Rove not to be indicted, but still being investigated

[Simon W. Moon]

Then what was Wilson and his wife doing on the cover of Vanity Fair before thsi BS happened? She leaked herself.

When were they "on the cover of Vanity Fair?"

 

[aps]

When were they "on the cover of Vanity Fair?"

Simon, see my post above--January 2004.

 

[ShullsM]

Plame would have never been on the cover of anything had this leak not occured. I don't think her appearance on that cover is actually relevant to the debate. Her name was leaked. She was done. That was it.

 

[aps]

Plame would have never been on the cover of anything had this leak not occured. I don't think her appearance on that cover is actually relevant to the debate. Her name was leaked. She was done. That was it.

Yup--I totally agree.

I wonder if some people misunderstand what it means to leak a name. It's not about providing Valerie Wilson/Plame's name--it's associating her name with working for the CIA. Her working there was classified. Whether that means she was covert or not, I am not sure.

 

[galenrox]

Originally Posted by kal-el
Libby indicted, it seems that Libby is the scapegoat. However, I'm not sure he'll rat on Rove or Cheney.

Me>> For what?




Rove was not indicted, Fitzgerald presented it to the Grand Jury and if he even asked for an indictment he didn't get it. As far a Cheney what evidence do you have he outted a covert agent and who has proven Plame was covert and subject to that law. Fitzgerald did not.

Dude, even Fox News admitted that the law was written so it would be nearly impossible to enforce, so you taking the lack of indictments as a vindication of the idea that Rove did nothing has about as much merit as if I sat down, and it was a crime to sit down when your legs were tired, and then me not being prosecuted because they couldn't prove my legs were tired, and me taking this as proof positive that my legs weren't tired.

Me>> For what?



Again for what. Fitzgerald did not find that she was covert.

Don't know about this, you may be right.

Quote:
Rove is a diabolical genius.

Me>> Why do you use the word "diabolical", compared to whom?

Uh, everyone?

Your ad hominems only weaken any case you are trying to bring. And again compared to whom? Is Carville diobolical too?

I think it's safe to say that Carville hasn't destroyed nearly as many people's lives and reputations for political gain as Rove has.

Quote:
He'll pass the buck on to anyone to save his own ass.

Me>> And you know this how?

Most people have an ability to use common sense. I've also noticed that quite a few have a special ability to conviniently forget how.:ws

You're just "sure", that's it, that's your evidence. Perhaps you let your emotions overcome rational thinking.

Alright, let's do some rational thinking. Joseph Wilson goes to Niger, and finds no sign of Iraq trying to aquire Yellow cake. He tells the president in a report. A little while later the president claims the exact opposite of what the report says is happening in the State of the Union. Wilson gets upset, and tells the New York Times. Then Robert Novak, who's gotten in trouble before for getting information from Karl Rove, miraculously comes up with the knowledge that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent, when this is not in fact common public knowledge.
And we know Rove has had a tendency to do whatever to destroy someone's reputation, which is what has made him so effective.

So what rational assumption does that lead us to believe?...

Quote:
Rove may have given Fitzgerald some info. to buy some time.

Me>> Do these things just come to you while you sleep?



One that is fitting to the baseless postulations you try to pass as fact.


Quote:
Rove's brain, Luskin, is running the legal show so Rove is well-defended. I just hate seeing this evil obese man constantly getting away with things.

Me>> So not only do you make baseless assertions about what he didn't do you have to attack him on a personal basis too.

Have you ever insulted Clinton?
He who is without sin you frickin hypocrite!

I reposted it. Since you can't get him on the facts apparently calling him fat makes up for it, how childish.

Once again.

Indictments for what? You have no evidence either committed a crime. You have yet to say what Cheney should be indicted for and since we have no evidence that he ever spoke to a reporter about Plame I have no idea what you are talking about.

Are we in court? Here we're allowed to use common sense, so yeah, you might want to try that.

He and his wife sought it before then, they sought it when they cooked up their little plot to defraud the American people, when they engaged in their little game of political hardball.

Do you have facts or even sources to back this up? I mean, for someone who claims that logical assumptions are ignorant because they can't be proven in court, you seem awfully quick to toss out a conspiracy theory with no source...

 

[kal-el]

DUDE there are 45 pages in the Senate Hearings that fully document Wilson is a liar, DUDE.

Stop playing the same old tune.
http://www.theangryliberal.com/07-13-03.htm

Your cite carries weight, I have no idea who that guy is nor does he provide any proof of his assertions. The fact is Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with violating the covert status of anyone. She had not worked overseas as a covert agent in over 5 years. Her position there may have been "classified" but that is far different from being covert DUDE.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/115716.php
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/18/plame_probe/index_np.html
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/073003.aspx
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame

Spare me your childish rants.

WTF are you babbling about here? You critize my rants? I think you need to glance at the mirror or any reflective service, buddy.:lol:

Nope, the government proved he was lying.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

That Saddam pocessed yellow-cake and had tried to procure more.

There was not a single report found by Joseph Wilson that any Iraqi had ever uttered the word uranium to any Nigerian official.

There was not a single document found relating to Iraq and the word Niger
, that even mentioned uranium.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005837.php

STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

" No it takes an idiot. "
You>> That exactly what your boy would be if not for Rove and Cheney. He's just the ****ing puppet, everyone knows who pulls the strings.Cheney is the actual president and decision maker in the White House, just listen too Bush's press conferences, there are always pauses, that tells me he cannot transfer the words from his earpiece to his mouth quick enough, it is like watching a horribly dubbed japanese monster film, the mouth moves long before the actual words come out!"<<

I think that comes pretty close.

So, did I say he is dumb? Close dosen't cut it, buddy. Again, you are LYING.

Well DUDE either put up or shut up. Prove I have misinterpreted anything. Prove I have misrepresent anything.

I think I have. And you can't enter this discussion,and start dumping ridiculous 1 and 2 liners and expect not to get called on them. I think it is you that needs to "shut-up!"

Since that is a false statement why would I want to. But then why don't you read the findings of the Senate hearing and educate yourself.

Why do I have to? You are making the assertion, therefore it is your responsibility to provide evidence.

Who sent Wilson on his trip to Niger, he says Cheney.
Who did he talk to when he was there, he says high level government officials.
What did the people he talked to tell him, he says they said Iraq was not in NIger trying to buy anything.
Who did he report to when he got back, he says the office of the VP.
How could he have declared the Niger documents forgeries when they didn't come to light until 8 months after he made his trip?

Well, the CIA dispatched him. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Wilson spent 8 days there meeting with current and former government officials and uranium bussiness people. Afterwards, he wrote, he reported to the CIA, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

http://theleftcoaster.com/archives/005837.php

Yep, the Nigerians said that Iraq had been down there trying to make deals.

What? Did you just wake up yesterday and dumbly believe everything Limbaugh spits out? Again, you're depositing asinine claims without substantiation. Prove it.

Why do you think that was the only evidence at hand? We knew they were down there making inquireies long before those documents were even known about.

Uhh, nope. Once again, Prove it.

No he didn't, he cited British intelligence not Italian and the Brits have confirmed their intelligence which had nothing to do with those documents was accurate. DUDE

:rofl Where, pray tell, did I ever say he didn't use British intelligence?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
http://truthout.org/docs_03/071203B.shtml

3 Days after Wilson's article apperared, Colin Powell said Bush should not have made the Iraq-Niger assertion.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/yellowcake_7-20.html

You know DUDE, when someone has to substitute ad hominems for facts you know they are losing the debate.

What? Ad hominems? Is that your buzzword, or something? You seem to use it like every post. You played it out, dude.:lol:

 

[Donkey1499]

Stop playing the same old tune.
http://www.theangryliberal.com/07-13-03.htm

I wouldn't trust anything from a website that calls itself "The Angry Liberal". That just makes invalid right away. It's more hate speech towards Bush than anything else.

Oh yeah. And you liberals fail to realize that Plame wasn't an "active" agent during the supposed "leak". She and Wilson posed in a icture on Vanity Fair for crying out loud! If anything, Plame leaked herself.

And I hate to bring it up, but how come you liberals didn't jump on Senator "Leaky" Leahy when he leaked the names of agents? Y'all just ignored that. Hmmmm, maybe because he's a democrat? Exactly. And y'all are saying that Rove and Bush are guilty, yet you liberals are big supporters of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". But I guess that only pertains to child molesters and murderers, and not republicans, right?

 

[kal-el]

I wouldn't trust anything from a website that calls itself "The Angry Liberal". That just makes invalid right away. It's more hate speech towards Bush than anything else.

Ok,fair enough.:2razz: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507190005 Better?

O,and here's a differing perspective on that Senate hearing thingy:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102805I.shtml

Oh yeah. And you liberals fail to realize that Plame wasn't an "active" agent during the supposed "leak". She and Wilson posed in a icture on Vanity Fair for crying out loud! If anything, Plame leaked herself.

Well, if that's the case,why the **** was Libby indicted? Rove investigated? Good one, Einstein.:lol:

And I hate to bring it up, but how come you liberals didn't jump on Senator "Leaky" Leahy when he leaked the names of agents? Y'all just ignored that. Hmmmm, maybe because he's a democrat? Exactly. And y'all are saying that Rove and Bush are guilty, yet you liberals are big supporters of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". But I guess that only pertains to child molesters and murderers, and not republicans, right?

Dude, I was born at night, but not last night, ok?:lol: Last time I checked, Leahy wasn't indicted, was he? He just resigned from the intelligence panel.

 

[Stinger]

Dude, even Fox News admitted that the law was written so it would be nearly impossible to enforce,

For anything other than what it was meant for, yes. That's what Victoria Toensing stated, she helped draft the law and has stated all along it was not meant for a case such as this.

so you taking the lack of indictments as a vindication of the idea that Rove did nothing

Nothing illegal.

has about as much merit as if I sat down,

ROFL and you taking a lack in indictments as proof of a crime is absurd.

There is NO proof Plame came under the statue. NO ONE has been indicted for violating the statute. Those are the facts.

Don't know about this, you may be right.

Quote:
Rove is a diabolical genius.

Me>> Why do you use the word "diabolical", compared to whom?

Uh, everyone?

Everyone, in the whole wide world? Can you give some specific examples of his "diabolicalness"? And don't try the McCain phone calls thing which was long ago proven a phoney story.

I think it's safe to say that Carville hasn't destroyed nearly as many people's lives and reputations for political gain as Rove has.

Who's lives has Rove destroyed?

Quote:
Quote:
He'll pass the buck on to anyone to save his own ass.

Me>> And you know this how?

Most people have an ability to use common sense. I've also noticed that quite a few have a special ability to conviniently forget how.

No that's not a matter of common sense that is a baseless assertion. I've noticed that quite a few have a special abiltiy to state them as fact.

Alright, let's do some rational thinking. Joseph Wilson goes to Niger, and finds no sign of Iraq trying to aquire Yellow cake.

That's not true, the Nigerians told him that Saddam had sent a contengent down to investigate trade deals and there is only one thing Niger has to trade. The CIA stated that his report did not discount the intelligence but in fact seemed to add weight to it.

He tells the president in a report.

That's false, he never made a report to the president and only gave a verbal report to some CIA agents.

A little while later the president claims the exact opposite of what the report says is happening in the State of the Union.

And was correct.

Wilson gets upset, and tells the New York Times.

Yep he leaked classified information, why is he not under indictment even though the info he leaked was misleading and misrepresented what he reported to the CIA.

Then Robert Novak, who's gotten in trouble before for getting information from Karl Rove, miraculously comes up with the knowledge that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent, when this is not in fact common public knowledge.

But well known in Washington circles and bragged about by Joe Wilson himself. And answers the salient question, how did Joe Wilson get picked for a trip to Niger.

And we know Rove has had a tendency to do whatever to destroy someone's reputation,

No we don't know that, but to imagine that the WH would just sit by and let the Wilson's defraud the public with their lies is folly. The WH was perfectly intitled to fire back once the Wilson's had attacked them.

So what rational assumption does that lead us to believe?...



Me>> So not only do you make baseless assertions about what he didn't do you have to attack him on a personal basis too.

Have you ever insulted Clinton?

Define insult, is stating the factual history of him an insult?

He who is without sin you frickin hypocrite!

So Schummer and Dean and Pelosie should shut up?



Once again.

My Quote:
Indictments for what? You have no evidence either committed a crime. You have yet to say what Cheney should be indicted for and since we have no evidence that he ever spoke to a reporter about Plame I have no idea what you are talking about.

Are we in court? Here we're allowed to use common sense, so yeah, you might want to try that.

What evidence do you have that Cheney committed a crime. It would not be a crime for him to discuss Plame with Libby.

My Quote:
He and his wife sought it before then, they sought it when they cooked up their little plot to defraud the American people, when they engaged in their little game of political hardball.

Do you have facts or even sources to back this up? I mean, for someone who claims that logical assumptions are ignorant because they can't be proven in court, you seem awfully quick to toss out a conspiracy theory with no source...

Facts for what, are you still denying his wife reccomended him for his little foray into Niger?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Yea yea, Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. Has anyone considered that he might have done that to keep his wife's identity secret? Wilson did NOT lie about what he found in Niger, that's really the only important thing when it comes to his credibility.

What DID Wilson find in Niger, besides lions and elephants?

Wilson found that Iraq did not acquire any uranium from Niger. That's exactly what he said he found.

Who sent Wilson on his trip to Niger, he says Cheney.

Wrong. Wilson did NOT say Cheney sent him. He said his trip was approved by the CIA.

Who did he talk to when he was there, he says high level government officials. What did the people he talked to tell him, he says they said Iraq was not in NIger trying to buy anything.

Wrong. Wilson did NOT say Iraq wasn't in Niger trying to buy anything. He said a transaction never took place, but an Iraqi agent approached Nigerian officials about expanding commercial relations.

Who did he report to when he got back, he says the office of the VP.

Wrong. Wilson did NOT say he reported his findings to the VP. He said he reported his findings to the CIA, who in-turn probably briefed the VP.

How could he have declared the Niger documents forgeries when they didn't come to light until 8 months after he made his trip?

Wrong. Wilson did NOT declare the Niger documents as forgeries until long after his trip. He discovered the claims were false without even seeing the documents that started the claims.

With all these falsehoods you have to work with, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Oh yeah. And you liberals fail to realize that Plame wasn't an "active" agent during the supposed "leak".

And you Bush-huggers fail to realize that doesn't mean a damn thing. If a crime wasn't committed, then why did the Republicans launch a 2-year investigation on members of their own party? I guess those republicans must be liberal...

She and Wilson posed in a icture on Vanity Fair for crying out loud! If anything, Plame leaked herself.

Why do you even bother to post when you don't even read anyone's response?

"What? Leaking of her name occurred in July 2003. They appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair in January 2004."

That was directed at you, from Aps, back on page 3. You might want to read it this time, before you spew out more "Vanity Fair" nonesense and make it even more obvious that you don't read people's replies.

 

[Archon]

The CIA is a intelligence gathering agency. They do not have the power to prosecute nor investigate domestic breach of security. Wilson did report to the CIA. The CIA in turn referred the case to the FBI to elect a special prosecutor. It was a just course of action. It's ridiculous to me to hear of so called conservatives who are grinding their teeth in attempt to refute such facts. There was a time in this country when the difference between party affiliation was minimal..... when intelligence played a key role and not public perception. It's terrible and sad that so many people are so dimwitted as to allow this type of conflict to fall under the veil of public relations. This is an issue of national security not subjective perception. It indeed is a strange world when liberals are fighting to conserve our constitution and so called conservatives are fighting to dictate its edification.

 

[dragonslayer]

one must remember that we are fighting those that are very rich. Some one put a couple milllion in an off shore account and Libby decided to protect cheney and Rove. His children will get their college taken care of and have a good future and Libby's family will be well provided for.

We need to remember that Cheney don't give a dam about no one or nothing but Cheney. He is a cold hearted dog. And so is Bush.:doh

 

[Stinger]

My Quote:
He was chief-of-staff, he could very well have "done this" on his own. Wilson was selling a phoney story, I bet you fell for it, and falsely stating who sent him on the mission and what he found. I can certainly see with a reasonable mind how Libby would want to clear the record.

Yea yea, Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. Has anyone considered that he might have done that to keep his wife's identity secret?

You really should get up to speed on the facts before you post such nonsense. He lied AFTER his wife's employment at the CIA was disclosed.

Wilson did NOT lie about what he found in Niger, that's really the only important thing when it comes to his credibility.

Yes he did, about who he talked to, what they told him, and especially his claim that he debunked docuements that didn't weren't even known about until 8 months after his trip ended.

Libby wanted to clear the record how? By refuting Wilson's claims about Iraq intelligence or by destroying his wife's career?

By rufting Wilson's phoney story about who sent him primarily and prodding the news media to find out the facts in toto.

Yea yea, Plame wasn't covert. That doesn't mean there was no crime.

It does vis-a-vis the law that is in question.

Outing her identity exposed the entire CIA front company too.

The CIA had already exposed the company and the fact she worked there long ago, that company was no longer in exsistence. You REALLY need to get up to speed before you continue to post these wild assertions.

The fact that they appointed a Federal prosecutor to investigate makes me believe a crime was probably committed.

There is a federal prosecutor investigating Hillary Clintons campaign, does that make you believe there was a crime committed. Same with Chuck Schummer's office.

If Plame was not covert, and that guaranteed outing her ID was not a crime, it would take 10 minutes to figure that out. Not 2 years.

And that is a question everyone is asking, why did Fitzgerald not simply see if the law applied first before he called people in and jeopardized them with perjury and such before a grand jury? But the fact remains there is no evidence and quite a bit to the contrary that she was NOT covert.

 

[Stinger]

When were they "on the cover of Vanity Fair?"

Geez don't be so picky. They were on a two page spread.

 

[Sir_Alec]

It is a shame because the avg. person would go to jail for over 5 years for such an offense. Talk about a corrupt system!

 

[Donkey1499]

And you Bush-huggers fail to realize that doesn't mean a damn thing. If a crime wasn't committed, then why did the Republicans launch a 2-year investigation on members of their own party? I guess those republicans must be liberal...


Why do you even bother to post when you don't even read anyone's response?

"What? Leaking of her name occurred in July 2003. They appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair in January 2004."

That was directed at you, from Aps, back on page 3. You might want to read it this time, before you spew out more "Vanity Fair" nonesense and make it even more obvious that you don't read people's replies.

I don't exactly have the time to be on here everyday, so I tend to miss a lot of posts. And you're still ignoring the fact that she was in the magazine. So why isn't the magazine and Wilson being charged along with the Bush Admin.? Wouldn't that be fair? "Oh no Donkey. We can't accuse our fellow liberals of anything!" Even though Sen. "Leaky" Leahy was kicked off the Intelligence Committee for LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!!!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I don't exactly have the time to be on here everyday, so I tend to miss a lot of posts. And you're still ignoring the fact that she was in the magazine. So why isn't the magazine and Wilson being charged along with the Bush Admin.?

Actually, Donk,the biggest and most glaringly obvious reason is that the magazine came out after her classified relationship w/ the CIA had already been exposed in the national press by Novak. Just thought I'd clear up that little mystery for you.

 

[Donkey1499]

Actually, Donk,the biggest and most glaringly obvious reason is that the magazine came out after her classified relationship w/ the CIA had already been exposed in the national press by Novak. Just thought I'd clear up that little mystery for you.

You're still missing the point. Why didn't she go back into hiding? Why didn't she change her name? Because she's not an agent. She's works in a CIA cubicle and goes on vacations a lot.

Why wasn't there this big of an uproar when Senator Leahy leaked intelligence (which is why he's called "Senator Depends" and "Leaky Leahy". He was even kicked off the intelligence committe; which was just a slap on the wrist)? Why hasn't anyone said anything about the leaking of the CIA Torture cells in other countries? Because Bush and his administration weren't involved in those. And I'm seeing a pattern here. This Plame case has NOTHING to do with intelligence or a an "agent's" name being leaked. It has more to do with the blind hatred liberals have for Bush. They loath him and probably wish someone would make an attempt on his life. Liberals hate Bush so much, that they'll do anything in their power to make him look bad.

But when you ask a liberal why they hate Bush, their response is "Cuz Bush sucks!" Then I ask, "Why does he suck?" Then they say "Because..... BUSH SUCKS!!!!" I still have yet to get a straight answer from liberals. They also say that Bush lied. "Ok, so what did Bush lie about?"

"The whole Iraq thing! There were no WMDs! Bush's intelligence was false!!!"

Then I say, "So all the intelligence that Bush got from Britain, Russia, Bill Clinton, the CIA, and the US Military is all false? Fine, but then your congressmen/women are liars too, cuz they saw the SAME intelligence and told Bush to invade Iraq. In 98' when Clinton bombed Iraq, he used the intelligence (that he later gave to Bush) to justify his actions. So that would make Clinton a liar too. Britain is currently helping us in Iraq, so I guess with your logic, Briatain is a bunch of liars too."

Then the liberals say, "You can't call our congressmen/women, Clinton, and Britain liars! That's not fair, and they're not totally republican either!!! Only Bush and his Admin can be blamed. It's their fault and they're liars!!!"

Then I say, "Why is it Bush's fault, and how is he a liar?"

Then the Liberals say, "Cuz Bush sucks!!!"

I rest my case.

 

[aps]

You're still missing the point. Why didn't she go back into hiding? Why didn't she change her name? Because she's not an agent. She's works in a CIA cubicle and goes on vacations a lot.

LOL What does her going on vacation have to do with her status as a CIA employee. Fitzgerald said her status there was "classified." People knowing her name is not a big deal--it's knowing that she works for the CIA that is the problem.

Why wasn't there this big of an uproar when Senator Leahy leaked intelligence (which is why he's called "Senator Depends" and "Leaky Leahy". He was even kicked off the intelligence committe; which was just a slap on the wrist)? Why hasn't anyone said anything about the leaking of the CIA Torture cells in other countries? Because Bush and his administration weren't involved in those. And I'm seeing a pattern here. This Plame case has NOTHING to do with intelligence or a an "agent's" name being leaked.

Are you trying to say that there is some left-wing conspiracy to bring down the president? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

It has more to do with the blind hatred liberals have for Bush. They loath him and probably wish someone would make an attempt on his life. Liberals hate Bush so much, that they'll do anything in their power to make him look bad.

I think Bush does a good job of looking bad himself. He doesn't need our help. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a mandate. I have a fantastic plan for your Social Security. You will love it......"

Oh really, Mr. Bush? Yeah, everyone just thinks that your Social Security idea is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That is a very minor example.

But when you ask a liberal why they hate Bush, their response is "Cuz Bush sucks!" Then I ask, "Why does he suck?" Then they say "Because..... BUSH SUCKS!!!!" I still have yet to get a straight answer from liberals. They also say that Bush lied. "Ok, so what did Bush lie about?"

"The whole Iraq thing! There were no WMDs! Bush's intelligence was false!!!"

Then I say, "So all the intelligence that Bush got from Britain, Russia, Bill Clinton, the CIA, and the US Military is all false? Fine, but then your congressmen/women are liars too, cuz they saw the SAME intelligence and told Bush to invade Iraq. In 98' when Clinton bombed Iraq, he used the intelligence (that he later gave to Bush) to justify his actions. So that would make Clinton a liar too. Britain is currently helping us in Iraq, so I guess with your logic, Briatain is a bunch of liars too."

First, Congress did not have all the intelligence that the president did. The president had daily briefings every single day. Congress was not privy to those reports.

Also, Bush wanted to use intelligence that Clinton used in 1998? So using intelligence that was 4 years old is prudent? Hmmmm.

Even if Congress was at fault for not seeing the caveats in the intelligence, it doesn't take away the fact that Bush possibly (although I believe it's pretty obvious he did) exaggerates the intelligence.

Then the liberals say, "You can't call our congressmen/women, Clinton, and Britain liars! That's not fair, and they're not totally republican either!!! Only Bush and his Admin can be blamed. It's their fault and they're liars!!!"

Then I say, "Why is it Bush's fault, and how is he a liar?"

Then the Liberals say, "Cuz Bush sucks!!!"

I rest my case.

Your honor, I would move to dismiss this case because counsel has not presented any evidence to substantiate his allegations except saying that liberals say, "Cuz Bush sucks."

Motion granted. Case dismissed.

 

[Donkey1499]

LOL What does her going on vacation have to do with her status as a CIA employee. Fitzgerald said her status there was "classified." People knowing her name is not a big deal--it's knowing that she works for the CIA that is the problem.



Are you trying to say that there is some left-wing conspiracy to bring down the president? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.



I think Bush does a good job of looking bad himself. He doesn't need our help. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a mandate. I have a fantastic plan for your Social Security. You will love it......"

Oh really, Mr. Bush? Yeah, everyone just thinks that your Social Security idea is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That is a very minor example.



First, Congress did not have all the intelligence that the president did. The president had daily briefings every single day. Congress was not privy to those reports.

Also, Bush wanted to use intelligence that Clinton used in 1998? So using intelligence that was 4 years old is prudent? Hmmmm.

Even if Congress was at fault for not seeing the caveats in the intelligence, it doesn't take away the fact that Bush possibly (although I believe it's pretty obvious he did) exaggerates the intelligence.



Your honor, I would move to dismiss this case because counsel has not presented any evidence to substantiate his allegations except saying that liberals say, "Cuz Bush sucks."

Motion granted. Case dismissed.

We know who the CIA Director is. His name is all over news. Why isn't anyone being charged for releasing his name?
The CIA isn't 100% secret you know. Hell, we even know that the SECRET Service exists. We even know that Area 51 exists, even tho the gov't tried to say it didn't.

It's not a conspiracy if most people know about it. The left hates Bush, and even people in his own party hate him.

His Social Security plan is "bad" because you, and others like you, think so. It doesn't mean that the majority thinks that way. Remember, Bush was re-elected BY the people. If no one liked him, then what is he doing back in office?
And the media, which is mostly Anti-Bush, is filling in the minds of some Americans to think that Bush is lousy. And he's not. He's no different than any other president. He lies no more than any other president (Though I have yet to see him lie on the same level as Nixon and Clinton). The Anti-Bush people just hate Bush so much that they'll LIE to everyone by telling them that he's the biggest liar in history, of which he's not.

Congress didn't have all of the intelligence Bush did? Prove it then. I bet that he did give them everything.

4 year old intelligence to go with new intelligence from Britain, Russia, the CIA, and the US Military that you still have yet to counter; of which you can't.

Show me some "facts" then that Bush "exaggerated" on the intelligence. Show me some evidence.

You also have liberals like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy that say at one time that Saddaam definately has WMDs, then they turn around and say that Bush is a liar, whn they looked at the SAME intelligence.

 

[aps]

We know who the CIA Director is. His name is all over news. Why isn't anyone being charged for releasing his name?
The CIA isn't 100% secret you know. Hell, we even know that the SECRET Service exists. We even know that Area 51 exists, even tho the gov't tried to say it didn't.

Right. Not every CIA employee is covert. Not every CIA employee is classified. Tenet had neither status. Fitzgerald said her status at CIA was classified. Hmmmmm, whose word will I take? Donkey's? Or the special prosector?

It's not a conspiracy if most people know about it. The left hates Bush, and even people in his own party hate him.

So then what is the Plame thing all about?

His Social Security plan is "bad" because you, and others like you, think so. It doesn't mean that the majority thinks that way. Remember, Bush was re-elected BY the people. If no one liked him, then what is he doing back in office?

Well, the election was one year ago. A lot has happened in one year. The majority of Americans did not support his Social Security plan. The majority of Americans now question his integrity. Clinton won by a landslide in 1996--doesn't mean he was popular for the rest of his presidency, right? People were disappointed with his behavior during his second term. Same with Nixon.

And the media, which is mostly Anti-Bush, is filling in the minds of some Americans to think that Bush is lousy. And he's not. He's no different than any other president. He lies no more than any other president (Though I have yet to see him lie on the same level as Nixon and Clinton). The Anti-Bush people just hate Bush so much that they'll LIE to everyone by telling them that he's the biggest liar in history, of which he's not.

Seriously, Donkey, why use such strong words? It takes away your credibility.

Congress didn't have all of the intelligence Bush did? Prove it then. I bet that he did give them everything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802578.html

4 year old intelligence to go with new intelligence from Britain, Russia, the CIA, and the US Military that you still have yet to counter; of which you can't.

Show me some "facts" then that Bush "exaggerated" on the intelligence. Show me some evidence.

You also have liberals like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy that say at one time that Saddaam definately has WMDs, then they turn around and say that Bush is a liar, whn they looked at the SAME intelligence.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5666

See posts # 5 and 6.

 

[Donkey1499]

Right. Not every CIA employee is covert. Not every CIA employee is classified. Tenet had neither status. Fitzgerald said her status at CIA was classified. Hmmmmm, whose word will I take? Donkey's? Or the special prosector?



So then what is the Plame thing all about?



Well, the election was one year ago. A lot has happened in one year. The majority of Americans did not support his Social Security plan. The majority of Americans now question his integrity. Clinton won by a landslide in 1996--doesn't mean he was popular for the rest of his presidency, right? People were disappointed with his behavior during his second term. Same with Nixon.



Seriously, Donkey, why use such strong words? It takes away your credibility.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802578.html



http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5666

See posts # 5 and 6.

What strong words were you talking about?

And even if Bush did with hold some intelligence, it was probably for a good reason. Notice that the "Swimmer" is leading the investigation. Why not let an Un-Biased Group lead the investigation. Kennedy said that if Bush was re-elected he'd do everything in his power to get Bush Impeached. So I wouldn't let Kennedy get involved with this, if I were on Capitol Hill.

And did Bush exaggerate that Saddaam was a brutal dictator? No, you can even see the torture cells that the US troops have found. Whether or not there were WMDs, Hussein had to be removed from power. As so do some other dictators.

And is it the end of the world that ONE "agent" had her name "leaked"? Oh GOD! It's not like we don't have any more agents.

Two more questions: Why is America always the one to get shat on when we're trying to help others live in a free society? And why can't anyone question the Clinton intelligence for bombing Iraq in 98'?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Ok, so what did Bush lie about?"

Team Bush:

1) We cannot wait to attack Hussein because he's liable to put a mushroom cloud over a major American city;
2) Hussein and al-Qa'ida are in cahoots, (training, Atta/Prague connection, etc);
3) Hussein's an undeterrrable madman
​

Consensus of US Intel Community:

1) Hussein unlikely to attack;
2) Hussein and al-Qa'ida not in cahoots.
​

Consensus of US Intel Community & Evidence of History:

Hussein deterrable
​

 

[Squawker]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

You folks on the left need to find another hobby.

 

[Archon]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

You folks on the left need to find another hobby.

Gee, after all of your exasperated attempt to take issues out of context and polarize this debate by party affiliation you only end up proving yourself as a certifiable pundit. People of intellect tend to be more objective and take a more empirical stance on issues pertaining to the progression of the beliefs of the United States. What if we were all to abide by your belief system there would be no such thing as objective dissonance or independent thought. Let's attempt to serve our Nation to find a form of unification... let's not patronize each other with such senseless and obfuscatory rhetoric.