RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bushgate

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't you hate it when people on the other side keep trying to direct you to partisan web-sites.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
As long as they're your partisan web sites that is. I think you should listen to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved from now on, but whatever you do don't dismiss them because of thier bias, because that would be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
As long as they're your partisan web sites that is. I think you should listen to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved from now on, but whatever you do don't dismiss them because of thier bias, because that would be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Magicjay38 said:


Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT JUNKIE!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:


We can't all be slender dynamo's like yourself, now can we?

---

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
1. Rush is actually pretty slim now
Did he go on that Jennie Crack diet everyone's talking about?
2. Technically, "Junk" is "heroin." Rush was never a heroin addict, so I don't think you can him a junkie.
He ate oxy's like M&Ms! Oxy, morphine, heroin are all the same. They're opiates. The only differance is the size of the required dose
3. But even if he was a "junkie," by all accounts Rush is currently off the stuff so technically he would be a "former Junkie"
Yea? When was the last time he submitted to a random blood and urine analysis?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't you hate it when people on the other side keep trying to direct you to partisan web-sites.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:I don't mind that. What I don't care for is just dismissing something because it's from a partisan websight.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

Magicjay38 said:


Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT JUNKIE!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:


We can't all be slender dynamo's like yourself, now can we?

---

---

Which part of that statement is incorrect, WBAM?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

Magicjay38 said:


Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT JUNKIE!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:


We can't all be slender dynamo's like yourself, now can we?

---

---

Which part of that statement is incorrect, WBAM?

---

Rush Limbaugh is acctually more slender than Al Franken and is a recovering drug addict.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

Magicjay38 said:


Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT JUNKIE!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:


We can't all be slender dynamo's like yourself, now can we?

---

---

Which part of that statement is incorrect, WBAM?

---

Rush Limbaugh is acctually more slender than Al Franken and is a recovering drug addict.

---

Did he go through rehab? Where? Is he in a twelve step program or a cognitive behavioural program?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
...
Almost immediately preceding this post, you dismissed something I posted because it was from a partisan website.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Ironic that some Republicans are scolding a Democrat & then go on & do the same thing that their upset about. You offer a partisan websight with some hypocritical allegations with zero substance.

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing there wasn't anything you could argue & just did a sarcastic dismissive response.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
You'll notice that I also said what was wrong with the your partisan article besides just noting that it was partisan.

---

There are just too many anomalies in the Wilson mission to Niger to believe that anyone who wasn't planning to bash the president could possibly have chosen Wilson for the task.

He had no expertise in WMD, hadn't been in Niger since the 1980s, and had no intelligence training.

One of the most revealing aspects of Wilson's mission, relevant to showing it was part of a disinformation campaign, was that he wasn't required to sign a CIA secrecy agreement before taking on the mission. In plainest terms, that meant his CIA bosses wanted him to go public on his return. And he did. The other point that proves Wilson's mission was anything but serious is that, in Wilson's own words, he told everyone he met that he was an agent of the U.S. government.

In his July 6, 2003 NYT op-ed, Wilson said, "The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government."

You tell everyone you're speaking to that you're in the government's employ so they can feed you whatever line of baloney they want the U.S. government to hear?

Wilson's "mission," in short, was a pathetic joke and not an intelligence mission by any definition. The CIA knew this. Who in the CIA authorized, paid for, and managed this mission? Why did they do it? There's no plausible explanation other than the intent to embarrass and discredit the Bush administration.

A source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Valerie Plame -- who suggested her husband for the Niger mission -- was too low on the CIA totem pole to have approved and paid for the mission. Logically the person who approved the Wilson mission would have had to be some senior person in the Operations Directorate.

Regardless of who started the mission, the CIA responded to the Novak column by sending a classified criminal referral -- the allegation of criminal conduct requesting a formal investigation -- to the Justice Department. When it did so, it had to have known that Plame's status was not covert (as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) and probably knew (it is an intelligence organization, after all) that Wilson had blabbed his wife's identity around town.

Why, then, was the criminal referral made? Who approved it? Such actions had to be approved at least by the CIA general counsel and probably by CIA Director Tenet or at least his deputy, McLaughlin. Why did they do that knowing what they must have known?

The December 30, 2003 letter from Deputy Attorney General Paul Comey appointing Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor, says, in part: "I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." What was the allegation? If it were made falsely -- say with the knowledge that Plame's identity wasn't covert or had become public -- the person who made the referral may have committed a serious crime.

The whole Wilson/Plame affair stinks to high heaven. And the smell is coming from Langley. Porter Goss should receive credit for working hard to fix the CIA. The Wilson affair isn't his problem, it's ours. Right now, the CIA's disinformation campaign has cost Scooter Libby his future, threatens other White House staffers and -- most importantly -- burdens the credibility of the president in time of war. It affects our standing in the world, our relationship with our allies, and our strength in the eyes of our enemies. In short, this damned thing needs to be unraveled, publicly, and right bloody now.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

I'm guessing there wasn't anything you could argue & just did a sarcastic dismissive response.

---

I acctually listen to Air America on a weekly basis.

---

You listen to it more than I do! Is this some form of fundy self-flagellation?

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
IF all that is true, then why did they need to blow his wife's cover?
Or did it take them too long to create the Swift-Ambassadors for Truth so they ruined the wife's cover for efficiency?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Wilson blew his own wifes cover....

---

Testimony by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward in the CIA leak case is a bombshell to the special prosecutor's case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an attorney for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff told FOX News on Wednesday.

The disclosure by Woodward in Wednesday's Post shows that Libby was not the first government official to tell a reporter the secret identity of a CIA operative, said Ted Wells, one of Libby's lawyers.

Libby resigned from his position immediately after he was indicted on perjury and obstruction charges last month. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald alleged the former aide lied about his role in revealing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to reporters.

Plame Wilson is the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Her name was first revealed in a column by Robert Novak in July 2003.

Woodward wrote in his account of the testimony that he talked to Libby on June 20 and June 27 but didn't recall Libby mentioning Plame Wilson. Woodward's account undermines Fitzgerald's argument that Libby was involved in a scheme to discredit Plame Wilson by leaking her name and identity to the press, Wells said.

the Post reported that at least one unnamed senior Bush administration official told Woodward about Plame Wilson about a month before her identity was revealed in published reports.

The newspaper reported that Woodward told Fitzgerald that the official talked to him about Plame Wilson in mid-June 2003. Woodward and editors at the Post refused to identify the official to reporters other than to say it was not Libby.

Woodward said he has not been released to disclose his source's name publicly.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Karl Rove's legal team, said Rove was not the official who talked to Woodward.

Quote:

---

theory9 said:
The only thing I could think of was that if this isn't the first time an agents' cover has been blown, then why give this case so much special attention?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
...
I'm not sure how this is a "bombshell" for the prosecution, as it doesn't seem to be relevant to what Libby is charged with, to wit, lying to the grand jury.

---

It might help Libby because of Woodward's phrasing that it was all conversational chit chat with other gov't officials that occured before Libby's conversations with reporters. And it might help Rove as it supports his story & keep him from being indicted. I would think Woodward's sources might have some explaining to do if they came forward at this point though.

Not sure what to think of Woodward. He has actively commented on this story while secretly a part of it.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
As with any time it exercises its prosecutorial or police powers the government is not supposed to get involved in attacking legal conduct. Especially if the conduct involves the excercise of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.

---

Quote:

---

Others think the motive was an attempt to point out that Wilson was unqualified for his post and there only because of nepotism. Bringing to light unqualified people holding government authority because of nepotism is far less sinister.

---

Though he gave testimony to the special prosecutor, Woodward refused to publicly identify his source. But he has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little. In private conversations with journalists, Novak has suggested the same.

So who is Novak's source—and Woodward's source—and why will his identity take the wind out of the brewing storm? One by one last week, a parade of current and former senior officials, including the CIA's George Tenet and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source. A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting." He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.

If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On "Larry King Live" last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a "smear campaign" but rather a "kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here."

That doesn't mean special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will fold his tent. Last week he announced he would present evidence to a new grand jury. While Scooter Libby's lawyers exulted that Woodward's revelation helped their client's case, Libby still faces strong evidence that he lied to the Feds. And it's not clear that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove is out of the woods. When and if the true identity of Novak and Woodward's source becomes known (if indeed they are one in the same), the two-year-old mystery may be resolved. But the game is not over yet.