog called "All Things Conservative" is credible evidence that the Downing street memos where fake? The memos were published in the UK national newpaper the Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch paper. I searched it and couldn't find a single article saying the memos were fake.
This from Wikepedia:
| quote: |
| Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by photocopying the original and returning the original document to the source. The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (see below), were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office. |
Here's an interview with Michael Smith explaining exactly why he had to photocopy and then type up the memos:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/msmith-interview.html
So do you still think the memos were fake?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #58 :
Bush never claimed Saddam ties to Al Qaeda or he tried to buy yellow cake from Niger? You’re mistake. He claimed both in his State of the Union address in 2003. I suggest you read it.
| quote: |
| Actually yes he did say Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but not 9/11. And he did mention yellow cake. He was going to but took it out at the last minute. He did however mention there was an attempt to purchase nuclear material from Africa if Im not mistaken |
As for Richard Clarke, read this.
| quote: |
| That article doesn't exist. |
Sure he did, but when did he say this, before or after we invaded Iraq and was called on it?
Not for the general public? Can you answer then why the Terror Alert was being reported on TV every few minutes before we went to war with Iraq and before 2002 elections?
How can you even make this statement? Weren’t you here to see it or were you out of the country?
| quote: |
| Because the media picked up on it and in the beginning yes it was for the public but you don't see much of it now. Some websites still have it, some governement sites still have it like Homeland Security and it's still on some news channels. |
So this administration has to come to agreement about a law that has been on the books for decades? The law is quite clear. No taps without a judge’s signature. Bush claims he has to right to tap phones under the patriot act. Nothing in that act says he can tap phones without a warrant.
The only reason it’s up in the air is because Bush operated with impunity because of the republican dominated houses.
| quote: |
| The problem with that law is that we didn't have people trying to attack us inside our borders. Basically it's designed to protect AMERICANS and it should. But should it also protect TERRORIST? I expect you're ok with a terrorist calling someone in the United States where it would only take 2 minutes to tell a terrorist cell to go into action. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT RIGHT??? |
Here you go with that “one of their own” statement. You made this absurd statement to h@ts concerning White Water. For the sake of digression, I chose not to respond to that ridiculous statement.
However, I ask you to show me how Joe Wilson “outted” his own wife. Just like anyone else who shed differing facts than this administration, Joe has been attacked and all sorts of accusations levied against him for simply telling the truth.
| quote: |
| OH COME ON! He would introduce his wife at parties with "This is my Secret Agent Wife" and they were on the cover of Vaniety Fair. It wasn't a secret that he was enjoying being married to a spy. |
Very convenient isn’t it? I mean, here’s a guy who is a loyal republican for decades suddenly tries to sink a republican dominated administration because he’s “disgruntled”.
| quote: |
| Yep read up on it. |
Anyone who didn’t believe what Bush’s administration believed or offered differing opinion were either minimized or “fired” and your assertion lends credibility to that claim and that Bush was narrow sighted and cherry picked his intel.
That “disgruntled employee” garbage was nothing more than damage control spun by White House aids just as they’ve done with anyone else who publicly descent in opinion. |
OH who besides Richard Clarke?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #60 :
Do you think a personal blog called "All Things Conservative" is credible evidence that the Downing street memos where fake? The memos were published in the UK national newpaper the Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch paper. I searched it and couldn't find a single article saying the memos were fake.
This from Wikepedia:
Here's an interview with Michael Smith explaining exactly why he had to photocopy and then type up the memos:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/msmith-interview.html
So do you still think the memos were fake? |
Bloggers have proven a lot of thing wrong. and Yes they are credible. What's not credible is Wikipedia. Time and time again it's been proven to be false.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Edward Teach said this in post #62 :
Bloggers have proven a lot of thing wrong. and Yes they are credible. |
Do you think this blogger is likely to be more credible than Murdoch's Times UK national newspaper, the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, the LA Times, and all the other newspapers that printed the story?
Why can't I find any respected news outlets or newspapers that say the memos are fake? Have you found any?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Well ask yourself this, why is it not a big issue? It's not in the news, its not being talked up by the politicians or anybody and when it was in the news they all just stopped talking about it. And I'm here to tell you, if it was something that was legit and showed Bush and Blair conspired to trump up the intel to go to war then the MSM would have not let it go. So I'm sure it's because the DSM could not be authenticated. Why? Because the author of the DSM said he transcribed the memos then distroyed the originals. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | | Maybe this explains why its not a big issue and why it can't seem to grow legs.
| quote: |
But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden or arcane or occult knowledge. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate last week, it explains no mystery. As protagonist Jim Dixon observes in another context in Lucky Jim, it is remarkable for "its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.
Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized."
We have been here before. In an interview with Sam Tanenhaus for Vanity Fair more than two years ago, Paul Wolfowitz allowed that, though there were many reasons to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein, the legal minimum basis for it was to be sought, inside the U.S. government bureaucracy and at the United Nations, in the unenforced resolutions concerning WMD. At the time, this mild observation was also hailed as a full confession of perfidy.
I am now forced to wonder: Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy, and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat Saddam "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof. The British attorney general—who has no jurisdiction in these 50 states—was worried that "regime change" alone would not be a sufficient legal basis. One appreciates his concern. But the existence of the Saddam regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."
http://www.slate.com/id/2121212/
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
Ed wrote
Actually yes he did say Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but not 9/11. And he did mention yellow cake. He was going to but took it out at the last minute. He did however mention there was an attempt to purchase nuclear material from Africa if Im not mistaken
|
Bush said British intelligence says “Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. What do you think he was talking about? That uranium was “yellow cake”.
Let me let you in on a secret. Before Wilson interviewed anyone, he met with at the embassy with then American Ambassador “Owens-Kirkpatrick” who informed him that she already debunked that claim. In spite of that, Wilson still went on a fact finding mission and found out exactly what she told him, that the story was bogus.
The fact that Bush decided to take the name “Yellow cake” out shows you that someone in that administration knew it and decided to juggle the words.
As for the Richard Clarke Article, I’ll try again
HERE
You are wrong. It wasn’t until after Joe Wilson published an article in the NY Times that Bush’s assertion was wrong did Bush admit the statement was “inaccurate”. That date he admitted this? July 7th, 2003, well after Bush stood under his mission accomplished sign on that aircraft carrier.
| quote: |
Because the media picked up on it and in the beginning yes it was for the public but you don't see much of it now.
|
I couldn’t agree more, you don’t see much of it now. However it’s because they’ve made the public immune to it and can’t scare America anymore with the “we’re the only ones that can keep America safe” scare campaign. In other words, it doesn’t work anymore.
| quote: |
The problem with that law is that we didn't have people trying to attack us inside our borders. Basically it's designed to protect AMERICANS and it should. But should it also protect TERRORIST? I expect you're ok with a terrorist calling someone in the United States where it would only take 2 minutes to tell a terrorist cell to go into action. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT RIGHT???
|
If you have a problem with the law, then you seek to change the law not subvert it. Because you suddenly now have a “good reason” to do it doesn’t mean it’s suddenly legal. Besides, this isn’t the first law or the first time some politician thought that he was the exception.
| quote: |
OH COME ON! He would introduce his wife at parties with "This is my Secret Agent Wife" and they were on the cover of Vaniety Fair. It wasn't a secret that he was enjoying being married to a spy.
|
Not only is that story taking on new lives, it is moot. Novak didn’t state he found out Plame’s identity from Vanity Fair. It all came to light after Wilson discredited Bush’s accounting of yellow cake.
| quote: |
Yep read up on it.
|
No need to read up on it.
Funny thing though. What that “disgruntled employee” and “wife outing Joe Wilson” had to say turned out to be true and now Bush is standing there without a justification for war. Doesn’t it matter to you that their story seems to be trustworthy and Bush’s doesn’t?
Goes to show you, if you can’t discredit the story, discredit the person. Judging by your responses, it works like a charm.
| | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Just the one criminal in the Bush administration? Right!
|
