|
|
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:
As for the issue of jury selection, isn't the Defense also looking for jurers who would be more sympathetic towards Libby? This jury selection process doesn't seem to be different than any other.
The prosecution, as an agent of the state, is generally given less leeway in litigation because of the need to safeguard the rights of the accused.
Furthermore, under the code of legal ethics, while a defense attorney is required to advocate for his or her client, a prosecutor is expected to act in the interests of justice even if it means he or she might lose the case.
I think you're confusing prosecuters with daredevil stuntmen.
Prosecutors are given a wide range of power, from the Naval battleships to, yes, Ninjas.
Any prosecuter who fails to win a case is sent to a farm upstate where the American people are told it is running free, but in reality they are shot in the head and turned into hot dogs.
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:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
...But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.
...
Serious question WB, who's to blame for Libby being where he is right now?
Scooter Libby is responsible for the questionable circumstance that led to his being indicted.
But as Robert Novak himself has said (and as Richard Armitage has confirmed), Libby is not the one who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
In Joseph Wilson's Who's Who listing that Novak used to get her name, it made clear publicly way before the outing that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, and her name.
Wilson as well is responsible for Plame's outing, when he wrote a critical WSJ editorial of the President's belief that Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD's.
Saddam was pursuing nuclear WMD's, he just didn't have any made, but the David Kay investigation clearly proved Saddam had secret programs employing scientists to develop chemical, biological and nuclear WMD's, and was ready to go into production, as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted from Iraq.
Further, Saddam's own falsified records indicated that he already had thousands of biological and chemical weapons. And uncontested records prove Saddam had previously purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Wilson wrote an editorial critical of the President, asserting he (Wilson) had personally investigated the yellowcake uranium deal in Niger. That required anyone investigating his allegations to verify the details of Mr. Wilson's assertions, and the details of his mission.
And lo and behold, it was his wife, Valerie Plame, who got him selected for the CIA mission to Niger !
The incestuous way Wilson was selected for the mission is suspect.
In addition, Wilson has lied at many points about the details of his mission.
All this required investigation, and independent of Scooter Libby, points a glowing neon arrow at... Valerie Plame.
So I'd say the action of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, before, during and after Scooter Libby's remarks, have a lot more to do with Plame's outing than Libby.
And again: Richard Armitage is the one who revealed himself to be the responsible party, in naming Valerie Plame.
So... if there were any true wrongdoing here, wouldn't Richard Armitage be up on charges?
But he's not.
And if he's not, then why is Libby even being tried?
It's all a liberal show, so they can point fingers at Republicans, and make allegations they know to be false.
- 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: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Both sides do play their dirty tricks.
But I find the Democrat side much more cynical and malicious, in their repeating unproven allegations about Republicans as if they were fact.
("Bush knew", "blood for oil", "October surprise"...)
And repeating them relentlessly, through sheer repetition of the allegation, to the point that all but the most informed accept these unproven allegations as if they were proven.
To some degree, both sides play the same rhetorical political games.
But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Wonder Boy said:
Both sides do play their dirty tricks.
But I find the Democrat side much more cynical and malicious, in their repeating unproven allegations about Republicans as if they were fact.
("Bush knew", "blood for oil", "October surprise"...)
And repeating them relentlessly, through sheer repetition of the allegation, to the point that all but the most informed accept these unproven allegations as if they were proven.
To some degree, both sides play the same rhetorical political games.
But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.
Swiftboat, Vince Foster, Osama bin Laden wants the Democrats to win, Willie Horton, Creep bugging the Democrats.
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:
Karl Hungus said:
Swiftboat,
Over 250 veterans who served in a squad of swift-boats with John Kerry say Kerry's campaign promotion of his war-veteran status is false.
Only 13, at last count, stand by Kerry's version of events.
Let the record speak for itself.
The doctor who treated one of Kerry's wounds said it was self-inflicted by a grenade that Kerry tossed, and so reported. When Kerry's commanding officer wouldn't recommend him for a Purple Heart medal for the incident, Kerry went behind the officer's back, and asked another officer to submit him for a Purple Heart regarding the injury.
Kerry's received another medal for stabbing a retreating wounded soldier in the back.
Kerry unquestionably turned on his country and his fellow Vietnam veterans when he came home, with extremely inflammatory rhetoric.
And Kerry made such unsubstantaited wild allegations against American soldiers in Vietnam (alleged raping of women, shooting farm animals for sport, etc., that he said for years he saw firsthand and then later admitted he never saw, that it was, at best, just hearsay), to the point that even the V V A W (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) distanced themselves from Kerry and his war-views.
The head of the V V A W at that time described Kerry as an opportunist, who told people what they wanted to hear.
Let the record speak for itself.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Vince Foster,
I've made very clear that the evidence does not prove this allegation, and have repeatedly mentioned my belief in Clinton's involvement in his death within this context.
There is no assumption of this having been proven, by me or anyone else here.
I always mention this in the full context that while I believe Clinton to be involved in Foster's death, that is not proven, and probably never will be.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Osama bin Laden wants the Democrats to win,
Osama Bin Ladin flatout said this in one of his released statements to the Al Jazeera arab media.
And Iraqi resistance and other dictators around the world voiced similar elation when Democrats won control of the House and Senate this past November.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Willie Horton,
The convicted murderer who was released from life imprisonment on furlough in Massachussetts by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who was then enabled by Dukakis' liberal attitude and actions, to murder again.
Please demonstrate to me where mention of this fact in the 1988 presidential campaign was innaccurate or a smear. It is absolute fact.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Creep bugging the Democrats.
?????
This is not a smear by Republicans of Democrats with false allegations.
It is mention of Republicans clearly committing a crime, hiring five Cuban nationals and ex-CIA agents to bug the DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. in June 1972.
And on this point I think we can agree, these were Republicans guilty of a crime. But the crime was not smear and false allegations.
I'd also add that Republicans in Congress in 1974 joined Democrats in investigating this burglary and related corruption, up to and including voting to impeach a Republican president.
In the same situation in 1998, Democrats stonewalled and prevented a clearly guilty Bill Clinton from paying a price for his crimes. Which makes me laugh contemptuously when Democrats talk about the Republican "culture of corruption", and posture about Mark Foley or whoever.
Republicans hold their own accountable for crimes.
Democrats either look the other way, or blame pursuit of justice against Democrats on Republican "mean-spiritedness".
Despite the clear guilt of their fellow Democrats, Dems pursue the blame-game over true justice.
- 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:
Over 250 veterans who served in a squad of swift-boats with John Kerry say Kerry's campaign promotion of his war-veteran status is false.
Only 13, at last count, stand by Kerry's version of events.
Let the record speak for itself.
Of the 3,500 who served on Swiftboats, 250 were on the Swiftboat Veterans list. Of those, most hadn't even served with Kerry. At best then its hearsay.
Quote:
The doctor who treated one of Kerry's wounds said it was self-inflicted by a grenade that Kerry tossed, and so reported. When Kerry's commanding officer wouldn't recommend him for a Purple Heart medal for the incident, Kerry went behind the officer's back, and asked another officer to submit him for a Purple Heart regarding the injury.
Isn't the purple heart for injuries? Are you saying John Kerry had an accident with a grenade or purposely injured himself with one (easier ways to hurt yourself)?
Also from the same wikipedia page:
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
Quote:
Kerry's received another medal for stabbing a retreating wounded soldier in the back.
From the wikipedia page on the Swift Boat group (you can go there yourself and review the sources).
The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce. [16] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official" [17], but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [18], and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee [19][20]["Tour of Duty," pp. 290-292] ["John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography" (Boston Globe), pp. 100-103].
Quote:
Kerry unquestionably turned on his country and his fellow Vietnam veterans when he came home, with extremely vocal and inflammatory rhetoric.
Unquestionably turned on them? That is your opinion. The right to protest is as old as America itself. No different than the Boston Massacre events or the Boston Tea Party. Kerry served his full tour and came back to protest a war he felt was wrong, a mistake. By the time he got back it was clear the war was a big mess. Even Nixon ran on the platform in 1968 of trying to end the war (though he wanted some sort of token win). Kerry's line "how do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake" is a very noble and compassionate thing to ask. He obviously cared about people dying in Vietnam and wanted them to be pulled out of danger quick and not have their lives played as politics.
I would say he was actually fighting for them, not turning on them.
Quote:
And Kerry made such unsubstantaited wild allegations against American soldiers in Vietnam (alleged raping of women, shooting farm animals for sport, etc., that he said for years he saw firsthand and then later admitted he never saw, that it was, at best, just hearsay), to the point that even the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) distanced themselves from Kerry and his war-views.
The head of the VVAW at that time described Kerry as an opportunist, who told people what they wanted to hear.
Well there were a lot of attrocities over there. Kerry saying he saw them when he didn't was clearly wrong (though I noticed you support the Swiftboat hearsay but not his, whereas I admonished all hearsay. You, my friend, are a flip flopper).
Quote:
Let the record speak for itself.
Exactly.....bitch.
Quote:
Osama Bin Ladin flatout said this in one of his released statements to the Al Jazeera arab media.
And Solomon wanted them to cut the cow in half? Jeez, do you take him at his word? Has he earned your trust?
Also bin Laden said in an Arabic newspaper that he had nothing to do with 9/11, yet there is a video of him from the U.S. government where he took credit. He also praised Bush for uniting the Arab world to his cause before the election.
The guy likes to fuck with us. Don't take him at his word. I just hope you didn't really believe he could sell you the Brooklyn bridge. 
Quote:
And Iraqi resistance and other dictators around the world voiced similar elation when Democrats won control of the House and Senate this past November.
Again, I'm dubious. Have you ever considered that Bush has done so much fucking up in Iraq that any challenge to him is welcomed.
Quote:
The convicted murderer who was released from life imprisonment on furlough in Massachussetts by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who was then enabled by Dukakis' liberal attitude and actions, to murder again.
Please demonstrate to me where mention of this fact in the 1988 pesidential campaign was innaccurate or a smear. It is absolute fact.
and Bush executed a retard. Bush Sr. played it up to seem like Dukakis practically helped in the killing.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Creep bugging the Democrats.
Quote:
?????
Watergate. Commitee to Reelect the President. You do know what office they were breaking into in the Watergate?
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:
Libby trial prosecutors reveal pre-war battle over Iraq WMDs
David Edwards
Published: Wednesday January 24, 2007
Prosecutors in the trial for former White House aide I. Lewis Libby revealed some details on the Bush Administration's "pre-war battle" over Iraq's WMDs, according to MSNBC.
Former Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman testified that he received a request from Libby at the end of May 2003, asking for information about Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Africa during which he found there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, MSNBC's David Shuster reported.
Grossman testified it was just two weeks later that he had a face-to-face meeting with Libby, then Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security, and told him, in so many words, "look, here's a report on Joe Wilson's trip and, by the way, we've learned that the ambassador's wife, Valerie Wilson, she is undercover at the CIA," Shuster continued.
In the pre-war arguments, many State Department workers had huge problems with the nuclear case that the Bush Administration had made against Iraq. That came up and was significant because at the time the Administration and former Secretary of State Colin Powell were putting up a united front, Shuster added.
...
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Interesting.
I thought the issues was whether Libby knowingly lied to the grand jury. After all, as noted ad nauseam, the leaker has been identified, not as Libby, but Richard Armitage.
The fact that Nifong, oops, I mean, Fitzgerald, is bringing in this extraneous information on the prosecution side could be grounds for an appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
I don't know how much serious response to give to this long-winded tangent (and I'm as responsible for it as you are, r3x, but I felt a need to respond to the points you raised.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Over 250 veterans who served in a squad of swift-boats with John Kerry say Kerry's campaign promotion of his war-veteran status is false.
Only 13, at last count, stand by Kerry's version of events.
Let the record speak for itself.
Of the 3,500 who served on Swiftboats, 250 were on the Swiftboat Veterans list. Of those, most hadn't even served with Kerry. At best then its hearsay.
It seems to me that Wikipedia's listing for this particular entry is liberally biased, and is more of an attempt to discredit the allegations of the Swiftvets and exonerate Kerry, than it is a serious attempt to weigh both sides of the story.
I've fielded this one before. Wikipedia's listing, despite its best effort to trash the Swiftvets and exonerate Kerry, reluctantly displays valid and visibly true arguments of the Swiftvets who signed on to dispute Kerry's "war hero" self-promotion campaign.
The Wikipedia SWIFTVET listing despite its bias, and what you chose to excerpt here, does say that 11 of the 250 Vets who signed the statement against Kerry, had served in combat with Kerry.
Further, these boats served in squads and coordinated together, so even if they didn't serve aboard the same boat as Kerry, they patrolled together, planned and maneuvered together and communicated by radio. It's a cop-out to say they weren't on the same boat with Kerry.
- Kerry received three Purple Heart medals for injury in battle, and yet was never even hospitalized.
.
- I already said his commanding officer declined to give him a Purple Heart, and Kerry went behind his C.O.'s back, to submit and receive the medal through another officer.
.
- The physician who examined Kerry (I linked it in the previous Bush/Kerry military records topic) said he evaluated that the wound was self-inflicted, and did not warrant a Purple Heart.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
The doctor who treated one of Kerry's wounds said it was self-inflicted by a grenade that Kerry tossed, and so reported. When Kerry's commanding officer wouldn't recommend him for a Purple Heart medal for the incident, Kerry went behind the officer's back, and asked another officer to submit him for a Purple Heart regarding the injury.
Isn't the purple heart for injuries? Are you saying John Kerry had an accident with a grenade or purposely injured himself with one (easier ways to hurt yourself)?
As I quoted in the earlier Bush/Kerry, military records topic, Kerry threw a grenade, and threw it too close to himself, and thus accidentally injured himself.
But either way (intentional or not) a self-inflicted wound disqualifies him for a Purple Heart.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Also from the same wikipedia page:
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT [in condemning Kerry's receiving medals, questioning his valor].
[Gardner] was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
The commanding officers who submit any soldier for a medal generally don't see the awarded incidents firsthand. But they still make a judgement based on evidence whether they deserve an award or not.
Kerry's C.O refused Kerry a Purple Heart for an incident, and Kerry went to another officer to get a Purple Heart anyway.
That's a fact.
A physician, who examined Kerry's battle wound as well, determined it self-inflicted.
That Kerry submitted for the medal anyway, behind their backs, alone makes me question Kerry's worthiness.
Add to that how in 1971 at a protest rally, he pretended to throw away his medals in shame for his Vietnam service, to inspire a lack of patriotism in others, but secretly was, and now still is, in fact proud of his medals and service, and kept those medals.
Is Kerry proud or ashamed of his Vietnam service ?
Is he a proud anti-war demonstrator, or a proud "decorated hero" who was awarded Purple Hearts officers and doctors don't think he deserved, but submitted for anyway, only to pretend to throw away in 1971, and then express pride in later.
War hero, or anti-war demonstrator ?
Which way is the wind blowing ?
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
WB said:
Kerry's received another medal for stabbing a retreating wounded soldier in the back.
From the wikipedia page on the Swift Boat group (you can go there yourself and review the sources)
The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star.
These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce. [16] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official" [17], but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [18], and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee [19][20]["Tour of Duty," pp. 290-292] ["John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography" (Boston Globe), pp. 100-103].
I don't consider the word of Vietnamese enemies who hate the United States to be substantiation.
There are too many possible hidden motives for their making such a statement.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
WB said:
Kerry unquestionably turned on his country and his fellow Vietnam veterans when he came home, with extremely vocal and inflammatory rhetoric.
Unquestionably turned on them? That is your opinion.
The right to protest is as old as America itself. No different than the Boston Massacre events or the Boston Tea Party.
Kerry served his full tour and came back to protest a war he felt was wrong, a mistake. By the time he got back it was clear the war was a big mess.
Even Nixon ran on the platform in 1968 of trying to end the war (though he wanted some sort of token win). Kerry's line "how do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake" is a very noble and compassionate thing to ask. He obviously cared about people dying in Vietnam and wanted them to be pulled out of danger quick and not have their lives played as politics.
I would say he was actually fighting for them, not turning on them.
And that is your opinion.
I would argue that despite the losses, the 58,000 who died in Vietnam were not in vain.
For 25 years, the willingness of the United States, through several presidencies, Democrat and Republican, to fight to the bitter end in Vietnam, saved lives, both American and foreign.
The willingness of the United States to oppose communist-backed aggression anywhere in the world at a high cost (specifically, in Vietnam) gave the Soviet Union and China pause in potentially expanding their influence into other conflicts.
The Vietnam war ended in 1975. The last remnants of Kissenger and the anti-communist commitment left in the Nov 1976 election. Carter the Pacifist was elected and inaugurated in Jan 1977.
What happened after?
Laos.
Cambodia.
Iranian revolution
Angola.
The Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua
Idi Amin in Uganda.
The Cuban Mariel boatlift.
Afghanistan
When the communists saw there was a president who would not oppose communist aggression, the aggression expanded with a vengeance.
The 58,000 in Vietnam didn't die just for Vietnam. They died to show American commitment, so other wars would not have to be fought. A president after that just had to voice sustained commitment to the same principles, without military action. The 58,000 had already demonstrated that commitment.
But Carter, with his pacifist rhetoric, dropped the ball.
And communists, seeing the wavering commitment, leaped at the opportunity to expand unopposed.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
And Kerry made such unsubstantaited wild allegations against American soldiers in Vietnam (alleged raping of women, shooting farm animals for sport, etc., that he said for years he saw firsthand and then later admitted he never saw, that it was, at best, just hearsay), to the point that even the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) distanced themselves from Kerry and his war-views.
The head of the VVAW at that time described Kerry as an opportunist, who told people what they wanted to hear.
Well there were a lot of atrocities over there. Kerry saying he saw them when he didn't was clearly wrong (though I noticed you support the Swiftboat hearsay but not his, whereas I admonished all hearsay. You, my friend, are a flip flopper).
Kerry's hearsay is clearly untrue.
Whereas the Swiftvets' statements...
1) about Kerry's unworthiness to receive medals (the doctor who examined Kerry's wounds, the C.O. who refused to award a Purple Heart for self-inflicted wounds,
and
2)criticizing Kerry's opportunistically pursuing a Purple Heart through another officer behind their backs),
and
3) exposing Kerry's anti-American comments alleging he saw firsthand American soldiers raping women, etc. (Kerry himself later admitted he did not see these things firsthand as he alleged, i.e., he lied)
...are demonstrably true
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
Let the record speak for itself.
Exactly.....bitch.
Your spiteful remarks just further underscore your pre-formed opinionated rage, and lack of objectivity.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
Osama Bin Ladin flatout said this in one of his released statements to the Al Jazeera arab media.
And Solomon wanted them to cut the cow in half? Jeez, do you take him at his word? Has he earned your trust?
Also bin Laden said in an Arabic newspaper that he had nothing to do with 9/11, yet there is a video of him from the U.S. government where he took credit. He also praised Bush for uniting the Arab world to his cause before the election.
The guy likes to fuck with us. Don't take him at his word. I just hope you didn't really believe he could sell you the Brooklyn bridge.
I recall liberals post-9/11 holding this up to protest Al Qaida's innocence, and how morally wrong it would be for us to bomb Afghanistan.
You can look up the RKMB topics from September 2001 here on RKMB, if you want some examples. Perhaps you'll be making that closing payment on Brooklyn bridge, and not me.
It makes so much sense that these statements to Al Jazeera are a smokescreen, because Al Qaida is more afraid of a Democrat president who will treat Al Qaida as a criminal pursuit instead of all-out war.
And it makes so much sense that Al Qaida is terrified that Democrats will make good their threats, for years now, to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, and cut off funding from President Bush so he cannot continue the Iraq occupation. And to abandon a weak democracy to overthrow by Iraq insurgents and islamic fundamentalist death-squads, so Iraq can become the new hub of Islamic terrorism, the new equivalent of a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Yeah, Bin Ladin must be terrified. Your argument makes perfect sense
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
And Iraqi resistance and other dictators around the world voiced similar elation when Democrats won control of the House and Senate this past November.
Again, I'm dubious. Have you ever considered that Bush has done so much fucking up in Iraq that any challenge to him is welcomed.
I'd be more inclined to believe that, if the Iraqis and others were lobbying for peace, and not forming more death squads, pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening their neighbors and preparing for war.
They don't like Bush.
But they're more cautious of Bush than they would be of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or some other liberal pacifist who would make half-hearted threats of military action and never really act.
That empty rhetoric, without committed action, is what led to 9-11, after a long series of escalating Al Qaida incidents since 1993.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
W B said:
The convicted murderer who was released from life imprisonment on furlough in Massachussetts by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who was then enabled by Dukakis' liberal attitude and actions, to murder again.
Please demonstrate to me where mention of this fact in the 1988 pesidential campaign was innaccurate or a smear. It is absolute fact.
and Bush executed a retard. Bush Sr. played it up to seem like Dukakis practically helped in the killing.
No, Bush Sr in 1988 presented the Willie Horton incident for exactly what it was: a misguided liberal sympathy for dangerous criminals, that plays dangerous games with people's lives, hurting people with social programs that don't work. And demonstrating that what Dukakis did locally in Massachusetts, would be implemented nationally if he were elected.
A guy who lets murderers out of jail to murder more people is not someone I'd want in command of our military, or concocting similarly misguided social policies on a national level.
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Creep bugging the Democrats.
Quote:
?????
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Watergate. Commitee to Reelect the President. You do know what office they were breaking into in the Watergate?
I just said it above, if you bothered to read it: the rooms used for the Democratic National Committee, at the Watergate Hotel, in Washington D.C.
They were there to bug the rooms, so they could listen in on their political strategy, and presumably outmaneuver them. Which was dumb, because Nixon won by a huge landslide without this illegal activity, and it was clear he would early on.
Again, bugging and listening in is not "smear" and "false allegation". Although, as I said, it is clearly illegal, and Republicans joined in investigating, indicting, and pursuing impeachment of those involved.
In contrast to Democrats in 1998, who ignored crimes of Clinton, clung to their Democrat control of the Presidency despite Clinton's clear guilt, and in general smeared the innocent to protect the guilty, in their abdication of ethics, in their ruthless preservation of Democrat power.
- 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 |
Wonderboy, I think we've both stated our cases (it will take me a bit to read through all of your post, but i will). At this point though it will just get down to personal perspectives on the same information.
I don't think John Kerry was the greatest candidate ever, though I do know that he served when he was well off enough to get out of it while Bush (and you can't argue this) played it safe in the National Guard.
And the fact is that there were people who actually served with Kerry who respected him as a good soldier, and others who didn't see him that way. Do we know 100% of his personal encounters with them all to know if grudges may have formed?
Either way, this has been debated to the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree instead of wasting a few days arguing.
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:
Cheney's ex-spokeswoman says VP's office was aware of Plame prior to Libby's talks with reporters
John Byrne
Published: Thursday January 25, 2007
In a major development today in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury and obstruction of justice trial, a former vice presidential spokeswoman raised questions about the defense employed by Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Cheney's former Press Secretary Cathie Martin took the stand and told the prosectuion she had briefed Libby and the Vice President on the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame as the wife of Iraq war critic Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Martin revealed that she had a conversation with a CIA counterpart who in the course of the discussion said that Plame was Wilson's wife. She immediately informed Cheney and Libby of this fact, on a date she said was prior to July 6th, according to the Associated Press. Libby claims he learned of Plame's identity days later.
The defense will cross-examine Martin on Libby's behalf this afternoon. MSNBC has provided details on Libby's lawyers questioning of memory as a tactic to call witnesses' accounts into doubt during the trial.
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
That's a nice RAW story you got there, DSM! 
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Captain Sammitch said:
That's a nice RAW story you got there, DSM!
Sorry that you feel the need to go with personal attacks Cap. Otherwise it was pretty much an update of a big trial. Here's one from Reuters...
Quote:
...Martin is the third government official to testify that they told Libby of Plame's identity up to a month before he says he learned of her from a reporter. The other two officials have admitted under cross-examination to giving conflicting accounts of their conversations with Libby....
So we're up to 3 people who told Libby of Plame's identity that he says he doesn't remember.
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 |
...and yet Armitage is still clearly the person who revealed himself to be the leaker to reporter Robert Novak, whose article revealing Plame's name is the focal point of this controversy.
Again:
Richard Armitage is the one who revealed himself to be the responsible party, in naming Valerie Plame.
So... if there were any true wrongdoing here, wouldn't Richard Armitage be up on charges?
But he's not.
And if he's not, then why is Libby even being tried?
It's all a liberal show, so they can point fingers at Republicans, and make allegations they know to be false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
So perjury is now OK if your a Republican?
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:
Matter-eater Man said:
So perjury is now OK if your a Republican?
As long as sex wasn't involved. Political morality is like the MPAA, all the violence is good but one pubic hair and its condemned.
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 |
No, I think the point is that Armitage being the leaker tends to show that Libby had no real motive to lie.
Armitage was anti-war, I believe. Therefore, he had no reason to leak Plame's name as revenge for Wilson's anti-war statements.
Since the leaker was not motivated by a desire for revenge and, in fact, probably released her name by accident, why would Libby have lied?
Libby claims his "perjury" was the result of faulty memory. That there seems to be no motive tends to confirm that. Which may create "reasonable doubt."
If there's reasonable doubt, there's no conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Newsweek: Rove could testify in Libby case as subpoenas delivered
President Bush's top political consultant, Karl Rove, could testify in the much-publicized trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Michael Isikoff reports in a Newsweek web exclusive.
"White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials--including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett--may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial" of Libby, writes Isikoff.
Rove and Bartlett have both already received subpoenas from defense lawyers for Libby, Isikoff quotes lawyers related to the case as saying.
The article states that while it's not guaranteed that Rove and Bartlett will be called, chances rose this week after Libby's lawyer "laid out a defense resting on the idea that his client ... had been made a 'scapegoat' to protect Rove."
Isikoff adds, again quoting, that the Vice President is "expected to provide the most crucial testimony" to back up the assertions made by Libby's lawyer.
RAW STORY earlier reported on a New York Times article that suggested Libby's "scapegoat" defense "may not be supportable by any evidence."
Excerpts from the Newsweek article follow...
#
The possibility that Rove could be called to testify would bring his own role into sharper focus--and could prove important to Libby's lawyers for several reasons. Rove has said in secret testimony that, during a chat on July 11, 2003, Libby told him he learned about Plame's employment at the CIA from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, a legal source who asked not to be identified talking about grand jury matters told NEWSWEEK...
But the Rove account could cut in other ways. Fitzgerald would likely argue that Libby's comment to Rove merely shows that the vice president's top aide "was even lying inside the White House," according to the legal source. Moreover, Rove is likely not eager to recount the story either. The reason? He would have to acknowledge that shortly after he had the chat with Libby, he went back to his office and had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in which he also disclosed the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. The disclosure was potentially illegal since, at the time, Plame was employed in the Directorate of Operations, the agency's covert arm...
...
An equally embarrassing conflict could emerge next week when former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer takes the stand. Fleischer has been one of the most mysterious figures in the case, making virtually no public comments about it since he left the White House in July 2003. In the past he has insisted he wasn't even represented by a lawyer. But it emerged during court arguments this week that Fleischer originally invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges to avoid testifying and then only agreed to do so after he was given an immunity deal by Fitzgerald--an arrangement that normally requires extensive bargaining among attorneys...
...
On its face, Fleischer's account seems to contradict the repeated public assertions of his immediate successor, Scott McClellan, in October 2003 that nobody at the White House was in any way involved in the leak of Plame's identity. It also potentially puts Bartlett, one of the president's senior and most trusted advisers, on the hot seat. If Bartlett backs up Fleischer, it suggests he himself played a role in passing along radioactive information that triggered a criminal investigation that has plagued the White House for more than four years.
Scumbags or just missunderstood?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Scumbags, every last one.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Former White House spokesman says Libby told him about Plame earlier than admitted
RAW STORY
Published: Monday January 29, 2007
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer has confirmed the testimony of other witnesses by stating that he learned Valerie Plame's identify from I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby several days before Libby claimed to have heard about it from a reporter on July 10 or 11, 2003.
Fleischer said Libby had told him at a lunch meeting on July 7 that ex-ambassador Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, was "sent to Niger to investigate reports Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material there by Wilson's wife, not by the vice president, as some news accounts were saying," write Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein at The Washington Post.
David Shuster of MSNBC remarked on the air during a courtroom break that "the last half an hour of testimony that the jury has heard is by far the most dramatic and compelling testimony they have heard in this trial."
...
RAW
Fleischer is the 5th government witness to testify to having earlier conversations with Libby about Plame. I don't see how Libby can seriusly say he couldn't remember any of these.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Cooper: Libby One of Two Sources to Confirm Plame Identity
By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; 6:22 PM
Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified today that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was one of two government sources to confirm the identity of an undercover CIA officer for him.
Cooper told the court in Libby's perjury trial that he first learned in a quick and confidential conversation with senior White House adviser Karl Rove in July 2003 that the wife of a prominent war critic worked at the CIA. He said that Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, confirmed the information for him at the end of another telephone call in early July.
Cooper is the eighth government witness to testify that Libby knew about CIA officer Valerie Plame or shared information about her in the weeks before Libby contends he learned her name.
Washington Post
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
IT'S A TRIAL ABOUT . . . NOTHINGMost news reports this week have highlighted the prosecution's successes. But the prosecutor must prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt" - and the Libby team has had evident success in casting all kinds of doubt on the testimony of Fitzgerald's witnesses. So things are far muddier in Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom than the reporters covering the trial are letting on.
This is easily seen if you read the observations of the most obsessive followers of the Libby case. They come in two varieties - left-wingers who'd be happy to see Libby face a firing squad and righties who'd now be happy to see Fitzgerald face a firing squad.
Web sites on both sides of the ideological divide provide moment-by-moment transcripts of the courtroom proceedings, and other sites give moment-by-moment analysis.
Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.
it's become the habit of those consumed with this case's details to depersonalize their "enemies" - meaning not only Libby or Fitzgerald, but also their witnesses, fellow lawyers and the like.
Maybe that's because the case against Scooter Libby is so astoundingly petty that arguing over it is like arguing over scraps.
To secure his conviction, Fitzgerald only wants the jury to agree to the following - that Libby, who acknowledges having learned a fact on a Thursday, is lying when he claims he'd already forgotten it four days later.
You'd think that would be a pretty easy case to make. But it turns out it's not - and that, even on Fitzgerald's own extremely narrow terms, he may not be able to establish these plain facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
How many people have testified that they talked to Libby about Plame before he said he heard it from Russert first? At last count it was 8. I would say that makes reasonable doubt for the prosecutor rather easy to overcome.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Vice President's Shadow Hangs Over Trial
Libby Trial Testimony Points Out Cheney's Role in Trying to Dampen Wilson's Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 4, 2007; Page A05
Vice President Cheney's press officer, Cathie Martin, approached his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, to ask how she should respond to journalists' questions about Joseph C. Wilson IV. Libby looked over the reporter's questions and told Martin: "Well, let me go talk to the boss and I'll be back."
On Libby's return, Martin testified in federal court last week, he brought a card with detailed replies dictated by Cheney, including a highly partisan, incomplete summary of Wilson's investigation into Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction program.
Libby subsequently called a reporter, read him the statement, and said -- according to the reporter -- he had "heard" that Wilson's investigation was instigated by his wife, an employee at the CIA, later identified as Valerie Plame. The reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was one of five people with whom Libby discussed Plame's CIA status during those critical weeks that summer.
After seven days of such courtroom testimony, the unanswered question hanging over Libby's trial is, did the vice president's former chief of staff decide to leak that disparaging information on his own?
...
Washington Post
 Does anyone think Libby was acting on his own?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Sorry it's not as worthy as "Dem Official Charged With Racial Slur" thread of G-man's. 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
When that thread is sixty pages long you might have a point. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Sorry it's not as worthy as "Dem Official Charged With Racial Slur" thread of G-man's.
Not everyone here is hopelessly mired in a double standard. I actually don't care about that thread either.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Captain Sammitch said:
...
Not everyone here is hopelessly mired in a double standard. I actually don't care about that thread either.
Couldn't tell since your post on that thread certainly wasn't a neutral one towards Dems. I do agree that not everyone here is hopelessly mired in a double standard though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
...
Not everyone here is hopelessly mired in a double standard. I actually don't care about that thread either.
Couldn't tell since your post on that thread certainly wasn't a neutral one towards Dems. I do agree that not everyone here is hopelessly mired in a double standard though.
I'm not "neutral toward Dems". I will tear them a new one given the opportunity. I have also done that given opportunities with Republicans. I simply am called upon to lambast Democrats more often because Republicans tend to draw less fire given their diminishing level of relevance, whereas the Democrats are an active threat because of their current position of power. Plus they almost beg for it sometimes by being FUCKING morons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Guess at this point I'll leave you to the personal attacks & name calling, not interested in spending my time that way.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Guess at this point I'll leave you to the personal attacks & name calling, not interested in spending my time that way.
Quote:
Uschi said:
kthxbye
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Audiotapes of Libby's Testimony to Be Released
By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; 5:12 PM
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury that he largely "could not recall" several details of conversations he had with Vice President Cheney and others regarding Joseph C. Wilson IV, the war critic who accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, according to audiotapes played in court this afternoon.
Carefully and deliberately testifying in 2004 as part of the probe that eventually led to criminal charges against him, Libby, who was then Cheney's chief of staff, said he did remember his boss telling him in June 2003 that former ambassador Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. But Cheney said it in "sort of an offhand manner, as a curiosity," Libby said.
The vice president used a tone unlike his regular voice, Libby said, which "was much more matter of fact and straight."
The audiotapes of Libby's own words are being played to a jury that is weighing whether he is guilty of lying to investigators probing the leak of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to the media.
Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstructing the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty to the five felonies, contending that, when he spoke with investigators, he innocently misremembered events surrounding the disclosure of Plame's identity. He is not charged with the leak itself.
Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald alleges that Plame's name was disclosed to the media to discredit her husband.
...
Washington Post
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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:
'Startling moment' at Libby trial as President Bush is referenced
David Edwards
Published: Tuesday February 6, 2007
Last night on MSNBC's Countdown, correspondent David Shuster provided a breakdown of Monday's events at the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis Libby.
One "very startling moment" occurred when a tape of Libby's grand jury testimony included references to President George Bush.
"There was one other very startling moment, referring to President Bush, in Scooter Libby‘s Grand Jury testimony on audiotape. Libby noted on a piece of paper a notation, and prosecutors asked whether the notation shows that President Bush was interested in the Kristof article on the State of the Union," Shuster said. "It was a Kristof article in May of 2003 which first got the White House thinking about Ambassador Wilson, because it talked about an ambassador‘s trip, which essentially undercut the State of the Union speech."
Shuster continued, "Libby was asked about the president‘s interest and he said, yes, that‘s what my notes signals, but Libby then went on to testify he never discussed the president‘s interest with the vice president, nor did Libby speak about it with President Bush. He went on to testify that he only heard about the president‘s interest from a senior staff meeting. Of course, we don‘t know if Libby was telling the truth, but it was certainly a tantalizing bit of testimony."
...
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
From the New York Times: The prosecution in the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. neared the end of its case Wednesday with a final dramatic flourish — putting Tim Russert of NBC News on the witness stand to deliver what could be a serious blow to Mr. Libby’s defense.
Nevertheless, Mr. Russert, who is accustomed to asking tough questions of his guests on “Meet the Press,” found himself in the clearly uncomfortable role of being the subject of tough questions during a cross-examination by Mr. Libby’s defense lawyer.
Mr. Russert, whose signature technique in interrogating officials on his television program includes confronting them with documents and texts of previous quotes, found the technique used on him. A defense lawyer displayed documents on a large television screen in the courtroom as he challenged Mr. Russert’s recollection of events.
On Wednesday, Mr. Russert testified under a prosecutor’s questioning that, contrary to Mr. Libby’s testimony, he never spoke with him about Valerie Wilson, the C.I.A. officer.
Mr. Russert, the moderator of “Meet the Press,” was unequivocal in his testimony that no such conversation with Mr. Libby occurred. But when Mr. Libby’s chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., began his efforts to disparage Mr. Russert’s reliability in cross-examination, Mr. Russert’s confident demeanor changed abruptly.
Mr. Russert... stopped speaking in the confident, complete sentences in which he had answered the prosecutor in his direct testimony. Instead, he became more deliberate and halting in his responses, frequently asking Mr. Wells to repeat the question or asking for time to examine the document about which he was being asked. “Say again?” he said frequently. And, as noted in the Washington Post: Testifying for a second day at Libby's perjury trial, Russert said he took no joy in Libby's fate ...But Russert sounded giddy in an audiotape played in court this afternoon of his on-air interview with radio personality Don Imus on the morning of Oct. 28, when charges were expected against Libby.
"It was like Christmas Eve here last night," Russert chortled, as he told Imus about the much-anticipated results of a CIA leak investigation that Fitzgerald was expected to announce later that afternoon. "Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises! What's going to be under the tree?"
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Bryon York, at National Review suggests that the Libby case is a manufactured controverey. Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
No. There is plenty of evidence that he committed the crimes he's been charged with. Interestingly enough the only motive I can think of for a subordiante like Libby to obstruct an investigation is to protect his bosses. (Bush, Cheney)
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
At least he wasn't murdered in his office like Vince Foster.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
PJP said:
At least he wasn't murdered in his office like Vince Foster.
Vince Foster's suicide was investigated multiple times. Sorry Mr. & Mrs. Clinton didn't dodge secret service & kill Vince Foster.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
