PDA

View Full Version : The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense



nAz
03-13-2007, 05:59 PM
hmm I wonder how many more scandals will come out from the current admin. lol the excuses are getting pretty flimsy though. I wish these guys would have just gotten BJs at least that way they could be put in jail.

March 13, 2007
The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense
Posted 1:15 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight


As the prosecutor purge scandal continues to become more serious and more damaging for the Bush gang, the right has struggled to come up with a coherent defense. They seem to have embraced one, but it’s surprisingly weak.

Karl Rove got the ball rolling last week.

“Look, by law and by Constitution [sic], these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.”

A few days later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) repeated it.

Graham played down the administration’s purge of U.S. Attorneys, calling it perfectly within President Bush’s authority and merely “poorly handled” and “unseemly.” He also repeated Karl Rove’s lie that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took over,” Graham said.

A day later, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was using it.

[T]hese are the same Democrats who didn’t raise a whimper when Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno sacked all 93 U.S. attorneys in one unclean sweep upon taking office. Previous Presidents had kept the attorneys in place until they could replace each one. That was a more serious abuse than anything known about these Bush dismissals.

Today, a number of far-right blogs have picked up on the same talking point, and even the traditional media is picking up on it, with NBC’s Kevin Corke repeating the meme this morning.

I had hoped this nonsense, debunked last week, would have disappeared by now, but it seems to be the only talking point White House allies can come up with.

The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.

In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.

The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the difference.

Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.”

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.

Josh Marshall added this morning:

First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.

Note to Bush allies: if the “Clinton did it” defense is the best you can do, this scandal must be truly horrifying.

Update: In case there was still any lingering doubt among conservatives on this point, in White House documents released today, there’s an email to Harriet Miers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), in which Sampsons admits that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.”

ras314
03-13-2007, 06:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> ... Note to Bush allies: if the “Clinton did it” defense is the best you can do, this scandal must be truly horrifying. ....<hr /></blockquote>
Kinda just couldn't let that one go unnoticed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

And worse thing about it is I agree with it.

Gayle in MD
03-14-2007, 12:24 AM
Great post Naz, thanks.

Gayle

eg8r
03-14-2007, 12:54 PM
When I add Clinton's vast amount of shortcomings to discussions of current events it is usually to remind the left that they are not as holy as they think they are. Usually a post from someone on the left starts with something like, "the current admin is the worst in history", or "there has never been a more corrupt gov't", etc. This is when Clinton is brought up. The man was plenty corrupt but the left likes to ignore it because it is convenient at that time. I am not at any time dismissing any shortcomings of the right because someone else did the same thing, if you did something wrong, then you did something wrong, precedence does not matter. Wrong is wrong. Just understand, if you try to say one is worse than the other then your previous history is now relevant. Don't act foolish and say the past is the past, because surely at some point you were probably equally foolish in stating something from a previous administration that found itself at odds with you.

eg8r

hondo
03-15-2007, 08:35 AM
Remind me again, Eg, how many American soldiers and
how many Iraqi civilians were killed during Clinton's
Presidency?
I agree that some sperm lost their lives trying to
get past Monica's dress, but is that really an equivalant?



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> When I add Clinton's vast amount of shortcomings to discussions of current events it is usually to remind the left that they are not as holy as they think they are. Usually a post from someone on the left starts with something like, "the current admin is the worst in history", or "there has never been a more corrupt gov't", etc. This is when Clinton is brought up. The man was plenty corrupt but the left likes to ignore it because it is convenient at that time. I am not at any time dismissing any shortcomings of the right because someone else did the same thing, if you did something wrong, then you did something wrong, precedence does not matter. Wrong is wrong. Just understand, if you try to say one is worse than the other then your previous history is now relevant. Don't act foolish and say the past is the past, because surely at some point you were probably equally foolish in stating something from a previous administration that found itself at odds with you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
03-15-2007, 09:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Remind me again, Eg, how many American soldiers and
how many Iraqi civilians were killed during Clinton's
Presidency? <hr /></blockquote> Remind you again? If you were too closed minded to hear it the first time, why should I waste my time on you the second time?

eg8r

hondo
03-15-2007, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Remind me again, Eg, how many American soldiers and
how many Iraqi civilians were killed during Clinton's
Presidency? <hr /></blockquote> Remind you again? If you were too closed minded to hear it the first time, why should I waste my time on you the second time?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Honestly, I understand your frustration at trying to
answer my questions. Ole George doesn't give you much
to work with,does he?

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 10:09 AM
Dear friend,

This is why I usually avoid Ed. I read his post, and thought, how I'd love to take him to Walter Reed. It would be great to have had him standing with his nose pressed against the window, one morning, as I watcheded our wounded troops, amputees, struggle to get across the length of a football field, on crutches, some with one side of their head missing, falling on ice, to get to their therapy sessions, or to get back over to main, to try yet again to deal with the huge, administration failures to address their multifaceted critical problems.

When a president sends our troops, without proper equipment, or re-training, and without the required R&amp;R between re-deployment, little or no help for traumatic stress disorder, beating them down over and over for four years, and refuses to provide sufficient funding for their health needs, equipment needs, and their families, he should be impeached.

Nothing is more infuriating than to read a post like Ed's. Americans have failed our heros, and their country, through apathy, and partisanship. It is a disgrace, when congress has to force a president to provide for our troops in war time, but that is just how low George Bush is. The very idea that people from the right compare Bush's gross incompetence and negligence, to anything in the Clinton administration, can only provide the rest of us with stark examples of ignorance, apathy, and arrogance on the part of any who would support such a decietful, and heartless
Commander &amp; Chief. What he is doing is criminal. Our presence in Iraq can only lead to more instabililty, and push our country further into massive debt, a broken Army, and result in fueling a more dangerous regional war. We have provided alQaeda with a training ground, where they can more readily kill Americans, as they are slaughtered in a sectarian Civil War. Bush's big ego, and pre White House intention of being a War President, has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, both Arab and American. People who would continue to support him do so at the needless cost of more lives, more amputated arms, legs, and more brain damaged young Americans, for nothing. We have not gained a single valuable thing as a country, in return, but, on the contraty, we have lost on every level. Impeachment is too good for Bush and Cheney.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-15-2007, 06:25 PM
Gayle,
I have no idea what you do on your visits to the troops, but I hope to God that you save all your political anti-war, anti-administration rhetoric for us here, and don't share it with anyone who believes that putting on the US military uniform to fight for our country.
If it gets depressing for us, I would hate to think what it would do to our military troops.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-16-2007, 06:33 AM
FYI, my goal is to be a sounding board for them, hence, they do all the talking, I listen.

Their opinions about this administration, which has failed them miserably, are even more "Passionate" than my own, given they are the ones who have been beaten down unmercifully by the Bush policies, which have all along been against military rules and regulations.

A good part of my own "Passion" is the result of my on-going relationships with our troops, many of whom have suffered double amputations, directly related to the failure of the Bush administration to provide them with the proper equipment, and training to fight in the Iraqi Civil War, incorrectly named the "War On Terror" by the Republican Spin machine, enhanced by corporate Fascist media propaganda.

Your statement that they are putting on the US military uniform to fight for our country, is a good example of how little you know about the war in Iraq, although I'm sure that isn't of any real interest to you, since every post you write is wrought with sarcastic, insults, [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> ...argumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguement.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Your words

and not a single one has shown any concern for educating yourself on their plight, beyond what you can get from neocon propaganda.

As for your depression, come to Washington D.C., I'll give you something to be depressed about. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
03-16-2007, 06:44 AM
Gayle as Bush's biggest thorn in his side. Could you research why the National Guard fighting in Iraq are not paid the Army pay but the National Guard salary. I will wait for your report. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in MD
03-16-2007, 07:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Update: In case there was still any lingering doubt among conservatives on this point, in White House documents released today, there’s an email to Harriet Miers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), in which Sampsons admits that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.”

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/document_070315.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

March 15, 2007 — New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


More Lied, and this time from the Attorney General of the United States, and Bush's top aid, and advisor.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Miers and was swiftly rejected.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggested firing all 93 attorneys, and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.



According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail Sampson, who was, at the time, a lawyer in the Justice Department. Sampson moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales at the White House.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


The investigations into Democrats outnumbered those into Republicans, seven to one. Clear case of abuse of power by an administration that sought to utilize the justice system as a political tool, for their own dirty work, and Gonzales, Snow, and Rove, publically lying, Gonzales, under oath.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-16-2007, 10:47 AM
Gayle your post is so hypocritical it is sickening. If you actually cared about these soldiers you would begin looking into defense spending prior to W and see why there are issues. Don't worry though, you have built quite a facade here and you don't have any intentions of breaking it down with reality and facts. Keep reading your books and building up the biased facade maybe one day someone will actually believe you.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
03-16-2007, 04:28 PM
Scandal????? What law was broken here?

Gayle in MD
03-16-2007, 08:47 PM
Waxman took pains to explain that the CIA had cleared every word he spoke, and confirmed every word of this statement: "Ms. Wilson was undercover...Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert...Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA...Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA...It is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States."

Ed,
Speaking of credibility, weren't you the one who said that Valarie Plame was "Just a secretary"

You are the most ill informed poster on this board...further, Bill Clinton did not send our troops to war without providing them with the proper equipment, Bush did that, just like Reagan did that when he sent them into Lebanon, to keep peace, without allowing them to use their weapons, hence, 241 Marines were slaughtered, because the gaurds were not armed at the gate, and he did NOTHING about it.

You're comments on the other thread, about birth control, and homosexuals, were also disgusting. I shudder to think that you are raising children, and filling their innocent minds with all your hatred, ignorance and bigotry.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-17-2007, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed,
Speaking of credibility, weren't you the one who said that Valarie Plame was "Just a secretary" <hr /></blockquote> I cannot remember if I had a smiley there or not. No worry though you would not know what that meant. On the other hand, she certainly was not a covert agent. If so, heads would have rolled by now. There is no proof of what you say otherwise someone would be in jail for the actual crime, not because he was forgetful of what he said the last time.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the most ill informed poster on this board... <hr /></blockquote> I would hardly call you informed, more like someone who seeks out another who will say what you want to hear. You don't seek the truth, you just seek to read books from those who have the same belief as you.

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Clinton did not send our troops to war <hr /></blockquote> Before you get too deep in your own crap about training and equipment (which is BS), remember the first argument you guys tried to use which was never true...the argument about sending us to war without UN approval. It did not take very long for you blowhards to drop that argument. In actuality we had all the UN approval, but different than the time Clinton took us to war. I am not interested in getting into further arguments with you because all you do is move on to the next lie when the current one no longer serves its purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
You're comments on the other thread, about birth control, and homosexuals, were also disgusting. <hr /></blockquote> I wish you would open your eyes to the disturbing posts you make here about women's rights (disowning the rights of the child) and religion. Your gutter trash mouth on this board also leaves me a little disturbed, but hey, who am I to try and change it. I shudder to think you have raised any girls and have passed on those misled lies about woman's rights (while disowning the childs).

eg8r

moblsv
03-17-2007, 06:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I would hardly call you informed, more like someone who seeks out another who will say what you want to hear. You don't seek the truth, you just seek to read books from those who have the same belief as you.<hr /></blockquote>

How dare she claim to know more than you, just because she reads books that are referenced and contained well documented facts. Those Librul educated types, with their facts and research need to quit being so damn logical and pay more attention to the authorities. All we really need to know we can get from the AEI and the Heritage foundation. Now, they know how to write the kind of history any true Red-necked, Authoritarian, Gun-slingin' American can get behind.

All Hail Reagan!!!

Bobbyrx
03-18-2007, 12:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr>
How dare she claim to know more than you, just because she reads books that are referenced and contained well documented facts. <font color="blue"> Ann Coulter's books are as referenced and footnoted as you can get if you want to go down that road....So you, too, believe that there are a hand full of "neocons" that have been trying to take over the world and have been plotting since the Reagan administration? </font color>

moblsv
03-18-2007, 06:58 AM
Hi Gayle.

Just giving you a thumbs up on Power, Faith and Fantasy. I finished it yesterday and I think you'll enjoy reading it.

Why are these other people on here so scared of your History books? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
03-18-2007, 02:06 PM
Nice post mob, hey did you hear, we are not responsible for global warming, we are just getting out of the last ice age.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 03:27 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gifIt's bad enough they don't read any books, Moblvs, on top of that, Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, apparently their only sources, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif and they suffer from Bush's same disease, they deny reality. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

The right wing pundits have insisted over and over that Plame was not a covert operative, hence, people like Ed, like to call her "Just a Secretary" with just a desk job.

The right scrounged up the purple haired, right wing, pundit/witch, Victoria Toensing, an attorney who likes to brag that she wrote the laws on clasified leaks, a gross overstatement, btw, to help promote the lie. Meanwhile had they watched Toensing, answering to questions under oath at the Senate, they might have some vague idea of their own ignorant comments, not to mention what a total fool she made of herself.

The statement I referenced above, regarding Plame's covert classified status, was cleared by the director of the C.I.A., to be read during the televised investigation into the treasonist outing of COVERT OPERATIUVE VALARIE PLAME, by the White House thugs, IOW, cleared, the statement was read in advance, and sanctioned by Director General Haig, TOP MAN IN THE C.I.A.... but surely Ed, the purple haired Toensing, and the crooked faced Hume on Faux News, know more than the Director of the C.I.A. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Fox News, the White House Propaganda Network, has spread lies about Plame's status for years, and Brit Hume is STILL lying for the White House regarding her status, so I guess we know Ed's only mislead, although willingly... LMAO!

She has traveled overseas, on secret covert work, even going back five years from today, let alone, from the time she was outed. Apparently, Toensing's purple hair dye is affecting her brain, and as for Faux News, well, we all know what they are, liars. But, I must say, referencing authors like MAN Coulter.... too funny for words, since she's already been proven a plagiarist, and known for writing and using fixed, cherry picked, references, which are not really references at all... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, also, another Republican disease.

Thanks for the book recommendation, friend. I'll pm you with some more information, and also about a few of the books I'm presently reading. I'd print the names of them here, but there are rumors around the Beltway, that Bush is contemplating book burnings!

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
03-18-2007, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I'd print the names of them here, but there are rumors around the Beltway, that Bush is contemplating book burnings!

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

lol, I wouldn't doubt it. Any bets that the same 30% would approve of that as well? Maybe we can require all books to go through the same approval process as our Global Warming and Environmental study papers. Oh, and all of the news stories, those have to be kept in check. We wouldn't want to risk having the enemy (would that be the terrorists or the Educated American Voter) know what's going on.

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 03:47 PM
BWA HA HA HA... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Well, we can always call the Attorney General about it, I'm sure he'll know what to do! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 04:14 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

OMG!!!

Not that these righties will admit their lies about Plame, but, what can we expect from the Faux News groupies!

Plame testified that she never suggested her husband for the Niger trip. “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved — I didn’t have the authority,” she said.

Hume’s false claim originated from a statement attached to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was released in 2004. In an addendum to that report, Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Christopher Bond (R-MO), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote definitively, “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.” The right-wing, including columnist Bob Novak, have taken the statement written by three Republican senators and falsely attributed it as the “unanimous” conclusion of the Senate report.

The three conservative senators based their claim on testimony by a CIA employee who appeared before the Senate Intel Committee. Plame revealed on Friday that the CIA employee later apologized to her “with tears in his eyes” because he said “his words had been twisted and distorted” by the senators. And in fact, the unnamed employee drafted a memo, asking that he be re-interviewed by the Senate to correct the record. His attempts to set the record straight were denied. On Friday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked to retrieve a copy of that memo:

REP. VAN HOLLEN: So, just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, if I could — so, there was a memo written by the [Counterproliferation Division] officer, upon whose alleged testimony the Senate wrote its report that contradicts the conclusions –

MS. PLAME WILSON: Absolutely.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: — contradicts the conclusions from that report.

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, sir.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this committee should ask for that memo. And it bears directly on the credibility of the Senate report on this very, very important issue, which they’ve attempted to use to discredit Ambassador Wilson’s mission.

REP. WAXMAN: I think the gentleman makes an excellent point, and we will insist on getting that memo.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/18/hume-plame-oath/

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 05:31 PM
Fri, Mar 16, 2007 7:42pm EST
Send to a friend Print Version
GOP strategist falsely claimed Plame appeared in Vanity Fair before being outed
In a discussion of the House committee testimony of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame on the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Republican strategist Edwina Rogers falsely claimed that Plame "had been in Vanity Fair before any of this came out, sitting in a Jaguar, and she did not get permission from the CIA, which is required." Rogers said that posing in such a photo "was unacceptable for the CIA." Rogers also claimed that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who went to Niger to discover whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium there, "had come back and didn't give the report to the CIA, but he turned it over in an op-ed to The New York Times." According to Rogers, because of these alleged transgressions, Plame "was already in the hot seat with the CIA." In fact, Plame's photos appeared in Vanity Fair several months after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column disclosed her identity, and Wilson's July 6, 2003, Times op-ed appeared long after he delivered his report on Niger to the CIA. Host Neil Cavuto asked: "But she was in the hot seat -- she was in the hot seat after she was in the hot seat, right? I mean, after this stuff came out, right?" But he did not otherwise attempt to correct Rogers' timeline.

Plame and Wilson appeared in the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, and the pictures in which she and Wilson appeared "in a convertible Jaguar" were taken on November 18, 2003 -- a full four months after Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in his column.

Media Matters for America has previously noted that a March 8, 2002, report by a CIA agent, entered into evidence in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, explained Wilson's findings in detail more than a year before Wilson's op-ed was published in the Times. In his op-ed, Wilson asserted that "[i]n early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau."

Media Matters also previously noted that on the October 11, 2005, edition of Fox News' Hannity &amp; Colmes, nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham similarly suggested that White House senior adviser Karl Rove could not have outed Plame as an undercover agent because her identity was already known after she appeared "in Vanity Fair with her scarf and her sunglasses on."

From the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

ROGERS: Well, I think it's really all about the money. We're talking about a third-rate CIA agent who had a government salary, and now she's out -- she could have transferred somewhere else within the CIA. She didn't have to leave. Probably the CIA wanted her to leave because she had already been in the press without their permission, in Vanity Fair in a convertible Jaguar, which was unacceptable for the CIA. And she had sent her husband to Niger, and he had come back and didn't give the report to the CIA, but he turned it over in an op-ed to The New York Times. So she was already in the hot seat with the CIA, and so now she's all about the money.

CAVUTO: But she was in the hot seat -- she was in the hot seat after she was in the hot seat, right? I mean, after this stuff came out, right?

ROGERS: Well, no, actually before. It's come out that she was considered kind of a mediocre agent at best, and she had been in Vanity Fair before any of this came out, sitting in a Jaguar, and she did not get permission from the CIA, which is required.

CAVUTO: So what are you saying is really going on here?

ROGERS: Well, I think that basically, the bottom line is that the Democrats lost in the court of law, so now they're trying to have this issue in the court of public opinion with the hearings, and special prosecutor Fitzgerald still hasn't shut down his operation. He knew very early on that there was no underlying legal issue here, and he just went after Scooter Libby. They had some previous history together that was not real positive. And it's very, very rare for a prosecutor to continue a case where there is no underlying charge and just try to get them in, he-said, she-said perjury charges. Most unusual.

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 05:40 PM
Fox News' Hill: Plame "skirt[ed] the issue" of whether she was covert in House testimony
Summary: On Fox News Live, E.D. Hill asserted that "it sounded like" former CIA operative Valerie Plame's testimony to a House committee was "completely skirting the issue of whether she still fell under those rules of being considered covert" when her identity was leaked. In fact, Plame specifically testified that she was "covert" until Robert Novak publicly revealed her identity in a 2003 column.
On the March 16 edition of Fox News Live, host E.D. Hill asserted that "it sounded like" former CIA operative Valerie Plame's testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was "completely skirting the issue of whether she still fell under those rules of being considered covert" when her identity was leaked. In fact, Plame specifically testified that she was "covert" until syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Robert D. Novak publicly revealed her identity in a July 14, 2003, column.

In particular, Hill cited Plame's testimony under questioning by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) that "[j]ust like a general is a general whether he is in the field [or] when he comes back to the Pentagon, he is still a general ... covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back to a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert." However, as the weblog Think Progress noted, Plame also agreed with Cummings that she had "covert status at the time of the leak" and that she had "conduct[ed] secret missions overseas" "[d]uring the past five years," which, as Media Matters for America documented, is one of the requirements for "covert" status under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

Fox News correspondent Julie Kirtz responded to Hill's assertion by pointing out that "earlier in her opening statement, [Plame] clearly stated that she did have that undercover status." Indeed, Plame did testify in her opening statement that she had been "covert," and made clear that she was still covert at the time Novak's column was published in response to questions by Cummings and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY). In response to Yarmuth's questions, which Fox News aired live less than a half-hour prior to Hill's assertion, Plame agreed that she had been "covert ... [o]n July 13," 2003, and that "the July 14 column destroyed [her] covert position and [her] classified status." After airing a different clip of Plame's testimony, Hill added: "[A]s I listen to the words again, she continues to talk about her work overseas and the covert work in the past tense, never directly answering the question of whether or not at that point she was."

Additionally, after Fox News' American Newsroom aired Yarmuth's questioning of Plame, Novak appeared and asserted that "the idea that [Plame] was a covert operator working on covert operations when she was going to the CIA building every day is absurd." However, on the October 26, 2005, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, former CIA agent Larry Johnson addressed such claims: "People saying that just demonstrate their further ignorance of the CIA. At least 40 percent of the people driving through those gates every day are undercover."

Novak also suggested that Plame was not covert because "in 1999, she gave a $1,000 contribution to [then-Vice President] Al Gore's presidential campaign and listed the fictitious -- supposedly -- cover organization that she was using for the CIA as her place of employment." As Media Matters has noted, Plame reportedly used the name of Brewster-Jennings &amp; Associates, a CIA front company, to conceal her place of employment. On the October 2005 Situation Room, Johnson also noted that "when Valerie wrote that check to Al Gore's campaign as a member of [CIA cover organization] Brewster-Jennings, she was living her cover."

Despite Novak's history of misinformation regarding Plame and the investigation into the leaking of her identity, America's Newsroom co-host Megyn Kelly referred to Novak as "the man with all the answers -- at least the responses to" Plame.

On the March 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

YARMUTH: I'd like to start by asking you about July 14, 2003, the day that Robert Novak wrote the column in the Chicago Sun-Times identifying you as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," quote. But before I get to that, I wanted to ask you about the day before, July 13. My understanding is that on that date, you were covert. Is that correct? On July 13?

PLAME: I was a covert officer. Correct.

YARMUTH: Without destroying or -- disclosing classified information, what does "covert" mean?

PLAME: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there is no links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency. I mean, that's simple.

YARMUTH: As you said -- and my understanding is that your work was classified for purposes of many of the regulations and laws we're talking about. Your work was classified on that day, July 13.

PLAME: That's correct.

YARMUTH: Did the July 14 column destroyed your covert position and your classified status?

PLAME: Yes, it did. I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained.

[...]

NOVAK: Well, it's very interesting, I thought, that Mrs. Wilson has said that she was a covert operations officer and that the identity in the column -- in my column ended that. It is beyond comprehension that a covert officer was going to work at the CIA every day. If her identity in connection with the CIA was going to be kept secret from our enemies, the idea that she was going to work in the building every day is just absurd.

KELLY: Bob.

NOVAK: In addition when I talked --

KELLY: Let -- let me ask you --

NOVAK: When I talked to --

KELLY: First of all, let me ask you. We teed up some of the sound -- some of the testimony she just gave -- about you specifically. We've got that ready now. Let me play it, and then let me get you to react to it.

NOVAK: Surely.

PLAME [video clip]: Yes, it did.

KELLY: Sorry, Bob.

PLAME [video clip]: I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained. I could no longer travel overseas or do the work for which my career -- which I loved. It was done.

KELLY: That's her saying what the consequences, in her view, of what happened after your column came out. And then she talked about how when she read it, she felt like she had been punched in the gut. First, let me ask you, have you ever spoken to her since the time you wrote your article?

NOVAK: I've never spoken to her in my life.

KELLY: So, what is it like for you to listen to her talking about your column for the first time, saying her reaction to reading it?

NOVAK: Well, let me -- what I'm more interested in is, is I don't have any particular reaction to what she said, but the idea that she was a covert operator working on covert operations when she was going to the CIA building every day is absurd.

Also, in 1999, she gave a $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential campaign and listed the fictitious -- supposedly -- cover organization that she was using for the CIA as her place of employment as an analyst.

KELLY: Bob, we've got a hard break coming up, but we're going to continue with you in just a few. Stay with us if you would. We're going to pick up with him after the break. That's the man with all the answers -- at least the responses to that woman you see testifying there. Stay with us.

From the 11 a.m. hour of the March 16 edition of Fox News Live:

HILL: Julie, Valerie Plame Wilson was making a significant point there. She -- the greatest question in this entire case is whether or not she, at the time her name was leaked, was a covert agent. And what she just started saying was, "Well, it's kind of like a general. You know, when you're a general, you're basically a general for life." But it sounded like completely skirting the issue of whether she still fell under those rules of being considered covert. Is --

KIRTZ: Well, earlier -- that was what she just stated under questioning. Earlier, in her opening statement, she clearly stated that she did have that undercover status. She said that she had traveled overseas using that cover, that she had been researching the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as part of her covert work. But she also said that she supervised some CIA agents as well.

[...]

HILL: Although as I listen to the words again, she continues to talk about her work overseas and the covert work in the past tense, never directly answering the question of whether or not at that point she was.

And we had Robert Novak on -- of course, the person who released her name, in the press, that is -- and he said that it was just not comprehendible to him that a secret agent -- that's really what we're talking about -- a covert agent -- would go in and out of the CIA headquarters every day for work. If you're trying to stay secret and not let people know you're a CIA, you know, operative -- a covert agent -- you wouldn't be going to work over at the building.

KIRTZ: Well, that's true. I do know people that knew her socially in Washington, D.C. I mean, her kids went to the same preschool that my kids went to, E.D. And, of course, all the parents never knew she worked for the CIA. But that doesn't really say much. They didn't know where she drove after she dropped off her kids -- that she actually went out to the CIA headquarters.

So when she says it wasn't common knowledge around Washington -- perhaps. But among government officials -- I don't know. And I think it's difficult in this hearing, because it's public and because so much information is classified, for her to really get into those details.

Gayle in MD
03-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Hi Sweetie,
I'm still looking, but here is some info...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 07:22 AM
BTW, I meant to say General Hayden, not Haig, anyway, he's the director of the C.I.A., but I'm sure he wouldn't possibly be in the loop on knowing that Valarie was Covert, NOC, classified Secret. We'll have to check with Ed again, he would have the inside story! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif LMAO! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


BTW, If you read Tripple Cross, you're going to have to let me know so I can give you a call. I'm anxious to hear what you think about it.

Love,
Gayle

moblsv
03-19-2007, 07:23 AM
At a population of 300M that's only $6667 each. Or, for a family of 3, only $20,000.

Maybe we should get out our checkbooks and pay this off at the polls during the next election.

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 07:36 AM
Unless we impeach Bush, by the time the election rolls around, we'll probably all be broke. We'll have to mail our checks to China! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Gayle in Md.

hondo
03-19-2007, 07:37 AM
Gayle, if you really cared about our soldiers, you'd
try to figure out how the Democrats are responsible rather
than seeing these soldiers and talking to them. LMFAO!


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Gayle your post is so hypocritical it is sickening. If you actually cared about these soldiers you would begin looking into defense spending prior to W and see why there are issues. Don't worry though, you have built quite a facade here and you don't have any intentions of breaking it down with reality and facts. Keep reading your books and building up the biased facade maybe one day someone will actually believe you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 08:47 AM
Sometimes the word ignorant, isn't an insult, it's just an adjective. In Ed's case, it's a mild adjective. That's why I sometimes tell him, Go find yourself a horn! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Notice, Ed NEVER provides us with any research to prove that his denial of the facts, is correct, just insults. He learns all his scientific facts in church....but I kid Ed, lol.

Gayle in Md....how many more like Ed? Listen to C-Span's Washington Journal, it will scare you to death!

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 08:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight federal prosecutors abruptly ousted by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Atty. Carol C. Lam was fired in an attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed evidence that Lam had notified Washington about search warrants in a Republican corruption case last year. Soon thereafter, a top Justice Department official in Washington wrote to the White House about a "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam."

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19mar19,0,2790807.story?track=ntothtml

Can't recall Clinton doing this, can you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-19-2007, 09:07 AM
Is there a chance anyone can check to see how many times I have quoted Fox? Gayle you are the one perpetuating this myth so I am sure you have some examples. If you want to show some real proof here is your chance. While you are at it, grab all the instances of Limbaugh and Coulter quotes.

9 times out of 10 I am reading CNN (although I love Drudgereport the most) and that is where I see most of the articles. I am not embarrased to mention that I read the Clinton News Network simply because I like their sports section best. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r &lt;~~doubt Gayle will ante up, it is just easier for her to sling the mud

eg8r
03-19-2007, 09:08 AM
Hey Gayle, this has nothing to do with Fox...Plame was not covert like you would like us to believe. If so, then someone would be in jail for outing her by now.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:01 AM
So then I take it that your telling us that Bush's appointee, Director of the C.I.A., General Hayden, is lying to the Congress?

Ed, where do you get this stuff? The Special Prosecutor, would have to have lied, the Director of the C.I.A., would have to have lied, Plame's Boss, at the C.I.A. would have to have lied, Senator Shuman, would have to have lied. and Plame, herself would have to have lied, under oath, about her status, and about her foreign travel within the last five years from last thursday. The fact that there was not a conviction, was thoroughly addressed by the Special Prosecutor, who said that Scooter Libby, obstructed justice, by lying, hence, the case had a cloud of sand kicked up which protected the Vice President's office, and he also referred to a cloud over the Vice President's Office. Fitzgerald was a Republican appointee, he would have to have lied also. Now, if you're going to talk about honesty, do take each of these points, which I can prove, and address them, and provide the links to statements which prove them wrong, rather than accusing me of incorrect posting, or having a facade. You get on here and say things as though they are facts, and you are WRONG. Pove it, or don't accuse others of posting false information, when you can't prove otherwise. You're always calling everyone else's statements as strawman arguments, yet you get on here and post a ridiculous statement, that if the law cannot be enforced, due to obstruction of Justice, and no one can be convicted of the innitial crime, that proves that the law wasn't broken? Pahleeeze!

Gayle in Md....

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:07 AM
Don't try to change the subject, Ed, you have made the statement over and over, that Plame wasn't covert. PROVE IT! I may asume you only watch or listen to the mentioned right wing press, but your statements would lead anyone to think that to be so, since you never have your facts straight. Prove Plame wasn't covert, provide us the lilnks, or the references you are using, or stop with the name calling, and accusations that I am perpetrating untruths. Let's have your proof, before you accuse others of being wrong.

Gayole in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:21 AM
Mislead? Abortion is legal in this country, although I know you are not up on the laws.

At issue are the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals that Democrats say were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion. The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of President Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., cited memos Sunday showing that Sampson e-mailed the White House Counsel's office asking to discuss a "real problem with we have right now with Carol Lam," the U.S. attorney in San Diego. A day earlier, Feinstein said, Lam had notified the Justice Department of search warrants she obtained in investigating a defense contractor and former senior CIA official as part of the corruption case centered on former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif.

"All I'm saying, as the evidence comes in, as we look at the e-mails, there were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," Feinstein said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

www.Yahoonews.com (http://www.Yahoonews.com)

I recon, since you are such a stickler on the law, that you're all for Rove and Gonzales being subpeonaed?


Stop saying Valarie Plame isn't classified covert. That's a lie.

Gayle in Md.
Tired of Ed making false statements, and false accusations.

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, where do you get this stuff? <hr /></blockquote> I thought you knew, you have been telling everyone where for a while. You have not been correct but hey, when did you ever accept a fact when you were wrong. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

All I am saying is if everything was as you think then there would be a lot more heads rolling.

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Don't try to change the subject, Ed, you have made the statement over and over, that Plame wasn't covert. PROVE IT! <hr /></blockquote> I don't care if you believe me. LOL. The proof is in the fact that there is no one in jail for outing her. If everything was as make as you wish then many heads would have rolled by now.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:27 AM
What a total cop out! Talk about hypocrital! HA HA HA...Go find yourself a horn, Ed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I recon, since you are such a stickler on the law, that you're all for Rove and Gonzales being subpeonaed? <hr /></blockquote> Have at it. If there is enough evidence of wrong doing then go after them. What I am tired of are the lies that are spewed from the left here on the board about supposed "facts" and nothing is done. If you have proof go after them and make an example of them, otherwise, your supposed "proof" is nothing.

One glaring difference between you and I is that I beleive if something wrong was done then they should be dealt with accordingly. Not you, nope you will fight tooth and nail to still keep your guy out. I said good for Justice, throw Scooter in jail for lying he deserved it. What did you say about your guy and his lying, "oh, well his memory got better when he was faced with jail time." You will lie or do anything to get your guy off the hook and I believe that no matter who it is, if they did wrong then punish them.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:30 AM
Well, I'm so relieved to hear that Clinton was completely innocent according you your criterion. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:33 AM
Hey, can't prove your statement? What lies are spewed by the left? You're the one lyig, Ed. Prove to us how you KNOW, that Valarie Plame was not covert, please, before you go around calling others liars.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:39 AM
I backed down?

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:40 AM
Wow, do you even read what is typed, or do you just make it up in the fantasy mind of yours?

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What lies are spewed by the left? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, just about every time you open your mouth about politics. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to us how you KNOW <hr /></blockquote> I don't need to, the lack of those tried in court is proof enough. With all the amazing mounds of proof you guys have why is a guy that forgot what he said in the previous Q&amp;A the only one going to jail. You state quite emphatically that you KNOW Cheney is behind all this, but I am not asking you to prove it. I know you don't have anything. Proof is the last thing you are interested in. What you are most interested in is finding someone with something bad to say about the current administration and you will accept it as gospel.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes, you backed down. You have posted over and over that Valarie Plame wasn't covert. Please provide your evidence, or stop accusing others of lying when they write the truth. You never answer for your false statements. Here's your chance. Also, provide anything I've written here that you call a lie, be specific, or shut up with the name calling and posting of false information. Don't be a hypocrit, Ed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you backed down. <hr /></blockquote> I never stepped up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I just offered my opinion. You are the foolish one going around stating opinions as "FACT", not me.

You have nothing and neither does anyone else, the reason being, nothing was as bad as you would like us to believe.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
What you are most interested in is finding someone with something bad to say about the current administration and you will accept it as gospel.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

As Woodward said to Bernstein, "If you wake up in the morning, and there's snow on the ground, you can deduce that it snowed last night, eventhough you didn't see the snow coming down."

Ed, may I say, you have no right to call anyone a hypocrit. You have backed down, can't prove what you're saying, provide no links to proof. I am using the Republican appointee, Patrick Fitzgerald, as my source. I think it is obvious which of us is a partisan, not interested in truth, and only interested in his own distorted version of the truth.

This is why I don't usually answer your posts. You lie.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 10:54 AM
You stepped up when you got on here over and over and stated that Plame was not covert. Be specific, Ed. Give us the proof that Valarie Plame was not covert, or admit you've been lying about that for years now, or admit that now you know you were wrong all along. Or admit that all your lovely Republican Appointees, were lying, Fitzgerald, and C.I.A. Director, Hayden, just to name two.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, may I say, you have no right to call anyone a hypocrit. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I did not say you were at this point. Just because the feeling of conviction is not peachy does not mean you need to put words in my mouth about your activity. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif You know what you are and I usually don't need to spell it out.

[ QUOTE ]
You have backed down <hr /></blockquote> Once again (because you are too thick-headed to catch on the first time) I did not back down, since that would have required me to step up in the first place. I am the honest one here who is stating that I am posting my opinion. You are dishonest in stating you have provided "facts" which represent the truth. If the facts were as you believe then more people would be in jail. The reality is that either what you have provided is not true, or you don't have ALL the facts, both leads us to believe the situation is not anywhere near as bad as you wish it were. I am sorry Gayle but you have run out of gas. With all these "facts" that you claim, the best you can do is nab the guy who forgot what he said yesterday.

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 10:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Give us the proof that Valarie Plame was not covert, or admit you've been lying about that for years now, or admit that now you know you were wrong all along. <hr /></blockquote> I am admitting that I have been posting my opinion. She was not covert. If she was someone would be in jail for outing her.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:03 AM
Wrong, if she wasn't, she'd be in jail for lying to Congress about her status just last week. So would Fitzgerald, for lying in the process of a Federal Investigation. So would Hayden, for lying and providing false statements to the Congress. You can NEVER admit it when you are wrong. Please explain to us why you have LIED over and over to us about Plames Covert status.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:14 AM
Thick headed? Oh I see, name calling, along with hypocritical statements.

So, YOUR strawman argument, is that Libby, who was convicted of lying, wasn't really lying, but Plame, wasn't covert, because no one was convicted for outing her? BWA HA HA HA....No one was convicted, because Libby lied to cover up for Cheney, hence, the special prosecutor stated, the cloud hangs over Cheney.

The jurors said they knew it wasn't logical for someone to forget what he was monday, on tuesday, and then remember what he was told on thursday.

Please provide the references you used when you were on here for years before the trial was ever complete, saying that Plame wasn't covert, or admit that you're a hypocrit! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:18 AM
Gayle, she was not covert and her name was not a secret. I have not read Boortz in a while but I decided to see what he has written lately about this "supposed scandal"... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Boortz, march 16, 2007:</font><hr> VALERIE PLAME TO TESTIFY TODAY

Valerie Plame is going to testify in front of Congress today. Why? Because Democrats want to embarrass the administration some more. Since nobody was charged with leaking her name, there is no possible reason for her to testify. But Democrats control the Congress and it's time to pile on...so here we go. By getting Plame 007 to testify they get the media spotlight to continue their efforts to discredit the Bush Administration. We can't wonder what questions they'll be asking Mrs. Wilson?

I wonder if they'll ask her why nobody has been charged with leaking her name? Wasn't it because her name wasn't such a secret at all? Will they ask her why she really wasn't a covert operative, but instead was pushing pencils at Langley? Will they ask her why she posed for a photo spread in Vanity Fair? After all, wasn't she so concerned about her identity being exposed?

Will they ask her why her husband lied about his trip to Niger? Maybe not...but then again, there will be some Republicans on the committee. Let's see if they can actually make some noise. Because if they don't, Democrats and the media are going to get away with portraying Plame as a victim...something she's not.
<hr /></blockquote> The second paragraph is hilarious. Apparently I am not the only one that does not believe you and others who are misleading everyone about Plame. Is it proof about plame, nope, but is just another honest American that does not believe all the "supposed facts" by the witch hunt from the left.

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, YOUR strawman argument, is that Libby, who was convicted of lying, wasn't really lying, but Plame, wasn't covert, because no one was convicted for outing her? <hr /></blockquote> You are getting nuttier by the moment. I said Libby lied, that is all there is to it. He forgot what he said previously and he is going to pay for it. That is the best Fitzgerald could do with all the millions he has spent on this investigation. This has been a complete waste of money, if the woman was actually covert he would have put someone in jail for outing her. The reality is that nothing is as bad as you make it out to be.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Boortz? And you accuse me of not looking for truth, just for leftist lies to support my opinions? BWA HA HA HA...pahleeeze Ed, my sides are splitting!

Mind ex0plaining why you think these Republican appointees, Fitzgerald, and Hayden, have lied then about her status?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:27 AM
The reality is that you can't admit that you've been posting that she was not covert for years, and atleast two republican appointees, say that she is, but you won't accuse them of lying&gt; You can't have it both ways, Ed, now be a big boy, and admit that you've been lying about Valarie's status, or stop calling me a hypocrit! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

No one was convicted, because Libby fell on his sword, to protect Cheney. That is the truth, and everyone in this country now knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that is the truth, because that is what any reasonable, non-partisan American would deduce, unless, of course, they are too bull headed to acknowledge the facts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Boortz? And you accuse me of not looking for truth, just for leftist lies to support my opinions? BWA HA HA HA...pahleeeze Ed, my sides are splitting!
<hr /></blockquote> Are you saying Boortz is not left enough for you? Come on, he sticks up for the gays when they try and tell us they were born that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Mind ex0plaining why you think these Republican appointees, Fitzgerald, and Hayden, have lied then about her status? <hr /></blockquote> I let them say what they want, then sit back and look at the reality of what is happening. Apparently what they are saying is not holding up. They have wasted millions of dollars. Maybe the Republicans were just geniuses and chose the two bottom dwellers to run the witch hunt knowing they were not up to the task. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hey look, I am making up stuff just like Gayle and company, the difference is that I will be honest and state it is my opinion. Honesty never hurt anyone and it would have kept Libby out of jail.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:31 AM
Nuttier? Hey, that's my word, lay off. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Libby forgot? How does one tell a story to someone, about a subject that has his entire office in emergency mode, on tuesday, and then forget that he knew it on Thursday, and then remember it again on Friday? I'm sure you have a logical answer for this question, strawman... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The reality is that you can't admit that you've been posting that she was not covert for years, and atleast two republican appointees, say that she is, but you won't accuse them of lying&gt; You can't have it both ways, Ed, now be a big boy, and admit that you've been lying about Valarie's status, or stop calling me a hypocrit! <hr /></blockquote> I have looked pretty quickly through the posts on this thread to see where I called you that, I have not found one. You are who you are, and normally I try not to spell it out, it is probably embarassing for you to read it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
No one was convicted, because Libby fell on his sword, to protect Cheney. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, now that was funny. They already know he was lying, so why are they quitting, surely that is proof Cheney was guilty. Ridiculous, they have nothing and neither do you, the situation is not as bad as you wished it were. Pull your head out of the sand and enjoy the sunshine every once in a while.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Ed, I could probably pull up ten or more posts, where you stated that Valarie Plame was not covert, and not a single one included the words, or abbreviation, IMO.

Did you see, or read the statements made under oath last week by Valarie? Did you read my links in this thread. You're wrong, and you're not big enough to admit it. Also, no more calling me a hypocrit, and a liar, when you refuse to acknowledge that you've falsely stated, for years, and without indicating that it was opinion only, that Valarie Plame, was not covert. Now please explain, from where did you reference such a statement, since it has now been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she was covert when Cheney started his thugs out to discredit Joe Wilson for exposing Bush's lies about Yellow Cake, and Mushroom clouds, which a dozen or more intelligence operatives have testified, or written, were not considered to be true, and which they told the administration, were not reliable, yet were used in the State Of The Union Address, anyway. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:42 AM
Yes, I will take another page from your dishonest book...His memory was getting better the closer he came to jail time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:47 AM
Even the jurors were wondering why Rove, and Cheney, were not both under indictment. Prosecutors can know who did something, which fitzgerald obviously did, but be unable to prove it when there is obstruction of justice, hence, Libby was prosecuted for lying, and called the fall guy, by the jurors, who knew more about the case than you and I put together. A fall guy, is a guy who was guilty, and part of the crime, but lies to protect his accomplice. Who do you think his accomplice was? Who wrote Libby's directions of how to attack Wilson's credibility on the top of the news article of Wilson's op-ed?

You're wrong, you're lying, and you're guilty of making false statements on the irreverant CCB!!!

Off with your thick head!!!

gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, I could probably pull up ten or more posts, where you stated that Valarie Plame was not covert, and not a single one included the words, or abbreviation, IMO.
<hr /></blockquote> Well if you are looking for IMO, you will see it no where in any of my posts. I just don't use the phrase. Does that change reality, nope. It is what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you see, or read the statements made under oath last week by Valarie? <hr /></blockquote> UNDER OATH!!!! Are you kidding me. Didn't this trial if any prove being under oath does not always mean telling the truth. Unbelievable. I do understand why you would be very quick to believe every word from her mouth, could you imagine what would happen if she actually told the whole truth?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, no more calling me a hypocrit <hr /></blockquote> To be quite honest, I will call you whatever I please. There is a little issue with free speech and I can promise you, you are hardly the person to take that away from me. You like to try and take that away from everyone who does not believe the bull you push here everyday. However once again, I do not remember calling you that in this thread. Will you find the instance in this thread and link it? I think the conviction of truth is to much of a burden and you are cracking under the pressure.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 11:51 AM
I never write a story, without atleast three reliable sources. Please provide us with your reliable three sources which you referenced for four years, stating that Valarie Plame was not covert. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Or,

Stop calling other people names, just because they have the facts, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about! /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I never write a story, without atleast three reliable sources. Please provide us with your reliable three sources which you referenced for four years, stating that Valarie Plame was not covert.

Or,

Stop calling other people names, just because they have the facts, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about! <hr /></blockquote> Gayle I choose not to participate in your request, once again this is not backing down as I have yet to step up. I honestly believe you are misleading everyone on the board and I will state that in any fashion I please. I state it as I see it and you will learn to deal with it or move on. Other than that I cannot think of another way to help you with your dilemma.

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2007, 11:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even the jurors were wondering why Rove, and Cheney, were not both under indictment. <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like they were just as skeptical as I am. Seems if all the "proof" was so solid Cheney and company would have been called. Fitzgerald knew what he was doing and he knew he did not have anything and the proof was not rock solid so he cut loose as soon as possible. His idea was to get anyone as small as it might be so that he would not be a total waste of taxpayer money. You just cannot handle the truth of the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong, you're lying, and you're guilty of making false statements on the irreverant CCB!!!

Off with your thick head!!! <hr /></blockquote> Nice, our local facist is now deciding who gets to live. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 12:09 PM
Valarie was asked, during the hearing last week, if she had traveled outside the United States, on secret mission, for the C.I.A., under cover, "Within 5 years of today, Ms. Plame?"God help him if George Bush is ever put under oath, cheney, or Rove, Rumsfeld or Rice!

People are demanding impeachment! Not for a little roll in the hay, but for war crimes. Guess you don't notice that kind os silly stuff. There is a movement, and it's growing, fast. Regardless of whether we should stay, or leave Iraq, one thing is for sure, we have a president, who id a liar, a cheat, and a thief, and to top that off, he's incompetent.

"The worst president in the history of this country"
never thought Donald Trump would be quoting Wolfie and I!
Her Answer, was an unequivical "YES, that's right."

I don't know how you can justify that over three thousand of our people have died in this war, and still justify, that it was fine for Dick Cheney to out a WMD, covert operative, during war time, which put not only her life, but the lives of many others at risk, as she testified under oath, and her status being documented by the director of the C.I.A., and still, you refuse to acknowledge the truth. Say what you wish, but anyone who can't see you for what you are after this, is part of the rest of the nutty 29 to 30% of the people in this country who deny global warming, intrude on people's personal, private lives, and denounce all those who expose the many lies of this illegal administration, and their thuggish, criminal, low down tactics, like torture, and breaking the FISA laws, and breaking our Geneva convention agreements, and spying, illegally on Americans, and suspending habeas Corpus, and wasing 70 million dollars on foreplay, between consenting adults, while they're doing the same damn thing in their own life, reference Newt, the great white hope of moral example.



Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-19-2007, 12:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
don't know how you can justify that over three thousand of our people have died in this war, and still justify, that it was fine for Dick Cheney to out a WMD, covert operative, during war time, <hr /></blockquote> He didn't, and I did not justify it one way or the other. You have a problem with putting words in people's mouths. If you think he did, prosecute him. Fitzgerald had nothing to go on, but I bet he did not consult you and all your books. Dumb man, he had all your knowledge his disposal, all he had to do was call.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 01:02 PM
You justify it, by denying it. The C.I.A., requested the investigation, Ed, and they don't do that when the victim is "Just a Secretary" as you stated.

You're a hopeless case, and a good example of how and why this country is now at great risk, and unprotected ...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Against All Enemies, Foreign And Domestic.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Bobbyrx
03-19-2007, 02:12 PM
Can't recall Clinton doing this, can you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> How about this. Janet Reno simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. She gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
At the time
Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

</font color>

Gayle in MD
03-19-2007, 02:50 PM
That is not what this is about. Bush did that too, when he took office. Starting over with all new AG's isn't what this discussion is about. Perhaps, you should read the thread, before you start to dig into Clinton's administration, trying to make your partisan point. These AG's testified they were intimidated by this administration, called and harassed, by atleast two Republican Senators. Accused of incompetence, in spite of excellent evaluations, slandered by Gonzales, in his statements earlier to the Senate, when he accused them of poor performance. They stated, under oath, that they had been called by two Republicans, and pressured to speed up investigation on a Democrat, before the election, and that they were being targeted by Gonzales, for convictions of Republicans. It is highly inappropriate for our Representatives to contact them about any pending legal matter, and illegal. You didn't even read the thread, before you jumped in here with information not even related to this transgression. Jeeze, and you guys accuse me of partisanship? Let's not compare apples to oranges...the whole story, when one knows it, is very condemning, and so say both Republicans, and Democrats, who are outraged over such grossly illegal activity, which amounts to Obstruction of Justice.

These charges have also been backed up by e-mails, involving Rove, among others. No wonder he's expected to refuse to testify.

Bush made a clean sweep, just like Clinton, but to do so, after an election, after pressuring for convictions on the opposing party, is an entirely different matter, that your paste on Clinton. He didn't target Attorney's General, fire them mid way through his tenure, have his Attorney General go out and accuse them of incompetence, and then said Attorney General goes in and lies under oath.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
03-19-2007, 03:15 PM
You do 2 pages of Bush bashing on a post about PETA and global warming and then want ME to read the thread. Give me a break...Clinton fired all 93 when he came into office to make sure he got the one's who might be after him, his wife or his political cronies. The Republican presidents did the same thing with their firings. Bush can fire any of these guys anytime he wants for any reason..they were just stupid enough to try to cover something up that they didn't have to cover up. All presidents hire A.G.'s who are out to get the other party if they can...it's been going on forever. I think Gonzalez should resign also, because he was stupid enough to lie about something he didn't have to lie about.

Qtec
03-19-2007, 08:01 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/18/hume-plame-oath/

Plame testified that she never suggested her husband for the Niger trip. “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved — I didn’t have the authority,” she said.

Hume’s false claim originated from a statement attached to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was released in 2004. In an addendum to that report, Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Christopher Bond (R-MO), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote definitively, “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.” The right-wing, including columnist Bob Novak, have taken the statement written by three Republican senators and falsely attributed it as the “unanimous” conclusion of the Senate report.

The three conservative senators based their claim on testimony by a CIA employee who appeared before the Senate Intel Committee. Plame revealed on Friday that the CIA employee later apologized to her “with tears in his eyes” because he said “his words had been twisted and distorted” by the senators. And in fact, the unnamed employee drafted a memo, asking that he be re-interviewed by the Senate to correct the record. His attempts to set the record straight were denied. On Friday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked to retrieve a copy of that memo:

REP. VAN HOLLEN: So, just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, if I could — so, there was a memo written by the [Counterproliferation Division] officer, upon whose alleged testimony the Senate wrote its report that contradicts the conclusions –

MS. PLAME WILSON: Absolutely.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: — contradicts the conclusions from that report.

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, sir.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this committee should ask for that memo. And it bears directly on the credibility of the Senate report on this very, very important issue, which they’ve attempted to use to discredit Ambassador Wilson’s mission.

REP. WAXMAN: I think the gentleman makes an excellent point, and we will insist on getting that memo.



Digg It!

Transcript:

HUME: And the other thing that needs to be noted here is when she says that she had nothing to do with getting her husband the trip, that flies in the face of the evidence adduced by the Senate Intelligence Committee whose findings were released not on a partisan basis — the bipartisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was that she very much did have something to do with it, that she recommended him and that she put it in a memo.

WALLACE: So she was lying under oath?

HUME: I think that there is reason to question her credibility on that point.

Filed under: Media, Ethics

VIDEO: Valerie Plame Confirms Her Covert Status Prior To Novak Leak
This morning, in her testimony under oath before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Valerie Plame Wilson asserted that she was in fact a covert officer at the time that columnist Robert Novak revealed her employment at the CIA. “In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified,” Plame sad in her opening testimony.

She added, “While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.”



Novak should be in jail. He is slime.
Ed, If you could just for one second consider the viewpoint from the other side!?
Wilson was in Iran with his wife, who we know NOW was working UNDERCOVER for the people of the USA.
Now the Iranians know it as well. Anyone who knew her or was a friend is now under suspicion or dead.
The sad part is that this was a momment of desperation when they , GW and Co, only considered their own welfare.
Worms with no sense of honour or decency I say.

The investigation was into whether a crime had been comitted - because according to the Law INTENT has to be proven], eg, a very difficult task for a Prosecuter when many sources are leakng the name .

She can never again be a covert CIA agent, you can at least admit that can't you?


Q ....Plame was on oath. Do you have any opposing testimony also on oath? Should be pretty easy to catch her now! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
03-20-2007, 03:11 AM
Bull...out of over 460 A.G.'s, only two, have ever been fired mid term, and both had issues involving unprofessional, or illegal activity. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Hence, when Gonzales stated they were fired for poor performance, he slandered them, and smudged their reputations, unfairly, since they had all recieved glowing positive marks. Obviously, poor performance in this administration, means not breaking the law on behalf of George Bush, and his party's agenda.

There is evidence of political interference into the prosecution of our laws involved here. This is completely different than a president making a clean sweep upon taking office. The president does not have the right to fire AG's for not focussing on going after Democrats, or for doing their jobs by prosecuting law breaking republicans, nor does he have the right to use his thug attorney general, to do that for him, and his party.

Gayle in Md.
The E-Mails will tell the story. Gonzales is gone, and Rove remains under the grey cloud with Cheney, if not worse.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19mar19,0,2790807.story?track=ntothtml

Gayle in MD
03-20-2007, 05:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
argumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguementargumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguement
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
from Steve....

eg8r
03-20-2007, 06:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q ....Plame was on oath. Do you have any opposing testimony also on oath? Should be pretty easy to catch her now! <hr /></blockquote> Who needs to catch her. The non-issue is over an the investigation turned up nothing. That is what happens when the left conjures up something to make it a big issue when there really is no issue at all.

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2007, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You justify it, by denying it. The C.I.A., requested the investigation, Ed, and they don't do that when the victim is "Just a Secretary" as you stated.
<hr /></blockquote> They do it to appease the left (kind of like giving a kid a cookie so he/she will quit whining). I agree, that would be a giant waste of money, but that is synonymous with the Government. It was a non-issue and Libby lied for nothing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-20-2007, 07:55 AM
Nice to know and understand your values, Ed, and they don't surprise me at all. The outing of a covert operative, with other agents still abroad, and in danger, in order to discredit her husband, who exposed lies told by the President Of The United States, Which sent the country to war. And YOU call ME, partisan, and a liar.

BWA HA HA HA...typical Ed... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
BTW, your OPINION, is not reality. The facts prove you wrong. Also, your arguments, should prohibit you from usaing the term, strawman argument, ever again, but then, given that you mistakenly believe that anytime a prosecutor cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that someone broke the law, that's proof that no law was broken...I doubt you would ever let any factual information get in the way of your F.ed up thinking processes.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
03-20-2007, 10:53 AM
quote Gayle
The president does not have the right to fire AG's for not focussing on going after Democrats, or for doing their jobs by prosecuting law breaking republicans, nor does he have the right to use his thug attorney general, to do that for him, and his party.

<font color="blue"> He can fire them for any reason he wants to when he wants to.....but they can't lie about it under oath, which is why they are stupid</font color>

Gayle in MD
03-20-2007, 02:09 PM
Sorry, you're wrong about that. No president can systematically obstruct justice. No presdent can use intimidation, or pressure, to influence our legal processes. The Attorney General, represents all of us, as he protects the laws of our country. He does not represent the president, nor do federal prosecutors. Nor does the president of the United States, have the right to fire federal prosecutors, for political purposes, direct the courts regarding Federal Court cases, or try to influence, or tamper, with the prosecution of law breakers in his party, for example, by firing Attorney's General, for prosecuting the law, when they have uncovered, through due course, illegal activities.

He can fire them for incompetence, at any time, or replace them all, and put in all new ones, but neither the President, or the Attorney General, are above the law.

What they was, single out certain Attorney's General, and fire them, for the proper performance of their duties, the legal, due, process of law, because they didn['t want Republicans to be prosecuted. That is a felony.

Additionally, they tried to cover up their illegal actions, by using slander against those they fired, as a mock justification for the firings.

No President, has ever fired Attorney's General in this manner. Only two, have ever been fired, mid-term, and they were fired because they were corrupt.

Serving at the pleasure of the President, in this case, does not mean that the president, trumps our laws. No one, is above the law.

pooltchr
03-20-2007, 06:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> you mistakenly believe that anytime a prosecutor cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that someone broke the law, that's proof that no law was broken...
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Last time I checked, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country. So Ed's argument is actually quite valid. Until someone is found guilty, they are considered to be innocent. Or is the liberal stand that Republicans are exempt from this consideration?
Steve

Qtec
03-20-2007, 08:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country. <hr /></blockquote>

Look again. Jose Padilla spent 3.5 years in solitary, [accused of a crime he was never charged with!] and he is a US citizen. The Govt presumed him to be quilty, not innocent , don't you think?

Q

Qtec
03-20-2007, 08:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Q ....Plame was on oath. Do you have any opposing testimony also on oath? Should be pretty easy to catch her now! <hr /></blockquote> Who needs to catch her. The non-issue is over an the investigation turned up nothing. <font color="blue"> Just wondering eg8r, what planet are you on? </font color> That is what happens when the left conjures up something to make it a big issue when there really is no issue at all.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Did you read MY POST? or did you click on the DrudgeReport by mistake?
The investigation was blocked by Libby.
Plame WAS covert.
She was outed by the very people who were supposed to be protecting her.
Iran could kidnap her, take her back to Iran, waterboard her till she tells them all she knows and then put her on trial before a military court as a terrorist!
The US under this admin has already done the same thing, ie kidnapped people from Italy,Germany and Greece[ and many other countries]and put them in Gitmo or sent them to be tortured overseas.

If you think its ok for the US govt to sacrifice its own agents to save their own skin there must be something wrong with you.

Q

Sid_Vicious
03-20-2007, 09:43 PM
"but then, given that you mistakenly believe that anytime a prosecutor cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that someone broke the law, that's proof that no law was broken...I doubt you would ever let any factual information get in the way of your F.ed up thinking processes."

Only an idiot would now NOT just shut up, or, he'd be man enough, a man created by his God, Whom endowed all of us with right and wrong morals, to admit and apologize about his own betrayal of what the Teachings meant. Martin

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 06:23 AM
So, does that mean you think O.J. is innocent?

Have you read the e-mails involved in this matter?

Did you watch Gonazles testify about a month ago regarding this matter?

Oh, and BTW...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Or is the liberal stand that Republicans are exempt from this consideration?

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Steve wrote...
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
argumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguementargumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguement
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

In a court of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. Having seen his testimony, and then watched the testimony of those Federal AG's, IMO, Gonzales, Rove and Bush are guilty of abuse of power, and obstruction of Justice.

Also, it may interest you to know, that Republican Representatives are just as angry over this illegal activity, as Democrats, and in fact, one Republican has stated that Gonzales lied when he stated to the Committee, that these "New" AG's, would go up for confirmation before the Representatives. Many here, don't seem to understand that part of this matter involves the administration, seeking to by-pass the Congressional oversight process of confirmation of AG's. As an American who watches every investigation, live, I would also recommend that you look into what the F.B.I. has been up to in their illegal spying, and the use of NSL's, to circumvent court oversight of any kind.

Maybe you want to live in a country that tortures people, puts them away in secret prisons, with no right to Habeas Corpus, spies, behind the scenes, on Innocent Americans, with no court oversight, and allows any political party which happens to be in power, to dictate to our law enforcement, who they may or may not investigate for breaking the law, Steve, but trust me when I say, most of us do not.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-21-2007, 08:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you read MY POST? <hr /></blockquote> If you just copy pasted then 9/10 I did not read it. I am not interested in your ability to find someone's work that is most closely aligned with the viewpoint you are trying to push.

The non-issue is over and nothing was found. The best they could do is catch someone who was forgetful about a previous statement. Too bad Libby's memory did not return the closer he got to jail, otherwise Gayle would have fought free him.

eg8r

eg8r
03-21-2007, 08:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country. So Ed's argument is actually quite valid. Until someone is found guilty, they are considered to be innocent. Or is the liberal stand that Republicans are exempt from this consideration? <hr /></blockquote> Finally someone with some common sense has stepped forward. These guys continue to state that W is removing their freedoms, destroying the Constitution, blah blah blah, but they are quick to announce guilt even though no one was found guilty in a court of law. The left on this board don't care about the court of law, they would rather just start tossing everyone in jail if they don't believe the BS that Gayle regurgitates left and right.

eg8r

eg8r
03-21-2007, 08:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, does that mean you think O.J. is innocent? <hr /></blockquote> I don't know, ask the parents whom are sticking him for millions? I believe their case found OJ guilty.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read the e-mails involved in this matter?
<hr /></blockquote> Do you understand the laws of justice?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it may interest you to know, that Republican Representatives are just as angry over this illegal activity, as Democrats, and in fact, one Republican has stated that Gonzales lied when he stated to the Committee <hr /></blockquote> Another non-issue brought up by the non-value added left.

eg8r

eg8r
03-21-2007, 08:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Govt presumed him to be quilty, not innocent , don't you think? <hr /></blockquote> I think they just decided to hold on to him until they got around to having their chat with him.

eg8r

Qtec
03-21-2007, 11:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you just copy pasted then 9/10 I did not read it. I am not interested in your ability to find someone's work that is most closely aligned with the viewpoint you are trying to push.
<hr /></blockquote>

LOL. Ed, I am talking about the words from the person in question, you know, Valerie Plame, JW's wife, the CIA agent who was outed by the Admin which triggered an investigation!
Not ' someone's ' words!?

Maybe if you actually READ posts before you answer them you won't look like such a prat! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif



Q????????????

Qtec
03-21-2007, 11:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The Govt presumed him to be quilty, not innocent , don't you think? <hr /></blockquote> I think they just decided to hold on to him until they got around to having their chat with him.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I agree! Any Muslim who is even suspected of having anything to do with terrorism or even anyone know to be cavorting with terrorists should lose their protection as a USA citizen, from the Govt, as dictated by the US Constitution???????????????????!!!!!!!!!

Its the American way/ civilised way that demands that anyone accused of a crime should have his day in court.
Whays GW,s record on this basic human right?

Q

pooltchr
03-21-2007, 06:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The Govt presumed him to be quilty, not innocent , don't you think? <hr /></blockquote> I think they just decided to hold on to him until they got around to having their chat with him.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I agree! Any Muslim who is even suspected of having anything to do with terrorism or even anyone know to be cavorting with terrorists should lose their protection as a USA citizen, from the Govt, as dictated by the US Constitution???????????????????!!!!!!!!!

Its the American way/ civilised way that demands that anyone accused of a crime should have his day in court.
Whays GW,s record on this basic human right?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q,
What you are failing to take into consideration is just how civilized our enemy is.
Heard on the news today. A vehicle going through a checkpoint in Iraq with two adult males in the front, and two CHILDREN in the back. The US Military cleared it through seeing two children in the back. The vehicle proceeded, then stopped. The adults got out of the car and ran away. With the children still in the car, the adults set off the bomb in the car.
In our culture, parents would most likely give their own lives to protect their children. These radicals have no problem killing their own children for their cause. The military reports an increase in Iraq of children being used as living bombs.
You (and some others on this board) can think what you want. Our enemy will do ANYTHING to fight our country. When you and your liberal counterparts finally figure that out, you will understand why I believe your sympathy for these terrorists is quite misplaced. They play our values against us. They see us as weak. And they are determined to end our culture. We can fight on their terms, or we can be politically correct. One way we can win, the other way, we lose.
It's an ugly war we are in. We can either fight it, or roll over and let them have their way.
I know which way I choose.
If some stinking terrorist sat in a cell in Cuba for a while, at least he wasn't ending some innocent person's life.
War is Hell.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 03:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
When you and your liberal counterparts finally figure that out, you will understand why I believe your sympathy for these terrorists is quite misplaced.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

This is really a disgusting comment. And
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

argumentative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguementative, and not really adding anything to the discussion. Only posted to evoke a return that can elevate to a full blown arguement

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Tell me, Steve, what is your grand plan for winning the Civil War in Iraq. The Iraqis we are imbedded with, are calling ahead to their counterparts, giving them advice on how to kill our troops. Almost every post you write, begins with, "You fail to understand" Do tell us what you are doing for our troops. Tell us about the vast amount of study you have done to understand what is going on in Iraq. Give us the titles of the books you have read. Tell us what a fine job Rumsfeld did, and how honest George Bush is, and what a grand new plan he has for winning this war.

Our people are being slaughtered, for nothing. There are terrorist all over the world, including here, and we have no business bogged down in an Iraqi Civil War, which cannot be won militarily.


If we allow Bush and Cheney to destroy our rights, our Constitution, our credibililty in the world, and continue to break down our Army, and our Economy, fighting in a Civil War, for people who hate us, will the terrorists be happy?

We've spent 400 billion on reconstruction in Iraq, and it's in shamples. Where did all that money go? It wasn't spent re-building Iraq, that's for sure. 400 Billion!!! who benefitted? Did our oil prices go down? Are the Iraqis thankful for our help? No, they want to kill our troops, that's a fact. They are now blowing up our supply planes. This is the fourth or fifth time Bush has tried to save his legacy, with the blood of our troops, and the violence has escalated every single time. Do explain, how, with an already broken Army, the Army's words, increasing violence, Iran and Saudi Arabia sending in billions behind the scene to the insurgents, we will win a Civil War, between Iraqis, where we are the enemy of all parties?

You frame every response "You fail to understand"...or, "Once again, you fail to understand"...Please, do us a favor, and explain to us how giving up our Constitution, our checks and balances, torturing people, eating up the lies that this administration has told, over and over, and destroying our credibility around the world, as we embolden the terrorist, and the ideology of terrorism, is a sign of protecting terrorists?

Sixteen, (16) of our own National Security Agencies, have reported these facts. Are they all lying? Please, having told us these many years how we all fail to understand, where you get your information from, and how the rest of us are so ignorant about what's happening in the world.




Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
03-22-2007, 06:39 AM
Eg8r please the families haven't got dime one yet.####

pooltchr
03-22-2007, 06:33 PM
Gayle,
When you can return to civil posts that don't insult others, eliminate your name calling, and give up your cute little trick of cutting and pasting the comment that was posted by me concerning one of your posts that exists for no reason other than to evoke a response from another poster, I will consider answering your questions.
As long as you continue the style of posting you have taken to an all-time low, you can rant and rave all you want, but don't look for answers to questions from me.

Bring the conversation to an adult level, and we can once again carry on a civil discussion. Keep acting like a spoiled brat, and I will do the same thing I do when training my dog. When she misbehaves, I ignore her. She is learning that barking doesn't get what she wants.

Steve

Qtec
03-23-2007, 12:02 PM
WE CANNOT SACRIFICE OUR MOST BASIC PRINCIPALS AND GIVE UP OUR LONG FOUGHT FOR FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF FEAR OF TERRORISTS!

The war is not a military one- its a war for hearts and minds. The difference between us and the terrorists is the rule of law and human rights for ALL- or at least it used to be!
Q

Qtec
03-23-2007, 12:14 PM
At least gail's posts have content. eg8r's last post to me was a repitition of the standard 'shoot the messenger'type. he has no argument so he resorts to abuse.
ie,
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really care about what you think.......

It should come as no surprise that every time you bring them up no one is listening.

In the end though no one really cares what you come up with

<hr /></blockquote>

No argument or debate, just waffle. Ed is too smart to have been taken in by the WH propoganda machine. LOL

Q

eg8r
03-23-2007, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
At least gail's posts have content. eg8r's last post to me was a repitition of the standard 'shoot the messenger'type. he has no argument so he resorts to abuse. <hr /></blockquote> If the content is full of BS regurgitations we have already waded through (most are a few years old) what is the point? Maybe you just like to keep reading it, the more you read it maybe the more you will believe it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-23-2007, 07:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: pooltchr
Subject: Re: Ed, prove he has no credibility! Just insults

Gayle,
When you can return to civil posts that don't insult others, eliminate your name calling, A good description of every post you write to me and give up your cute little trick of cutting and pasting the comment that was posted by me concerning one of your posts that exists for no reason other than to evoke a response from another poster, Am attempt to highlight you're own insulting posting style I will consider answering your questions. that would be a novelty
As long as you continue the style of posting you have taken to an all-time low, you can rant and rave all you want, but don't look for answers to questions from me. HA ha ha...so I take it, ONCE AGAIN, you don't have any reasonable answers? Doesn't surprise me.

Bring the conversation to an adult level, and we can once again carry on a civil discussion. Keep acting like a spoiled brat, and I will do the same thing I do when training my dog. When she misbehaves, I ignore her. She is learning that barking doesn't get what she wants.
Frankly, I don't want anything from you, although, it would be nice not to have to put up with YOUR, continuous insults.
Steve


<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
03-24-2007, 06:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Poster: pooltchr
Subject: Re: Ed, prove he has no credibility! Just insults

Gayle,
When you can return to civil posts that don't insult others, eliminate your name calling, A good description of every post you write to me and give up your cute little trick of cutting and pasting the comment that was posted by me concerning one of your posts that exists for no reason other than to evoke a response from another poster, Am attempt to highlight you're own insulting posting style I will consider answering your questions. that would be a novelty
As long as you continue the style of posting you have taken to an all-time low, you can rant and rave all you want, but don't look for answers to questions from me. HA ha ha...so I take it, ONCE AGAIN, you don't have any reasonable answers? Doesn't surprise me.

Bring the conversation to an adult level, and we can once again carry on a civil discussion. Keep acting like a spoiled brat, and I will do the same thing I do when training my dog. When she misbehaves, I ignore her. She is learning that barking doesn't get what she wants.
Frankly, I don't want anything from you, although, it would be nice not to have to put up with YOUR, continuous insults.
Steve


<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Whatever you say, Gayle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-24-2007, 07:07 AM
Thanks, I hope I have your word on that. I much prefer discussions on the subject of the posts, and think launching personal attacks, a waste of time. Beginning every single post, to one person in particular, with words like, "Once again you fail to understand" does not promote good debate, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-24-2007, 08:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thanks, I hope I have your word on that. I much prefer discussions on the subject of the posts, and think launching personal attacks, a waste of time. Beginning every single post, to one person in particular, with words like, "Once again you fail to understand" does not promote good debate, IMO.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Whatever you say, Gayle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Steve