|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
This is a bunch of partisans saying no crime was commited after it's been established that there has been.
But it hasn't been established that a crime was committed.
The only way you can establish a crime was committed, as a matter of law, is when there has been a conviction.
There hasn't been a conviction for outing a CIA covert operative. In fact, to date, no one has even been charged with that.
In one sentence you acknowlege that taking the word only of the agency and the prosecutor would be prejudging guilt. In the other, you claim that the elements of guilt have been established.
How are you not the one acting as a partisan?
Wouldn't you say outing an agent for personal reasons is unethical and immoral, even if its not illegal?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You're a facist! But, I'm sure, like the Nazis in the time of Hitler, you'll deny it.
wikipedia article
Quote:
The extent and nature of the affinity between Fascism and Nazism has been the subject of much academic debate. Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism, there are some experts who still argue that Nazism is not fascism, either on the grounds that the differences are too great, or because they disagree that fascism can be generic.
It would seem even modern scholars would deny that the Nazis were facists. But hey you were insulting him because he hates America enough to want the President to be an honest person so I'll leave you to that.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
it hasn't been established that a crime was committed.
The only way you can establish a crime was committed, as a matter of law, is when there has been a conviction.
There hasn't been a conviction for outing a CIA covert operative. In fact, to date, no one has even been charged with that.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Wouldn't you say outing an agent for personal reasons is unethical and immoral, even if its not illegal?
You are changing the terms of the debate to suit your agenda.
The question was not about ethics. That is, typically, a matter of individual conscience.
The question was whether or not a crime was committed. That is a legal conclusion, requiring adequate evidence.
Furthermore, you assume facts not in evidence with your question. You assume that: (a) an agent was "outed;" (b) the motive for the outing was personal, not policy.
At this point, there is at least as much evidence to suggest your "facts" are wrong; that Plame was not a covert agent and that the revelation of her identity was simply to explain a potential conflict of interest between herself, her husband and his statements.
Accordingly, the issue you present is not per se an issue presented here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
To the great credit of the editorial board of the Washington Post, its Sunday editorial on Bush's declassification of some intelligence material is right on target.
PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do.
Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security.
After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge [that his wife was "outed"]. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity.
(NOTE: read that again, MEM, Ray, etc. Keep reading it until it sinks in. The Washington Post, a premier member of the "mainstream media," the newspaper that reported Watergate and brought down Nixon, is telling you that you are WRONG)
Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.
What's really bizarre, though, is that Patrick Fitzgerald is going so far afield in an increasingly odd attempt to save his unraveling case against Libby.
Frankly, when he first laid out the case, I was impressed by Fitzgerald, but subsequent behavior and revelations have made me think he's just lost his mind, or at least all reasonable perspective.
If anybody still believes that Scooter Libby knowingly and deliberately and maliciously lied to Fitzgerald, rather than merely having gotten confused, that somebody has some 'splainin to do, because I and most other people I talk to just don't see it -- and again, I was inclined to believe Fitzgerald at first, even though it never made sense to me for Libby to have lied in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You are changing the terms of the debate to suit your agenda.
I wasn't really part of the debate. I was just chiming in to see your opinion on that particular facet.
Quote:
The question was not about ethics. That is, typically, a matter of individual conscience.
I think that's morals. Ethics is more the community morals of expected behavior. You're a (supposed) lawyer, you should know that sometimes being ethical is immoral (attorney/client privledge can be considered immoral, even though its ethical).
Quote:
Furthermore, you assume facts not in evidence with your question. You assume that: (a) an agent was "outed;" (b) the motive for the outing was personal, not policy.
A. an agent was outed. how is that even in debate.
B. Policy is pretty much whatever the president does.
Quote:
At this point, there is at least as much evidence to suggest your "facts" are wrong; that Plame was not a covert agent and that the revelation of her identity was simply to explain a potential conflict of interest between herself, her husband and his statements.
Where did this come from? Everything I have ever read says she was a CIA agent and it wasn't public knowledge. She may not have been undercover in some terrorist cell, but she was still a secret agent.
Quote:
Accordingly, the issue you present is not per se an issue presented here.
blah blah blah. Accordingly blah blah visa vie blah blah blah
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you should know that sometimes being ethical is immoral (attorney/client privledge can be considered immoral, even though its ethical
Your example only serves to illustrate my point. When you say it "can be considered immoral", you admit that this is a matter of individual conscience, not law.
Further, you shouldn't use the attorney code of ethics as an example of ethics being separate from law. The Code of Ethics is, in fact, a law. So a violation of the Attorney Code of Ethics is an illegal (if not criminal act) requiring proof, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You're a facist! But, I'm sure, like the Nazis in the time of Hitler, you'll deny it.
wikipedia article
Quote:
The extent and nature of the affinity between Fascism and Nazism has been the subject of much academic debate. Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism, there are some experts who still argue that Nazism is not fascism, either on the grounds that the differences are too great, or because they disagree that fascism can be generic.
It would seem even modern scholars would deny that the Nazis were facists. But hey you were insulting him because he hates America enough to want the President to be an honest person so I'll leave you to that.
No, acctually, I was making a rediculous statement to demonstrate teh rediculouseness of his statement "I would imagine like the Nixon supporters at the time, you see things differently. " It's a juvinile rhetorical tool to present a dichotomy in which the responder condems themselves regardless of wether they affirm or deny the charge. to imply thatt denying one is like Nixon only serves to prove that one is.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic
Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story
As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
Vice President Cheney "specifically directed" his then-top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, far right, to tell reporters about a 2002 report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger, according to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.
One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.
United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.
The first of those conversations, according to the evidence made known thus far, came when Libby met with Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, on June 27, 2003. In sworn testimony for Fitzgerald, according to a statement Woodward released on Nov. 14, 2005, Woodward said Libby told him of the intelligence estimate's description of Iraqi efforts to obtain "yellowcake," a processed form of natural uranium ore, in Africa. In an interview Friday, Woodward said his notes showed that Libby described those efforts as "vigorous."
Libby's next known meeting with a reporter, according to Fitzgerald's legal filing, was with Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003. He spoke again to Miller, and to Time magazine's Matt Cooper, on July 12.
At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.
In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.
Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would "shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." But it also said U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, "cannot confirm" any success and had "inconclusive" evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations
Washington Post
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
One time I was looking to buy a pony, but it only did one trick. I thought to myself, "Who would want a one trick pony?" It was pretty sad, it just kept doing the same trick, over and over untill everyone got bored and stopped paying attention.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Personally I'm not big on ponys no matter the number of tricks they perform. Tricks are for kids...& Rush republicans I guess 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You're a facist! But, I'm sure, like the Nazis in the time of Hitler, you'll deny it.
wikipedia article
Quote:
The extent and nature of the affinity between Fascism and Nazism has been the subject of much academic debate. Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism, there are some experts who still argue that Nazism is not fascism, either on the grounds that the differences are too great, or because they disagree that fascism can be generic.
It would seem even modern scholars would deny that the Nazis were facists. But hey you were insulting him because he hates America enough to want the President to be an honest person so I'll leave you to that.
No, acctually, I was making a rediculous statement to demonstrate teh rediculouseness of his statement "I would imagine like the Nixon supporters at the time, you see things differently. " It's a juvinile rhetorical tool to present a dichotomy in which the responder condems themselves regardless of wether they affirm or deny the charge. to imply thatt denying one is like Nixon only serves to prove that one is.
you can't get ridiculous, but you do fine with dichotomy?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you should know that sometimes being ethical is immoral (attorney/client privledge can be considered immoral, even though its ethical
Your example only serves to illustrate my point. When you say it "can be considered immoral", you admit that this is a matter of individual conscience, not law.
You don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. I wasn't talking legal/illegal. I was asking if, even if revealing her name was legal, you thought it was a moral act for him to essentially ruin the woman's career over a politcal problem he had with her husband. And, if he released the name simply to discredit the report that discredited Bush's speech, isn't that the kind of dirty politics Bush vowed in 2000 to be against?
I believe in 1999 it wasn't a matter of law, it was a matter of morals in impeaching Clinton. With Clinton no careers were ruined and his lie was about sex, not motives for war (and make no mistake, if Bush is found to have been directly involved with the Plame leak than he is a liar for denying knowledge).
Quote:
Further, you shouldn't use the attorney code of ethics as an example of ethics being separate from law. The Code of Ethics is, in fact, a law. So a violation of the Attorney Code of Ethics is an illegal (if not criminal act) requiring proof, etc.
um...I was talking about the difference between ethics and morals. And I said ethics is the accepted standards of practice, even when they're not technically moral.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
I believe in 1999 it wasn't a matter of law, it was a matter of morals in impeaching Clinton.
Not at all. Clinton was impeached because he committed a crime. He lied under oath. That's a crime. It doesn't matter whether you lied about a moral act or immoral act, if you do it under oath its illegal. Whether something is or isn't illegal is, per se, a matter of law.
And, for the record, if Libby actually lied under oath, I think he should be prosecuted too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
I believe in 1999 it wasn't a matter of law, it was a matter of morals in impeaching Clinton.
Not at all. Clinton was impeached because he committed a crime. He lied under oath. That's a crime. It doesn't matter whether you lied about a moral act or immoral act, if you do it under oath its illegal. Whether something is or isn't illegal is, per se, a matter of law.
And, for the record, if Libby actually lied under oath, I think he should be prosecuted too.
okay, if Bush was found to have knowingly presented the war in a false manner (or any member of his staff withheld certain information that may have made the war look less favorable) in order to go to war, isn't that technically ilegal? If not, it should be. I mean I'd rather someone lied about cheating on their wife than lie and send thousands to their deaths.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You're a facist! But, I'm sure, like the Nazis in the time of Hitler, you'll deny it.
wikipedia article
Quote:
The extent and nature of the affinity between Fascism and Nazism has been the subject of much academic debate. Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism, there are some experts who still argue that Nazism is not fascism, either on the grounds that the differences are too great, or because they disagree that fascism can be generic.
It would seem even modern scholars would deny that the Nazis were facists. But hey you were insulting him because he hates America enough to want the President to be an honest person so I'll leave you to that.
No, acctually, I was making a rediculous statement to demonstrate teh rediculouseness of his statement "I would imagine like the Nixon supporters at the time, you see things differently. " It's a juvinile rhetorical tool to present a dichotomy in which the responder condems themselves regardless of wether they affirm or deny the charge. to imply thatt denying one is like Nixon only serves to prove that one is.
you can't get ridiculous, but you do fine with dichotomy?
My spelling isn't just bad, it's an enigma.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Unless you can give me more, like the information was presented under oath, then, no, it wouldn't be illegal.
To keep using the Clinton analogy: Clinton went on national TV and lied, saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." That wasn't illegal even though it was a lie. And he wasn't impeached for that lie.
However, he [Clinton] also went in front of a court of law and lied under oath about the same subject. Lying in court, lying under oath, about anything, is a crime. As a result he was impeached (he was also disbarred, found in "contempt of court" and ordered to pay fines and attorneys fees for lying under oath).
In short, its the circumstance of the lie (eg, was it under oath), not the content, that makes it legal or illegal.
Finally, I should note that, to date, no one has actually shown Bush lied. At best, we've seen that he made statements which some have disputed and/or which have been shown to be potentially mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:...
okay, if Bush was found to have knowingly presented the war in a false manner (or any member of his staff withheld certain information that may have made the war look less favorable) in order to go to war, isn't that technically ilegal? If not, it should be. I mean I'd rather someone lied about cheating on their wife than lie and send thousands to their deaths.
I think this latest revelation of how Bush used his power to declassify prewar intel that was dubvious at best while keeping the other stuff classified would certainly be an abuse of his authority that should be examined.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
okay, if Bush was found to have knowingly presented the war in a false manner ...
I agree.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
okay, if Bush was found to have knowingly presented the war in a false manner ...
I agree.
New Questions Arise on Bush WMD Statements
Quote:
The White House faced new questions Wednesday about President Bush's contention three years ago that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.
The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite.
"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station. "We found biological laboratories."
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Bush was relying on information from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency when he said the trailers seized after the 2003 invasion were mobile biological laboratories. That information was later discredited by the Iraq Survey Group in its 2004 report.
The CIA and DIA publicly issued an assessment one day after the Pentagon team's report arrived in Washington that said U.S. officials were confident that the trailers were used to produce biological weapons. The assessment said the mobile facilities represented "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."
McClellan said it was unclear whether officials at the White House were aware of the contradictory field report when Bush repeated the claim in the television interview.
"If and when the White House became aware of this particular issue, I'm looking into that matter," McClellan said. "The White House has asked the CIA and the DIA to go and look into that issue."
The Post did not say that Bush knew what he was saying was false. But ABC News did during a report on "Good Morning America," and McClellan demanded an apology and an on-air retraction. ABC News said later in a clarification on its Web site that Charles Gibson had erred. McClellan said he had received an apology.
"This is nothing more than rehashing an old issue that was resolved long ago," McClellan said. "I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong."
"The intelligence community makes the assessment," he said. "The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency."
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck declined to speak specifically about the classified field report but said in general that producing a finished intelligence report takes time, coordination, debate and vetting.
"This is not a fast process, especially when dealing with complex issues," she said. "It is not typically something that happens in a matter of hours."
The trailers — along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was believed to be a nuclear weapons program — were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.
Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied claims that intelligence was exaggerated or manipulated in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Iraq Survey Group concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991.
now of course this comes from a newspaper that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch so it can't be trusted. But if you were to believe a dirty liberal rag, it would seem Bush said the opposite of what the submitted report said. So either he can't read, or he is a liar.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
did you mean "ambiguous than?"
If so, then I agree its not definitive. But it does look bad. And if the reports about the report can be substantiated then it'll be damning to Bush.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
did you mean "ambiguous than?"
If so, then I agree its not definitive. But it does look bad. And if the reports about the report can be substantiated then it'll be damning to Bush.
You're right, if the reposts about the rports given to some guy by the other guy who knew the guy whith the reports are substatiated by the reports about the reports about the reports, then things will look bad for Bush..... Assuming CBS didn't forge them.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
did you mean "ambiguous than?"
If so, then I agree its not definitive. But it does look bad. And if the reports about the report can be substantiated then it'll be damning to Bush.
You're right, if the reposts about the rports given to some guy by the other guy who knew the guy whith the reports are substatiated by the reports about the reports about the reports, then things will look bad for Bush..... Assuming CBS didn't forge them.
no offense. and i mean this will all due respect.
you're an idiot.
Its one thing to hold conservative values, but its another thing to blindly support a member of the party just because he's in charge.
Bush has admitted he was wrong about the intel on the trailers, that's not in debate. As it stands, it seems the report exists. Even if it doesn't, then Bush went to war based on false intel.
So if the report exists, then he was flat out lying.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Oops ! I initially posted the wrong thing to this topic:
Here's an interesting discussion of the Valerie Plame case from last Friday:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june06/sb2_4-7.html
The CIA leak case
JIM LEHRER: OK.
New subject, the -- the Libby statement to the grand jury that was released yesterday. He claims that the president OK'ed the release of sensitive intelligence information on Iraq. How do you read that?
MARK SHIELDS: I -- I think, legally, the president probably has a case. Politically, he's damaged.
JIM LEHRER: Legally, meaning he has the authority, as president of the United States, to declassify anything he wants?
MARK SHIELDS: That's right. That's right.
JIM LEHRER: OK.
MARK SHIELDS: But... they're into splitting hairs right now. They're saying, well, it was legal for the president to do it; therefore, it wasn't classified because the president let it out.
The president is selectively leaking, or having leaked, information that is classified for narrow domestic political purposes. And that -- that is not the George Bush that we -- that I think most Americans came to see as a straight-shooter, direct guy, un-nuanced, doesn't talk about the meaning of is, tells you straight from the shoulder.
JIM LEHRER: David?
DAVID BROOKS: Mark doesn't understand the difference between a leak and a drip.
A leak hurts me. A drip is -- is information that hurts the other side.
JIM LEHRER: That the public needs to have.
DAVID BROOKS: That they need to have.
(CROSSTALK)
DAVID BROOKS: It's called open governments.
JIM LEHRER: Open government, right.
(LAUGHTER)
DAVID BROOKS: And, so, there is a little hypocrisy on the Bush side.
JIM LEHRER: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: But there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Democratic side. I don't remember Democrats getting upset about leaks that made Donald Rumsfeld look bad or the NSA story.
People like the leaks that help themselves.
So, is Bush hypocritical about the leaks?
Yes.
Are Democrats hypocritical?
Yes.
Is it a scandal, a legal scandal?
No.
It's -- it's embarrassing. But it's not the scandal that some people think it is that's going to lead to resignations and firings.
And, by the way, I think, just on political terms, I -- I think this Plame thing has never had any political traction out in the country. Iraq has political traction. This Plame thing is of interest to a lot of people, but it has no real political traction.
Last edited by Wonder Boy; 2006-04-13 5:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
did you mean "ambiguous than?"
If so, then I agree its not definitive. But it does look bad. And if the reports about the report can be substantiated then it'll be damning to Bush.
You're right, if the reposts about the rports given to some guy by the other guy who knew the guy whith the reports are substatiated by the reports about the reports about the reports, then things will look bad for Bush..... Assuming CBS didn't forge them.
no offense. and i mean this will all due respect.
you're an idiot.
Its one thing to hold conservative values, but its another thing to blindly support a member of the party just because he's in charge.
Bush has admitted he was wrong about the intel on the trailers, that's not in debate. As it stands, it seems the report exists. Even if it doesn't, then Bush went to war based on false intel.
So if the report exists, then he was flat out lying.
I'm an idiot simply because I'm not going to throw the president under the bus based on an "if"? That's the point... It's an if. So considering all the other stuff your side has tried to pull, I'm not even going to entertain it untill the the "if" is removed. This isn't blind partisanship on my part. It's the fact that your side has thrown out so many accusations that didn't stick, I'm not going to flinch over an "if" and if you evepect me to, then with all due respect, you're an idiot.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The article seems more ambuguouse that you make it out to be.
did you mean "ambiguous than?"
If so, then I agree its not definitive. But it does look bad. And if the reports about the report can be substantiated then it'll be damning to Bush.
You're right, if the reposts about the rports given to some guy by the other guy who knew the guy whith the reports are substatiated by the reports about the reports about the reports, then things will look bad for Bush..... Assuming CBS didn't forge them.
no offense. and i mean this will all due respect.
you're an idiot.
Its one thing to hold conservative values, but its another thing to blindly support a member of the party just because he's in charge.
Bush has admitted he was wrong about the intel on the trailers, that's not in debate. As it stands, it seems the report exists. Even if it doesn't, then Bush went to war based on false intel.
So if the report exists, then he was flat out lying.
I'm an idiot simply because I'm not going to throw the president under the bus based on an "if"? That's the point... It's an if. So considering all the other stuff your side has tried to pull, I'm not even going to entertain it untill the the "if" is removed. This isn't blind partisanship on my part. It's the fact that your side has thrown out so many accusations that didn't stick, I'm not going to flinch over an "if" and if you evepect me to, then with all due respect, you're an idiot.
the stuff my side has pulled?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:...
Is it a scandal, a legal scandal?
No.
It's -- it's embarrassing. But it's not the scandal that some people think it is that's going to lead to resignations and firings.
...
Libby had to resign quite a while ago & Rove still may be indicted so I think it's fair to say that it's past embarrassing & well into being a legal scandal. On the other hand if Brooks is talking a legal scandal compared in scope to something like Watergate, he may be right.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the stuff my side has pulled?
Such as...
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
no offense. and i mean this will all due respect.
you're an idiot.
Its one thing to hold conservative values, but its another thing to blindly support a member of the party just because he's in charge.
Bush has admitted he was wrong about the intel on the trailers, that's not in debate. As it stands, it seems the report exists. Even if it doesn't, then Bush went to war based on false intel.
So if the report exists, then he was flat out lying.
1) Personally insulting those who disagree with you.
You disagree, okay, but it's easier to respect your views without the insults.
2) Accusing your opposition of "blindly" supporting Bush. Myself, G-man, WBAM and other conservatives here at RKMB, and in the public mainstream, have not been shy about opposing, Bush's Harriet Myers U.S.S.C. nomination, Bush's immigration amnesty proposal, Bush's social security plan, Bush's tax cuts, or even many aspects of the Iraq war.
So it's a smear tactic by yourself and other Democrats to label support of Bush as "blind".
3) As has been said repeatedly, Bush began the Iraq invasion in March 2003 with the same intelligence that every other nation in Europe and the Middle East had on Iraq's WMD's (and again, as Bush's speeches leading up to the war --available at www.whitehouse.gov -- make clear, WMD's were not the only reason to invade Iraq. WMD's were only key to the Senate vote allowing the President to legally go to war in Iraq).
So... every country in Europe and the Middle East, AND THE U.N., with the best intelligence available at the time, believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's.
And the David Kay report showed that Iraq was in "material breach" of a ban on WMD's in Iraq, that Saddam was ready to pursue a WMD program as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted, and that U.S. invasion prevented a "nuclear arms bazaar" in Iraq, as the state was on the verge of collapse when the U.S. invaded.
And the arguments by liberals all purposefully circumnavigate these truths, to distort the seriousness of the pre-war Iraq situation.
Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did.
Should he jettison Secretary Rumsfeld and replace him with someone who will restore trust in the Iraq war operations?
I think so.
Were there similar mistakes made in the WW II, Korean and Vietnam wars?
Faulty intelligence about the Fall of the Berlin Wall?
Non-existent advance intelligence regarding the collapse of Eastern Europe?
The collapse of the Soviet Union itself?
Aldritch Ames?
Taking Chalabi and other Iraq defectors at their word?
Absolutely.
There are still heated debates about Hirosima, Nagasaki, Dresden, postwar German POW's, and a thousand other incidents. Even from our most honorable and "just" wars.
No matter how right and decisive the action, there will always be sour-grapes dissenters churning out bestsellers to say they saw and advised the true path to a better way, and that the decision made was wrong.
Some right, some not.
But we still won these wars, without smearing our nation and our leaders, way beyond the limits of a civil dialogue (except in the case of the Vietnam War, where the dialogue got equally ugly).
Bush deserves criticism, yes. But let's stick to what's proven. And anything that's specualtion should be clearly labelled as speculation.
Alleging more than that is just partisan smear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:...
Is it a scandal, a legal scandal?
No.
It's -- it's embarrassing. But it's not the scandal that some people think it is that's going to lead to resignations and firings.
...
Libby had to resign quite a while ago & Rove still may be indicted so I think it's fair to say that it's past embarrassing & well into being a legal scandal. On the other hand if Brooks is talking a legal scandal compared in scope to something like Watergate, he may be right.
Okay, touche.
You're right on Libby (at least partly. Judge Fitzgerald himself said that Bush authorized the intelligence report leak to answer the Joseph Wilson accusations, but ultimately that was just de-classification of intelligence that was safe to release in answer to the charges. But Fitzgerald said there was no indication that Bush or Cheney authorized publicly disclosing Plame's identity. Whether that would have been simply "unethical", or an actual crime.)
A Rove indictment is still speculation at this point. It looks to me like the level of scandal on this has crested and receded.
And what about Brooks' point that --to Democrats--mentioning Valerie Plame amounted to treason, but that Democrats have a different standard regarding:
1) exposure of the NSA top secret phone-tapping surveilance of Muslim terrorist calls overseas?
2)What about internal White House strategy secrets revealed by Richard Clarke?
3)What about exposure of abuses at Abu Ghraib (which the U.S. military JAG was already investigating internally, and the CBS expose story just made it that much harder to get the facts) ?
4)What about public officials revealing interrogation procedures at Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons, information that will make it that much harder for our military to get information from captured terrorists, that Al Qaida now knows our interrogation procedures and can resist them?
And for the record, despite not agreeing with you often, I appreciate the civility with which you present your liberal perspective in recent months. I think since the Bush/Kerry election, you've been much less inflammatory. Although we all have our moments. 
I certainly think r3x is capable of doing the same, as are many others here on both the left and right.
And I'm doing my best to be less inflammatory myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
1) Personally insulting those who disagree with you.
You disagree, okay, but it's easier to respect your views without the insults.
i'm always polite. stop being such a cunt.
Quote:
2) Accusing your opposition of "blindly" supporting Bush. Myself, G-man, WBAM and other conservatives here at RKMB, and in the public mainstream, have not been shy about opposing, Bush's Harriet Myers U.S.S.C. nomination, Bush's immigration amnesty proposal, Bush's social security plan, Bush's tax cuts, or even many aspects of the Iraq war.
So it's a smear tactic by yourself and other Democrats to label support of Bush as "blind".
you're being a cunt. i asked you to stop.
Quote:
3) As has been said repeatedly, Bush began the Iraq invasion in March 2003 with the same intelligence that every other nation in Europe and the Middle East had on Iraq's WMD's (and again, as Bush's speeches leading up to the war --available at www.whitehouse.gov -- make clear, WMD's were not the only reason to invade Iraq. WMD's were only key to the Senate vote allowing the President to legally go to war in Iraq).
So... every country in Europe and the Middle East, AND THE U.N., with the best intelligence available at the time, believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's.
And the David Kay report showed that Iraq was in "material breach" of a ban on WMD's in Iraq, that Saddam was ready to pursue a WMD program as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted, and that U.S. invasion prevented a "nuclear arms bazaar" in Iraq, as the state was on the verge of collapse when the U.S. invaded.
And the arguments by liberals all purposefully circumnavigate these truths, to distort the seriousness of the pre-war Iraq situation.
i asked you to stop. being a cunt like this is never cool.
Quote:
Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did.
if someone makes a mistake in their job and hundreds of thousands die, should that person not be held accountable for negligence?
Quote:
Should he jettison Secretary Rumsfeld and replace him with someone who will restore trust in the Iraq war operations?
I think so.
obviously. and several retired generals who served in Iraq feel the same way. but that won't happen (see: crony)
Quote:
Were there similar mistakes made in the WW II, Korean and Vietnam wars?
Faulty intelligence about the Fall of the Berlin Wall?
Non-existent advance intelligence regarding the collapse of Eastern Europe?
The collapse of the Soviet Union itself?
Aldritch Ames?
Taking Chalabi and other Iraq defectors at their word?
Absolutely.
see, there you go again. being a cunt.
Quote:
There are still heated debates about Hirosima, Nagasaki, Dresden, postwar German POW's, and a thousand other incidents. Even from our most honorable and "just" wars.
look, this whole being a cunt thing is getting tired. just stop.
Quote:
No matter how right and decisive the action, there will always be sour-grapes dissenters churning out bestsellers to say they saw and advised the true path to a better way, and that the decision made was wrong.
and there will always be people who look at obviously faulty choices and still support them rather than admit to being wrong.
oh, FYI. you have yet to stop being a cunt. work on it for me, won't you?
Quote:
Some right, some not.
But we still won these wars, without smearing our nation and our leaders, way beyond the limits of a civil dialogue (except in the case of the Vietnam War, where the dialogue got equally ugly).
Bush deserves criticism, yes. But let's stick to what's proven. And anything that's specualtion should be clearly labelled as speculation.
Alleging more than that is just partisan smear.
just try and work on not being a cunt this weekend. maybe just take it slow, then by monday you can come back and not be a cunt. okay?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
... stop being such a cunt.
...being a cunt.
...a cunt.
...cunt.
... cunt...
cunt.
...cunt....a cunt. okay?
Wow. Thank you for such an intelligent and well-thought-out rebuttal to the objections I raised.   
It actually is pretty funny, both intentionally and unintentionally. It is overflowing with the sneering contempt and intolerance for opposing views you (and the kind of tantrum-prone liberal Democrats you represent) are known for, that makes having a civil dialogue on the core issues so difficult.
And I find it amazing that all the areas I said myself and many others conservatives here have voiced dissent with Bush, short of jumping to conclusions... and then you went right back to alleging we mindlessly support whatever Bush does (i.e., "still support them rather than admit to being wrong." ) Despite that we've clearly voiced objection to Bush policy we didn't like at every turn over the last three years.
And, of course, are cunts. 
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
... stop being such a cunt.
...being a cunt.
...a cunt.
...cunt.
... cunt...
cunt.
...cunt....a cunt. okay?
Wow. Thank you for such an intelligent and well-thought-out rebuttal to the objections I raised.
It actually is pretty funny, both intentionally and unintentionally. It is overflowing with the sneering contempt and intolerance for opposing views you (and the kind of tantrum-prone liberal Democrats you represent) are known for, that makes having a civil dialogue on the core issues so difficult.
And I find it amazing that all the areas I said myself and many others conservatives here have voiced dissent with Bush, short of jumping to conclusions... and then you went right back to alleging we mindlessly support whatever Bush does (i.e., "still support them rather than admit to being wrong." ) Despite that we've clearly voiced objection to Bush policy we didn't like at every turn over the last three years.
And, of course, are cunts.
please watch your language, this is a family friendly forum.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I give up.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:...
You're right on Libby (at least partly. Judge Fitzgerald himself said that Bush authorized the intelligence report leak to answer the Joseph Wilson accusations, but ultimately that was just de-classification of intelligence that was safe to release in answer to the charges. But Fitzgerald said there was no indication that Bush or Cheney authorized publicly disclosing Plame's identity. Whether that would have been simply "unethical", or an actual crime.)
A Rove indictment is still speculation at this point. It looks to me like the level of scandal on this has crested and receded.
I think the way Bush authorized the leak hurts him in the eyes of many who saw him as honest. He discreditted himself by declassifying intel that was less than rock solid & propped it up by keeping contradictory intel classified. A Libby trial hasn't even started yet. I guess I would be surprised if this has crested yet.
Quote:
And what about Brooks' point that --to Democrats--mentioning Valerie Plame amounted to treason, but that Democrats have a different standard regarding:
1) exposure of the NSA top secret phone-tapping surveilance of Muslim terrorist calls overseas?
2)What about internal White House strategy secrets revealed by Richard Clarke?
3)What about exposure of abuses at Abu Ghraib (which the U.S. military JAG was already investigating internally, and the CBS expose story just made it that much harder to get the facts) ?
4)What about public officials revealing interrogation procedures at Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons, information that will make it that much harder for our military to get information from captured terrorists, that Al Qaida now knows our interrogation procedures and can resist them?
I can understand why Brook's would prefer looking at Dem's reactions to other leaks now. That type of hypocrism goes both ways though. In fact I think the two leak threads on this board illustrate that quite clearly.
Quote:
And for the record, despite not agreeing with you often, I appreciate the civility with which you present your liberal perspective in recent months. I think since the Bush/Kerry election, you've been much less inflammatory. Although we all have our moments.
I certainly think r3x is capable of doing the same, as are many others here on both the left and right.
And I'm doing my best to be less inflammatory myself.
Thanks, & I've noticed the less inflammatory Wonder Boy myself. It's nice. Hopefully I can follow your lead.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I give up.
you cut out the part where i said he was just bombarding me with the dumbest posts possible.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I give up.
you cut out the part where tried to hold on to what little was left of my dignity.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I give up.
WBAM is an idiot
you are correct, sir. I only hope that i have not made too big a fool of myself in front of my god.
Its okay. I forgive you for your transgression against me. Now, you must seek the forgiveness of the American People.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I give up.
WBAM is an idiot
you are correct, sir. I only hope that i have not made too big a fool of myself in front of my god.
Its okay. I forgive you for your transgression against me. Now, you must seek the forgiveness of the American People.
There weren't enough spelling arrors in that quote. This is clearly a forgery.. Did Dan Rather put you up to tihs?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Excerpts from the Times Sunday editorial... Quote:
President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist."
This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.
...
Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.
And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.
Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.
....
This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step. And it has taken only two years to get this far.
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
What a Shocker! Someone at teh times has a negative oppinion of Bush and questioons his motives! Thank you for posting that, it changed my whole perspective on things.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
