PDA

View Full Version : King Dick



Drop1
02-02-2008, 08:14 PM
By Evelyn J. Pringle
Jul 30, 2004, 09:22

Being Cheney is too modest to list his past accomplishments as CEO of Halliburton on the White House Website, I decided to give him a few pointers on writing a resume to submit to future employers when he leaves the White House in January 2005.

I would definitely keep the focus on 3 areas of expertise: (1) Setting up fraudulent tax havens to avoid paying US taxes; (2) Doing business with terrorist countries without going to prison; and (3) Stonewalling criminal investigations into fraudulent conduct.

(1) How To Set Up Fraudulent Corporate Tax Havens

As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney did rack up a number of accomplishments. He increased Halliburtons offshore tax haven subsidiaries nearly 5-fold. The company currently has 143 subsidiaries, but only 36 are incorporated in the US. The other 107 are located in other countries. According to CitizenWorks.org, Halliburton is 8th on the Fortune 500 list of companies with the most offshore tax havens.

For tax purposes, a subsidiary is defined as a controlled foreign corporation if US shareholders own more than 50% of its voting stock, or more than 50% of the value of all its outstanding stock (directly, indirectly, or constructively) on any day of the year.

Here's how they work. Under the US tax code, American corporations must pay taxes on income earned in foreign countries. But if a company incorporates a subsidiary under the laws of a foreign nation, the subsidiary is not considered a US resident, it is considered a foreign citizen. This allows the US parent company to avoid paying US taxes on the subsidiary's income as long as the income is retained and reinvested outside the US.

So by filing a few incorporation papers and paying a small fee to a foreign government Halliburton can turn a subsidiary into a foreign corporation that can avoid paying any US income tax. Its that easy.


Overall, the tax saving generated by Halliburton's tax havens, and the correlative tax loss to American taxpayers, is enormous. For example, in 2002, Halliburton only paid $15 million of its $80 million tax bill (or 19 %) to the US government. The remaining 81% went to foreign governments.

Bob McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, talks about tax havens engaging in complex deals to shelter their profits, "The more these companies can bounce things around offshore, the more profit that can be kept offshore and tax free," McIntyre says. "They shouldn't get away with it, but it is really hard to police."

This may be true, but I think Bob would agree that with Cheney in the VP office, Halliburton gets away with a lot more than other corporations do.

(2) How To Do Business With Terrorists Without Ending Up In Prison

Cheney and Halliburton were a match made in heaven. Together they found ways to make money off of just about every known terrorist country on God's green earth, regardless of the strict US laws against it.

While Cheney was CEO, American companies were barred from doing business with Iran. So the company set up an address in the Cayman Islands. The TV news program "60 Minutes" did an investigation of a subsidiary called Halliburton Products and Services, and discovered that the company had no office or employees. The only sign of the fathom company was a forwarding address to Houston, Texas.

The "60 Minutes" reporter traveled to the Cayman Islands, went to the address listed for Halliburton Products, and found a building owned by a local bank and a bank employee who told him that when mail arrived for Halliburton Products, it was forwarded directly to Houston, Texas.

The company's luck might be running out because this particular subsidiary has recently come under new scrutiny. A grand jury is said to be examining whether it is truly independent and whether Halliburton violated federal sanctions by operating in Iran.


The LA Times explains that US companies are allowed to operate in Iran, but under strict guidelines requiring that their subsidiaries have a foreign registry, and no US employees, and that they act independently of the parent company. So in a nutshell, it boils down to whether Halliburton Products met those criteria.


The Treasury Department website details US sanctions that bar almost all trade with Iran, and says that, "No US person may approve or facilitate the entry into or performance of transactions or contracts with Iran by a foreign subsidiary of a US firm that the US person is precluded from performing directly. Similarly, no US person may facilitate such transactions by unaffiliated foreign persons," it says.

According to media reports, investigators are examining Halliburton documents dating back to 1997 - 1998 that relate to a Dubai based subsidiary that received several tender offers from Kala Ltd, which is a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company. Investigators want to know whether the deals were completed and whether they were in violation of US sanctions against Iran.

So, is Halliburton worried? Apparently not. It has known since 2001, that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was conducting an investigation to determine whether the company violated the ban, and it still went right on doing business with Iran. In fact in 2003, Halliburton's subsidiary was used to sell $63 million worth of oil products to Iran.

Something must have turned up because the OFAC recently referred the matter over to the Justice Department for investigation, which in turn prompted the Justice Department to issue a subpoena that calls on Halliburton to provide documents relating to its business relationships with Iran. It will be interesting to see what information Halliburton turns over (if anything).


But this trading with the enemy is nothing new. While Cheney was CEO, Halliburton even used subsidiaries to make tens of millions of dollars off Iraq. According to UN records and industry executives quoted in the Washington Post, Halliburton held stakes in 2 firms that sold over $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq.

And yet, listen to what that pathological liar said when he running for VP and was interviewed on ABC's "This Week" on July 30 2000. "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal. We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanction were imposed . . .," Cheney claimed. He really needs to get some help for that compulsive lying disorder. Its obviously out of control.

Halliburton has been doing business with known terrorists for years. Back in 1995, it was fined $3.8 million for doing business with Libya. The company sold tools to Libya that critics said could be used to trigger nuclear bombs. So be sure to keep in mind whenever Bush starts bragging about dismantling Libya's WMD program, that it was Halliburton that helped create it in the first place.


(3) How To Stonewall Investigations and Stay Out Of Prison


Halliburton is the all-time pro at fraudulent scams and war profiteering. And its top level executives are pros at stonewalling investigations and finding ways to stay out of prison.

Under Cheney's watch, the company was caught over-billing the government time and time again. In 1997, the GAO caught Halliburton charging $85.98 for a sheet of plywood that only cost $14.06. A 2000 follow-up investigation caught it charging tax payers for cleaning the exact same office space 4 times a day. So what happened to Halliburton as a result of these lengthily and expensive investigations? Nothing until 2002. Then it was fined $2 million for defrauding the government and that's it.

And nobody better think for one minute that the company has turned over a new leaf just because it was forced to pay a few million in fines. That is never going to happen. By now, Im convinced that Halliburton estimates the cost of potential fines and lists them under "war profiteering expenses" when it submits the bid. Of course, that's if its even required to submit bid.

For example, as recently as January 2004, Halliburton employees were caught accepting $6.3 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti subcontractor. The company paid back the $6.3 million, said it fired the employees, and went right on as if nothing had ever happened.

In fact, the administration not only ignored the kickbacks, it gave Halliburton another $1.2 billion contract. Republican Congressman Tom Davis, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, even said, "It's incomprehensible that the [Bush] Administration could give Halliburton another billion-dollar contract without fully investigating such serious criminal wrongdoing." Well incomprehensible or not, it did.


Here's another good example of Halliburton officials stonewalling and avoiding prison. In May of 2003, Halliburton was forced to admit to the SEC that it had paid $2.4 million in bribes to officials of Nigeria's Federal Inland Revenue Service in 2001 and 2002 "to obtain favorable tax treatment."

Halliburton put all the blame on a couple of lowly employees and claimed that none of its senior officers were involved in the bribe. But as the Houston Chronicle pointed out, "left unanswered is how a 'low-level employee' could channel that much money from the company to the pockets of a corrupt official."

So what are they asking us to believe? That 2 employees took a brown paper bag to an ATM machine and made withdrawals of $2.4 million? Oh Please!


We are talking here about ripping off hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government (aka taxpayers), and yet no matter how bad it gets, there are never any arrests.

In fact, the SEC might even end up letting the $2.4 million bribery case slide, because it has far bigger fish to fry. As of July 2004, the French, British, Nigerian and US governments are all investigating allegations that Halliburton and 3 other companies paid $180 million in bribes to Nigerian officials in exchange for a $6 billion contract to build a natural gas plant in Nigeria, while Cheney was CEO.

French police started the initial investigation into the matter way back in October, 2002. In June 2003, the chief prosecutor on the case believed that there was enough evidence to appoint anti-corruption judge, Renaud van Ruymbeke, to expand the investigation.


This second case is far more complicated because it involves an international consortium between Halliburton and 3 other companies from France, Italy, and Japan. Together, they formed the joint venture TSKJ, a company registered in Medeira, Portugal.

TSKJ was then awarded the $6 billion contract. But here's where it gets tricky for Halliburton because the bribery payments were made through TSKJ, and Halliburton owns 25% of the company.


According to the Washington Post, "at the heart of the investigation is the question of whether those payments amounted to illegal commissions, or bribes, to Nigerian public officials." The payments were made during Cheney's tenure, and according to the Boson Globe, "If such payments were made and Cheney approved them, he could be guilty of violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

Cheney approved them alright. Ex-Halliburton consultant, Attorney Jeffrey Tesler, says that Cheney knew all about the bribes. Tesler testified under oath in May, 2004 that he made payments to Jack Stanley, while Stanley was president of Halliburton subsidiary KBR, and Tesler specifically said that Cheney approved the payments.

His testimony is backed up by banking records that show that at least $5 million in payments were wired to Stanley through a secret bank account in Zurich. Tesler also testified that he paid $350,000 to another Halliburton executive, William Chaudran, through a secret bank account on the isle of Jersey.

On June 18, 2004, Halliburton announced that it was cutting its ties with Jack Stanley. But there's good news for Stanley in France. Judge Ruymbeke is said to be offering him a deal if he implicates Cheney, and sources within the French legal system say that there is more than enough evidence to indict Cheney on charges of bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets.

Its Definitely Time To Lawyer Up

Halliburton knows its in big trouble with this case. Cheney might have pull in the US but not France. In February 2004, Halliburton hired Attorney James Doty, from (where else but) the Baker-Botts law firm.

Doty just happens to be the same attorney that Bush hired when he bought the Texas Rangers, and he was also general counsel to the SEC when it investigated Bush for insider trading while he was a director on the board of Harken Energy. What a tight-nit little group. I guess birds of a feather definitely do flock together.

Something I heard recently suddenly makes sense. Halliburton purchased some kind of insurance policy to cover legal expenses that Cheney might incur as a direct result of problems arising from his employment with Halliburton. Now it makes sense.

Well lets hope that's true and that they get Cheney a good attorney too, because the way things stand right now, he may very well be looking at criminal indictments for the some of the illegal activities he engaged in while CEO of Halliburton. With such a long history of corrupt business deals hanging over his head, its no wonder that he has heart trouble.

I bet Cheney longs for the good old days of campaign 2000, when his only legal problems consisted of trying to hide 2 drunk driving arrests, and worrying about whether, if elected Vice President, he could get into Canada being he was a 2 time convicted criminal. Any questions,contact below.

© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 09:35 PM
A White House full of crooks and liars. And after all the bs about white Water, and what did it turn up, nothing. Just more right wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans. Leave it to the Republicans to invent whatever they like, and blow the people's money, for nothing in return. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

hondo
02-03-2008, 07:16 AM
Yes, but Cheney is no longer connected with Halliburton
and thus is excused for any past transgressions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
I can't wait until it comes out how they have been lining his pockets for letting them make billions in Iraq, but that won't emerge until he is long out of office.

Drop1
02-03-2008, 07:03 PM
We could ask LWW,or Bamadog,they have sources even the government doesn't know about. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
02-03-2008, 07:25 PM
I didn't make a stupid accusation so I have no obligation to verify anything.

LWW

Drop1
02-03-2008, 07:34 PM
Little paranoid sounding Petri Man. Besides would anyone really care? Still waiting.

eg8r
02-03-2008, 09:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A White House full of crooks and liars. And after all the bs about white Water, and what did it turn up, nothing. Just more right wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans. <hr /></blockquote> The very same can be said about that secretary that was outed. What was her name again, Plame? Just more left wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans.

eg8r

LWW
02-03-2008, 10:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Little paranoid sounding Petri Man. Besides would anyone really care? Still waiting. <hr /></blockquote>
We've established that you don't care and that nothing matters but partisanship.

Your job seems to be nto make asinine statements you can't back up ... as you have yet again.

And, yes, I realize you are still waiting for someone to explain to you how you back up a statement that a chimp could see through ... and luckily for them the chimp is smarter and you'll fall for it.

Banana? Drop Out want a banana?

LWW

LWW

Qtec
02-03-2008, 10:36 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;
A White House full of crooks and liars. And after all the bs about white Water, and what did it turn up, nothing. Just more right wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans. <hr /></blockquote> The very same can be said about that secretary that was outed. What was her name again, Plame? Just more left wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

No Ed. They outed a covert WMD specialist- to the enemy!

Let me burst your bubble Ed. Thank me later.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/
Q http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/plame1.gif

Drop1
02-03-2008, 11:15 PM
wrong on all counts,but thats you at your best...a little rant,because you can't respond. I know it,you know it,everybody knows it,so live with it.Never in the history of the computer has one person brought so little to so many,but you know that. Attaboy try you can catch up with the others.

LWW
02-04-2008, 05:19 AM
You know Drop Out ... I'm tired of letting you embarrass your relatives and home town like this.

You keep making the same accusation that I am wrong yet have never offered a scintilla of data to the contrary ... but of course we realize you don't have any even if you don't.

Let the record show that you were offered generous opportunities to make your point and instead chose to prove yourself to be nothing more than a partisan tool.

Now, run back to Gayle so she can tell you stories of how bad you beat me.

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C-!

LWW

hondo
02-04-2008, 06:47 AM
LWWs grandson: Pappaw, did you ever fight in any wars?
An elderly LWW: Yeah, sonny buck, I fought in the great forum wars from 04 til 2012. My comrade Dawg &amp; I were
stuck in the trenches 24/7 fighting for truth, justice, and the American way.
Grandson: Did you ever get wounded, papaw?
LWW: I got wingnutted a few times. The moonbats had some sharpshooters: Sonoma, Hondo. That Sonoma was an evil one. I think in peaceful time Hondo &amp; I could have got along, maybe hoisted a few together.
Some evil woman named Gayle fired over my head several times. One richocheted off a sign once and got me right in the arse. Didn't hurt though.
Yep, sonny buck, once BOOOSH got out I fought to get McCain elected and by gawrsh I did it.
That's why I want you to study hard and go to college so you don't get your little arse shot off 18 years from now in Iraq.
Grandson: I'm so proud of you, papaw.
LWW: You should be, sonnybuck. I'm an even bigger hero than them there boys what fought in Viet Nam.

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 07:59 AM
I believe in this case, the payoff may have been in advance, (ie. his "Retirement package") hence, his unprecedented fight to keep OUR energy policy "Secret". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
02-04-2008, 08:06 AM
It was all a bunch of leftist BS that did not even turn up a hill of beans.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 08:13 AM
Not to you, Ed, but you simply don't care that your Repiglican Administration endangered Ms. Plames's fellow operatives lives, and her own, in order to use their on-going methods of deciet, as a pay back aimed at her husband, who exposed one of them, hence, they had to issue a disclaimer regarding lies Bush told to all of us, including you, in the nation's State Of The Union Address.

If you can't admit to what they did, (no surprise, really) I find such a reaction on your part, just more evidence of your obvious failure to accept any of the vast documentation proving the underhanded, unethical actions taken by Bush et al, to lie us into a war, and use their power to intimidate all those people, true patriots, who stood up and spoke out against the lies, and the sure devastating consequences of a power mongering, anti-American, dangerous bunch of crooks, manipulating America for their own purposes, and against all our best interests. I don't find such a reaction to be that of a true patriot, even if you are being paid by part of the Military Industrial Complex, which Eisenhower warned all of us about.

When a Special Prosecutor states in plain english that a cloud exists over our White House, and specifically over the Vice President's Office, because his top aide "Kicked sand in the umpire's face" most people can connect the dots, unless they choose instead to support the outrageous, unethical actions which were obviously taken in their quest to lie us into a war.

Instead, you ridiculously continue to deny the facts, much like your nemesis, "No where man"

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 08:20 AM
Ed,
Although you may not approve of the "No where Man" your continuing denials of the proven facts, run a close second to his own.

Ms Plame testified for Congress. Had you cared enough to watch it, you'd have some understanding of the issue. Relying on Rush Limbaugh for documentation is a grave mistake. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

DickLeonard
02-04-2008, 08:27 AM
Gayle a very interesting read but you and I knew from day 1 that this was a crooked enterprise. Seven plus years knocking heads with people from another world. LWW has certainly spoiled the water it is undrinkable now.####

LWW
02-04-2008, 08:40 AM
So you are back onto personal attacks hondo?

LWW

eg8r
02-04-2008, 09:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Not to you, Ed, but you simply don't care that your Repiglican Administration endangered Ms. Plames's fellow operatives lives, and her own, in order to use their on-going methods of deciet, as a pay back aimed at her husband, who exposed one of them, hence, they had to issue a disclaimer regarding lies Bush told to all of us, including you, in the nation's State Of The Union Address.
<hr /></blockquote> Face the facts Gayle, your leftist witch hunt never amounted to a hill of beans. Your bandwagon has left the station.

eg8r

eg8r
02-04-2008, 09:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Although you may not approve of the "No where Man" your continuing denials of the proven facts, run a close second to his own. <hr /></blockquote> It is a proven fact that your leftist witch hunt amounted to nothing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 10:02 AM
Oh, so I assume you intend to continue to maintain your often stated belief that Valarie Plame was just a secretary?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-04-2008, 11:04 AM
I state that to rib you, however you have nothing to say about that entire crusade on Cheney turned out to be nothing.

eg8r

hondo
02-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Where's your sense of humor? I worked hard on that post.

Qtec
02-04-2008, 08:39 PM
Boy, you really shot me down in flames with that reply. LOL.

Once more;
Plame , a covert WMD specialist was OUTED by her own Govt because the Govt got caught in a lie.
They tried to make it look as if she had sent her husband on a junket but Wilson never received a single dollar for this mission for to Niger.
Libby was the fall guy, who by lying to Fed investigators torpedoed the search for the real culprits.
Rove and Cheney both lied to McClellan above their involvement.
This is a fact- just like Plame was covert.

The Iraqi delegation was in Niger in 1999. GW, in 2003 said that Iraq had recently tried to aquire yellowcake from Niger."
Would you call 4 years ago recently?

GW made a statement in his speech that the CIA did not agree with.
Thats a fact.

They outed Plame to discredit her husband.
Thats a fact.

You obviously don't support the troops.
If you can swallow/ignore the fact that this Govt will out any secret US agent to save its own a$$ then its the troops who will suffer.

Q

bamadog
02-04-2008, 11:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

They outed Plame to discredit her husband.
Thats a fact.


Q
<hr /></blockquote>

Ok Q, I'll play along.
Who sent Joe Wilson to Niger?
Who outed Plame?
Why was no one charged with "outing" her?
Do you think you could answer these three questions?
Let's see.

LWW
02-05-2008, 05:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

They outed Plame to discredit her husband.
Thats a fact.


Q
<hr /></blockquote>

Ok Q, I'll play along.
Who sent Joe Wilson to Niger?
Who outed Plame?
Why was no one charged with "outing" her?
Do you think you could answer these three questions?
Let's see. <hr /></blockquote>
He knows the answers, and he knows they contain "inconvenient truths" which would conflict with the agenda that was poured up his nose by the "DNC/MSM waterboarding" of lies that are then repeated here.

Rather than use critical thinking Q has learned it's much easier to reduce his BDS symptoms by walking out into the north Eurabian night and begin howling ... B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! ... B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! ... B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! at the Moon.

LWW

eg8r
02-05-2008, 07:00 AM
I did not need to, you nitwit. My posts on this thread are simply to say that crusade against Cheney "for outing a secretary" proved in the end to be nothing. The subject is the crusade NOT the secretary. You for some reason do not have this simple ability to pick out subject matter and latch on to anything little thing you can and frankly it is embarassing for you.

EDIT: My post was in response to Q's post about me shooting him down in flames. I added comma in the first sentence for honduh. Apprently he was unable to figure it out.

eg8r

eg8r
02-05-2008, 07:02 AM
There is a very simple explanation as to why no one is in jail for outing Plame...THERE WAS NOTHING TO OUT. The only sucker in jail is there because he could not remember what he had said in the past. These simple lapses in memory are perfectly OK for the left, but never for the right.

eg8r

hondo
02-05-2008, 07:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not need to you nitwit. frankly it is embarassing for you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

????????????????????????????????????????

LWW
02-05-2008, 07:21 AM
When smoke and mirrors is all you have then smoke and mirrors is what you use.

LWW

LWW
02-05-2008, 07:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not need to you nitwit. frankly it is embarassing for you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
If you have to have it explained to you ... you might be a partisan embarrassing yourself on the web.

LWW
???????????????????????????????????????? <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-05-2008, 09:16 AM
honduh, I edited my post for you.

eg8r

DickLeonard
02-05-2008, 09:36 AM
Drop1 how did Bush not get indicted for Hakim Oil, he sold $800,000 dollars in their stock thirty days before they went belly up. Never filed necessary papers till eight months later. Where the hell is his sworn testimony.

I just want to see if he lied under oath, something the radical right hold as the true worth of a man.####

bamadog
02-05-2008, 09:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> There is a very simple explanation as to why no one is in jail for outing Plame...THERE WAS NOTHING TO OUT. The only sucker in jail is there because he could not remember what he had said in the past. These simple lapses in memory are perfectly OK for the left, but never for the right.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Come on now. I've almost got one of them Eurabians in my trap. Your yappin' is gonna sceer'im away.

DickLeonard
02-05-2008, 09:43 AM
DAWG that is the job for the next Democratic Atoorney General.####

eg8r
02-05-2008, 09:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to see if he lied under oath, something the radical right hold as the true worth of a man.#### <hr /></blockquote> If there was something there the radical left would have already escorted him to jail.

eg8r

eg8r
02-05-2008, 09:56 AM
LOL, if you think you were going to get actual answers to those questions individually, then by all means ask again and again until your heart is content. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
02-05-2008, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Drop1 how did Bush not get indicted for Hakim Oil, he sold $800,000 dollars in their stock thirty days before they went belly up. Never filed necessary papers till eight months later. Where the hell is his sworn testimony.

I just want to see if he lied under oath, something the radical right hold as the true worth of a man.#### <hr /></blockquote>
Then why didn't the D's in Texas indict him?

They do have a prosecutor which seems to go after everyone with an (R) next to their name ... with an extremely low conviction rate BTW, but political show trials never have been about guilt or innocence.

LWW

Drop1
02-05-2008, 12:18 PM
You and I have the same questions.

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 12:59 PM
It turned out to be nothing in your eyes, Ed. That's because you are unable, or unwilling to connect the obvious dots. Unfortunately for you, and your fellow denyers, the special prosecutor did connect them, as did the jury, and three judges.

Cheney was behind the outing of a covert CIA agent, with Bush's approval. Without the missing e-mails, deleted by the Bush administration, the case would have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. They destroyed the evidence, and Libby took the fall for them. Now they've destroyed all the evidence regarding their torturing of innocent human beings.

When a Federal Judge, and a Special Prosecutor, state unequivically that a crime was committed, by those aides in the White House who are under the charge of Bush and Cheney, and that one of them took the fall for the crime, by obstructing justice, the rest of us understand the meaning. You simply refuse to admit to what is obvious to the vast majority of the people in this country, the same way you refuse to admit that they cherry picked evidence to go to an un-necessary war, as was shown in the British MEMO.

That's fine, and your perrogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to think you have any sense, or try to suggest that we are the partisans who are denying reality.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 01:13 PM
There was no crusade, Ed. The investigation was launched because the CIA asked for the outing to be investigated. The trail led straight back to the White House, and the evidence was deleted from computers that the White House wasn't even supposed to be using, RNC computers.

The Special Prosecutor said that a cloud remained over the White House, and the Vice President's office in particular.

There was no crusade. A law was broken. A law which may be difficult to prove, but all the evidence which was proven, led straight back to Bush and Cheney, through their aides. Since then, officials in the CIA have stated during testimony that others were put at risk, and that what the administration did has compromised our ability to place covert agents in positions which could be of great protection for our country.

All this from a man who tries to justify everything under the banner of keeping Americans safe.

If you can't see through all of this, it is because you don't want to see through it, but don't call an official investigation into who outed a covert NOC CIA agent, a crusade. The law was broken, she was put at risk, her fellow operatives were put at risk, the CIA asked for an investigation, and the White HOuse, Bush and Cheney, were behind it all from the start. Hence, the Special Prosecutor stated that a cloud remained over the Whtie House, and that Scooter Libby obstructed justice, and committed purgery.

No crusade, and no witch hunt. A Broken law, was the reason for the investigation. No conviction on Cheney and Bush, because Libby obstructed Justice.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
02-05-2008, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>Now they've destroyed all the evidence regarding their torturing of innocent human beings.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Actually that's a lie.

The CIA just released the report.

Fewer than 30 had enhanced techniques used.

Only 3 were waterboarded.

Pelosi/Kennedy/Kerry/Rockefeller knew from the start.

They all approved.

They wanted stricter tactics used.

They then lied on the campaign trail incessantly about their involvement and the scope of it's use.

You know all of this.

You don't care.

On three know sweetheart ...

... 1 ...

... 2 ...

B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!

LWW

eg8r
02-05-2008, 08:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There was no crusade, Ed. <hr /></blockquote> Keep living in your fantasy. Oh yeah, nothing came about from that crusade.

eg8r

eg8r
02-05-2008, 08:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It turned out to be nothing in your eyes, Ed. <hr /></blockquote> Facts are facts and it turned out to be nothing. One single person put in jail and what was that for...a bad memory. A person like you would normally give a guy a break for such a lapse, but why not this certain individual...he is a Rep and your partisanship will not allow you to treat him the way you treat your great liars.

eg8r

LWW
02-06-2008, 04:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There was no crusade, Ed. The investigation was launched because the CIA asked for the outing to be investigated. The trail led straight back to the White House, and the evidence was deleted from computers that the White House wasn't even supposed to be using, RNC computers.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Actually the person who outted here was known for over a year while the witch hunt continued, and that outter was a very anti Bush person, and the prosecutor was trying to make a name after that ... but you knew that, you just don't care.

LWW

Qtec
02-06-2008, 04:21 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;
It turned out to be nothing in your eyes, Ed. <hr /></blockquote> Facts are facts and it turned out to be nothing. One single person put in jail and what was that for...a bad memory. A person like you would normally give a guy a break for such a lapse,
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Your ignorace of the facts is astounding. Libby did not forget, he lied. He claimed he heard about Plame from a reporter and thats just not true.
[ QUOTE ]
FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

FITZGERALD: So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

[/b]In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson. [/b] <hr /></blockquote>

Read the link. web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html)

The CIA sent Wilson to Niger, not his wife. Its not surprising that Wilson was recommended by his wife for the job, especially since "Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA".

The Plame outing was a diversion. The media was full of the details of the Wilson's private lives and they ignored the real story.


[ QUOTE ]
During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.<hr /></blockquote>
1. I would hardly call 4 years ago 'recently'.
2. How credible was this British claim?

[ QUOTE ]
Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British. <hr /></blockquote>

GW made a claim in a SOTU speech that even the CIA disagreed with and now they claim the intel on Iraq was faulty!
The real story is that the Govt took inconclusive and suspect intel and presented them as facts on a regular basis. There was no intel failure. They manipulated and decieved the country into supporting a crusade in the ME.

Q...........Did you know that between june 2001 and the invasion 602 bombs were dropped on 391 special targets in Iraq?.......and they were a threat?

hondo
02-06-2008, 06:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not need to, you nitwit. My posts on this thread are simply to say that crusade against Cheney "for outing a secretary" proved in the end to be nothing. The subject is the crusade NOT the secretary. You for some reason do not have this simple ability to pick out subject matter and latch on to anything little thing you can and frankly it is embarassing for you.

EDIT: My post was in response to Q's post about me shooting him down in flames. I added comma in the first sentence for honduh. "Apprently" he was unable to figure it out.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Possibly true, but I can spell "apparently."
I see you're back to your old ways: Q is nitwit; Hondo is Honduh.
You're such a phony.

hondo
02-06-2008, 06:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not need to you nitwit. frankly it is embarassing for you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
If you have to have it explained to you ... you might be a partisan embarrassing yourself on the web.

LWW
???????????????????????????????????????? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Apparently egg doesn't understand punctuation.
But you knew that, didn't you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
02-06-2008, 06:11 AM
Nice to see you've finally cuddled up to LWW and Dawg.

DickLeonard
02-06-2008, 07:53 AM
Eg8r give us a democrat in the white House and a Congress and you will see the Indictments Following. There will be an empty Presidential Library in Austin.

It will all be burnt or destroyed in the 60 days till Jan 20th.####

LWW
02-06-2008, 08:30 AM
How much would you wager on that?

LWW

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:32 AM
Believe, I have never changed my stance on the two of you.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:34 AM
Glad to see you find something nice, I sure am tired of hearing you whine.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:36 AM
Time will tell won't it. I just think you are all full of empty lies. You guys told us once the Dems took control of Congress things would be different but nothing has changed.

I think it would be best if you guys just kept quiet for once instead of sticking your foot in your mouth and wait to see what might happen. All your gaurantees up to this point have been worthless.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 09:37 AM
Do you ever get anything right? The only person who went to jail, was a woman, Judy Miller, of the New York Times, the rumored mistress of Scooter Libby, of the White House, who never spent a day in jail, thatnks to your boy W., that's W., for WACKEY!

BTW, Ed, did you ever complain about earmarks, when the Republicans were running up the most earmark costs in history? And Bush, never vetoed a single bill? If so, please reference you post complaining about earmarks, when the Republicans were in the majority.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Your ignorace of the facts is astounding. Libby did not forget, he lied. <hr /></blockquote> So when a Rep changes his statement it is a lie, but when a Dem does it then he forgot? Quit the hypocrisy. I know he lied (and he deserves to be in jail for it), I am just using Dem logic to explain it.

[ QUOTE ]
The real story is that the Govt took inconclusive and suspect intel and presented them as facts <hr /></blockquote> This is no different than the previous administration but your hypocritical eyes just don't want to see it. Was it wrong, turns out it was and it has cost us a fortune but I can accept that. The hypocrisy here is that the Dems cannot accept the fact that their guys did the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that between june 2001 and the invasion 602 bombs were dropped on 391 special targets in Iraq?.......and they were a threat? <hr /></blockquote> They are still a threat to our soldiers over there right now.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever get anything right? The only person who went to jail, was a woman, Judy Miller, of the New York Times, the rumored mistress of Scooter Libby, of the White House, who never spent a day in jail, thatnks to your boy W., that's W., for WACKEY! <hr /></blockquote> He was sentenced for jail, and got a free ticket out. You should be OK with that since your guy let free a ton of crooks.

Now, what the heck is WACKEY? I know what wacky is but not with an E.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 09:54 AM
You are quite wrong. A great deal has happened, but then, you don't watch the Senate Investigation Committee hearings, so you don't know that the Iraqi Government is corrupt, and that they LOSE our Billions, and use them to supply money to the insurgents, to kill our troops. You don't know that Condi Rice, Secretary Of STatem didn't think it was her job to keep track of the missing millions that were supposed to be used to build the Iraqai Police Force, but instead were used to support the insurgents. You don't know that our government hired an Iraqai Judge, to look into the corruption in the Maliki Government, and that all of his investigators were slaughtered by Maliki when his own cousin was revealed as the go-between in the corruption. You don't know that Rice refused to let her psople testify before the cameras until she was exposed for being the incompetent liar that she is, because you don't care enough about what this administration is doing to our troops, to watch C-Span.

Our troops are dying for George Bush's EGO, and to prop up a corrupt Iraqi Government, that uses our tax dollars to kill our troops.

BUT YOU DONT''D KNOW THAT, DO YOU? The same way you don't even know who went to jail in the Valarie Plame Case, or who had the folder under his arm the week before all the calls to the reporters, with all the information on Plame, and got on AF 1 with Cheney and Bush, Rove and Libby, who tried to say the reporters t9old them everything. The missing e-mails tell the story. The White House is still stone walling the Senate Investigating Committee on the e-mails. Refusing to honor subpoenas, destroyig more evidence on torture, hiding everything from the Amercian People. But then, You don't care about any of that, right?

Right now, the only government more corrupt than the Iraqai Government, is the government under the control of the Bush Administration, but you don't care about that.


Gayle in Md,

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Wrong. the difference is that we don't think a lie about a private sexual encounter, between consenting adults, is the same thing as over 900 lies told to the American people over seven years, about a war which was also the result of lies, and in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, maimed, homeless, and billions of dollars missing, given to a corrupt Iraqi Government, which continues to go missing, along with massive amounts of weaponry, all used to kill our troops, for no reasonable gain to our country.

There is a HUGE difference. However, only the radical right wing idiots, deny that fact.

[ QUOTE ]
They are still a threat to our soldiers over there right now.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

YES, they are still a threat, but they are a threat, on-going, because now we are paying them, and giving them weapons, and they are using the money to kill our troops.

Draw the line, with your crayon....Republicans = Arms and MONEY, OUR MONEY, spent to supply radical elements, in secret, who then use the money and arms to kill Americans.

Rice doesn't think it's her job to keep track.

Henry Waxman:

"Secretary Rice, one of my concerns, as we look at Iraq, is that our trops are sacrificing their lives - our nation is spending hundreds of billions of dollars - to prop up a regime in Iraq that looks like it is fundamentally corrupt. Our Committee held a hearing on the corruption in Iraq - and at this hearing, we heaaaard from Judge Rhadhi Hamza Irahdi. Judge Rhadhi describerd a rising tide of corruption inside the Maliki government that is even funding the insurgency, and undermining efforts of political reconciliation. [The Iraqi Judge was appointed by the US Government to root out fraud and corruption in the Iraqi Government]

I suppose you are aware, Secretary Rice, that Judge Irhadhi told us his investiators had identified an enormous sum, 18 billion dollars that corru0pt Iraqi officials had stolen. ARe you aware of that?"

Rice: "I'm aware of a Judge Irhadhi's testimony to you, ah, Mr. Chairman."

Waxman: "Thank you. He also told us that 31 people on his staff werebrutally assassinated when they tried to investigate these officials. Were you aware of that?"

Rice: "I'm aware of his testimony to you, ah, Mr. Chairman."

Waxman: "Judge Rhadhi told this committee that Prime Minister Maliki used secret orders to stop investigations of corruption of top Iraqi ministers, including his own cousin, Salamo Maliki, the former minister of the transportation. Do you know if all of this is true?"

Rice: "Let me say that everything that has been brought to the attention of either various boards in Iraq, or to our people, is being investigated.

Waxman: So you're aware of this allegation and you're aware ofthis...

Rice, interrupting, : Ah, ah, I, I"m, I am not personally following every allegation, ah, of corruption in Iraq, ah, Mr. Chairman, ah but, ah, I'm certain that WE are tracking these ah, allegations of investig, ah of a corruptions because, ah, no one is more concerned about allegations of corruption in Iraq, no one is more concerned about, what IS in fact a pervasive prooblem of corruption, ah, then, then we, we are."

Waxman stated later, on Bill Moyers Journal, "I was so stunned when finally she admitted that someone at the State Department should have been looking after these things, and I said to her...'But you're the Secretary! You're in charge of the State Department! You're the one who should be making sure that the job is being done!' but I think it was a rare moment of candor, on her part.

During the same hearing Rice was asked by Representative Steven Lynch D., Ma., "Will you recind the directive that prevents your State Department employees, high ranking State Department employees, from comping here to discuss in great detail the levels and degree of corruption in Iraq?"

Rice: "I'm here talking right now about corruption in, ah, Iraq, about concerns of corruption in the ministries, concerns in corruption in the ministries of interrior -..."

Lynch: "In very vague terms, though, Madam Secretary..."

Rice: (Interrupting) Ah, I, I'm here..."

Lynch: (Interrupting) "with all due respect, Mad..."

Rice: (Interrupting) "But I want to renew the offer that I made to the Chairman which is that any document that relaters to this, any official who might have knowledge of this document is available to you any time, anywhere, IN CLOSED SESSION."


<font color="red">Closed session means that the Committee can't tell the American people about it. So the committee said they absolutely refused that. So then Rice said - "Well then I reject the previous position I had taken - meaning, that she would allow open testimoney, and stop stop gaging her people from the state Department, people who had blown the wistle on these matters, people who did not want our troops to be killed with our own money, by State Department money, billions, stolen by the corrupt Iraqi Government, so they spoke out, patriots, who care about our troops...


Yet, Rice, didn't change anything. Waxman and the Committee pressed her hard on it because after all, our people are dying in Iraq to sustain that government. The President says they're our allies, troops die everyday to keep tham in power. The committee has since subpoenaed them. They are continuing to investigate the corrupt Iraqi Government, which is using our money, to kill our people, all but those radicals whom we are presently paying, not to kill our troops.

Under the Republican Majority, none of these investigations would be on-going, and every REpublican who asks questions of these criminals, like Rice, turns questions into praise, without pressing for the dirty details, and I have watched this, live, on C-Span, including Plame's testimony, and that of the corrupt head of the G.S.A. Dorita Droan, and many other Appointees, by Bush, for years. So don't tell me that nothing has changed since the Democrats took over, for one thing, That complete Crook, Gonzales, is gone, and Iraq is beginning to sit up and take notice, because they know damned well, that Democrats are taking over, and they had better get their **** together, bacause we're outta there.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif Six Years Too Late! And don't tell me why didn't the Democrats do something, when you know damned well it takes two thirds of both houses to overrule Bush's Veto.

DOWN WITH REPIGLICANS...who don't give a damn about our troops dying for a corrupt Iraqi Government.

</font color>

eg8r
02-06-2008, 12:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are quite wrong. A great deal has happened <hr /></blockquote> You are right, I forgot. What was Pelosi's greatest achievement...Driving down approval ratings to a historical low of 11%, what a great resume bullet.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 12:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. the difference is that we don't think a lie about a private sexual encounter, between consenting adults <hr /></blockquote> It was a lie under oath, which means you don't really care about the justice system. I guess we can tag that along with your desire to infringe on free speech. You are definitely on a role.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 12:47 PM
Frankly I haven't been thrilled with Pelosi myself. She should have impeached this bunch of crooks. Stating that the country cannot withstand an impeachment, under these dire circumstances created by the worst administration in history, is no excuse for not protecting our laws, and our Constitution, IMO.

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 12:52 PM
No, I don't care about lies that people tell about their private, personal sex lives. People lie everyday, on the stand, in legal suits. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only reason why you make such a big damned deal over it, is because it was a Democrat. Bush has told over 900 lies, many of them people are dying for, but you don't mind that, huh? Guess it's hard to give a damn when you're on the war payroll, huh?

Free speech does not include imposing yourself into someone else's private affairs, or their space. Stop trying to rename things. Bush has done enough of that already. Is this just a Republican thing?

Gayle in Md.

If you and I ever do get together to shoot pool, I want a rep watching every shot! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
02-06-2008, 12:55 PM
Gayle, Google "Cheney took control of Norad"
I'm not offering any commentary on what you will find, but...

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 01:12 PM
There is an awful lot on the link at the botom of that page, that really does make you wonder. Nothing about Dick Cheney would surprise me. If I ever bring my boat back to the Chesapeake Bay, I plan on making a banner to fly by his house from my boat so atleast he will read what I think of him. Free speech, you know.

I once hear a group of scientists, some of them quite famous, debate this whole 9/11 conspiracty theory. Several were from Underwriters Laboratory. It was pretty hair raising. Check out that last link...

On Innauguration Day I'm going to this bar I know where I can see all the signs that people are supposed to put on the roofs in Washington, to usher out this criminal administration. I'll be celebrating, for sure. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

hondo
02-06-2008, 01:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Glad to see you find something nice, I sure am tired of hearing you whine.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

No more than I am tired of your wingnut crap.
I don't read your posts unless they concern me.
I suggest you do the same, chuckles.

LWW
02-06-2008, 01:26 PM
I always suspected you were a closet "TRUTHER".

LWW

wolfdancer
02-06-2008, 02:17 PM
It's my belief that one of GWB's final acts will be to pardon Cheney for any crimes committed while in office.
"And Justice For all...."

eg8r
02-06-2008, 03:37 PM
Keep your suggestions to youself. Unlike you, I can think and decide for myself whom I will be reading/responding to.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 03:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Stating that the country cannot withstand an impeachment, under these dire circumstances created by the worst administration in history, is no excuse for not protecting our laws, and our Constitution, IMO. <hr /></blockquote> I agree, if she has enough to impeach then she should have done it. However, this is the one area where Pelosi kept her word, she said in the beginning she would not impeach. For some reason though, even after she said it there still was no collective sigh. Oh well, I guess it is because very few people think it would have been successful.

This ought to make you laugh and cry at the same time...We have a guy at our church that came to one of our men's meetings (held at a members house and we were watching tv and playing pool). When the SOTU came on this guy started crying. When we asked him why he said, "I am sad, this is the last SOTU from one of the greatest Presidents in US history!" I was even stunned, it is quite a safe bet that there are few who would consider W a great President.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 03:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
People lie everyday, on the stand, in legal suits. Wake up and smell the coffee. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess that makes it right. Would you prefer we just throw out the oath to begin with that way we don't have to worry if someone is lying and we can just go on your preconceived judgements?

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason why you make such a big damned deal over it, is because it was a Democrat. <hr /></blockquote> No, I am impartial when it comes to lying. You mention Bush lied over 900 times, I say prove it. If he is caught in a lie then he should be punished. I have never wavered from this belief.

[ QUOTE ]
Free speech does not include imposing yourself into someone else's private affairs, or their space. Stop trying to rename things. <hr /></blockquote> No one is imposing anything, free speech is free speech and you want to limit it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you and I ever do get together to shoot pool, I want a rep watching every shot! <hr /></blockquote> I promise if you catch me cheating I will put the ball back, almost. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

hondo
02-06-2008, 09:18 PM
Lord, are you getting tiresome! And silly.

cheesemouse
02-06-2008, 09:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No, I am impartial when it comes to lying. You mention Bush lied over 900 times, I say prove it. If he is caught in a lie then he should be punished. I have never wavered from this belief.
<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&amp;context=overview&amp;id=945
Here ya go Ed....How you been buddy?

eg8r
02-06-2008, 10:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lord, are you getting tiresome! And silly. <hr /></blockquote> Just call me Ed.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 10:04 PM
If you can prove it then bring it up in a court of law or have the man impeached or put in jail. Don't send me to some editorial or story that tells what someone thinks.

eg8r

cheesemouse
02-06-2008, 10:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> If you can prove it then bring it up in a court of law or have the man impeached or put in jail. Don't send me to some editorial or story that tells what someone thinks.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Ed, What you so cavalierly brush off as 'editorial or story' is one of the best peaces of true journalism done in this country in decades. It is a tool, a search able data base that gives the proof you profess to appreciate. Obviously you did not investigate deep enough. This is not just what someone thinks Ed, this is proof. Put your blinders back on and go down your merry little path. I know you are older now but sorry to say not wiser...it's going to be a fun election Ed but maybe not for you.

eg8r
02-06-2008, 10:24 PM
If it is proof then bring the man to court and see if a judge and jury agree. None of this info is new, we have all heard the "facts" for years.

eg8r

cheesemouse
02-06-2008, 10:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> If it is proof then bring the man to court and see if a judge and jury agree. None of this info is new, we have all heard the "facts" for years.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
So for you the 'facts' are not facts until a judge and jury tell you so...hmmm, that is interesting. When I see truths and lies I recognize them as such all by my lonesome. I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones, huh?

eg8r
02-06-2008, 10:52 PM
Lucky or not, you are just another wannabe Gayle in here touting your "facts". If even an ounce of your "facts" were true, W would have been gone long ago.

eg8r

bamadog
02-07-2008, 12:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> If you can prove it then bring it up in a court of law or have the man impeached or put in jail. Don't send me to some editorial or story that tells what someone thinks.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Ed, What you so cavalierly brush off as 'editorial or story' is one of the best peaces of true journalism done in this country in decades. It is a tool, a search able data base that gives the proof you profess to appreciate. Obviously you did not investigate deep enough. This is not just what someone thinks Ed, this is proof. Put your blinders back on and go down your merry little path. I know you are older now but sorry to say not wiser...it's going to be a fun election Ed but maybe not for you. <hr /></blockquote>

You certainly have low standards for journalists, if you are so impressed with this piece.
May I suggest that you go down to your local bookstore and peruse a copy of "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman. It will dispel many of the misconceptions you've been laboring under, ie, the intelligence in the run-up to the war, Saddam's WMD, "Bush lied", etc. And it is a real piece of mature, and informed, journalism.
You can thank me later.

Qtec
02-07-2008, 03:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The only sucker in jail is there because he could not remember what he had said in the past. These simple lapses in memory are perfectly OK for the left, but never for the right.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

but now you say

[ QUOTE ]
when a Rep changes his statement it is a lie, but when a Dem does it then he forgot? Quit the hypocrisy. I know he lied (and he deserves to be in jail for it), I am just using Dem logic to explain it.<hr /></blockquote>


You do a complete U-turn in the space of a few posts and you have the gall to call me a nitwit! LMAO
If your first post states a view that is actually the opposite from what you believe, you can't blame others for being confused.


[ QUOTE ]
I am just using Dem logic to explain it.<hr /></blockquote>

You are not using ANY logic. Your answer to everything is "Clinton lied'!

[ QUOTE ]
The very same can be said about that secretary that was outed. What was her name again, Plame? Just more left wing Bs, that turns out not even a hill of beans.

eg8r<hr /></blockquote>

There you go again. Plame was more than a secretary.

[ QUOTE ]
FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.<hr /></blockquote>

There was a leak. What was his mission?

[ QUOTE ]
FITZGERALD: I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.


FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.




FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn:
Why was this information going out?
Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?
Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times?
Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday?
Why did he tell Mr. Cooper?
And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. <hr /></blockquote>


Wilson's op-ed.

"The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program ó all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. "




Its not a hill of beans Ed, its a well documented case of the Govt's "cherry picking" which was exposed by a well respected ex diplomat. They couldn't attack his report so they attacked him thru his wife. It was a rush job because they never expected it, thats why they made mistakes and got caught.
If Wilson had never spoken out they would have got away with it and would not have suffered the embarrassment of having to retract the 16 words spoken by the POTUS in the SOTU speech.

Timeline.
A dubious foreign intel report that has previously been rejected by the CIA several times as unreliable, makes its way into the SOTU speech [ by mistake] and is presented as undeniable proof that Saddam could soon have a nuke.
Wilson calls them on it.
Wilson gets trashed in the media and then his wife.
CIA asks for investigation and SC Fitz gets stonewalled by Libby.

Why is this case so important?

The Govt have claimed that there was a huge intel failure on Iraq. All their claims have turned out not to be true. 'Group think' is what they called it!
In this instance, the Govt clearly IGNORED their own intel services.
WHY?


Q..........
web page (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/13/cnna.wolf.rice/)

LWW
02-07-2008, 05:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Glad to see you find something nice, I sure am tired of hearing you whine.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
And you promised me you wouldn't call anyone a wingnut if I promised to stop calling a moonbat a moonbat.

You must be bored again as I see you slowly falling back to your true self.

LWW

No more than I am tired of your wingnut crap.
I don't read your posts unless they concern me.
I suggest you do the same, chuckles. <hr /></blockquote>

LWW
02-07-2008, 05:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> If you can prove it then bring it up in a court of law or have the man impeached or put in jail. Don't send me to some editorial or story that tells what someone thinks.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
You can't expect these folks to think without Soros telling them what they think.

This report has been discussed and debunked here already.

Dig up the list of 900 lies and you will find that:

-It is actually only 3 or 4 that were said multiple times.
-I haven't found 1 of them yet that was a lie.

This crew swallows the garbage of a foreigner who owns massive amounts of Halliburton stock and is on the run from a felony conviction in France ... so, yes Mr Soros is right up there with John Murtha and Alcee Hastings in the pantheon of DNC criminals.

Other than those minor items, the report may be fine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why didn't you mention this stuff CM?

Don't embarrass yourself by answering because we both know why ... you didn't care, it was anti Bush and that's all that matters. Truth has no relevance to the left on any Bush related topic.

LWW

hondo
02-07-2008, 06:16 AM
Oh, I forgot. You and Egg are buddies now.
I figured sooner or later you 2 would find each other.
You're welcome to him.

LWW
02-07-2008, 06:22 AM
I was speaking to you and not him.

The troll has flushed his ownself out it seems.

LWW

hondo
02-07-2008, 06:45 AM
Egg may be a lot of things but I wouldn't call him a troll.
That's a good way to lose your new best buddy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Gayle in MD
02-07-2008, 08:06 AM
Actually, the Democrats don't have enough majority to force any issue. They had to fight with the Republicans to force Bush to give decent equipment and time off for the troops, then he came up with "The Surge" which is a complete joke. It isn't a strategy, at all. Admiral Meuller and Gates testified yesterday. Did you see it? No, I'm sure you didn't. Their testimony was quite clear, Mueller stated that our armed forces are significantly stressed, You do know who he is? And that the pace required, (read not enough R &amp; R, and too long deployments) prevents proper training, and compromises our ability to address future threats. Read we are at risk due to this mess in Iraq.

Bush has destroyed our armed forces, and he refuses to pull our people out of a losing proposition. They completed their mission when he stated, Mission Accomplished. This is not a War On Terror, it is an illegal occupation of a foreign country that did not attack us, and was not an immediate threat. The 'Surge" is nothing more than buying off the militias, and pretending they are a neighborhood watch group. They're not. They're the insurgents, and now we've armed them all, and pay them monthly not to kill our troops. The additional funds required to maintain are hidden by Bush through emergency supplements. The actual costs for Bush's fiasco, won't emerge until he is gone. The costs for Iraq, aren't even in his budget for 09, and have not been in his annual budgets at all. This is another way he uses to fool Americans about what he's spending. There is no foll like a hard headed fool, and if McCain gets in there you can kiss this country goodby.

The Military has stated many times, that of the violence, only 2% is alqaeda. AlQaeda is in Pakistan, and afghanistan, not Iraq. bin Laden is free to train, and plan for his next attack, which he promises will be worse than enything we've seen. When it comes, you righties will still be blaming Clinton's BJ. Iraq is not the Center of any war, our presence there is an illegal occupation, which has severely compromised our economy, our safety here at home, and our reputation around the world, and emboldened our enemies.

Had more people voted for Democrats, there would be enough votes to cut off the funds for this occupation, but the sheep, bought into the on-going lies, and now they want to deny the blood on their hands. Our troops are dying for no gain to America, but to prop up a corrupt government under Maliki. This is what Republicans always do, put arms in the hands of radical terrorists, and prop up dictators. That's how Saddam got to be president in the first place.

Thank you Ronald Reagan! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

As for anyone crying over getting rid of Georoge Bush, the man needs a psychiatrist.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
02-07-2008, 08:20 AM
And, again, I was very specific in who I was referring to ... and it twas not he, but thee.

But, thou didst have this knowledge before thine didst post thy bovine excrement of a reply to my witty repartee'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-07-2008, 08:23 AM
Proof is the enemy of the right. the brain washed are unable to use critical thinking. "News speak" is their only language. Too bad that our innocent troops have to die because these people propped up an idiot, and all his crooks, for the last eight years. Our country has never been at such a risky time, and our economy and the future of this country has been severely hurt by Bush, and the Republicans who gave him a blank check. The greatest offenders, are the voters who have refused all along to acknowledge the facts. The obvious results are their nemesis. they will never admit to their lack of judgement. To do so would require them to own up to nearly four thousand dead Americans, a deepening recession, no allies left, a broken military, and huge debt to foreign countries. Their all traitors, as far as I'm concerned. One bad vote could have been forgiven. But those who still deny the realities of what is going on presently, are the worst of the worst.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
02-07-2008, 08:37 AM
Eg8r that is it there isn't anything there just like his military record it isn't there either.####

eg8r
02-07-2008, 08:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you see it? No, I'm sure you didn't. Their testimony was quite clear, Mueller stated that our armed forces are significantly stressed, You do know who he is? <hr /></blockquote> Absolutely not, I get all my leftist slant directly from your posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Had more people voted for Democrats <hr /></blockquote> So I guess you were wrong in how many people had your partisan view.

[ QUOTE ]
As for anyone crying over getting rid of Georoge Bush, the man needs a psychiatrist. <hr /></blockquote> This may be true. If he does not leave soon you might be next in line. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-07-2008, 09:11 AM
I am not doing any U-turn. When I say some sucker is in jail because he had a lapse in memory is only a dig at those on the left on this board who use that excuse for their own liars. It is sarcasm just like every time I call Plame a secretary. LOL, you are definitely a nitwit.

LOL, after continuing to read I see you get the point where I was using Dem logic...you really are a nit. I explain it to you and you still don't get it.

[ QUOTE ]
Its not a hill of beans Ed <hr /></blockquote> I know the crusade was not a hill of beans, it never got that high. It turned out to be nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this case so important?
<hr /></blockquote> It isn't important to me and it has amounted to nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
The Govt have claimed that there was a huge intel failure on Iraq. All their claims have turned out not to be true. 'Group think' is what they called it!
In this instance, the Govt clearly IGNORED their own intel services.
WHY? <hr /></blockquote> They wanted to piss off some liberal nutjobs so they could post about it online. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-07-2008, 09:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This report has been discussed and debunked here already.

Dig up the list of 900 lies and you will find that:

-It is actually only 3 or 4 that were said multiple times.
-I haven't found 1 of them yet that was a lie. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I would not go that far. For sure he has lied during his presidency. I just don't believe it has ever been near as bad as the left's fantasy.

eg8r

LWW
02-07-2008, 09:17 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;
This report has been discussed and debunked here already.

Dig up the list of 900 lies and you will find that:

-It is actually only 3 or 4 that were said multiple times.
-I haven't found 1 of them yet that was a lie. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I would not go that far. For sure he has lied during his presidency. I just don't believe it has ever been near as bad as the left's fantasy.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
To clarify the post ... I have no doubt that every POTUS in history has lied.

When you look at the list however, it is the same "lie" over and over and over and over.

Put another way, it was a typical Soros hatchet job with little or no basis in reality ... just like the Dembots want it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-07-2008, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not, I get all my leftist slant directly from your posts.

<hr /></blockquote>

You love to show your ignorance, apparently. Gates and Mueller, testifying live before the House, is not leftist slant.

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess you were wrong in how many people had your partisan view.

<hr /></blockquote>

I was wrong to think that there were enough people paying attention to finding the facts to be capable of making reasonable decisions when the ime came to get rid of the biggets liar, and the most incompetent administration in history. Since then, however, 75% of Americans have seen the light, now realize that the occupation of Iraq, is not a war on terror, but an illegal occupation, based on lies. Hence, Republicans are behind in both number of voters, and contributions.

[ QUOTE ]
This may be true. If he does not leave soon you might be next in line.


<hr /></blockquote>

Another sentence that doesn't make any sense?

cheesemouse
02-07-2008, 10:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> If you can prove it then bring it up in a court of law or have the man impeached or put in jail. Don't send me to some editorial or story that tells what someone thinks.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
You can't expect these folks to think without Soros telling them what they think.

This report has been discussed and debunked here already.

Dig up the list of 900 lies and you will find that:

-It is actually only 3 or 4 that were said multiple times.
-I haven't found 1 of them yet that was a lie.

This crew swallows the garbage of a foreigner who owns massive amounts of Halliburton stock and is on the run from a felony conviction in France ... so, yes Mr Soros is right up there with John Murtha and Alcee Hastings in the pantheon of DNC criminals.

Other than those minor items, the report may be fine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why didn't you mention this stuff CM? <font color="red">the reason I did mention 'this stuff' is that I would not elevate myself to such a high place that I could improve upon these peoples own words. This piece of true journalism is simply what 'these eight peoples own spoken word's from 9/11 and 18 months forward, placed in chronological order, and search able and there for your use. Once again: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&amp;context=overview&amp;id=945
For those who missed it. Be warned this is tool and you have to learn how to properly use it. </font color>

Don't embarrass yourself by answering because we both know why ... you didn't care, it was anti Bush and that's all that matters. Truth has no relevance to the left on any Bush related topic. <font color="red">What is embarrassing is your fixation on Soro's, it make you appear to be nuts.</font color>


LWW

bamadog
02-07-2008, 11:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>



The Military has stated many times, that of the violence, only 2% is alqaeda. AlQaeda is in Pakistan, and afghanistan, not Iraq. bin Laden is free to train, and plan for his next attack, which he promises will be worse than enything we've seen. When it comes, you righties will still be blaming Clinton's BJ. Iraq is not the Center of any war, our presence there is an illegal occupation, which has severely compromised our economy, our safety here at home, and our reputation around the world, and emboldened our enemies.



Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Bin Laden has stated that Iraq is the center of his holy jihad against the West. Didn't you read any of the communications he had with Zarqawi? Our troops there, have killed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives.
Is the truth just irrelevant to you?

eg8r
02-07-2008, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Absolutely not, I get all my leftist slant directly from your posts. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> You love to show your ignorance, apparently. Gates and Mueller, testifying live before the House, is not leftist slant.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I am showing my arrogance? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I never mentioned Gates and Mueller, I mentioned YOU. You are the one that slants everything and it is your partisan posts that I read.

[ QUOTE ]
I was wrong <hr /></blockquote> No need to go any further. I am glad to see you admit it once.

[ QUOTE ]
Another sentence that doesn't make any sense? <hr /></blockquote> It makes great sense and it was meant as a joke. You said W needs a shrink. I said you will be next in line if W was to stay in office any longer. You are losing it and lately you seem closer and closer to the nut house.

eg8r

LWW
02-07-2008, 12:30 PM
You shouldn't always deny what Soros is.

It makes you appear quite the tool ... but you never have seemed to have much interest in the truth.

LWW

hondo
02-07-2008, 12:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> And, again, I was very specific in who I was referring to ... and it twas not he, but thee.

But, thou didst have this knowledge before thine didst post thy bovine excrement of a reply to my witty repartee'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Methinks thou is still pisseth offus over me silly, imaginary conversation twixt thy grandchilde and thee.
Please to accept me humble remonstrances of remourse. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

hondo
02-07-2008, 12:44 PM
After all, there's lying and then there's lying.
Surely, in your eyes, no Republican has ever lied like the Democrats have? Am I safe in assuming that?

cheesemouse
02-07-2008, 01:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> You shouldn't always deny what Soros is.

It makes you appear quite the tool ... but you never have seemed to have much interest in the truth.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Me 'always deny what Soros is' I think that was the first time I have ever typed the guys name. I'm not sure whether I've said his name out loud or not. You obviously know more about him than I. All I know of him is that he is a pretty good capitalist. I guess I don't have your ability of divining things out of thin air, this divining thing must make you sleep well at night....BOO! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

p.s. I nearly forgot the truth thing.....so the things that people say, the words that actually comes out of their mouths aren't the truth, they really didn't say them? It is not true they said them? You lost me somewhere.

LWW
02-07-2008, 04:22 PM
If that's the case then you should read up on GEORGE SOROS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros) and see who bought the DNC.

A common criminal.

LWW

Qtec
02-08-2008, 08:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not doing any U-turn. <hr /></blockquote>
?
From day one you have consistently denied that Plame was covert. You have consistently understated her function at the CIA, claimed that no crime was committed [ because nobody was prosecuted?],that nothing happened, that Libby just forgot and it was all a hill of beans.
ie EXACTLY the same as what you have stated in this thread.
How can it be sarcasm if these posts exactly reflect what you have always claimed ?

[ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm[A] is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] An example of sarcasm is using "that's fantastic" to mean "that's awful"<hr /></blockquote>

ie, if you had said "Libby deliberately outed a covert WMD specialist in order to cover-up the Govt's manipulation of the facts and this plot went right up to the WH and the Skull and Bones were behind it",- THAT would be sarcasm coming from you.

My guess is you have finally come to the conclusion you were wrong on this but you don't want to have to admit it.


What happened may not be important to you but that doesn't mean its not important.

The Govt deliberately used dubious claims [ that the CIA even didn't believe] to fool the US into supporting an unnecessary war. If thats not a big deal then I don't know what is.
I do know its a zillion times more important than BC's BJ.
Q

Gayle in MD
02-08-2008, 11:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
...We have a guy at our church that came to one of our men's meetings (held at a members house and we were watching tv and playing pool). When the SOTU came on this guy started crying. When we asked him why he said, "I am sad, this is the last SOTU from one of the greatest Presidents in US history!" I was even stunned, it is quite a safe bet that there are few who would consider W a great President.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
It makes great sense and it was meant as a joke. You said W needs a shrink. I said you will be next in line if W was to stay in office any longer. You are losing it and lately you seem closer and closer to the nut house.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">If you would read the post again, maybe you could figure it out. I said, as for your friend. (the one at your mens meeting) he needs a psychiatrist.

I wasn't taking about Bush, Bush needs much more than a shrink. He needs a whole team of shrinks, but IMO, only the gallows would suffice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-08-2008, 11:39 AM
Nice try, Ed. You'll do anything to avoid addressing evidence. You'd prefer to get into insults, than to have to address the statements made by Gates and Mueller, and hence, the way Bush has destroyed the military, and put our country at risk of being unable to even respond to an National disaster, or attack, due to his stubborn refusal to admit that this illegal invasion in Iraq, has been a disasterous mistake, which has deeply hurt our country in many ways.

You, Deeman, Steve, all use that same silly tactic. Seldom are any documented points addressed, (see Steve's same tactic in referring to the Clinton's allowing Chinese to sleep in old Abe's bedroom, compared to Bush, borrowing trillions from them, and then having to look the other way while they STEAL from us, and the resulting massive trade deficits, our damaged economy, and China buying us out daily) Yet, not one of you ignorant neocons can point to any damage this country has suffered over the overnight at the White House.

Your boy George called Dick Cheney the greatest Vice President in history this morning at the Republican Myth Fest. Gee, wonder why all but twelve percent of Americans hate the SOB? Wonder why 75% of Americans think that our country is heading in the wrong direction, and that we should get out of Iraq? Wonder why the Special Prosecutor stated in no uncertain terms, along with the judge, that Libby obstructed justice, and stood in the way of getting Cheney on his treasonist outing of a covert CIA agent?

The right wing neocons yapped for two years, lying about Plame, stating that she was just a secretary, and that no law had been broken. You bought it. Then, after the CIA sent a letter to the Senate Investigating Committee, stating plain and clear, that she WAS COVERT, that lives had been risked, hers included, and that she had traveled out of this country recent to the outing, on behalf of our countries investigations on WMD, all but the nutty right wing idiots, knew the score. You never admitted your foolish take on the subject, and the lies YOU TOLD here on this sight about Valarie Plame. How the hell do you expect any of us here to take you seriously?

You're the last person around here that is qualified to suggest just whom among us needs meds, or the nut house. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif You're just a few paces ahead of No Where Man, and his side kick, although I do read your posts, so that's something.

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
02-08-2008, 02:22 PM
Hell if we were the Chinese,we would do exactly what they are doing. We need to get smarter,and recognize when Microsoft,Wal-mart,and every auto maker,is in China big time,something went wrong. Where they making Barbie these days? Our kids are dumber, getting diabetes eating junk food,and playing computer games. And the Chinese kids are, beating the crap out of us in education..oh my where have we gone wrong.

Deeman3
02-08-2008, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Hell if we were the Chinese,we would do exactly what they are doing. We need to get smarter,and recognize when Microsoft,Wal-mart,and every auto maker,is in China big time,something went wrong. Where they making Barbie these days? Our kids are dumber, getting diabetes eating junk food,and playing computer games. And the Chinese kids are, beating the crap out of us in education..oh my where have we gone wrong. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> We have all moved the bar down a bunch for expectations of our children and glorified pop over substance. It's collectively all our faults and we have prepared two generations that follow us for nothing but to hold out their hands and demand someone do something. Before you call this partisan name calling, I fully know the republicans are becoming every bit as whiny and complacent as the liberal democrats. This was and is a joint effort. </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-08-2008, 03:06 PM
We haven't. The problem is that we live in a country where one party demands a high standard of education, but without having to pay for it. We have one party which is actually dumb enough to believe that America can exist swimmingly, without the collection of income taxes.

Rather hilarious listening to them huff and puff about taking responsibility, while they whine about having to pay their own share of the costs required to provide a decent education for our children.

Penny wise, and pound foolish. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

LWW
02-08-2008, 03:49 PM
What did you do with your $600.00 tax rebate last time?

If you did anything less than return it to the IRS signed to go to the general fund then you are nothing but a hypocrite expecting the gubmint to, at gunpoint if needed, for others to do what you will not do yourself.

Pathetic.

LWW

eg8r
02-08-2008, 08:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You'd prefer to get into insults, than to have to address the statements made by Gates and Mueller, <hr /></blockquote> I am not getting into insults, you were the one that mentioned their names, I MENTIONED YOU.

[ QUOTE ]
Seldom are any documented points addressed <hr /></blockquote> You don't bother to read any. Such is the case, every time we read a post of yours that says we were fine with giving W a blank check.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, not one of you ignorant neocons can point to any damage this country has suffered over the overnight at the White House.
<hr /></blockquote> The damage done has been posted plenty of times. The Clintons were in bed with the Chinese the entire time and we lost countless military data to the Chinese on more than one occasion under their watch.

[ QUOTE ]
The right wing neocons yapped for two years, lying about Plame, stating that she was just a secretary, and that no law had been broken. <hr /></blockquote> Yet to this day, not one single person has proven any laws were broken. If it could be proven Cheney would be in jail.

[ QUOTE ]
You're the last person around here that is qualified to suggest just whom among us needs meds, <hr /></blockquote> I did not suggest you to get any.

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2008, 08:22 PM
The Chinese are evil facist pigs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2008, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you would read the post again, maybe you could figure it out. I said, as for your friend. (the one at your mens meeting) he needs a psychiatrist.

I wasn't taking about Bush, Bush needs much more than a shrink. He needs a whole team of shrinks, but IMO, only the gallows would suffice. <hr /></blockquote> I definitely must have misread it. You don't usually take the time to mention anyone else other than W. My post was meant as a joke though because given all your "unhate" but close to "hate" of W, if he lasts any longer I think your head might burst. If anything you might have a lawsuit for carpal tunnel. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2008, 08:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
From day one you have consistently denied that Plame was covert. <hr /></blockquote> Q, your head is like water on cement. I know the explanation of my posts will slowly seep in but dang, why do you need to be so blatant about it?

[ QUOTE ]
ie, <hr /></blockquote> I absolutely refuse to read anything from you if it ever offers anything near a suggestion.

[ QUOTE ]
What happened may not be important to you but that doesn't mean its not important. <hr /></blockquote> OK, it is important to you. Here in the states it never amounted to a hill of beans.

eg8r

Drop1
02-08-2008, 08:37 PM
Put some Cheese Wizz on that man's sandwich.

Gayle in MD
02-09-2008, 09:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not getting into insults, you were the one that mentioned their names, I MENTIONED YOU.

<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Do you want ot respond to the statements they made, or not? You won't and can't without acknowledging the failures of Bush's policies. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
You don't bother to read any. Such is the case, every time we read a post of yours that says we were fine with giving W a blank check.
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">If you voted for the Republicans who gave him the blank check, you WERE obviously fine with it. You voted for Bush, twice, that means you WERE fine with it. When I speak of the Republican blank check, I am spaeking of the Rep[ublican Party which were in majority during the first six years while he cut taxes, and ran up our debt, and looked the other way as he borrowed us into dangerous circumstances, addressed by Gates, and Meuller. Own up or shut up. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
damage done has been posted plenty of times. The Clintons were in bed with the Chinese the entire time and we lost countless military data to the Chinese on more than one occasion under their watch.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Frist of all you are unable to provide any substantive proof that our country was hurt by anything the Clinton's did with China. I, on the other hand, can point to trillions in debt to China, and the on-going failure of George Bush to address their cheating ways in the global marketplace, which has allowed them to expand their military power, as George Bush has been busy destroying our military. Gates and Mueller have both addressed this, along with a number of other high level Militarym and hence, the high level Military, are not supporting Republicans, or McCain. We did not lose a damned thing to the Chinese under the Clinton Administration. Nothing. What have we lost under Bush? Honor in the world, safety here at hom, military power, nearly four thousand Americans, many thousand more destroying limbs, brains, and lives, credibility in the world, allies, and treasure, and you want to whine about secrets? What secrets Ed, tell us exactly what countless data have we lost to the Chinese. Now, do try not to wiggle out of answering this for once. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Yet to this day, not one single person has proven any laws were broken. If it could be proven Cheney would be in jail.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">That is a lie. It has been proven that the law was broken. The federal judges said so, the CIA said so, the special prosecutor said so and the charges against Scooter Libby in and of themselves, say so,.... purgery, obstruction of justice, among other counts. Stop lying, </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
I did not suggest you to get any.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">you have made those accusations, of drug use, off the meds, a number of tiimes. Shall I pull them all up for you? I won't bother, however, may I say that the one accusation I make over and over of the right, is one of ignorance. Now we all know, that ignorance is a condition that every living human being suffers from, as none of us can know everything, however, it is a matter of degree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-09-2008, 09:04 AM
I'm resigned to the damage of Bush in the White House for another ten and a half months, but that doesn't make it any less frightening. Don't you worry about my head, friend. I've been right on the money about George Bush. You're the one who has a history of disaster in the voting booth. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
02-09-2008, 01:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you want ot respond to the statements they made, or not? You won't and can't without acknowledging the failures of Bush's policies.

<hr /></blockquote> NO! I am talking about you not them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you voted for the Republicans who gave him the blank check, you WERE obviously fine with it. <hr /></blockquote> And like normal you are still out of touch with reality. You are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Own up or shut up. <hr /></blockquote> The delirious one is telling me to shut up...now that if funny I don't care who you are.

[ QUOTE ]
Frist of all you are unable to provide any substantive proof that our country was hurt by anything the Clinton's did with China. <hr /></blockquote> There is no reason to restate it. You ignored it the first few hundred times. What, am I supposed to believe you will be sensible and open-minded this time?

[ QUOTE ]
What secrets Ed, tell us exactly what countless data have we lost to the Chinese. Now, do try not to wiggle out of answering this for once.
<hr /></blockquote> Go back through our posts and see if maybe you can read this time. They are there but my bet is you don't want find out you were wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
That is a lie. <hr /></blockquote> Well, it was not really a lie, just an overlooked instance. The one person that did break a law was Scooter. Other than that, no broken laws pertaining to Plame were proven.

[ QUOTE ]
you have made those accusations, of drug use, off the meds, a number of tiimes. <hr /></blockquote> This was quite some time ago, and according to our PMs (including my apology) I thought we both moved past them. Looks like I was able to and you are not.

[ QUOTE ]
I won't bother, however, may I say that the one accusation I make over and over of the right, is one of ignorance. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, and the one accusation of the left is hypocrisy for not being able to see their own ignorance.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-09-2008, 02:40 PM
It's just a modern version of Kipling's
"The Man who would Be King"

" Daniel Dravot and Peachey Carnehan, who announce that they are off to Kafiristan, in the Afghan mountains, to set themselves up as kings. The narrator is persuaded to help them when they appeal to him as fellow Freemasons.

Two years later, on an exceptionally hot summer night, Carnehan creeps into the journalist's office a broken man, a crippled beggar clad in rags. For the rest of the evening, he tells an amazing story. Dravot and Carnehan succeeded in making themselves kings, persuading the natives that Dravot was a god (the son of Alexander the Great), mustering an army, taking over villages, and dreaming of building a unified nation."
Doesn't that sound like Bush, who just claims to be doing God's work, and Dick is just "Peachey"

Gayle in MD
02-09-2008, 04:33 PM
No proof has ever been posted on this forum or anywhere else, regarding illegal activity regarding the Clintons dealings with China. Also, the Clintons never took anything out of the White House that wasn't theirs. Also, the Vice President, and Bush, were referred to in the Libby case, by the judge and the special prosecutor, and the remaining cloud overthe White House and the Vice President's office, that must be too deep for your little mind to digest. Stop telling lies you can't prove. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
02-09-2008, 10:44 PM
Keep living in your fantasy land.

eg8r

bamadog
02-09-2008, 11:12 PM
Gayle, once and for all, if you have any proof that the President or the Vice President outed Plame, POST IT.
Otherwise, stop repeating the lie.

LWW
02-10-2008, 04:15 AM
Dawg, how many times does it have to be explained?

The best evidence a neolib can have is no evidence at all!

Since she never has any she must be right!

Just ask her!

Now, if'n you would just whack yerself in the forehead with about a three foot hunk of fence post a couple times before you say the above ... well it'll start makin good scents to ya.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-11-2008, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it was not really a lie, just an overlooked instance. The one person that did break a law was Scooter. Other than that, no broken laws pertaining to Plame were proven.

<hr /></blockquote>

That isn't what three Federal judges, the Director of the CIA, the Special Prosecutor, and the Federal Judge in the Scooter Libby Trail stated, but you go right on believing your fantasy, Ed, the rest of the country knows what happened, other than the nutty thirty percent, who believe and deny as they need. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bamadog
02-11-2008, 08:40 PM
<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;
Well, it was not really a lie, just an overlooked instance. The one person that did break a law was Scooter. Other than that, no broken laws pertaining to Plame were proven.

<hr /></blockquote>

That isn't what three Federal judges, the Director of the CIA, the Special Prosecutor, and the Federal Judge in the Scooter Libby Trail stated, but you go right on believing your fantasy, Ed, the rest of the country knows what happened, other than the nutty thirty percent, who believe and deny as they need. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Just as I thought, Gayle. I challenged you, and you have nothing, except lies.
But by all means, rant on.

Qtec
02-11-2008, 08:46 PM
web page (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm)
web page (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17987)

Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.


According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.




Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.



This info is really very easy to find.

Q

LWW
02-12-2008, 05:27 AM
And what are you imagining that this means Q?

LWW

eg8r
02-12-2008, 09:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That isn't what three Federal judges, the Director of the CIA, the Special Prosecutor, and the Federal Judge in the Scooter Libby Trail stated, <hr /></blockquote> Well, you keep thinking you know what you are talking about and the situation will continue being nothing. Nothing came out of that crusade and your balloon has run out of hot air.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 09:30 AM
Plenty came out of it, 75% of Americans got to see just how common Bush and Cheney are, hence, your party is going to get a thumpin' thanks to your hero George, the idiot. Atleast five of the other nutty 25% post on this forum, and you're one of them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

LWW
02-12-2008, 09:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Plenty came out of it, 75% of Americans got to see just how common Bush and Cheney are, hence, your party is going to get a thumpin' thanks to your hero George, the idiot. Atleast five of the other nutty 25% post on this forum, and you're one of them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Sweetheart, if 75% of the population had a clue what was going on the DNC and RNC both would be toast.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2008, 10:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
On June 12, 2003, the same day that news accounts appeared citing Wilson's allegations against the administration-albeit without him being named-Libby first learned from Cheney that Plame worked at the CIA and might have played a role in sending her husband to Niger. Libby's indictment stated: "On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President learned this information from the CIA."

On July 6, 2003, Wilson himself went public in an op-ed piece in The New York Times and on NBC's "Meet the Press" with his claims that the Bush administration had misrepresented the Niger information to make the case for war.

Among those who took notice was Cheney.

Cheney cut Wilson's op-ed out of the newspaper and wrote in the margins: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] 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?" <hr /></blockquote>

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/24/Cheneysnotes.jpg

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm


It means that Cheney was involved right from the very beginning in the Plame leak.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" <hr /></blockquote>

He is the one suggesting they target Plame. It cracks me up that he would be suspicious of a US Ambassador doing pro bono work, ie for the public good!

Geez, if he was sent to Monaco by his wife I could believe that could be a bit suspect but Niger!

Who sent him is irrelevant.His report only agreed with the assessment.

[ QUOTE ]
After reading the DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA's analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-05), an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, "information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated." The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that "some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger's two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm<hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm)

Are you getting any of this? These are all facts.


Q

bamadog
02-12-2008, 08:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>




It means that Cheney was involved right from the very beginning in the Plame leak.


Are you getting any of this? These are all facts.


Q <hr /></blockquote>

Well Q, unlike Gayle, and other hyper-partisan libs here, you, at least, have the guts to debate this issue.

First, nothing you posted shows that "Cheney was involved right from the very beginning in the Plame leak."
Are you even aware of who actually leaked Plame's name?

Second, Wilson lied in his op-ed piece.

From The Senate intelligence Committee:
In his debriefing by the CIA on 3/5/02, Wilson did not debunk potential uranium deals with Saddam. Instead he spoke of "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq, which the CIA interpreted-as did former govt officials Wilson spoke to in Niger-as meaning uranium sales.

The CIA report, on the Wilson trip, issued on 3/8/02, concluded that an Iraqi commercial delegation headed by nuclear expert Wissam al -Zahawie visited Niger in 1999 to discuss Uranium Yellowcake sales.

Instead of proving Saddam had never tried to purchase uranium from Niger, in the eyes of most analysts Wilson's report "lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal", the intelligence committee concluded.

Further, Wilson claimed that he had inspected the "forged" Italian documents on yellowcake sales. But under testiimony to the Committee, he admitted that he had never seen the documents, and could, therefore, have no knowledge of their authenticity.

The Senate Intelligence Committee found information that directly contradicted nearly every critical point of Wilson's story. In short, Wilson was a liar.

At the Time of the publication of Wilson's NYT op-ed piece, he was working as an advisor for the Kerry campaign.

Further, Plame lied to a Congressional Committee investigating the affair when she said (about her husbands trip), "No, I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I didn't have the authority."
The Senate Intelligence Committee report from July 2004 found that Plame offered up her husband's name in a memorandum to her boss on Feb. 12, 2002. This was the day BEFORE the Vice President asked the CIA about possible Iraqi uranium purchases.
Plame perjured herself in front of the House Committee.

Plame "covert"?

When she worked for the CIA in Athens she applied for a Mortgage using an APO address used by the CIA station. So she was under "official cover" but she was never undercover or covert. Former CIA officer Bob Baer said, "Once you have gone out on official cover, you can never go out as a covert officer. Thus, she was not a covert officer".

Further, The Senate Intelligence Committee found notes from intelligence meetings she had attended where Plame's name was not followed by (C) as was required of covert agents.
Calling Plame "covert" was a political ruse. She was not covered by the statute, and no one was ever charged with outing her.
In Fact, her civil case was thrown out of court.

Summary: Wilson lied. Plame lied. Plame was not covert.
I hope this clears things up for you.

bamadog
02-14-2008, 01:10 AM
Well Q, the ball's in your court.

Qtec
02-14-2008, 01:33 AM
web page (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/)
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert
May 29, 2007(Political Animal)
YES, VALERIE PLAME WAS COVERT....In a court filing today, Patrick Fitzgerald provides a summary of Valerie Plame Wilson's status with the CIA's Counterproliferation Division at the time she was outed to the press by members of the Bush administration. Guess what? She was covert:

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity ó sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias ó but always using cover ó whether official or non-official cover (NOC) ó with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

So that settles that. I hope the wingosphere can finally stop bleating about how she wasn't "really" covert and there was no harm in what Libby et. al. did. <hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml)

Are we done with this now? Plame was covert. End of story. How can we have a discussion if you continue dispute the most basic facts?

Your post is full of strawmen, innaccuracies and without links.
Firstly, as Wilson says,
[ QUOTE ]
"I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech." <hr /></blockquote>

Strawman No 1.

In his debriefing by the CIA on 3/5/02, Wilson did not debunk potential uranium deals with Saddam. Instead he spoke of "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq, which the CIA interpreted-as did former govt officials Wilson spoke to in Niger-as meaning uranium sales.


[ QUOTE ]
Hume used baseless claim to attack straw-man version of Wash. Post article on Libby trial

Summary: Brit Hume mischaracterized a Washington Post report as asserting that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's 2002 report had debunked allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. Hume then attempted to refute the Post's purported assertion -- which the article did not make. Hume baselessly claimed, contrary to the CIA's report on Wilson's findings, that Wilson told the CIA he interpreted talk of a meeting about "commercial relations" between the then-Nigerien prime minister and Iraqis as being about uranium. <hr /></blockquote> web page (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020020)

Read it.

[ QUOTE ]
First, nothing you posted shows that "Cheney was involved right from the very beginning in the Plame leak." <hr /></blockquote>

When Wilson's op-ed came out, Cheney cut it out the newspaper and wrote on it, "did his wife send him on a junket"? Not long after this, Libby meets Miller, leaks selective parts of the NIE and tells her about Plame. This is before the Novak article was published.
The disinfo campaign firstlt suggested it was a free trip for the hubby and then its was a plot by a Dem to discredit the Govt.
Problem is ,Wilson was PROVED to be right. Can you smear someone with the truth?

What we do know for sure is that when the Iraqis visited Niger, no deals were done and yellowcake was never even mentioned.

Q..BTW.here is what Zahawie has to say about it. web page (http://www.slate.com/id/2143704/nav/tap2/)

LWW
02-14-2008, 05:19 AM
OK ... so after 3 years of debating this with you ... you have finally proven to me that Dick Cheney reads the newspaper, and probably saw all of this for the first time the same as the rest of us.

The actual person who outted her to the press was well known to Fitzgerald early on ... yet he continued looking for a scalp.

Lastly, Wilson had "outted" Plame numerous times before ... much like Gayle outting Gayle.

All told, you and Gayle have nothing but fantasy to back up your thinking ... but, you both already knew that.

LWW

Qtec
02-14-2008, 08:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> OK ... so after 3 years of debating this with you ... you have finally proven to me that Dick Cheney reads the newspaper, and probably saw all of this for the first time the same as the rest of us.

The actual person who outted her to the press was well known to Fitzgerald early on ... yet he continued looking for a scalp.

Lastly, Wilson had "outted" Plame numerous times before ... much like Gayle outting Gayle.

All told, you and Gayle have nothing but fantasy to back up your thinking ... but, you both already knew that.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Novak outed Plame .
Armitage make a mistake. There was no intent to 'out' a covert CIA operative. web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/11/late-edition-armitage-on-leaking-plames-identity/)

His mistake does not justify Libby telling Miller, Rove confirming to Novak and telling Cooper about Plame.
Miller,
[ QUOTE ]
Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plameís identity on July 11th, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didnít know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didnít know about it or that this was all the leakÖ <hr /></blockquote>

There is a big difference between one person inadvertently giving info on a CIA employee eg by letting something slip in conversation ,and a bunch of WH officials deliberately spreading the news around town about Wilson's wife to any reporter who will listen in order to discredit him.
Plame has NOTHING to do with Wilson's report or his op-ed.

The real issue is how did the 16 words which were TWICE removed from speeches by the CIA , STILL made its way into the SOTU ?
Doesn't this episode show that the Govt was SO lacking in real evidence to prove their claims that they were willing to use ANY vague report- no matter how unreliable - to make their case for war?
Q

DickLeonard
02-14-2008, 09:45 AM
Eg8r why was Libby Pardoned? FYI he had the President and Vice President by the Balls [8 or 9] take your pick. It was either that of murder him.

Their Impeachment was in the Future if he wasn't. The furor would have sent the Repubs Congressmen and Senators a message. Stand in the way and you won't survive your next election.####

Gayle in MD
02-14-2008, 10:42 AM
Dick,
Ed will never admit that he was wrong. In spite of Libby's conviction on five counts of Pergury, and obstruction of Justice, and the Special Prosecutor's statements, along with the Federal Judge, and two other Federal Judges, who heard the case, and determined that a crime was committed, and a covert Agent was outed. All of their statements, clearly led straight to Cheney's office, and the President's oval office.

Convictions on all Five counts of pergury, and obstruction of Justice, and all those officers of the Federal Laws, stating that a crime was committed, and admonishing the White House in their statements!

Yet our friend Ed, here, denies that a crime was committed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Calls others, partisan, and refuses to answer hypothetical questions, while he accuses me of not answering questions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

If I've already answered a question, and a poster is just being sarcastic, I don't answer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif Our friend Ed, on the other hand, refuses to go down the rabbit hole, as he calls it, or just flat out changes the question, to his liking, and then pretends to have answered it.

I'm going to take his wife out for a luxurious meal someday, and present her with a trophy, engraved! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

bamadog
02-14-2008, 11:05 AM
Q, I knew you would provide a good argument.

OK, so Fitzgerald is saying that "technically" the CIA is calling Plame covert. She did not act covert, nor did others at the agency consider her covert. Novak, who was not charged, said that his high level sources at the CIA told him, she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative." If someone had been charged with outing her, you can bet that at the trial her covert status would have been challenged.

My source for the many Wilson lies was the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the affair. They found Wilson had been untruthful. Look it up.
And his motive was obvious. He was working for Kerry, and was jockeying for a position in a Kerry administration.

Simple question, why was no one ever charged with outing Plame?

I am not going to get into the Niger documents with you-too complicated. We are only discussing Wilson/ Plamegate.

eg8r
02-14-2008, 12:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r why was Libby Pardoned? <hr /></blockquote> He was recognized as having a bad memory. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif [ QUOTE ]
FYI he had the President and Vice President by the Balls [8 or 9] take your pick. It was either that of murder him.
<hr /></blockquote> Don't feed your opinion as fact. If that is the fantasy you live in then fine, but nothing was ever proven and never amounted to a hill of beans.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-14-2008, 01:19 PM
Ed,
I am accumulating a list of questions which you refuse to answer. Dick asked you a question.

Let me ask another way. If a man is convicted for Obstruction of Justice, and pergury, five counts in all, in a case which goes forward on the stated crime of outing a covert CIA agent, according to, and requested by the the CIA, then why do you insist on maintaining that no crime was committed. Libby was proven to have lied, by a Federal Jury, and the administration was admonished by both the Special Prosecutor, and the Judge in the trail, both of whom knew, and know, much more about this entire case, than any of us. Both of whom made adminishing statements about Cheney, and the administration. Are you trying to suggest that three Federal Judges, and a Federal Special Prosecutor, are all lying? Are you trying to assert that Libby, having committed the crime of being involved in outing a covert CIA agent, forgot, and all the reporters who exposed his lies were lying?

After you answer that question, please answer this one:

If you were caught in a laboratory fire, and had only one arm available, would you save the tray of twelve embryoes, or the five year old child?

Next, when you stated that Adam ate the apple because he was influenced, or pressured, by his peer, of whom were you speaking?

Ed, If you refuse to answer these questions, please refrain from accusing me of never answering questions. I always answer questions from the posts I read.

Thanking you in advance, Ed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
02-14-2008, 01:36 PM
Dick Cheney quotes.....or was it King Louie?

"L'…tat, c'est moi" I am the state !!
"Le Roi le Veut" the king wills it !!

eg8r
02-14-2008, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed,
I am accumulating a list of questions which you refuse to answer. Dick asked you a question. <hr /></blockquote> Well then you can just refer to your response to Steve when we asked why you don't answer his questions.

However since you brought it up, let me help you out with a little commprehension. First Dick's question and then my response. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dick:</font><hr> Eg8r why was Libby Pardoned? <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> He was recognized as having a bad memory. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> In fact, in my post I quoted his question and posted the reply directly after it.

LOL, sometimes I wonder why you spend time doing all this reading, my goodness your comprehension is in the toilet. Maybe you get the audiobook, do your ears work better than your eyes?

Alright, I will bite, more stupidity from Gayle. I just want to preface this by saying, after you see the little quote lines (your text) you will see my response (no quote lines).

[ QUOTE ]
If you were caught in a laboratory fire, and had only one arm available, would you save the tray of twelve embryoes, or the five year old child? <hr /></blockquote> My response is that I refuse to take one or the other. I would grab the five year old and fill his arms with as many embryos he could carry and I would grab all the rest. I would make sure we all made it safely out of the lab. I already know your answer, you have no problem killing babies. Your daughter was happy you did not take the easy way out when she was in the womb.

[ QUOTE ]
Next, when you stated that Adam ate the apple because he was influenced, or pressured, by his peer, of whom were you speaking? <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like a dumb question but he only had one peer and that was Eve. We discussed this over about 5 posts so why don't you go back and read them. This was when you were trying to get me to place all the blame on Eve and I never fell in your trap.

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, If you refuse to answer these questions <hr /></blockquote> Oh Gayle, just shut up. They were all answered in the thread of which you initially asked them.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanking you in advance, Ed. <hr /></blockquote> No problem jGayle.

eg8r

LWW
02-14-2008, 03:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Eg8r why was Libby Pardoned?<hr /></blockquote>
He wasn't.

LWW

Qtec
02-15-2008, 03:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Q, I knew you would provide a good argument.

OK, so Fitzgerald is saying that "technically" the CIA is calling Plame covert. <hr /></blockquote>
Technically or otherwise , according to her employers, Plame was a covert CIA WMD specialist .
[ QUOTE ]
She did not act covert, nor did others at the agency consider her covert. <hr /></blockquote>

Any links to back this up? Is it at all relevant?

[ QUOTE ]
Novak, who was not charged, said that his high level sources at the CIA told him, she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative." If someone had been charged with outing her, you can bet that at the trial her covert status would have been challenged.<hr /></blockquote>

[ Again, no links to support your claims.] You still seem to be contesting her status at the CIA!

[ QUOTE ]
My source for the many Wilson lies was the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the affair. They found Wilson had been untruthful. Look it up.<hr /></blockquote>

Thats not how it works. You look it up and give me the links- not to whole books but specific paragraphs please.


[ QUOTE ]
And his motive was obvious. He was working for Kerry, and was jockeying for a position in a Kerry administration.<hr /></blockquote>

Motive for what?

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question, why was no one ever charged with outing Plame?<hr /></blockquote>

Why was there an investigation at all?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
[ QUOTE ]
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

FITZGERALD: I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged. <hr /></blockquote>

Fitz was forced to go after Libby who was blocking the investigation with his lies. It was always going to be difficult to prosecute someone for outing Plame because he would have to prove intent or in this case conspiracy. Usually one could follow the paper trail but of course the Govt somehow deleted a zillion e-mails- including the e-mails from Rove, Cheney, Libby etc from that exact period!

Armitage supposedly told Novak about Plame but didn't know P was covert. eg not a crime.
When Novak- or any other reporter -calls the WH to ask about a CIA employee the answer [ IMO ] to any Q should always be 'no comment'. According to Novak, Rove confirmed what Novak had been told by A. Rove denies this.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not going to get into the Niger documents with you-too complicated. We are only discussing Wilson/ Plamegate. <hr /></blockquote>

They are connected, but OK.


Q

Qtec
02-15-2008, 04:04 AM
Libby was going to call Cheney as a witness. Cheney on the stand answering Qs under oath!!!!!!!
That was his get-out-of-jail-card. They made a deal, Libby would take the fall and GW would pardon him.

[ QUOTE ]
but nothing was ever proven and never amounted to a hill of beans. <hr /></blockquote>

Cheney has denied several times that he knew nothing about Wilson or Plame but when Cheney wrote, "did his wife send him on a junket" he obviously knew who she was.
How did he know?

[ QUOTE ]
Cheney Penned Note About Plame, Filing Shows

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A06

After former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV publicly criticized a key rationale for the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney wrote a note on a newspaper clipping raising the possibility that the critique resulted from a CIA-sponsored "junket" arranged by Wilson's wife, covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, according to court documents filed late Friday.

The filing by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the second that names Cheney as a key White House official who questioned the legitimacy of Wilson's examination of Iraqi nuclear ambitions. [b]It further suggests that Cheney helped originate the idea in his office that Wilson's credibility was undermined by his link to Plame.

Fitzgerald's filing states that Cheney passed the annotated article by Wilson to his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who Fitzgerald says subsequently discussed Wilson's marriage to Plame in conversations with two reporters, despite the fact that Plame was a covert CIA officer and her name was not supposed to be revealed. The filing was first reported by Newsweek on its Web site.

Fitzgerald does not allege in his filing that Cheney ordered Libby to disclose Plame's identity. But he states that Cheney's note to Libby helps "explain the context of, and provide a motive for" many of the later statements and actions by Libby. Libby was indicted last year for making false statements to FBI agents, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on Libby's testimony that he did not confirm Plame's involvement in conversations with the two journalists.

Wilson's credibility became a key issue for the White House because the results of his probe into Iraq's nuclear program surfaced when the administration had already been hit by charges it had distorted intelligence before invading Iraq. Wilson had concluded after taking a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger two years earlier that evidence of Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons materials there was dubious.

A court filing last month by Fitzgerald -- who has been gradually spelling out what he plans to say during Libby's trial next year -- stated that Cheney had expressed concern about whether Wilson's trip was a junket set up by his wife. The new filing includes the precise annotations that Cheney wrote on a copy of Wilson's July 2003 article in the New York Times, titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

"Have they done this sort of thing before?" Cheney wrote. "Send an amb[assador] 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?"

Fitzgerald's filing states that Libby learned of Plame's name from Cheney, in the course of discussions by the vice president's office about how to respond to a June 2003 inquiry from Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger. Fitzgerald asserts that those conversations -- and earlier ones sparked by a May 2003 column about the trip in the Times -- help demonstrate that Libby's "disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures."

Libby has not said in grand jury testimony that Cheney instructed him to leak Plame's name, according to a court filing by Libby's attorneys last month. His attorneys have also said that Plame's role in the matter was of peripheral interest to the White House, a circumstance that explains why he may have forgotten exactly what he said to reporters about Plame. Libby's attorneys have also said they will attempt to demonstrate at trial that Plame's identity was known by many officials in Washington and that Libby had no special reason to believe her identity was protected information.

Fitzgerald, in contrast, spelled out in his new filing that it was an article about Wilson's trip in the New Republic that prompted Libby to discuss the matter with a former colleague, Eric Edelman. During that conversation, Libby said he could not talk about the trip because of "complications" at the CIA that could not be discussed on the telephone, Fitzgerald states -- evidently based on Edelman's statements.

Fitzgerald also says in the filing that after columnist Robert D. Novak published the first newspaper article mentioning Plame's name on July 14, 2003 -- the disclosure that sparked Fitzgerald's investigation -- a CIA official discussed in Libby's presence "the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees."


<hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051301258.html)


What happened was a few elected and unelected officials used the full might of the US Govt to persecute two US citizens to save their own A$$.
[Not any citizens mind you, one was an Ambassador who was called by GW senior "an American hero", and the other an experienced CIA WMD specialist.]

Why did it happen?

Simply because one American citizen had the guts to stand up to the Govt and say to GW , "what you just claimed is not exactly true".

The truth was , there was an Iraqi delegation that made a trip to Africa in 1991.
They did go to Niger.
Uranium was never discussed.
There was no possibility of Iraq EVER of acquiring uranium form Niger.

When people put their life on the line for their country don't they have the right to expect the truth from the President?
Naw. Thats a hill of beans.



Q

Qtec
02-15-2008, 04:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Eg8r why was Libby Pardoned?<hr /></blockquote>
He wasn't.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Not yet.

[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday left open the possibility of an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush said he had weighed his decision carefully to erase Libby's prison time for lying and obstruction of justice. He said the jury's conviction should stand but the prison term was too severe. <hr /></blockquote>

Geez.....and this coming from someone who has executed so many people he is in the Guiness Book of Records!

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
02-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Libby was convicted. That is the proof. The CIA requested the investigation because their covert agent was outed. they said so in their letter to the Senate Investigating committee on the day Valarie Wilson testified, and stated that she had traveled over seas during the year that Cheney outed her under her covert status.

You're completely wrong about this entire matter. You'll never admit it.

Gayle in MD
02-15-2008, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Geez.....and this coming from someone who has executed so many people he is in the Guiness Book of Records!

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Hilarious! Good one, Q.

Also, If I may add something here, when Valarie Plame testified, she stated that many in her own office didn't know that she was covert. Sometimes only the covert agent's boss knows their classification, unless, ofcourse, you're the President, or Vice President, and Powell had the file under his arm when he boarded the plane with P and VP, which claerly stated her covert, NOC status. As soon as they arrived back in Washington, Libby and Rove's calls to the reporters began, and strangely, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif all the e-mails vanished before the proof, for what is clearly obvious, could be acquired.

Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolton are fighting testimony on the Attorney General Firings. they have been sighted now, in contempt of Congressional subpeona. If they get them sworn in, all the information regarding missing e-mails, will be under investigation, and the Special Prosecutor has stated that the Plame Case could be re-visited.

Gayle in MD
02-15-2008, 03:19 PM
As usual, you convolute what is asked, which is just another way of refusing to answer.

As for Steve, his posts are always sarcastic and insulting. His question, which I can't even recall right now, wasn't pertinent to my statements. It didn't fit the issue at hand.

You just label questions as traps, to avoid answering them in a literal way.

Also, are you going to your mens meeting this week? I'm close to putting you back on total ignore due to your nasty responses.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-15-2008, 07:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Libby was convicted. That is the proof. <hr /></blockquote> He was convicted of having a bad memory not outing a secretary.

eg8r

eg8r
02-15-2008, 07:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As usual, you convolute what is asked, which is just another way of refusing to answer.
<hr /></blockquote> Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I did not answer you.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Steve, his posts are always sarcastic and insulting. <hr /></blockquote> So are yours.

[ QUOTE ]
You just label questions as traps, to avoid answering them in a literal way. <hr /></blockquote> I am not labeling anything, I think you are just acting childish and ignoring the response because you did not like it. You take the easy way out and choose to allow baby killing, I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, are you going to your mens meeting this week? <hr /></blockquote> No, it is not this week. Why do you ask? Are you worried that we are discriminating against women by not inviting them?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm close to putting you back on total ignore due to your nasty responses.
<hr /></blockquote> That is your right.

eg8r

Qtec
02-16-2008, 05:04 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;
Libby was convicted. That is the proof. <hr /></blockquote> He was convicted of having a bad memory not outing a secretary.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plameís identity and whom he told. Prosecutors said he learned about Plame from Cheney and others, discussed her name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous. <hr /></blockquote>

He MADE UP A STORY you nitwit. How is that covered by "he had a bad memory"!
If you continue with your claim 'he just forgot' you are either a Trol or an idiot.

Your choice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Q............

Gayle in MD
02-16-2008, 08:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]

He MADE UP A STORY you nitwit. How is that covered by "he had a bad memory"!
If you continue with your claim 'he just forgot' you are either a Trol or an idiot. <font color="red">How about both? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif And he's only one, of several in this thread. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color>

Your choice. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-16-2008, 12:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plameís identity and whom he told. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> He was convicted of having a bad memory not outing a secretary.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> He MADE UP A STORY you nitwit. How is that covered by "he had a bad memory"! <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> And you are the one calling me a nitwit? Yes he had a bad memory. I am using the wording of the left when one of their guys gets caught lying. His story changed the second time they asked.

LOL, it is funny to see you crawl out of your hole every time someone mentions the secretary. You jump on this topic like flies on crap. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Kind of funny considering it never amounted to a hill of beans.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-17-2008, 10:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I did not answer you.
<font color="red">You didn't answer my question. You made up a different hypothetical entirely. and you know it, but then, you weren't interested in taking part in anything that would expose the absurdity of the notion that an embryo equals a living viable human being. Regardless, your response is just another example of why it is pointless to try to seriously debate any issues with right wing nuts. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
I am not labeling anything, I think you are just acting childish and ignoring the response because you did not like it. You take the easy way out and choose to allow baby killing, I don't. <font color="red">LOL, responding wback and forth with you could NEVER be considered taking the easy way out!

Abortion is not baby killing. If it was, it wouldn't be legal. It's not only ignorant to call it such, but intentionally designed to enrage reasonable people who attempt to communicate with the nutty right wing religious fundalmentalists, like you, which have so greatly divided this country with their divisionary, mythological language, and what they like to call cultural issues, and values voting. Pretty funny, considering everything they stand for involved either denying science, or somehow dictating to the rest of the population what they may or may not do, according to the values of only the religious right. IOW, a dictatorship. IOW, just another Republican tactic, to use myths, like WMD's.... Plame was just a secretary.... No laws were broken..... thankfully, the 18 to 24 year olds are leaving yur party by the droves, and these kinds of decietful tactics of creating complete mythology to mask reality, and also illegal activity, is one reason why. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="red">BTW, did you know there is a Republicans for Obama group, now? The Republican party will soon go the way of the whitts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Our youth knows the differenct between freedom, and dictatorships, and between democracy and fascism, and between religous mythology, and science, hence, Republicans didn't carry the 18 to 24 years olds in 04, or 06. Apparently, this country isn't interested in allowing you righties to drag the whole country back to the fifties. It's not going to happen. </font color>

eg8r
02-17-2008, 04:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't answer my question. You made up a different hypothetical entirely. <hr /></blockquote> I did not make up anything, you were the one making the hypothetical. I was simply telling you what I would do. You have no problem killing babies and you hate the fact that I do have a problem with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion is not baby killing. <hr /></blockquote> Abortion is absolutely baby killing, without a doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, did you know there is a Republicans for Obama group, now? The Republican party will soon go the way of the whitts. <hr /></blockquote> Your fantasy dream is clouding sensible thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
Our youth knows the differenct between freedom, and dictatorships, and between democracy and fascism, and between religous mythology, and science, hence, Republicans didn't carry the 18 to 24 years olds in 04, or 06. <hr /></blockquote> They also know that because of sickos like yourself, they can run around having free sex and take the easy way out by killing the baby instead of acting responsibly and raising it or putting it up for adoption.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-18-2008, 12:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, Ed, did you know there is a Republicans for Obama group, now? The Republican party will soon go the way of the whitts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your fantasy dream is clouding sensible thinking.
<hr /></blockquote> http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

Don't bother apologizing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bamadog
02-18-2008, 01:33 PM
This is from the "Republicans for Obama" site, which appears to be a complete sham.

"Obama has demonstrated a willingness to reach beyond partisan rhetoric and embrace many conservative ideas."

Does anyone know which conservative ideas Obama has embraced?

eg8r
02-18-2008, 02:35 PM
My post was not to doubt you it was to let you know that that group means diddly squat and will have zero effect on anything.

eg8r

Qtec
02-18-2008, 08:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Q, I knew you would provide a good argument.

OK, so Fitzgerald is saying that "technically" the CIA is calling Plame covert. She did not act covert, nor did others at the agency consider her covert. Novak, who was not charged, said that his high level sources at the CIA told him, she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative." If someone had been charged with outing her, you can bet that at the trial her covert status would have been challenged.

My source for the many Wilson lies was the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the affair. They found Wilson had been untruthful. Look it up.
And his motive was obvious. He was working for Kerry, and was jockeying for a position in a Kerry administration.

Simple question, why was no one ever charged with outing Plame?

I am not going to get into the Niger documents with you-too complicated. We are only discussing Wilson/ Plamegate. <hr /></blockquote>


BUMP.

You asked me and I replied.

No answer?

Q....still waiting

bamadog
02-18-2008, 08:36 PM
Hi Q,
I don't want to spend much more time on this subject as I can see we are at an impasse. However, I will say that the matter of Plame's covert status would require a ruling from a judge. And this certainly would have happened had anyone been charged.
You asked what motive Wilson had in telling one story to the CIA and another in his Op Ed piece. Well, as you may know, he was working for the John Kerry campaign. He and his wife were Democrat supporters, and they were in a position to do some damage to the administration.
He was found to have been deceitful by the Senate Intelligence Committee. And Plame perjured herself in front of the House Committee.
Her court case against the Administration was thrown out.
My source is the book, "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman.
You should read this book.

Qtec
02-18-2008, 09:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Hi Q,
I don't want to spend much more time on this subject as I can see we are at an impasse. However, I will say that the matter of Plame's covert status would require a ruling from a judge. And this certainly would have happened had anyone been charged.<hr /></blockquote>


You asked what motive Wilson had in telling one story to the CIA and another in his Op Ed piece. Well, as you may know, he was working for the John Kerry campaign. He and his wife were Democrat supporters, and they were in a position to do some damage to the administration.
He was found to have been deceitful by the Senate Intelligence Committee. And Plame perjured herself in front of the House Committee.
Her court case against the Administration was thrown out.
My source is the book, "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman.
You should read this book. <hr /></blockquote>

OK. Wilson and his wife hated GW . So what did they do? If you are accusing them of something lets hear it!
Show us all the proof. Its put up or shut up time.

Wilson's report only confirmed 2 other reports that said that the chances of Iraq acquiring yellowcake from Niger was a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY!
The fact was that the Govt ignored W's report because they wanted to go to war! They never expected anyone to denounce them, especially not an ex Amb [ American hero according to GW;s dad] who they could not attack personally.

There is no impasse. You just dont have an answer.

Some good stuff.


web page (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/rice-qaeda-saddam/)

Explain this.

web page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ)

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

bamadog
02-18-2008, 10:26 PM
Sorry Q, but I told you I wasn't going to argue this point with you any longer. Now you are trying to change the subject to include intelligence on Iraqi WMD.
You'll have to find someone else for this dance. In the meantime, here's something you may find interesting.

Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA

By Zell Miller
Published on: 11/02/05

Itís like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officerís resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.

But the rules on agents are clear. They canít purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.

But their spouse can!

The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.

Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse uses your agencyís name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouseís lies or take the bait and try to clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didnít hire your spouse, the press will demand to know, "Then who did?"

Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he loses.

It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever.

No one seems to care that our intelligence agency has crippled our president. Certainly not the media. They are determined to make Wilson a hero. Recall the dozens of times the Washington Post and The New York Times carried his lies on the front page, above the fold. The conclusive story discrediting Wilson was buried 6 feet deep, back by the obituaries.

To the media, it doesnít matter that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says Wilson lied about what he did and with whom he met while investigating Iraqi attempts to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

To the media, it doesnít matter that the CIA says what Wilson did actually find supported that Iraq was attempting to buy the uranium ó a direct contradiction to Wilsonís public claims.

To the media, it doesnít matter that he claimed the vice president assigned him to the uranium investigation when we all know now it was his wife.

Some absurdly claim that Plame had nothing to do with her husbandís political activities against President Bush. But let it be clear. Plame could not have done what Wilson did and gotten away with it. Wilson could not have done what he did without Plame giving him a way to do it.

Something has to be done. We canít let the CIA become the domestic dirty tricks shop, with Republican and Democratic agents each trying to pull down their opposing presidents.

We need a Plame rule. Any family member of a CIA agent tapped to help out must live by the same rules regarding information disclosure and domestic political manipulations as those imposed on the agent. If the family member fails to live by those rules, the agent is terminated.

Clearly this will restrict the flexibility of the CIA. But who ever thought that the flexibility given to CIA agents would be misused to destabilize a U.S. president? No one ó until Valerie Plame.

Deeman3
02-19-2008, 08:23 AM
[ &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Our youth knows the differenct between freedom, and dictatorships, and between democracy and fascism, and between religous mythology, and science, hence, Republicans didn't carry the 18 to 24 years olds in 04, or 06. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Our youth doesn't know the difference in anything not on MTV with music, they can't find South America with a map, they don't have a clue as to who is running and not an ounce of knowledge of the issues of the day.

For that reason, those who can get out of bed, in mama's basement and find a voting booth will elect a Democrat, not out of some great knowledge our youth possess. </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-19-2008, 10:10 AM
It's amazing how the right sucks up all the bs, and never searches for the truth. Joe Wilson spoke the truth, that was enough for both him, and his wife, to be demonized by the right wing press. the CIA doesn't request an investigation into the outing of a covert agent, unless there has in fact been an outing of a covert CIA agent.

The judge clearly stated that Valarie Plame was a covert NOC Agent, as did the Director of the CIA, in his written statement to the congress, which was read at the beginning of her testimony, not by her, but by the Chairman of the Committee.

I recently attended a lecture in which the dammage of what the White HOuse did, was addressed. We are having more trouble getting operatives in Europe, and other countries, than ever before, and it is because people don't trust our country to protect them from being exposed, if it is politically adventageous. Just one more way, one of many, in which George Bush has hurt us and put us at greater risk. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

Putting up with denial of facts, is irritating, but denying what was pure treason, and the reasons why it couldn't be proven, when we all know there are thousands of missing e-mails, purged by the White House, and the RNC, is about as stupid as still trying to maintain that we found the missing WMD's in Iraq, or that Saddam was in on 9/11. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bamadog
02-19-2008, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Joe Wilson spoke the truth, that was enough for both him, and his wife, to be demonized by the right wing press.

Just one more way, one of many, in which George Bush has hurt us and put us at greater risk. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.



And yet you can't answer the simple question, why was no one charged with outing Plame.

And you are full of indignation over Wilson/Plame even after they have both been proven liars.

But, Sandy Burglar, who stole and destroyed secret documents, he was just forgetful.

And of course the New York Times can compromise two top secret surveillance programs with nary a peep from the Dems because the paper happens to share your ideology.

And now you're wrapping yourself in righteous concern for the country's security.

You, Lady, are laughable.

Qtec
02-20-2008, 04:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Sorry Q, but I told you I wasn't going to argue this point with you any longer. Now you are trying to change the subject to include intelligence on Iraqi WMD.
You'll have to find someone else for this dance. In the meantime, here's something you may find interesting.

Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA

By Zell Miller
<hr /></blockquote>

LMAO. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I have given you links, docs and vids to support my argument and you provide bias fiction to support yours. YOU are the one who can't answer a simple question. You either don't read or just ignore my replies because you just said to G,
"And yet you can't answer the simple question, why was no one charged with outing Plame"


I just gave you the answer , check page 5, and you obviously ignored it.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Simple question, why was no one ever charged with outing Plame?



Why was there an investigation at all?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Quote:
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

FITZGERALD: I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.



Fitz was forced to go after Libby who was blocking the investigation with his lies. It was always going to be difficult to prosecute someone for outing Plame because he would have to prove intent or in this case conspiracy. Usually one could follow the paper trail but of course the Govt somehow deleted a zillion e-mails- including the e-mails from Rove, Cheney, Libby etc from that exact period!

Armitage supposedly told Novak about Plame but didn't know P was covert. eg not a crime.
When Novak- or any other reporter -calls the WH to ask about a CIA employee the answer [ IMO ] to any Q should always be 'no comment'. According to Novak, Rove confirmed what Novak had been told by A. Rove denies this.
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm done.
Q

LWW
02-20-2008, 05:46 AM
Now Dawg, let's not stoop to making fun of people with disabilities.

LWW