CIA leak filing indicates gov't has evidence regarding Cheney (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Fitzgerald's probe will not end with the indictment of Karl Rove.

1) It seems that Dick Cheney is now under the microscope too.

2) Rove has now confirmed his conversation with Novak.

3) Was Novak attempting to cover for Rove?

The investigation continues, and it is now going in more directions than a duck with one wing. The next few months of this investigation are going to be most interesting.

 

[Deegan]

Fitzgerald's probe will not end with the indictment of Karl Rove.

1) It seems that Dick Cheney is now under the microscope too.

2) Rove has now confirmed his conversation with Novak.

3) Was Novak attempting to cover for Rove?

The investigation continues, and it is now going in more directions than a duck with one wing. The next few months of this investigation are going to be most interesting.

Jeez Dan, don't you at least want to wait until Rove is indicted first?:rofl

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Fitzgerald's probe will not end with the indictment of Karl Rove.

1) It seems that Dick Cheney is now under the microscope too.

2) Rove has now confirmed his conversation with Novak.

3) Was Novak attempting to cover for Rove?

The investigation continues, and it is now going in more directions than a duck with one wing. The next few months of this investigation are going to be most interesting.

It won't end with the indictment of Karl Rove? Umm Karl Rove was indicted now? Seriously "raw story" is one of if not the worst source on the web.

 

[jfuh]

It won't end with the indictment of Karl Rove? Umm Karl Rove was indicted now? Seriously "raw story" is one of if not the worst source on the web.

How does that favorite phrase of yours go? Don't attack the source argue the fact?
I guess you see why bias sources are not so reliable.

 

[Deegan]

It won't end with the indictment of Karl Rove? Umm Karl Rove was indicted now? Seriously "raw story" is one of if not the worst source on the web.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I didn't see a thread by you Dan, when your most trusted source, "truthout" said Rove was indicted, and packing his bags for prison, or some such trash. Who is the "propagandist" in that little untruth?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How does that favorite phrase of yours go? Don't attack the source argue the fact?
I guess you see why bias sources are not so reliable.

What facts are there to dispute? These articles basically amount to psychic predictions. They aren't even distorting the news they are now resorting to predicting the news. It's all opinion and speculation.

 

[Stinger]

How does that favorite phrase of yours go? Don't attack the source argue the fact?
I guess you see why bias sources are not so reliable.

OK is it a fact Rove has been indicted? Is it a fact Cheney is facing an indictment? Is it a fact either is a target of the investigation? What is the source of these allegations?

 

[danarhea]

What facts are there to dispute? These articles basically amount to psychic predictions. They aren't even distorting the news they are now resorting to predicting the news. It's all opinion and speculation.

I will be sure to include your quote when I do my gloating "I told you so" thread on his indictment.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I will be sure to include your quote when I do my gloating "I told you so" thread on his indictment.

Ya we've been waiting on the Karl Rove indictment for the last year and a half, I think it's me who gets to say see I told you so.

 

[MSgt]

Ya we've been waiting on the Karl Rove indictment for the last year and a half, I think it's me who gets to say see I told you so.

Would this be in the "Impeach Bush" drawer?

 

[oldreliable67]

Its too bad that we're communicating via typed messages and responses, or we could all hear the breathless, "hey-listen-to-the-latest-boy-we've got'em-now" reportorial voice that danarhea tries to imbue into his Plame posts. All the little innuendo about Cheney is sooo "truthout":

It seems that Dick Cheney is now under the microscope too.

and,

than a duck with one wing.

Man, you read this and you just know that Cheney is the next guy under the guillotine! You can just hear that blade slicing thru the air on its way down!

Wow! Is that clever or what? Yep, just not very.

So much for the levity, lets now look at the sources cited by danarhea:

From danarhea's first cite:

the prosecutor possesses "evidence" about communication between Vice President Dick Cheney and his former chief of staff

Now, before anyone shouts "ad hominem", please note that I'm poking a little fun at danarhea's method or technique of presentation, not danarhea himself.

Interesting how "evidence" is in quotes. What exactly is that supposed to signify?

From danarhea's second cite:

Last night, prosecutors filed a motion formally notifying Libby and the Court that Cheney may, in fact, be a prosecution witness.

Ok, so what?

From danarhea's third cite:

Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony.

Maybe Novak is willing, like Judith Miller, to go to jail to protect a source? Novak is a bit of a crusty old bird, so maybe.

So it turns out that maybe Cheney is not next for the guillotine, at most he might be called as a witness. Ok, so maybe we have to turn down the breathlessness control to a bit lower setting.

But don't you have to hand it to danarhea? He can take a couple of "truthout" posts and turn the proverbial sows ear into well, maybe not a silk purse, but something that has a lot of hot air in it.

All in all, these guys, and danarhea, need to come up for a breath of air, IMO. Maybe eventually they can prove Cheney lied or something. Then, if it should come to a Cheney impeachment, they can all do whatever it is that makes them feel orgasmic. Edit: And if it does, ol' danarhea can - justifiably - shout it out with an "I told you so" thread!!! Unless or until then, I wish they would give it a break. Just my opinion, but this stuff is really gettin' old. Certainly, YMMV.

Now, before anyone shouts "ad hominem", please note that I'm poking a little fun at danarhea's method or technique of presentation, not danarhea himself.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Would this be in the "Impeach Bush" drawer?

Ya Redd used to keep track of the date and time of Bush not being impeached yet, Bush will be 4 years out of office and these people will still be out to get Rove indicted.

 

[jfuh]

What facts are there to dispute? These articles basically amount to psychic predictions. They aren't even distorting the news they are now resorting to predicting the news. It's all opinion and speculation.

OK is it a fact Rove has been indicted? Is it a fact Cheney is facing an indictment? Is it a fact either is a target of the investigation? What is the source of these allegations?

Both of you are quite lame. You choose to focus on one portion of my argument which is obviously flawed and completely ignore the main point of my argument. The rediculousness of bias sources.
Save your apologetics for someone that is arguing against you in this thread.

 

[MSgt]

Ya Redd used to keep track of the date and time of Bush not being impeached yet, Bush will be 4 years out of office and these people will still be out to get Rove indicted.

I know. I started it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Both of you are quite lame. You choose to focus on one portion of my argument which is obviously flawed and completely ignore the main point of my argument. The rediculousness of bias sources.
Save your apologetics for someone that is arguing against you in this thread.

Facts in biased sources can be disputed but these are opinion articles which use anonomous sources and the like, it's kind of hard to argue against someones opinion and uncorraborated assertions this is in no way similar to the ad-hominem posed by Independent in the global warming debate, the facts presented in my post are easily debated because they are verfiable and subject to rebuttle but instead of posting counterpoints he instead decided to dismiss the entire post out of hand.

 

[jfuh]

Facts in biased sources can be disputed but these are opinion articles which use anonomous sources and the like, it's kind of hard to argue against someones opinion and uncorraborated assertions this is in no way similar to the ad-hominem posed by Independent in the global warming debate, the facts presented in my post are easily debated because they are verfiable and subject to rebuttle but instead of posting counterpoints he instead decided to dismiss the entire post out of hand.

The distance in which you have strayed off of my argument.
Biased sources should not be used for citation purposes nor regarded as factual.
You're argument is invalid to the premise of my arguments.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The distance in which you have strayed off of my argument.
Biased sources should not be used for citation purposes nor regarded as factual.
You're argument is invalid to the premise of my arguments.

No it's not here's what you orginally said:

How does that favorite phrase of yours go? Don't attack the source argue the fact?
I guess you see why bias sources are not so reliable.

You were obviously referring to the statment I made concerning Independent's ad-hominem in the global warming debate.

Then I said this:

What facts are there to dispute? These articles basically amount to psychic predictions. They aren't even distorting the news they are now resorting to predicting the news. It's all opinion and speculation.

To which you replied with this:

Both of you are quite lame. You choose to focus on one portion of my argument which is obviously flawed and completely ignore the main point of my argument. The rediculousness of bias sources.
Save your apologetics for someone that is arguing against you in this thread.

To which I answered with this:

Facts in biased sources can be disputed but these are opinion articles which use anonomous sources and the like, it's kind of hard to argue against someones opinion and uncorraborated assertions this is in no way similar to the ad-hominem posed by Independent in the global warming debate, the facts presented in my post are easily debated because they are verfiable and subject to rebuttle but instead of posting counterpoints he instead decided to dismiss the entire post out of hand.

Now tell me sir which statement of mine has veered from the original topic? Everyone of my statements were directly in relation to the two points made in your original statement which if you remember from the top of this post was:

How does that favorite phrase of yours go? Don't attack the source argue the fact?
I guess you see why bias sources are not so reliable.

 

[jfuh]

No it's not here's what you orginally said:



You were obviously referring to the statment I made concerning Independent's ad-hominem in the global warming debate.

Then I said this:

[/i]

To which you replied with this:



To which I answered with this:



Now tell me sir which statement of mine has veered from the original topic? Everyone of my statements were directly in relation to the two points made in your original statement which if you remember from the top of this post was:



[/i]

I'm not going to be drawn into your very lame covering attempt of the mistake you made. The premise of my argument has always been bias sources are not credible. All that is written is here for everyone to see and go back to read. You want to make false accusations and lame denials feel free to do so.
Also, there's nothing to be proud of in parading around your sexual fantasies. Typically those who talk the talk are covering for something they're lacking in.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm not going to be drawn into your very lame covering attempt of the mistake you made. The premise of my argument has always been bias sources are not credible. All that is written is here for everyone to see and go back to read. You want to make false accusations and lame denials feel free to do so.
Also, there's nothing to be proud of in parading around your sexual fantasies. Typically those who talk the talk are covering for something they're lacking in.

No, originally you were trying to compare my source from the global warming debate that was based on an actual in depth study which was presented to a Senatorial Committee under oath, to something that came out of "raw story." It's not even in the same ballpark. Everything I have stated following your original post in regards to this subject has been directly related to your first two assertions, I know everything is here for people to read in print that's why I reposted exactly how the conservation started and the flow of said conversation I've stayed on track and your assertion to the contrary is a flat out lie further excacerbated by your ad-hominem attacks on my character.

 

[Kelzie]

Moderator's Warning:

Hey! If you want to talk about other's lameness or sexual fantasies, this is not the place to do it. Either take it to the basement or call a 900 number.

 

[danarhea]

Moderator's Warning:

Hey! If you want to talk about other's lameness or sexual fantasies, this is not the place to do it. Either take it to the basement or call a 900 number.

The basement would be better. From what I have heard, those 900 numbers are staffed with 80 year old grandmothers who are missing half their teeth.

 

[Stinger]

Both of you are quite lame.

What an intelligent retort.

You choose to focus on one portion of my argument which is obviously flawed and completely ignore the main point of my argument. The rediculousness of bias sources.
Save your apologetics for someone that is arguing against you in this thread.

When you want to have an intellectual debate on an issue let me know.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Moderator's Warning:

Hey! If you want to talk about other's lameness or sexual fantasies, this is not the place to do it. Either take it to the basement or call a 900 number.

LOL
Kelz, you are by far my favorite Almighty Mod Team Member.

 

[Kelzie]

LOL
Kelz, you are by far my favorite Almighty Mod Team Member.

Aw, *sniff*, I love you too Simon. :2wave:

 

[aps]

Fitzgerald filed documents with the Court on Wednesday that indicated that Cheney might be called as a witness for the prosecution in the case against Libby. There was talk last night on Hardball about why Cheney had not been indicted as a co-conspirator along with Libby. So danarhea's post isn't out of nowhere.