PDA

View Full Version : Bi Partisan Senate Vote Strips Bush Power



Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 12:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate voted 94-2 Tuesday to strip U.S. President George Bush of the power to bypass the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys.

Only two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Christopher Bond of Missouri, opposed the measure, The New York Times reported. The overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate suggests that the bill is likely to pass the U.S. House of Representatives by a veto-proof margin.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Overwhelming_vote_on_US_attorneys/20070320-063310-6908r/

Bravo! Bi-Partisanship does sometimes exist, when the Law of our Land, and the Constitution is threatened. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-21-2007, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bravo! Bi-Partisanship does sometimes exist, when the Law of our Land, and the Constitution is threatened. <hr /></blockquote> You are the only one that believes it did not.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-21-2007, 01:16 PM
Really Ed, you have poplled the American People, and determined for yourself, that I am the only American who thinks that bi-partisanship was scarce under the Republican Majority?

Whatever you say, Ed... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
03-21-2007, 06:31 PM
Ed,
Have you noticed the latest little jabs?
Her only response it "whatever you say, Ed" which sounds exactly like my daughter when she was a young teenager!

With mine, she just cuts and pastes my comment about her posting just to be argumentative.

It's a sure sign she really has no clue at all.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-21-2007, 10:42 PM
Have you noticed that neither one of you two, can discuss the issues that Gayle brings up, without adding in a bunch of slurs and insults.
Take this thread for example...I don't think there has been much partisan voting under this regime. Ed dismisses Gayle's comments with a glib remark...and then you.....is it any wonder that she has given up trying to have a meaningfull discussion....
At least with a real Ass, (donkey), you can get it's attention by hitting it with a stick....
as a disinterested, neutral observer....I believe most of the arguments are started by one, or both of you. Actually they ain't much as arguments go....one side has all the facts, and the other is "shooting blanks"
It's no wonder you have to resort to name calling....
I don't know who's writing your material, but you're overpaying for it.....
(just trying to be helpful) /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 02:30 AM
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

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

eg8r
03-22-2007, 06:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed the latest little jabs?
Her only response it "whatever you say, Ed" which sounds exactly like my daughter when she was a young teenager! <hr /></blockquote> Yes I have noticed. Thank goodness my daughter is not saying it yet. Gayle has nothing new right now so she is trying something else. She is waiting for the next big non-issue to hit the news. Lord knows Plame was a non-issue and so is the firings of late.

I sure wish the creator of that Hillary/Apple 1984 commercial would come forth. That was classic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2007, 06:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
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 <hr /></blockquote> Another perfect example of Gayle. Now we have the lunatic Sunsara as a great example and this quote from Steve about Gayle. The one thing that I find hilarious is the inability to correctly copy and paste. I personally hope the "arguementargumentative" sticks around. I chuckle each time I see it.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2007, 07:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed that neither one of you two, can discuss the issues that Gayle brings up, <hr /></blockquote> Oh Father wolfie, haven't you noticed that Gayle does not bring up issues. She brings up things the left has made up, these issues (at least the latest things) are just overblown items in a rather dull period. Outside of the latest firings non-issue that Gayle has brought up every thing else is just a nasty taste in your mouth regurgitation of the exaggerated lies from the left that we have been reading about for year.

Did you read her latest gem? She is not referring to what is happening in Iraq as a war anymore. It is a battle. LOL, I about fell out of my chair cracking up when I saw that post. Completely ridiculous and completely lacking in common sense. I could actually picture Sunsara making the same ridiculous claim. I was waiting for Gayle to begin blaming the Bush adminstration for crushing babies testicles. She was really on a roll.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2007, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Really Ed, you have poplled the American People, and determined for yourself, that I am the only American who thinks that bi-partisanship was scarce under the Republican Majority? <hr /></blockquote> No need for a poll, only the left lives by polls.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2007, 07:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I sure wish the creator of that Hillary/Apple 1984 commercial would come forth. That was classic.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I made this post too soon... The creator comes from the Obama camp! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2971514&amp;page=1) Actually Obama appears to have been telling to truth in stating he had nothing to do with the video. The guy that did it was "Phil de Vellis, until Wednesday an employee of the company that handles Obama's Web site". Oddly enough, he outed himself on the Huffington Post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The poor creative sap has been canned.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 07:15 AM
Speaking of being canned, Ed, what are they paying you these days to spend every morning on line insulting people?

Just thought I'd ask, since you have such issues about what people are paid, (Minimum wage) and what they're worth.

BTW, there was no declaration of War, only a resolution to use force, and even that had limitations, which have all been ignored by the administration, and broken.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-22-2007, 09:47 AM
Speaking of being canned, Ed, what are they paying you these days to spend every morning on line insulting people?
Ed's "shadow job" is with the Republican Ministry of Information. They pay him and others to visit internet sites, and prop up this admin, no matter how blatent the lies it takes. They also try to undermine the many truths in articles reprinted here, that try to expose this criminal conspiracy.
Ed comes across though as an open-minded liberal, when compared to two of the newest disinformation posters.
We'll never know just how deep, the right has imbedded it's agents.....(be wary of any co-worker spouting the "company" line)...one report has them planting fully indoctrinated party members as kindergarden teachers in affluent schools.

eg8r
03-22-2007, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of being canned, Ed, what are they paying you these days to spend every morning on line insulting people?
<hr /></blockquote> They pay me a fair wage when I am working. When I am surfing the net I am not working thus the time is not charged.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, there was no declaration of War, only a resolution to use force, and even that had limitations, which have all been ignored by the administration, and broken. <hr /></blockquote> We are in a war in Iraq. It cannot not be stating any easier than that.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-22-2007, 10:16 AM
GWB does not want to have his staff answer questions under subpeona, about the firings,or even the original plans to fire them all and replace them with party hacks and loyalists ...talk about buying justice, or undermining the federal legal system.....this was an attempt to control the Justice Dept. from the White House...a serious affront to the seperation of powers, and the Constitution, ....that "piece of paper" as he calls it.
Offers instead to have them answer under the "good faith" and "scout's honor" terms.
"it's not like we're investigating a BJ"
While this admin has Guiness rewriting it's corruption records, on a weekly basis......if you include the Governerships of California and Florida, you can see how far the once proud party of Lincoln has fallen.
Arnie studied "women as sex objects" and the "history of steroids" as his formal training......Jeb should be joining Jeff Skilling at the federal "extended stay hotel"
Those were the best candidates they could come up with?
And they beat the Dems? .....must be their propaganda machines, and esoteric vote-counting methods that did it....

Qtec
03-22-2007, 10:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gayle has nothing new right now so she is trying something else. She is waiting for the next big non-issue to hit the news. Lord knows Plame was a non-issue and so is the firings of late.
<hr /></blockquote>
The VP outs a CIA covert WMD specialist to save his own a$$.
The Govt-possibly with the knowledge of the Pres- fires attorneys just because they won't do their bidding. ie GW now wants to decide who is prosecuted and who isn't.
Spying on US citizens.
Arrest without charge.
Torture.
Lack of WMDs in Iraq.
etc, etc are all non-issuses with you.
If they leaned on prosecutors, they must also have leaned on CIA analyists to provide them with the info they wanted.
An MO has been established! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Q ..... web page (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=2&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin)

eg8r
03-22-2007, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Arnie studied "women as sex objects" and the "history of steroids" as his formal training......Jeb should be joining Jeff Skilling at the federal "extended stay hotel"
Those were the best candidates they could come up with?
And they beat the Dems? .....must be their propaganda machines, and esoteric vote-counting methods that did it.... <hr /></blockquote> Maybe it is because the Dem offerings were even worse. Come on the best the Left had to offer in California was a porn star and Huffy. Who couldn't beat them. I don't really remember who tried to topple Jeb, but that was never going to happen.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2007, 10:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The VP outs a CIA covert WMD specialist to save his own a$$.
<hr /></blockquote> Prove it and put him in jail. I don't really care about what you think, if it was true he would be in jail.

[ QUOTE ]
The Govt-possibly with the knowledge of the Pres- fires attorneys just because they won't do their bidding. ie GW now wants to decide who is prosecuted and who isn't.
<hr /></blockquote> Those attorneys can be fired at any time. This is more of a non-issue than Plame being covert.

[ QUOTE ]
Spying on US citizens.
Arrest without charge.
Torture.
Lack of WMDs in Iraq.
etc, etc are all non-issuses with you.
<hr /></blockquote> Non-issues and we have been hearing them from you for years. It should come as no surprise that every time you bring them up no one is listening.

[ QUOTE ]
If they leaned on prosecutors, they must also have leaned on CIA analyists to provide them with the info they wanted.
<hr /></blockquote> You can live in a fantasy land all you want and come up with whatever conspiracy theories you want. In the end though no one really cares what you come up with.

[ QUOTE ]
An MO has been established! <hr /></blockquote> Run with it wannabe-holmes.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-22-2007, 11:23 AM
Corruption has been declared a non issues by Republicans over the last six years. It' kind of like um, hunger, not hunger any more, it's food challenged, winning means losing, spying without a court order, is now protecting Americans, torture is the new past time of the Bush/Cheney horror show, and a cover up is an extraordinary lever of disclosure!!!! and nobody can remember anything that their "Aides" tell them anyway, and their aids can't remember what people tell them, ro what they tell other people, so why the hell do they have to stop them from taking an oath?

All I can say is, we should put these children around here to bed, so we can talk, without being drowned out with all their who struck Monika! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Love, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Gayle...jeeze,

pooltchr
03-22-2007, 06:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> All I can say is, we should put these children around here to bed, so we can talk, Love, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Gayle...jeeze, <hr /></blockquote>
I agree! Nighty-night, Gayle. Sweet Dreams!
Steve

DickLeonard
03-23-2007, 07:11 AM
Wolfdancer I thought Ed worked for the Dept of Mis- Information.####

Bobbyrx
03-23-2007, 07:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The VP outs a CIA covert WMD specialist to save his own a$$.
<font color="blue">How does outting a CIA covert WMD specialist same his a$$ ?? How does it discredit Wilson?? </font color>

Qtec
03-23-2007, 07:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Friday's filing includes a photocopy of the article with Cheney's notes written in the margins. According to the photocopy, Cheney scribbled four questions at the top of the page:

"Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

The annotations support the notion that Wilson's op-ed piece drew the attention of Cheney and Libby, and "acutely focused" their attention on Wilson's assertions "and on responding to those assertions," the filing stated.

"The article, and the fact that it contained certain criticisms of the administration, including criticism regarding issues dealt with by the Office of the Vice President, serve both to explain the context of, and provide the motive for, many of the defendant's statements and actions at issue in this case," Fitzgerald's filing said.

"The annotated version of the article reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had sent him on a junket." <hr /></blockquote>

Wilson was callimg them liars and he was right- they did have to retract their claim and admit they messed up.
Outing Plame was meant to distract the press from the real issue, hurt Wilson and be a warning to anyone else who was thinking about going public.
Instead of having an investigation into how the US Govt mislead the people , we have the Libby trial instead.Their tactic worked.

Q

Bobbyrx
03-23-2007, 12:27 PM
Where does Richard Armitage fit into all of this?

wolfdancer
03-23-2007, 01:37 PM
mis...dis....Fox....
it's all the same.....

Bobbyrx
03-23-2007, 11:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Where does Richard Armitage fit into all of this? <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> He doesn't </font color>

Qtec
03-23-2007, 11:22 PM
Make your point.
Armitage told Novak Plame was CIA, So what?
There is a big difference between telling someone in confidence that Plame is CIA and what Novak said-

I quote,

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."


PLAME IS NOW ON OATH SAYING SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION TO SEND WILSON TO NIGER!

The whole slant of Novak's article was to discredit Wilson. This came directly from Rove, Cheney and Libby.

There was absolutely NO CHANCE of Iraq EVER getting any uranium from Niger.
Thats a fact.
The US Govt presented the possibility of Iraq getting uranium from Niger as a threat! ie, an impossibility has now become a real threat!!!!????
Its madness!

The CIA didn't send 007 because they KNEW this report was bollocks! A pizza guy would have brought back the same report. Wilson doidn't even get paid for the trip!

Either we believe that the CIA, FBI and all the other intel agencies got it all wrong or ...............
What would Ocam's Razor say?

Q

Bobbyrx
03-24-2007, 04:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Make your point.
Armitage told Novak Plame was CIA, So what? <font color="blue"> He told Woodward 3 weeks before that. Why is he not part of the plot? Why was he not indicted?</font color>
There is a big difference between telling someone in confidence that Plame is CIA <font color="blue">so it's legal if you do it in confidence?!?! </font color> and what Novak said-

I quote,

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."
<font color="blue">
He also said since you now believe Novak:
Thursday, September 14, 2006;
When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
</font color>

PLAME IS NOW ON OATH SAYING SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION TO SEND WILSON TO NIGER!

The whole slant of Novak's article was to discredit Wilson. <font color="blue"> How does whether his wife sent him or not or if she is CIA discredit his report. If they had wanted to discredit his report they could have done a lot better than that </font color> This came directly from Rove, Cheney and Libby. <font color="blue">Really, then where is Fitzgerald and the proof </font color>

There was absolutely NO CHANCE of Iraq EVER getting any uranium from Niger.
Thats a fact. <font color="blue">It is? What does Niger export? </font color>
The US Govt presented the possibility of Iraq getting uranium from Niger as a threat! ie, an impossibility has now become a real threat!!!!????
Its madness!
<font color="blue"> The "16 words" were "The BRITISH government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." and they still do
</font color>
The CIA didn't send 007 because they KNEW this report was bollocks! A pizza guy would have brought back the same report. Wilson doidn't even get paid for the trip!

Either we believe that the CIA, FBI and all the other intel agencies got it all wrong or ...............
What would Ocam's Razor say?

Q






<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

eg8r
03-25-2007, 03:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Make your point.
Armitage told Novak Plame was CIA, So what?
There is a big difference between telling someone in confidence that Plame is CIA and what Novak said-
<hr /></blockquote> So, who actually did the "non-issue"? Was it Cheney or Armitage? You guys are just going to blame the entire administration. Seeing you guys pick the evil-doer is like watching underage drunk kids shooting darts blindfolded.

eg8r

Qtec
03-26-2007, 04:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In an interview, Novak said that Armitage effectively described it as stock, Washington-insider information of the sort that often appeared in the column.

Armitage, in reply, said his disclosure to Novak was inadvertent and noted that Novak himself described it as "offhand" in an Oct. 1, 2003, column. Armitage said he could not recall whether he identified the CIA division where Wilson's wife worked. He added that he rejects any suggestion he was deliberately trying to plant the information, explaining that "I had no reason to wish him [Wilson] any ill" and that Wilson "was simply verifying what had already been reported [about Iraq] through State channels." <hr /></blockquote>

Armitage disagrees with Novak's account!


Q

Qtec
03-26-2007, 05:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How does whether his wife sent him or not or if she is CIA discredit his report. If they had wanted to discredit his report they could have done a lot better than that <hr /></blockquote>

Aha!!! You finally got it.
They had to attack Wilson personally because they couldn't discredit the actual report!!!!!!! It was all true! It basically confirmed 3 earlier reports that there was NO CHANCE of Iraq buying Niger yellowcake as long as sanctions were in place.

In the SotU speech , Bush gave 3 examples of proof as to why the US must go to war.
1. The Alu tubes.
2. The yellowcake.
3. Connections to Al Q.

It was Cheney who started the ball rolling. "was he sent on a junket?" web page (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/05/15/cheney-notes-revealed-in-cia-leak-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2006%2F 05%2F13%2Fhandwritten-notes-by-che_n_20953.html&amp;frame=true)
It was Rove who 'confirmed' Plame as CIA to Novak.
If Libby was not involved, why would he have lied?



Q

Gayle in MD
03-26-2007, 08:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice. There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"

<hr /></blockquote>

Most people who would study the Libby Case, would come to the conclusion that the Special Prosecutor's final statements, prove that Cheney, was the individual who set into motion the outing of Valarie Plame, hence, in his final public statements, he indicated that as he was unable to prove his case against Cheney, due to Libby, deciding to take the fall for Cheney, he could not proceed with proving Cheney's law breaking.

It is also clear, that Armetage, was unaware of Plame's covert status, and that his actions did not lead to publically outing a Plame.

Also, clear, that in the midst of Cheney's outrage over Wilson's article, which proved the untruths in the President's statements in his address to the nation, the document they recieved from the C.I.A., included the S., as in secret, before her name. One would have to imagine, that with all their outrage, they didn't bother, during a long flight, to discuss Wilson, his wife, the Wilson article, or look at the document in their midst, the week before Rove and Libby began their calls to reporters, to discredit wilson.

One would think that Fitzgerald, ending the case with the public statement he made, had every intention of letting the public know whom he thought had actually broken the law, none other than Dick Cheney.

Also, Plame testified, that about 40% of those who work on and off in the actual C.I.A. building, are covert. Armetage, may have known that she worked there, but not known that she was covert. There was no way that Libby, Rove, or Cheney, could reasonably claim that they did not know, since they had official proof of her status, in their possession, on their flight back to Washington.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
03-28-2007, 04:55 AM
They had to attack Wilson personally because they couldn't discredit the actual report!!!!!!! <font color="blue"> and they attack him personally by......saying his wife sent him and that she works for the CIA??? Wow that's close to waking up with a severed horse's head in your bed </font color>

It was Cheney who started the ball rolling. "was he sent on a junket?" <font color="blue">from "was he sent on a junket" to lets try to destroy this guy is quite a leap </font color>
It was Rove who 'confirmed' Plame as CIA to Novak. <font color="blue"> but Armitage was the source </font color>
If Libby was not involved, why would he have lied? <font color="blue">how many reporters thought what Libby "leaked" was important enough to put in their notes? zero </font color>

Bobbyrx
03-28-2007, 05:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Most people who would study the Libby Case, would come to the conclusion that the Special Prosecutor's final statements, prove that Cheney, was the individual who set into motion the outing of Valarie Plame, hence, in his final public statements, he indicated that as he was unable to prove his case against Cheney, due to Libby, deciding to take the fall for Cheney, he could not proceed with proving Cheney's law breaking. <font color="blue">He knew Armitage was the source of the leak BEFORE the trial began, therefore, most people who study the case can see he was fishing for Cheney when he went after Libby and did not get him because he had no proof and has no proof </font color>

It is also clear, that Armetage, was unaware of Plame's covert status, and that his actions did not lead to publically outing a Plame. <font color="blue">Novak publically outed Plame and his source was Armitage so his actions DIRECTLY lead to the "outing" . You can't just dismiss Armitage just because he doesn't fit the conspiracy </font color>

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 06:54 AM
Regardless of how you try to jury rig what actually happened by taking peripheral instances out of context, the fact remains that Fitzgerald was a Republican appointee, he was the Special Prosecutor, the investigation in the outing of a covert agent, was requested by the C.I.A., his findings led him to the Vice President's office, hence, he stated, publicly, that due to Libby's obstruction of justice, lying under oath, a dark cloud remains over the Vice President. Anyone who can't figure out what he meant, should look inside themselves and ask why they are determined to deny the obvious.

If Cheney hadn't launched his attack on a man's freedom of speech, Wilson, for telling us the truth about the administration's lies, RECENT YELLOW CAKE ATTEMPT BY SADDAM IN NIGER, Valarie would still be covert, never have been outed, no one else's life put at risk, including hers, and her career as a covert C.I.A. NOC Operative, would not have been ruined. If Wilson's revelations had not been accurate, the Administration wouldn't have removed the 16 words from their drama filled Address To The Nation. Connect the dots.

Gayle in Md.

Here you have an administration who launched a war over lies about supposed WMD's in Iraq, and they out a covert NOC operative, whose specialty was in WMD intelligence. If you can't see the hypocracy in that, I feel sorry for you.

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He knew Armitage was the source of the leak BEFORE the trial began, therefore, most people who study the case can see he was fishing for Cheney when he went after Libby and did not get him because he had no proof and has no proof

<hr /></blockquote>

He did not know about Armetege before the investigation began. During the investigation, he uncovered the intentional actions of the Vice President, and his instructions to Libby, along with Rove's involvment. Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that more than one person could be involved in outing Valarie? The actions taken by the Vice President's office, in the discrediting of Wilson, which led to Valarie's outing, and Armetege's role, took place before Novak ever talked to Armetege.

The entire incident would have never occured if the vice President hadn't gone on the war path to discredit Wilson. Novak, wouldn't have even been asking about Plame.

Judith Miller, had Plame's name in her notes, mis-written as Flame btw.

Bottom line, Wilson told us the truth, Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld, all lied.

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that more than one person could be involved in outing Valarie? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are on a roll today. This is how you explain away your inability to pick one person and stick with them. Every time your trail runs dry you go look for someone else to blame. Oh well, this is all a non-issue, no crime was committed.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:32 AM
11:57 to 12:16....and you got in five insults. Pretty good Ed. I don't suppose you have anything of value to add to the debate? You should really get some help for your addiction to me.

My overwhelming power over you is going to my head.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you try to jury rig what actually happened <hr /></blockquote> Boy if that is not the pot calling the kettle black. You twist everything.

Here is a great blog (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011038.php) that captures a bunch of different articles and it explains enough. Plame was not covert as the law identifies covert.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Taranto:</font><hr> Unless we're missing something, Joe Wilson has disproved his own accusation that someone in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, USA Today reports:
The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington--the "outing" of a CIA officer--may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.
<hr /></blockquote> Now, sure Taranto (nor the USA Today reporter) is not a government expert, he is merely someone who can read the law, so lets see what is said by someone who should know... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Joe Wilson:</font><hr> Here is Joseph Wilson himself, talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN today (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html): "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." <hr /></blockquote>

I also thought this was pretty interesting... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wilson:</font><hr> And four, when I did speak out, in an article in October of 2002, I acknowledged that weapons of mass destruction were the thereat. I offered my views based on my two-and-a-half years in Iraq, including as charge d'affaires in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.
<hr /></blockquote> Wilson thought there were WMDs and he had first hand experience. Hmmm...

[ QUOTE ]
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
03-28-2007, 11:44 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;
Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that more than one person could be involved in outing Valarie? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are on a roll today. This is how you explain away your inability to pick one person and stick with them. Every time your trail runs dry you go look for someone else to blame. Oh well, this is all a non-issue, no crime was committed.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

The USA versus Libby- page 3.
[ QUOTE ]
f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. <hr /></blockquote>

CLASSIFIED. Look it up in your Conservative dictionary!
Q

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
11:57 to 12:16....and you got in five insults. Pretty good Ed. I don't suppose you have anything of value to add to the debate? You should really get some help for your addiction to me.
<hr /></blockquote> Gayle, from my point of view, reading your posts is very much like driving by an accident and staring at the dead person on the road. You really shouldn't stare but you just can't help yourself. You are like a train wreck on this board and I shamelessly find it amusing to see what new trash you might bring to the board.

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2007, 11:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
CLASSIFIED. Look it up in your Conservative dictionary! <hr /></blockquote> No crime was committed and even her own husband agrees she was not covert.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:53 AM
I don't think he knows how to use a dictionary, but if he did, he'd be arguing with Webster about the meaning of the words. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif He'd be calling Webster, a liar, for not giving the definitions he supports. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 12:05 PM
Clandestine, and covert/classified/NOC, do not have the same meaning.

Jeeze!

Qtec
03-28-2007, 12:15 PM
Full quote.
[ QUOTE ]
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC... <hr /></blockquote>

If Plame was covert, would she be allowed to tell her husband?

Here, anither myth. This link is from GOP.COM! LOL

[ QUOTE ]
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

* Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03) <hr /></blockquote>

Wilson's op-ed that started it all.
[ QUOTE ]
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. <hr /></blockquote>

Libby!
[ QUOTE ]
In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). The Vice President was unaware of the trip by Ambassador Wilson and didn't know about it until this year when it became public in the last month or so. " <hr /></blockquote>

RNC myth 658 shot down in flames, Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,,,,,, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Bobbyrx
03-28-2007, 12:35 PM
He did not know about Armetege before the investigation began. <font color="blue"> He did know about any of this before the investigation began because......the investigation had not begun. But he knew about Armitage before the grand juries and especially before the TRIAL</font color> During the investigation, he uncovered the intentional actions of the Vice President, and his instructions to Libby, along with Rove's involvment. <font color="blue"> If he discovered this then he didn't need Libby or anything else. Go after Cheney </font color> Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that more than one person could be involved in outing Valarie? The actions taken by the Vice President's office, in the discrediting of Wilson, which led to Valarie's outing, and Armetege's role, took place before Novak ever talked to Armetege. <font color="blue">Armitage told Woodward in June 2003 before Wilson's op/ed piece even ran in July. Even if he didn't know she was undercover, why would this even come up BEFORE Cheney even knew who Wilson was? According to Fitzgerald you can tell a reporter that an covert agent is a member of the CIA as long as you didn't know the agent is covert.....that is why he didn't go after Armitage....that makes a lot of sense </font color>

The entire incident would have never occured if the vice President hadn't gone on the war path to discredit Wilson. <font color="blue"> He didn't discredit anyone and how is asking about "did we send him on a junket" going on the war path? </font color> Novak, wouldn't have even been asking about Plame.

Judith Miller, had Plame's name in her notes, mis-written as Flame btw. <font color="blue"> That meeting was on 6/23 before the op/ed piece was published and before Cheney supposedly 'went on the warpath' </font color>

Bottom line, Wilson told us the truth, <font color="blue"> exept about the forged documents </font color> Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld, all lied. <font color="blue"> IYHO </font color>

eg8r
03-28-2007, 12:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If Plame was covert, would she be allowed to tell her husband? <hr /></blockquote> The CIA thought a crime might have occurred, we now know that one had not occurred. As far a telling her husband, she probably could not tell him by law, but when have any of these people bothered with that?

[ QUOTE ]
Here, anither myth. <hr /></blockquote> Your myth was covered in the link I provided. He says he did not think Cheney sent him.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-28-2007, 11:24 PM
Your dates, are incorrect. Wilson's op-ed came out before Cheney gave the order to discredit Wilson. And, his way to discredit him was to paint him as some flunky whose wife sent him on a little junket.

Valarie didn't become the subject of conversation between the VP's office, and the press, including Woodward, until after Wilson's op-ed which revealed that Bush lied in his State Of The Union about "Saddam has recently tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger..."

That wasn't the only lie they told to hype up the story they gave for the necessity for regime change in Iraq. they concocted a whole range of BS, using intelligence they trumped up, and leaving out reports that did not support their intended goal.

Gayle in Md,

As for going after Cheney directly, obviously, the prosecutor was smart enough to know that Cheney wouldn't do the dirty work himself. That's what aids are for, to take the fall for the top man. Gonzales's top aid has already resigned.

Prosecutors work from the bottom up.

Bobbyrx
03-29-2007, 12:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Your dates, are incorrect. Wilson's op-ed came out before Cheney gave the order to discredit Wilson. And, his way to discredit him was to paint him as some flunky whose wife sent him on a little junket.
<font color="blue"> </font color> Valarie didn't become the subject of conversation between the VP's office, and the press, including Woodward, until after Wilson's op-ed which revealed that Bush lied in his State Of The Union about "Saddam has recently tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger..." <font color="blue"> The entire 16 words:"THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" </font color>

<font color="blue"> For her second grand jury appearance, Miller produced a notebook from a previously-undisclosed meeting with Libby on June 23, 2003, several weeks before Wilson's New York Times editorial was published. According to Miller's notes from that earlier meeting, Libby disclosed that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee involved in her husband's trip to Niger. Miller's notebook from her July 8, 2003 meeting with Libby contains the name "Valerie Flame [sic]".[4] This reference occurred six days before Novak published Plame's name and unmasked her as a CIA "operative."
You are correct and I was wrong on the date of 'Valerie Flame '. It was 7/8/03 however the first meeting was 6/23/03 before the op/ed piece according to Miller
</font color>