Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak


PDA






Beren
April 6, 2006, 01:43 PM
Maybe I'm officially a moonbat myself, but I've called my Congressman to state:

This needs to be investigated. If true, Bush and Cheney should be brought up on articles of impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/

I'm very disappointed. Bush went on national TV how many times, saying whoever leaked the information should be fired?

If you enjoyed reading about "Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beren
April 6, 2006, 02:22 PM
Yup, looks like I am a moonbat who doesn't read the complete story.

Libby alleges Bush authorized the leaking of info from the NIE on Iraq, not Plame's identity.

Delmar
April 6, 2006, 02:28 PM
Beren-I think its time to go out to the range and warm up on your firearms, eh? :D

Its okay. Thanks for what you do.

Thin Black Line
April 6, 2006, 02:32 PM
Reminds me of:

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Or, for those educated by South Park:

Whatever! Whatever! I do what I want!

:barf:

But, I wonder if Libby actually has some kind of "proof"? The timing could
make the elections rather interesting....:confused:

ArmedBear
April 6, 2006, 02:34 PM
It's been pretty well established that "Plame's identity" was common knowledge among those few people who would give a rat's ass about Valerie Plame. Libby was indicted for lying to investigators, not for doing anything wrong to start with.

The whole case is a load of crap.

Can anyone honestly believe that, with all the BS that transpires in DC, they can't pin something REAL on anyone?

I don't know much about Scooter Libby, but even if the guy is the most corrupt man alive, THIS case isn't worth the paper it's scribbled on.

cosine
April 6, 2006, 02:37 PM
Can anyone honestly believe that, with all the BS that transpires in DC, they can't pin something REAL on anyone?

The point is, if they did pin something real on someone up there in DC, in order to be consistant they would have pin something real on everyone in DC. There would be no one left on Capitol hill. They don't want that to happen, do they?

bakert
April 6, 2006, 02:46 PM
I may be wrong but I think this whole mess revolves around a certain prosecutor trying to make a name for himself with urgings from a lot of liberal politicos!!:mad:

ball3006
April 6, 2006, 02:49 PM
the news media, dimocrats and Liddy have an axe to grind........To those three, an alligation is as good as a conviction.......chris3

thereisnospoon
April 6, 2006, 02:51 PM
This exerpt from the 3RD paragraph...

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

I voted for Bush twice:barf: and think he's doing a terrible job at managing things at home, so don't count me among the kool-aid drinkers.

However, if you're going to attack, get the facts right first!

ArmedBear
April 6, 2006, 02:53 PM
The headline reminds me of the Simpson's episode where the saleswoman knocks on the door and says, "Marge Simpson? Your baby is DEAD!"

When they let her in, she says, "That's what you would hear if..." and launches into a sales pitch.

Beren
April 6, 2006, 03:08 PM
However, if you're going to attack, get the facts right first!

You might follow your own advice and read the second post of this thread. :neener:

Helmetcase
April 6, 2006, 03:10 PM
I may be wrong but I think this whole mess revolves around a certain prosecutor trying to make a name for himself with urgings from a lot of liberal politicos!!
Yup, you're wrong. Fitzgerald is a Republican.

Thanks for playing!

And I thought the Republicans were the party of NatSec...since when is playing political football with a CIA operative's work part and parcel of NatSec? Ooops.

the Juggernaut
April 6, 2006, 04:14 PM
The thing that scares me the most about all these scandals in the Republican party is that this could cause a shift where the Democrats control both the Executive and Congress. I would not be surprised to see them push through major gun banning legislation. I am not in either party, but I firmly believe that the best mix is to have one party in the executive and one party control Congress so neither can just do what they want and I feel that the six years the Republicans have controled both is a major factor in the party corruption we've seen. I'm dreading 2006 and 2008. The Republican party needs to get back to the platform and the Democrats need to change their stance on God, religion, and guns. I am not a Christian myself, but the image I see from the Democrats is not a "war on Christianity" but it isn't friendly either. I'm not surprised either that liberals who push for their political rights freak out when the Christian-right pushes for what they believe in. Ok I'm on a tangent. What were we talking about again!:neener:

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 04:18 PM
What has been happening in the past 6 years only demonstrates the significant erosion of the system of checks and balances. When the weaknesses and failures of a few flawed men become the weaknesses and failures of an entire government, we no longer live in a democracy or even in a republic.

TX1911fan
April 6, 2006, 05:40 PM
It is completely within the President's discretion to declassify materials. It happens ALL the time. The fact that Plame's name was in the declassified materials is irrelevant. She was not covert at the time, and had not been covert in the field in over 6 years, thereby not qualifying for protection anyway. Remember, Libby is NOT on trial for leaking her name. He is on trial for obstruction of justice. He lied about something during the investigation. The fact that Plame's name was leaked is of no import to Libby's trial. Libby disclosed the fact of the declassification of materials, and the press and Bush haters now want to make this a big deal. IT IS NOT, nor has it ever been. Even if President Bush himself had provided to teh press that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife, it would not have been a violation of the law because she had not been covert for more than 6 years. This is a complete non-issue.

shermacman
April 6, 2006, 05:52 PM
Look how the Antique Media can fuel Bush Derangement Syndrome. As long as an item can potentially smear the President, the Antique Media will publish it and the Pavlov dogs here in the new media will fall for it.

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 05:54 PM
Keep telling yourself it's a non-issue. Sooner or later this administration's habit of shaping laws around its own foul behavior is going to catch up with it.

From the CNN.com article:

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide -- according to the new court filing -- was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.
I'm no fan of Miller's, but she testified that Libby told her about Plame's identity at the authorization of Bush, through Cheney. That's not what Libby is saying, but remember, the man is under indictment for lying under oath. We're supposed to believe him?

If Miller's testimony is true, and at this point common sense would dictate believing her testimony over the testimony of someone under indictment for lying under oath, then both Bush and Cheney are guilty of treason, and at the very least should be impeached. Don't give me that garbage about the president being able to declassify information for his own political convenience, which is exactly what happened here. Treason is treason. Given that this occurred during war time, it is a very serious matter, and anyone who cares about national security should care a great deal about this. Making excuses for the administration instead of trying to get to the heart of the matter is defacto treason.

c_yeager
April 6, 2006, 06:16 PM
You might follow your own advice and read the second post of this thread.

Perhaps you should consider editing the title of this thread and your original post instead of allowing them to sit there with an obvious untruth that has your name attached to it. Being a moderator I'm sure you know how to do it.

seeker_two
April 6, 2006, 07:34 PM
It's been pretty well established that "Plame's identity" was common knowledge among those few people who would give a rat's ass about Valerie Plame. Libby was indicted for lying to investigators, not for doing anything wrong to start with.


...and "lying" to investigators is just code for not telling the Feds what they want to hear. Just ask Martha Stewart... :rolleyes:

Personally, I think one should lie to Federal investigators whenever given the opportunity. It keeps their investigative skills sharp, and they'll probably charge you with doing so anyway.... :evil:

shermacman
April 6, 2006, 07:47 PM
Making excuses for the administration instead of trying to get to the heart of the matter is defacto treason.

That is right, Lobotomy Boy! Anyone who doesn't suffer from your peculiar version of Bush Derangement Syndrome is guilty of treason.

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 07:54 PM
Good lord. Talk about drinking the purple Kool Aid. The president has been caught leaking information on a CIA operative to further his selfish political purposes. Whether legal, as he claims, or not, this is a fact. First he lied about it, saying he would fire anyone who leaked such information, when in fact we now know he authorized Libby to leak that information. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior from the lowest flunky sweeping stores in a convenience store. From the Commander in Chief it is beyond comprehension. Yet discussing the matter is an example of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? If anyone still supporting this man wants to see a genuine example of Bush Derangement Syndrome, well, most likely there is a mirror in your bathroom.

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 08:00 PM
Making excuses for the administration instead of trying to get to the heart of the matter is defacto treason.

Funny how disingenuous villification of our esteemed leaders is somehow different.

Lone_Gunman
April 6, 2006, 08:07 PM
The Bush presidency is totally lost. The Republicans have too much power right now for anything to be done about any Bush wrongdoings. If Bush was seen handing over a nuclear weapon to Bin Laden, he would not be impeached. That's what happens when we hand too much power to one party.

I was a lifelong Republican until recently. I was a sustaining member of the RNC. I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I dreamed of a time when Republicans would control all three branches of government. Naively, I believed we would see a reduction of government, less spending, more honesty, a roll back of gun laws, none of which has happened.

I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.

Lobotomy Boy
April 6, 2006, 08:08 PM
At what point does a group of leaders become so utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt that it becomes impossible to support them? At what point does rebellion become patriotism and support become treason?

I think we have crossed that bridge myself. Your own tipping point may be different, but to me supporting these guys is just a stone's throw away from driving the truck that delivers the gas pellets to the concentration camp. We're not there yet, but we're too close for my comfort.

Hawkmoon
April 6, 2006, 08:20 PM
I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.
Agreed ... sort of.

I was never a Republicrat. Nor was I ever a Demican. I have always been an unaffiliated voter, but in recent years I have become disenchanted enough at the entrenched power brokers that my philosophy has become to ALWAYS vote against the incumbent. Our government was never envisioned by the Founding fathers to be controlled by lifetime, career politicians. If the S.O.B.s won't eneact term limits, then I think we need to take back our powers as a citizenry and enforce our own de facto term limits by ousting the incumbents. Yes, every once in awhile we might oust someone worthwhile ... but that's actually rather unlikely. On balance, I don't think getting an entire new crew every few years could possibly leave us any worse off than we are now.

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 08:21 PM
Naively, I believed we would see a reduction of government, less spending, more honesty, a roll back of gun laws, none of which has happened.

You should not have expected the GOP to be guided entirely by the right wing. If they were, they would not have gotten elected.

seeker_two
April 6, 2006, 08:38 PM
I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.

Now, let's not get crazy, here... :what:

There are other options....

Read my sig....

...and the Republi-cons will know where to find us when they want OUR vote... :cool:

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 08:40 PM
On balance, I don't think getting an entire new crew every few years could possibly leave us any worse off than we are now.

I am in favor of term limits for Congress. I am biased in favor of reupping a Republican President because it takes too much unproductive time to set up an administration. Things would have to appear pretty obviously bad for me to make an exception. I would also need an appealing alternative candidate who didn't represent "the enemy". I guess all that would have to be in the context of party primaries. I am not voting for a Democrat, no way, no how. Third party is out of the question too. Others are welcome to think differently. It's hard to effectively vote FOR your guns, but it is pretty easy to vote against them.

CAnnoneer
April 6, 2006, 11:22 PM
Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Some are still stuck on denial.

Shadizar
April 6, 2006, 11:57 PM
The way I see it...

The President said, "If someone leaked this information they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law." (paraphrased)

At the time, he knew that the leak originated from himself. He will likely argue that the leak and the Valorie Plame issue are different. Smart. He can argue that he did not in fact leak her name. This may be true. I doubt it.

He has the authority to declasify information. That is not in doubt. To lie to the American people is another issue. That is not ok. With his knowledge, he did in fact lie. In our best interest? Maybe...not likely... Taken in the context of the issue though, I think he and his administration made a ruinous error.

I have considered myself a Republican for a long time (and still do to some extent). When you actually look at the original principals of the Republican Party you will notice that they are for individual rights and limited government. That to me does not represent the actions of the Republican Party today.

I challenge any supporter of the Bush admininstration to actually watch the Judiciary Committee sessions (on NSA wiretapping). I have (many, many hours), and am not convinced that this administration is looking out for our rights.

There is a difference from the Neo-Conservatives, and the Conservatives in this nation. This President is not looking out for Conservatives in my opinion. This latest revelation should wake some people up! I don't truly believe it will though.

-Shadizar

P.S. Credibility? Does the President have any?

c_yeager
April 7, 2006, 03:11 AM
Perhaps you should consider editing the title of this thread and your original post instead of allowing them to sit there with an obvious untruth that has your name attached to it. Being a moderator I'm sure you know how to do it.

Never mind Beren, I am amazed by how many people dont bother to rad past the first post. This is a neat experiment. Whats more intersting is that me making this post on page 2 probably wont even change that. I wanna see who else is all set to jump on the bandwagon without bothering to read more than 5 words of text.

Shadizar
April 7, 2006, 03:28 AM
Perhaps you should read the posts and not just look at the first post. No bandwagon here.

-Shadizar

Stand_Watie
April 7, 2006, 04:45 AM
From the CNN.com article:



According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide -- according to the new court filing -- was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

I'm no fan of Miller's, but she testified that Libby told her about Plame's identity at the authorization of Bush, through Cheney. That's not what Libby is saying, but remember, the man is under indictment for lying under oath. We're supposed to believe him?

Your citation doesn't say that "Libby told her about Plame's identity at the authorization of Bush, through Cheney". Was that what you intended WRT to that statement are you referencing something other than the CNN article?

Lobotomy Boy
April 7, 2006, 09:25 AM
Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name. My point is that Libby is under indictment for lying and Miller is not; hence the smart money says it would be wise to believe the person who is not under indictment for lying.

Ultimately Bush probably didn't break any laws, since he has the power to declassify any information. He could broadcast tomorrow's troop movements on Al Jeezera if he wanted. Given his track record, if doing so might help him politically, he might just do that. Technically he didn't even lie, since he told reporters anyone who leaked classified information would be fired, and anytime he authorizes the leaking of information, he automatically declassifies it.

Techinically this may be truthful, but it is mendacious as hell and completely unacceptable. It's like basing your defense on what the definition of "is" is. Or arguing that one's competence depends on the difference between a levee being "breached" and a levee being "topped." Doesn't really matter--it's all mendacity. At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life. In Bush's case the mendacity involves national security and taking responsibility for thousands of lives.

The American people are butt stupid, for the most part. I'll give you that. Just drive down a metropolitan freeway during rush hour if you doubt that statement. They can't comprehend such simple principles as "slower traffic keep right" or signalling a lane change. But these things are so huge they cannot fail but to comprehend them. At this point the incompetent, lying traitors running the executive branch have bunged the pooch so badly that even the slow-witted American public has had enough. A lot of good Republicans are going to get washed out of Congress in a wave of anti-Bush sentiment this fall, and about the only thing I can see to do about it right now is stock up on evil black rifles and high-capacity mags before the nit-wit moonbats the Democrats will run this fall get to Washington.

gc70
April 7, 2006, 11:06 AM
by lobotomyboy
Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name.Do you have a link to hard factual support for Miller's supposed statement, or are you playing wishful connect-the-dots?

longeyes
April 7, 2006, 12:39 PM
We've been cutting Bush slack for five years.

Is there anything left BUT slack at this point?

roo_ster
April 7, 2006, 01:29 PM
It is completely within the President's discretion to declassify materials. It happens ALL the time...This is a complete non-issue.
Yup.

Lots of reasons to dislike GWB. This ain't one, unless you inflamed, itching, case of BDS can only be relieved by doing so.

Kim
April 7, 2006, 01:55 PM
Reading Comprehension is poor in this country. No where has it been proven Bush leaked or told someone to leak Plames name. He said he would take care of anyone who leaked her name not other material. Leaking by the government and others is how things work inside the Beltway. The government has just if not more ability to give out infomation however they want. The info was not a lie. This is not something that the Bush administration began to do it has been done probably since the founding of the country. If something is leaked that you like you say how wonderful that whisltleblower was and how great feedom of speech or the press is. If you do not like it you whine. Like many on this thread. But really people on this thread seem to be more informed than most people and even they get side swiped by their prejudice and the MSM reporting. Closed minds can not think straight or with reason.:eek:

CAnnoneer
April 8, 2006, 12:30 AM
If something is leaked that you like you say how wonderful that whisltleblower was and how great feedom of speech or the press is.

Certainly double standards have become all too common. However, we should make a distinction between leaking info on criminal activity and leaking info about national security.

We simply cannot compare Deep Throat to Libby, and expect to keep our credibility. The former did the country a great service at his own risk, the latter played bouncers in political dirty games meant to deceive the American people. The technique may be the same, but the intentions and results are quite different.

Deep Throat is a hero, Libby is a scumbag.

fallingblock
April 8, 2006, 03:35 AM
"At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life."
************************************************************

You're not really a student of Bill Clinton, are you?:rolleyes:

"Bush-hatred" is an interesting phenomenon.

I voted for "Dubya" both times.

I believe he was a better choice than either of the others.

But, that said, I surely do wish we had better choices next time -

Sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case.:(

Stand_Watie
April 8, 2006, 04:49 AM
Do you have a link to hard factual support for Miller's supposed statement, or are you playing wishful connect-the-dots?

That was the question I was asking, albeit attempting to do it more diplomatically. Unfortunately my response was a repitition of the original assertion, rather than a source for the assertion.

Manedwolf
April 8, 2006, 10:55 AM
My opinion is that the trial needs to go forward. If the justice system can prove that someone, anyone, no matter WHO they are, leaked national security information on purpose, for political gain, they need to bring them up on the dusted-off-charge of High Treason. Period.

There are some things you Just Do Not Do.

Art Eatman
April 8, 2006, 11:00 AM
Re classification and de-classification of documents: The president can de-classify documents that HE has classified. Documents classified by others must either have the agreement of the classifying person, or be judged by some sort of review board.

Art

Silver Bullet
April 8, 2006, 11:09 AM
I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life.
You could vote Third Party, thus not soiling yourself with a vote for the gun-grabbers.


I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.
What political stalemate ? You have no guarantees that an election that puts a Dem in the White House wouldn't also put Dems in as majority of the Senate and Congress. Janet Reno or Chuckie Schumer or Diane Weinstein on the Supreme Court, anyone ?

Sergeant Bob
April 8, 2006, 11:20 AM
Valerie who?

Malone LaVeigh
April 8, 2006, 07:04 PM
TX1911fan:
The fact that Plame's name was in the declassified materials is irrelevant. She was not covert at the time, and had not been covert in the field in over 6 years, thereby not qualifying for protection anyway.
Do you have an unbiased source for this? Something other than Novak trying to cover his butt or partisan pundits?

I had heard the opposite. Of course it's going to be a while before we know the whole truth, but according to Wikipedia:

Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations

At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald noted:

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

Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[7] It was confirmed that she was a covert operative early in the investigation by acting intelligence officials, setting the matter to rest.

Nevertheless, court papers released in early 2006 showed that Fitzgerald did in fact conclude that Plame was a "covert" agent under the IIPA, though he did not seek charges on that count because he lacked proof that Libby was aware of her status.[10]

Valerie Plame Wilson was identified in the New York Times as a N.O.C. by Elisabeth Bumiller, who wrote (5 October 2003):

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

I'm not saying Wikipedia is the final word, but if true, this was an act of treason. It does appear to be a well-researched article with lots of references to primary sources.

Manedwolf
April 8, 2006, 08:46 PM
It's hard to effectively vote FOR your guns, but it is pretty easy to vote against them.

Bush said he was in support of the assault weapons ban renewal. Senator Russ Feingold (D) re-assesed his earlier views, said he thought it was "symbolic and ineffective and made people think we wanted to take their guns", and voted against it.

Generalizing and voting blindly by party is very, very, very dangerous. People can wear the wrong hat, and surprise you.

gc70
April 8, 2006, 09:29 PM
I'm not saying Wikipedia is the final word, but if true, this was an act of treason.

Loose use of the word treason.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

SIGarmed
April 8, 2006, 09:30 PM
Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name. My point is that Libby is under indictment for lying and Miller is not; hence the smart money says it would be wise to believe the person who is not under indictment for lying.

Ultimately Bush probably didn't break any laws, since he has the power to declassify any information. He could broadcast tomorrow's troop movements on Al Jeezera if he wanted. Given his track record, if doing so might help him politically, he might just do that. Technically he didn't even lie, since he told reporters anyone who leaked classified information would be fired, and anytime he authorizes the leaking of information, he automatically declassifies it.

Techinically this may be truthful, but it is mendacious as hell and completely unacceptable. It's like basing your defense on what the definition of "is" is. Or arguing that one's competence depends on the difference between a levee being "breached" and a levee being "topped." Doesn't really matter--it's all mendacity. At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life. In Bush's case the mendacity involves national security and taking responsibility for thousands of lives.

The American people are butt stupid, for the most part. I'll give you that. Just drive down a metropolitan freeway during rush hour if you doubt that statement. They can't comprehend such simple principles as "slower traffic keep right" or signalling a lane change. But these things are so huge they cannot fail but to comprehend them. At this point the incompetent, lying traitors running the executive branch have bunged the pooch so badly that even the slow-witted American public has had enough. A lot of good Republicans are going to get washed out of Congress in a wave of anti-Bush sentiment this fall, and about the only thing I can see to do about it right now is stock up on evil black rifles and high-capacity mags before the nit-wit moonbats the Democrats will run this fall get to Washington.

Sorry I'm not buying it. You don't like Bush fine, but trying to turn a non issue into a major deal is pretty sad and very disingenuous if you ask me.

The general public knows better just like they did to elect Bush in the first place instead of Kerry.. You sound like you're jumping on the lets blame Bush bandwagon and it's pretty obvious.

The left and their minions would love to beleive that the American people have had enough of Bush. The truth is they've had enough of the liberal slant. That's why the alternative media has been such a hit.

CAnnoneer
April 8, 2006, 09:50 PM
The few weaknesses of our system of government become all too apparent when a bunch of corrupt incompetent senile liars are in charge.

RecoilRob
April 8, 2006, 09:58 PM
Why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger to 'check' if Saddam had attempted to buy yellow cake? Joe Wilson was an avowed Bush Hater. He was supposedly sent by the CIA. If so, it was an attempt by persons within the CIA to hurt the current Administration.

Upon his return and subsequent blabbing to the Media, he said he was sent by VP Cheney. Wrong. The White House released documents to support the facts (as they saw them) about Iraq and the nuclear program and that they had NOT sent Wilson.

In those documents, Joe Wilson was mentioned as he was the last 'official' dealing with the problem. His wife was NOT mentioned in the releases at all.

When Libby met with correspondents to discuss the matter in an attempt to correct the mis-information being spread by the media, the subject of Valerie Plame was brought up. By the reporter who already knew who she was and what she did.

Her being a 'secret' is a joke if more than one columnist (Robert Novak + others) already knew of her before talking to Libby. Mentioning her being Wilsons wife to Libby he responded in the affermative.

He is now on the hot seat for telling the Grand Jury that he met with one journalist instead of another. He got them mixed up and out of order. Probably wouldn't be hard to do. But, the important thing is that the reporters have said that they knew of Plame BEFORE talking to Libby and this is why he isn't being tried for leaking her identity....even though it wouldn't have been a crime even if he did.

Total Political Hack Job trying to create the impression that the current Administration did something wrong. The final outcome will be as unreported on as the 911 commissions final report that exonerated President Bush and the Admin. from all wrongdoing. But you never heard that on TV, did you?

ColoradoKid
April 8, 2006, 10:11 PM
People,
Discourse is fine, but this story is NOT news....it'd about a year old...put to bed and really a YAWNER....!! Geez, let's talk about something that MATTERS...!!

Malone LaVeigh
April 8, 2006, 10:53 PM
Loose use of the word treason.
I stand corrected. I guess that's why there's a seperate law against outing an intelligence agent. I would note from my source that she was a covert agent specializing in weapons and had traveled abroad (presumably the ME) in recent years where she "met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies." I don't imagine it was very good for her operation, not to mention the "sources" and "spies." What would you call it?

Why was Joe Wilson sent to Niger to 'check' if Saddam had attempted to buy yellow cake? Joe Wilson was an avowed Bush Hater. He was supposedly sent by the CIA. If so, it was an attempt by persons within the CIA to hurt the current Administration.

Upon his return and subsequent blabbing to the Media, he said he was sent by VP Cheney. Wrong. The White House released documents to support the facts (as they saw them) about Iraq and the nuclear program and that they had NOT sent Wilson.
You have sources for all of that?

Total Political Hack Job trying to create the impression that the current Administration did something wrong. The final outcome will be as unreported on as the 911 commissions final report that exonerated President Bush and the Admin. from all wrongdoing. But you never heard that on TV, did you?
The 911 Comission Report was widely reported and was, in fact, a best seller. What planet were you on? The report neither exonerated nor implicated the Admin., because it's scope specifically excluded such questions.

Discourse is fine, but this story is NOT news....it'd about a year old...put to bed and really a YAWNER....!! Geez, let's talk about something that MATTERS...!!

The news that Bush authorized intelligence leaks is NOT a year old, it's less than 48 hours old. When my kids were pre-adolescents, they always used to call things boring that they didn't like, but they've mostly grown out of it.

1911JMB
April 8, 2006, 11:31 PM
There are plenty of things to be mad at Bush for. Among other things, he is guilty destroying the economy, going to war on false pretenses for gains of his friends with a cost of tens of thousands of lives, and continuing to ignore the constitution. He has caused more death than all international terrorist attacks combined. I don't especially care if he personaly okayed leaking Valerie Plame's identity. It just doesn't matter that much.

SIGarmed
April 8, 2006, 11:56 PM
There are plenty of things to be mad at Bush for. Among other things, he is guilty destroying the economy, going to war on false pretenses for gains of his friends with a cost of tens of thousands of lives, and continuing to ignore the constitution. He has caused more death than all international terrorist attacks combined. I don't especially care if he personaly okayed leaking Valerie Plame's identity. It just doesn't matter that much.

You Bush haters sure can't get over it can you?

Destroying the economy? You've got to me kidding? Where do you get your info?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/investing/bal-bz.economy08apr08,0,6451643.story?coll=bal-careers-headlines

211,000 jobs created in March
Jobless rate falls to 4.7%; longer Fed crackdown feared
By James P. Miller
Originally published April 8, 2006

The U.S. economy created 211,000 new jobs in March, and the unemployment rate unexpectedly dipped to 4.7 percent, according to a Labor Department report yesterday that underscored the labor market's continuing improvement.

If Bush is destroying the economy I hope he destroys more of it.

http://www.liberty-products.com/icon_lol.gif

He costs tens of thousands of lives? He caused more death than all international terrorist attacks combined? LOL.

I mean really that line was ridiculous.

I'm laughing I really am. I can guarantee that if there are tens of thousands dead an overwhelming number of them are enemy combatants that want to see our countryman dead, so they died trying. Good riddance.

RecoilRob
April 9, 2006, 12:16 AM
Malone, The national media reported extensively, for weeks, that the 911 Report was going to say that there was NO connection between Iraq and the attack. But, that was taken out of context and there were EXTENSIVE connections between Saddam, Iraq and worldwide terrorism. Including funding, training and arming the Taliban. Saddam was guilty as hell and needed to be gone. But that didn't make the Evening News.

What I was referring to was the steady drumbeat of 'we went to war for false pretenses' like the person a couple of posts back. There WERE WMD's and the fact that they DIDN'T find them is proof of the honesty of the action.

If the 'Invasion' was actually predicated on nefarious reasons they most certainly would have 'found' the WMD's on the first day. Why would someone start a false war based on lies when it would have been SO easy to plant the evidence needed to prevent 3+years of bashing?

The 911 report was published but how many folks have actually read it? I read all the PDF's available online but didn't buy the book. And, I have never met or talked to anyone who has read the final report. Only the cherry picked cliff notes thoughtfully provided by the news networks or the Bush Bashers.

The Joe Wilson/Libby thing will die a slow and quiet death and will never make the news....unless Libby is convicted. Which he won't be. Look at how they are lying with the "President authorised leak of Agents name" headlines. No he didn't. It is of the same stinky stuff as the fake National Guard forms that Dan Rather tried to sway an election with. Shameful.

You asked if I have sources for my opinion stated earlier. Yes, I do. Trust me.

Kim
April 9, 2006, 01:17 AM
Bad economy?????????????????????????????????:scrutiny: LIED about WMD???????????????????????Really:scrutiny: Gains of his friends???????????????????????is this the left wing Haliburtain,Caryle Group Conspiracy kinda like the right wing Trialateral Comission Conspiracy surely you jest. Some of us can sure be smart on picking out Brady Lies and Deciet but when it comes to other areas of propaganda I wonder about our sanity at times. I guess these are the times that try mens souls. History repeating. I guess we have the choice between more Vietnam syndrome or Victory. I know which side I am on. I hope for Victory for my Country. Even if I was against the war to begin with I am for Victory not Defeat. Just imagine how things would be IF both parties in this country were for Victory. :mad:

Malone LaVeigh
April 9, 2006, 01:21 AM
What planet am I on?
In your post I was responding to, you said the 911 Commission Report exonerated Bush, and that it was unreported by the press. Now you throw in a lot of stuff about Iraq and WMD. How was I supposed to read your mind and know you were talking about Iraq?

The question about WMD and Iraq have been done to death here. If you can post some of your info or quotes from the 911 Commission Report citing connections between 911 and Iraq, I'll be happy to entertain them. Otherwise, I am unconvinced.

Yes, I do. Trust me.
Uh, no, I don't think I will. You're just some words on the internet to me. If you really wanted me to believe you, you'd post some references.

Malone LaVeigh
April 9, 2006, 01:25 AM
Oh, and your logic is really astounding. There was no evidence of WMD, so that's proof that there WERE WMD. Feh.

roo_ster
April 9, 2006, 02:22 AM
Malone:

Wilson was evicerated by the Senate and the 911 comission. The man's tissue of lies shown for what they were:
1. Cheney did not send JW to Niger, as JW claimed, but he was sent by the CIA.
2. JW claimed his wife had no role in his selection as the guy to send to Niger, but the paper trail shows that his wife was the one who recommended him.
3. JW said that his report laid to rest the Saddam-Niger-Yellowcake business, but his reporting that the former PM of Niger said that Iraqi gov't officials were interested in trade relations with Niger was counted asfurther corroboration that Saddam was interested in Yellowcake by the CIA.

I am not going to cite chapter & verse in the 911 commission report or the CIA factbook showing just what Niger has to offer the world in the way of trade goods. If Joe Wilson is important to you, you would be well advised to check out how his story has held up vis-a-vis the evidence before you stake your own credibility on him. Bush-despisers who still have a grasp on reality realize what a buffon (http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=12864) he is.

Kim
April 9, 2006, 02:51 AM
I have problems with Wilson for many reasons. One is I happen to get FSTV and UC stations on my satellite. Now I know there is something wrong with someone who is a former Ambassador of the US going around to hype his thesis of BUSH LIED on lefty college campuses. I have seen this man speak and he sounds luney. Sorry but like people always say when you start throwing around the term NAZI you lose all credibility espically an Ambassador. His talks remind me of the crazy ones of Scott Ritter. That boy has been trotting around the globe with his odd rantings. Sorry but I don't buy into the crediability of people who speak the way these people do. What is Wilson trying to do. Really what is his goal and why. So what if he went to Niger and he felt Iraq was not after yellow cake. So what. Apparently many disagreed with him. So what. His findings were not the only reason for the war. I want to know what is wrong with the man. Is he so centered on himself that he wants this country to lose the war. Is that what he wants. I ask why???????????????????????????????????????????

Malone LaVeigh
April 9, 2006, 04:08 PM
His talks remind me of the crazy ones of Scott Ritter.
Funny you should mention Ritter. A guy who was on the ground in Iraq and who turned out to be RIGHT about the WMD. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

As far as Wilson is concerned, I will have to look up some of the allegations, but it won't be for a while, since I'm travelling for the next few weeks. I would love to see any of your sources, jfruser, or can you point me to citations directly from the 911 Report? Right-wing hacks and spinmeisters don't count.

1911JMB
April 9, 2006, 04:11 PM
Sigarmed,

Come visit michigan. We have have a hideous job market. I don't know what the grand total of tax dollars Bush has squandered is, but I can say with certainty that the 300+ billion Bush has spent on this unnessasary war could have been much better spent in the states. I don't know the exact numbers, but 211,000 new jobs created per month is not sufficient to overcome population expansion, so the rate of unemployment is still rather high and will remain high for a long time it appears. A perhaps minor but still related point is the obvious fact that Bush is at the very least connected to the oil buisness, and has done nothing to try to keep gas costs down. Fuel costs have devastated many people below the poverty level.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died in the crossfire of this war. That is indeed far more than all terrorist attacks combined. I hope you do not truly find that funny. Also, as you said, plenty of Iraqi combatants have died trying (and often succeding) to kill US soldiers. I certainly can't and won't come out against US soldiers defending themselves, but just the same I can't blame Iraqi's for being pissed that the US military is there. If the Russian government decided we needed to be "corrected" and invaded the US, would you say "Good riddance" if a good friend of yours died in a gunfight with Russian troops? I don't see the difference.

I think this post deserves a Jay Leno quote:

"Back in the Clinton years the economy was booming, gas was cheap and stocks were soaring. Thank God thats all over!"

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 04:12 PM
GWB will be in office until mid January 2009, Inauguration Day. Now the Democrats can either go on whining and crying and blaming, or they can get down to business and find someone who can actually WIN the office of POTUS in 2008.

Which will it be?

1911JMB
April 9, 2006, 04:18 PM
"GWB will be in office until mid January 2009, Inauguration Day. Now the Democrats can either go on whining and crying and blaming, or they can get down to business and find someone who can actually WIN the office of POTUS in 2008.

Which will it be?"

All I can ask is who cares? I'm a Libertarian, and it just doesn't matter to me.

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 04:27 PM
That's ok. The same advice goes for Libertarians. Find a candidate who can actually WIN. Constant criticism and demonization of this President won't help. He's going to do whatever he's going to do until his term of office is up.

1911JMB
April 9, 2006, 04:38 PM
The biggest problem Libertarians have is that their biggest concern is trying to run a candidate for president. A libertarian will probably not take the white house in our lifetimes, but getting some libertarians into the senate, as well as more local positions like mayor and city council is a possibility.

roo_ster
April 9, 2006, 10:26 PM
Malone:

Peruse pages 39-47 of the Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq if you want to know what the bigwigs of both parties thought of Wilson:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
(24MB)

---------

Ritter is being punished, alright, not for his WMD about-face, but for soliciting sex from a 14 year old & 16 year old girls (who happened to be officers posing as jailbait on the net):
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30587
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

----------

This does bring to bear another, tangential point: Why should anyone give someone's writings on this or other political sujects any attention if they are willing to believe what has been demonstrably false for nearly two years and are not willing to examine their own positions. One might come to the conclusion that they were GWBush-like in their lack of intellectual curiosity in even their own positions.

Thin Black Line
April 10, 2006, 10:31 AM
Among other things, he is guilty destroying the economy,

Absolutely not. How about Americans who continue to buy imported
goods and put their neighbors out of work? I now live in Michigan (Iraq
last year) and the reason our auto/parts industry has fallen flat on its
face is due to Americans buying foreign cars that had low/no tariffs
and favorable exchange rates often manipulated by the other country
to their advantage.

going to war on false pretenses for gains of his friends with a cost of tens of thousands of lives,

Keep in mind that it did take the Hill to authorise "use of force." One must
ask why the Hill has not sent a clear message that there must be a strict
time table for the removal of troops. In the future one can also hope
that they will pay closer attention to the intelligence they are given and
take it with a pound of salt.

Yes, we've lost a lot of good soldiers. I can tell you for a fact that they
were the BEST America had to offer. These were guys who would give
you their last MRE and ask if they could get you a bottle of water to
wash it down with! Thousands of Iraqis have also died. I'm not going to
debate whether if it would have also happened under Saddam. Probably
would have. There's a lot of if's, maybe's, and excuses. Too bad Baer
wasn't supported under the Clinton administration. Too bad for a lot of
things before that....

Ok, now I will tread on some truly dangerous ground since stating the
following has gotten one of my other posts completely removed from
THR:

YES, it is of grave concern to myself and fellow Constitutional Republicans
that there seems to be a lot of vested business interests between this
current administration and certain big businesses. To be fair, this has been
the case with ALL the previous admins during our lifetime as well as many
of the people on the Hill. That one would even mention that a certain
highly placed Republican has 635,000 shares in a very large company is
strictly verbotten among Party members and will instantly get you branded
by the less well-informed members of the Party as some kind of pinko. In
the meantime, those of us who know about it have to ignore the free
loading elephant in the living room.....it's an election year!

and continuing to ignore the constitution.

Again to be fair the interpretation of the Constitution and how it is put into
practice has not been the sole exercise of this current administration or
reserved to the Executive branch alone.

1911JMB
April 10, 2006, 10:48 AM
Thin Black Line,

I can agree to an extent with everything you said other than the economy's problems being the fault of people buying imported goods. The average auto worker earns something like $400,000 per year for his or her company, and due to those at the top screwing up, auto workers jobs are being outsourced.With Toyota and Honda assembling their cars in the states, they are rapidly becoming as American as the Big 3. As far as I'm concerned, if the parts are going to be made in a foreign country no matter what brand you buy, you might as well buy a car that will last without a lot of problems. Keep in mind that I say this having 2 friends that worked for Ameican car company's, and had their jobs sent over seas.

robertbank
April 10, 2006, 03:25 PM
Wife drives a Toyota Avalon made in St. Louis, Missouri. Best darn car I have ever owned. Made by and designed by Americans from a Japanese company. Reason Big 3 are in trouble is they make crappy cars. Why pay the same amount of money for a car that is just about as good as a Toyota?

Take Care

Camp David
April 10, 2006, 03:46 PM
One must ask why the Hill has not sent a clear message that there must be a strict time table for the removal of troops.

WHY? Just because you want it?

Did Eisenhower develop a strict timetable for removal of troops from Europe before the landing in Normandy? Did Lincoln develop a strict timetable for removal of troops from Virginia when he attacked the Confederates at Manassas? Indeed, has any wartime commander ever developed a detailed timetable for removal of troops either before hostilities commence or even during hostilities?

Thin Black Line: CAN YOU CITE ONE INSTANCE IN HISTORY OF SUCH A TIMETABLE FOR TROOP REMOVAL? Just one will do!

CAnnoneer
April 11, 2006, 01:58 AM
I was against the Iraq War from the start, but even I freely recognize that announcing a timetable of withdrawal is just silly. The unsavory elements will hunker down, wait it out until the last GI ships off home, then pounce onto the government and each other. That will plunge the country into a big messy civil war, whose only logical result is an Iranian theocracy.

Let's keep it real. The way to prevent the mess was not to get into Iraq in the first place. Maybe one day we will learn the truth about it. Maybe by the time we do, it won't matter once single bit. Either way, there is something rotten in Washington.

LAK
April 11, 2006, 06:19 AM
The bottom line is; why was Plame's status "leaked"?

Regardless of Plame's past or current CIA status at the time of the leak, as Wilson stated in an interview; once your status in the CIA is in the public domain - you're finished.

Had Joe Wilson been just another yes man for the geo-political agenda at stake, it would not have happened. The leak was malicious, and in this context there are some public explanations needed just for starters, followed by a Congressional hearing with impeachment powers.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." - Scott McClellan, WH Spokesman, September 29, 2003.

Read it and make some more excuses ;)

..at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shermacman
April 11, 2006, 12:19 PM
To counter Lobotomy Boy's silly statements and LAK's tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, the Investor's Business Daily offers this:
Lost in the brouhaha over President Bush's "leak" of "classified" information is the real reason for the outrage: The "leak" proved that Joe Wilson was a liar. Among the things that bothered us in this affair is that it's deemed first-rate, Pulitzer-worthy journalism when a major newspaper prints classified information that our enemies find useful, but when the commander-in-chief authorizes the release of declassified material to defend his administration's position it is treated as a betrayal of the public trust, if not an impeachable offense.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060410
That makes Investor's Business Daily guilty of treason, right Lobotomy Boy? How many of us are "driving the gas pellet trucks to the concentration camps" now?

BIGJACK
April 11, 2006, 12:59 PM
:banghead:
by LAK: The bottom line is; why was Plame's status "leaked"?

Right on.:D How can there be any doubt that the white house leaked the information and GWB is the "house head" so any way you look at it he has the responsibility,:cuss: as he said immediately after the leak was made public.:fire: GWB needs to asspire to the phylosophy of "THE BUCK STOPS HERE" instead of his life time of "it was somebody else."

Ezekiel
April 11, 2006, 04:43 PM
To a degree, I'm somewhat desensitized to certain wrongdoings by political figures: it appears that, to get high on the flowchart, you're likely to have engaged in some questionable activity.

That being said, I'm surprized by the lack of virulent press-bashing in the so called "Liberal Media." (Which I heard about on Hannity, O'Reilly, Meet the Press, et al :fire: )

Bill gets torn open because he got a hummer from a young juggy chick -- which is grounds for divorce, but not impeachment -- and George passes about bad info as if it were true, attacks other nations, and runs a shop that leaks classified info while barely getting tagged.

All this has told me, disregarding any wrongoings, is that the "liberal media" is a myth.

DRZinn
April 11, 2006, 04:54 PM
passes about bad info as if it were true,Pot, meet kettle. I b'lieve y'all have the same last name. Black, right?:cool:

shermacman
April 11, 2006, 05:46 PM
passes about bad info as if it were true

What information did Bush "pass about as if it were true"? If this is another attempt to describe his handling of UN Resolution 1441 then your question is just plain ignorant. Everyone in the civilized world believed that information to be true. Here is one of your heroes:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

Sungun09
April 11, 2006, 06:01 PM
Like you, i voted Bush in 2000.

I made a mistake.

Give me someone that knows and follows the Constitution as LAW not as suggestion. Remember, today's patriotic American can just as easily be classified as a terrorist. The only difference is who is in power.

Regards

PS - I don't need government "protection", I need honesty... either provide it or resign mr. or ms politican

robertbank
April 11, 2006, 06:24 PM
The UN resolution and the inspection process could have continued as to the date they left no such weapons had been uncovered. Up until Bush & Co the US had never attacked anyone without being attacked first. Iraq never attacked the US, Bin Laden did from his base in Afganistan. For Saddam to have been a significant threat with WMD's someone in the West would have had to sell him the technology either France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. or the US. Since none had, and the only significant supplier of weapons to Iraq were the US and Russia why not wait for the UN inspectors. Saddam was nothing more than a tin horn dictator in a world of tin horn dictators no more or less of a threat to the US than a handfull of other tin horns.

Bush has got the US in a worse mess now then Saddam ever was. Leave early and the Muslim terrorists scream victory and Iraq slides into Civil War and likely intervention by Iran. Stay and the terrorists have a made in heaven training base for terrorist activities and the US has a defense bill that will have to be paid for by taxpayers for generations.

Churchill once said that to be careful about unleashing the dogs of war for you may not get the result you wish for.

Our household prays for the safe return of our troops in Afganistan and yours in Iraq nightly. It seems old men have a penchant for sending young men to war. Maybe it is time to change the age of enlistment. Might take the shine off of such activities.

Take Care

Robert Hairless
April 11, 2006, 06:26 PM
Since the President of the United States of America may declassify information, the People of the Internet demand to know by what right George W. Bush declassified this information.

We, The People of the Internet know that President Bush must have had some devious motive for declassifying this information when it is part of his job to declassify such information, and we don't like having that kind of thing done to us.

The People of the Internet insist that George W. Bush should have consulted us, The People of the Internet, before declassifying this information when he had the right to do so.

(May I remind The People of the Internet that our club beanies are now available at the web store on http://www.geekstore.com. One size fits all!)

http://www.geekculture.com/geekculturestore/webstore/webstoreimages/geniusbeanie.gif

robertbank
April 11, 2006, 06:30 PM
Remember, today's patriotic American can just as easily be classified as a terrorist. The only difference is who is in power.

You can say that again just ask King George 111 of England. LOL

Benedict Arnold - *Loyalist in the UK

- American traitor

*from what I have read the Brits thought what he did was bad form but certainly not a traitor to the Crown.


Robert Hairless[B] - priceless!

Take Care

Manedwolf
April 11, 2006, 06:39 PM
"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . .assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
- George Herbert Walker Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed

Ezekiel
April 11, 2006, 10:27 PM
passes about bad info as if it were true,
Pot, meet kettle. I b'lieve y'all have the same last name. Black, right?


Let's see. One, admittedly, was about a blowjob. The other regarded armed invasion. "Not a valid comparison."

El presidente Jorge Shrub is a moron.

Let's see what else he leaks in the interest of Republican politics or war. :cuss:

gc70
April 11, 2006, 10:32 PM
One thing that I find surprising about the Wilson-Plame episode is that the media accepts everything Wilson said as gospel. Does it not occur to anyone else that Wilson's findings that Niger was not involved in any skulldudgery with Iraq might have reflected a bit of bias and self-interest?

from the Vanity Fair article on Wilson and Plame (http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php):After only one year in the job Wilson decided to retire and go into the private sector because "we wanted to have kids, and felt that it had become very difficult to live off two government salaries." He set up a consultancy, J. C. Wilson International Ventures, with an office in downtown Washington at the headquarters of the Rock Creek Corporation, an investment firm of which little is known. Wilson's right-wing critics have been quick to condemn the affiliation as "murky," though Wilson does not work for Rock Creek and merely rents space and facilities there.

"I have a number of clients, and basically we help them with their sort of investments in countries like Niger," explains Wilson. "Niger was of some interest because it has some gold deposits coming onstream. We had some clients who were interested in gold.... We were looking to set up a gold-mine company out of London."

DRZinn
April 11, 2006, 10:39 PM
Actually, I was referring to you, and many others like you, "passing about bad info as if it were true."

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Bush. He won't secure the border. He's increased the size of the government as a whole and nondiscretionary spending in particular, especially Medicare. He's gotten us deep into debt. He's put civil liberties in serious jeopardy. But he didn't lie about Iraq, he didn't go AWOL from the ANG, and he didn't steal the election. Wipe the spittle from your lips and talk about what actually is wrong with him.

Ezekiel
April 11, 2006, 10:43 PM
Everyone in the civilized world believed that information to be true.

I find this to be a significant falsehood.

However, even were I to offer you a shred of credibility, no other government found such viable enough to wantonly invade another sovereign nation. That would seem to imply a modicum of doubt.

Or, only our President is a loony.

Either way, "Bush sucks, this [war] was a bad idea."

And you haven't even addressed the leak, which is the entire backbone of this thread.

Ezekiel
April 11, 2006, 10:47 PM
But he didn't lie about Iraq, he didn't go AWOL from the ANG, and he didn't steal the election.

[sigh] Disagreement abounds.

But, hey, if you desire to heap more upon the guy: we'll go with your reasons to despise him.

"I'm not choosy." :fire:

Any thoughts on the leak?

SIGarmed
April 11, 2006, 10:49 PM
Let's see. One, admittedly, was about a blowjob. The other regarded armed invasion. "Not a valid comparison."

El presidente Jorge Shrub is a moron.

Let's see what else he leaks in the interest of Republican politics or war.

I love it. More Bush haters that will use anything to further their hate agenda.

You're only upset that the president was able to counter the charges effectively by showing real proof.

Ezekiel
April 11, 2006, 10:52 PM
I love it. More Bush haters that will use anything to further their hate agenda.

You're ony upset that the president was able to counter the charges effectively by showing real proof.

Actually, "not so much." But, nice try. (I don't hate Bush, I just see the blatently obvious proof of his suckage.)

"Evidence of ineptitude is not an effective counter to critique." :banghead:

gc70
April 11, 2006, 11:02 PM
Bill gets torn open because he got a hummer from a young juggy chick -- which is grounds for divorce, but not impeachmentI'm sorta' a fan of Bill, but I was also awake during the part where he lied under oath in court proceedings.On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false."

DRZinn
April 11, 2006, 11:33 PM
But, hey, if you desire to heap more upon the guy: we'll go with your reasons to despise him.OK. (But not in this thread, so as to stay on topic.)

Actually, I don't despise him any more than most politicians. He's gotten more done, but it isn't because he's more evil, it's because he has a Congress that (mostly) agrees with him.

DRZinn
April 11, 2006, 11:37 PM
And the leak? Politics as usual. A law may have been broken, in which case prosecution would be warranted. But it appears this is not the case. I'm not interested enough in this particular incident to research it.

cosine
April 12, 2006, 12:41 AM
Anyone else having trouble getting a good reception because of all the noise that's floating about? :rolleyes:

Don Gwinn
April 12, 2006, 01:16 AM
Let's bring this back to discussion or close it.

No more "El King Jorge de Busho" nonsense, either, from either side. Speak English and use correct names, please.

LAK
April 12, 2006, 08:39 AM
Shermacmanbut when the commander-in-chief authorizes the release of declassified material to defend his administration's position it is treated as a betrayal of the public trust, if not an impeachable offense.
Pray tell, in what way did leaking Plame's CIA status somehow vindicate the WH in any part this matter concerning Joe Wilson? And specifically on what matter did Joe Wilson lie?

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

roo_ster
April 12, 2006, 11:37 AM
Pray tell, in what way did leaking Plame's CIA status somehow vindicate the WH in any part this matter concerning Joe Wilson? And specifically on what matter did Joe Wilson lie?

LAK, I will try again to disabuse folks from making themselves look foolish by calling on Joe Wilson's credibility.

See my post #68 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2374193&postcount=68) in this very thread.

The information is there in Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, if you will only read. Pages 39-47.

Joe Wilson has been shown as an out-&-out liar on several points. PP39-47 is not a pretty read, as it evicerates JW credibility to the point that I can not take seriously folks who call on his stories.

Ezekiel
April 12, 2006, 12:46 PM
Actually, I don't despise him any more than most politicians. He's gotten more done, but it isn't because he's more evil, it's because he has a Congress that (mostly) agrees with him.

"Concur."

I don't think this Plame leak stuff is going away for a while...

Lobotomy Boy
April 12, 2006, 04:07 PM
I don't think this Plame leak stuff is going away for a while...

You've got that right. I first became aware of all this nearly three years ago. At the time, Bush apologists were saying that this was a non-story and that it would soon go away. It hasn't gone away; it's gotten bigger with each passing year, and it looks to get bigger yet.

When I first heard about this in '03, I reminded the people who thought it was nothing that many people thought the Watergate burglary was nothing in '72, but after festering for two-and-a-half years and one election cycle, it brought down a president. The timeline for this bears erie parallels.

R.H. Lee
April 12, 2006, 04:28 PM
I don't think this Plame leak stuff is going away for a while...

It may well still be around when GWB leaves office in mid January 2009 after serving the last minute of the last hour of the last day of his full term. :p

Kodiaz
April 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
If he serves the last minute af the last day of the last year of his full term. Then next Dem. president will serve theirs no matter what they do.



Do you really want that?

R.H. Lee
April 12, 2006, 07:25 PM
Absolutely. We can't be impeaching Presidents over political differences. That's all this so-called 'leak' scandal is.

seeker_two
April 12, 2006, 07:33 PM
Absolutely. We can't be impeaching Presidents over political differences. That's all this so-called 'leak' scandal is.

Agreed. Besides, there is SO MUCH MORE to impeach Bush over... :fire:

Kodiaz
April 12, 2006, 08:42 PM
Lee PM me so I can give you my dad's number and you 2 can talk about George W. the greatest president ever.



So when Hillary says she's going to use domestic spying to register guns that will be ok because like Bush said it's just a piece of paper.

So when Hillary let's in 30 million more socialists and makes them citizens that's ok.

So when Hillary pulls out national healthcare and pays for it with more deficit spending hey that's cool because G W was into funny money as well.

So when Hillary says no more Bill of Rights that's ok because she has super war powers.

Come on Bush is a liberal stop cheerleading. Every abuse of power that Bush has done will be done when the next Pres is elected and Repubs have screwed the pooch so bad that they have no chance now.

The next Pres will be a dem and the house and senate will be dem too.

LAK
April 13, 2006, 04:21 AM
jfruser,

I would take anything rubber stamped by people like Pat Roberts and John D Rockefeller with even less than a pinch of salt. A pinch of sand would do. Some of the hingepins of the Bush administration's position have been crooks like Mr Chalabi and national security risks like Douglas Feith.

And none of this addresses or justifies why Plame's status was "leaked".

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
April 13, 2006, 05:26 AM
Here's a story written by "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" Ray McGovern; who just happened to have been a senior CIA analyst under "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" President Ronald Reagan among others.

Despite the fact that the "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" media have been begging Ray McGovern to appear on their news shows and write editorials for them, he has been "way too busy and had to turn them all down for many years". ;)

So instead we just have to settle for his writings in Counterpunch ......
-------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
June 27, 2003
Cheney, Forgery and the CIA
Not Business as Usual
By RAY McGOVERN
former CIA Analyst

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.

Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."

At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.

But the vice president had spoken. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Smoke was blown about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq that, it turns out, were for conventional weapons programs. The rest amounted to things like Hussein's frequent meetings with nuclear scientists and Iraq's foot-dragging in providing information to U.N. inspectors.

Not much heed was paid to the fact that Hussein's son-in-law, who supervised Iraq's nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraq's nuclear capability--save the blueprints--had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. (Documents given to the United States this week confirm that. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; and even had such an order been given, Iraq would still have been years away from producing a nuclear weapon.)

In sum, the evidence presented in last September's intelligence estimate fell far short of what was required to support Cheney's claim that Iraq was on the road to a nuclear weapon. Something scarier had to be produced, and quickly, if Congress was to be persuaded to authorize war. And so the decision was made to dust off the uranium-from-Niger canard.

The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery. I asked a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council if he thought that was possible. He pointed out that rigorous NSC procedures call for a very specific response to all vice presidential questions and added that "the fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."

Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? We don't know. But which would be worse--that he knew or that he didn't?

----------

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, regularly reported to the vice president and senior policy-makers on the President's Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985. He now is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington. He can be reached at: mcgovern@counterpunch.org.


------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Lobotomy Boy
April 13, 2006, 08:26 AM
Clearly this McGovern dude is a deranged Bush hater. He's probably a cross-dressing Commie, too. After all, how could any reasonable person despise this morally glowing administration?

roo_ster
April 13, 2006, 08:28 AM
LAK:

So, you did not read any of the report on the role of intel failures leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or you do not find the report believeable? If the latter, I would kindly appreciate it if you & yours would refrain from quoting the portions that are damning WRT GWB & his administration as a geture of intellectual consistency & honesty.

I guess you also are not impressed with documentary evidence to include internal CIA memos written by Valerie Plame herself that contradicts her husband's writings and statements? Or statements by Joe Wilson himself that he had misspoken about some of his bogus claims?

One wonders just what evidence you would find acceptable.

As to the reason why JW's wife's occupation was an issue, the third paragraph below is as good an explanation as any:

First, the most exploded figure in the entire argument is Joseph Wilson. This is for three reasons. He claimed, in his own book, that his wife had nothing to do with his brief and inconclusive visit to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." There isn't enough wiggle room in those two definitive statements to make either of them congruent with a memo written by Valerie Wilson (or Valerie Plame, if you prefer) to a deputy chief in the CIA's directorate of operations. In this memo, in her wifely way, she announced that her husband would be ideal for the mission since he had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines (of Niger), not to mention lots of French contacts." If you want to read the original, turn to the Senate committee's published report on the many "intelligence failures" that we have suffered recently. I want to return to those, too.

Speaking to the Washington Post about the CIA's documents on the Niger connection, Wilson made the further claim that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Again according to the Senate report, these papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip. He has since admitted to the same newspaper that he may have "misspoken" about this.

The third bogus element in Wilson's boastful story is the claim that Niger's "yellowcake" uranium was never a subject of any interest to Saddam Hussein's agents. The British intelligence report on this, which does not lack criticism of the Blair government, finds the Niger connection to be among the most credible of the assertions made about Saddam's double-dealing. If you care to consult the Financial Times of June 28, 2004, and see the front-page report by its national security correspondent Mark Huband, you will be able to review the evidence that Niger—with whose ministers Mr. Wilson had such "good relations"—was trying to deal in yellowcake with North Korea and Libya as well as Iraq and Iran. This evidence is by no means refuted or contradicted by a forged or faked Italian document saying the same thing. It was a useful axiom of the late I.F. Stone that few people are so foolish as to counterfeit a bankrupt currency.

Thus, and to begin with, Joseph Wilson comes before us as a man whose word is effectively worthless. What do you do, if you work for the Bush administration, when a man of such quality is being lionized by an anti-war press? Well, you can fold your tent and let them print the legend. Or you can say that the word of a mediocre political malcontent who is at a loose end, and who is picking up side work from a wife who works at the anti-regime-change CIA, may not be as "objective" as it looks. I dare say that more than one supporter of regime change took this option. I would certainly have done so as a reporter if I had known.

RealGun
April 13, 2006, 08:33 AM
I don't think this Plame leak stuff is going away for a while...

Those who suffer from BDS never let go and are oblivious to counter arguments.

shermacman
April 13, 2006, 10:05 AM
Clearly this McGovern dude is a deranged Bush hater. He's probably a cross-dressing Commie, too. After all, how could any reasonable person despise this morally glowing administration?
The answer, as always, is in the question. In fact, no reasonable person can despise this administration. George W. Bush is the greatest president of this millenium. The barking moonbats who refuse to recognize reality are the ones who are full of hatred and anger.

BIGJACK
April 13, 2006, 10:45 AM
I'm sorta curious as to what makes George W. Bush the "greatest president of the Millinium."

Is it his ability to take a large national budget surplus and turn it into a record debt and create a nation financed by former enemies?

Is it his ability to create a situation where the cost of oil has created havoc on the entire world.

Or maybe its his expertise in appointing "responsibility ignorant" croonies which have led us into a no win war which has cost this country over 2000 US military lives. Those who have forced the retirement of many of this countries best military leaders and those who bang their heads on the wall trying to communicate with other egotistical idiots while a major American city floods.

Could be its his charismatic personality which has demoralized the american public to the point that very few have any confidence in his ability to govern.

And certainly one would have to consider his proven abiiltiy to isolate the United States from most of the world to the point that it is dangerous for an American citizen to travel, anyplace in the world.

Thats the great GWB:banghead:

robertbank
April 13, 2006, 10:54 AM
You nailed it but remember you are more than welcome to visit Canada, anytime. Up here we have world class fishing for Salmon and Steelhead and the scenery isn't all the bad either.

Take Care

Camp David
April 13, 2006, 11:14 AM
I'm sorta curious as to what makes George W. Bush the "greatest president of the Millinium." Who is saying that or is that your strawman you created? :banghead:

Is it his ability to take a large national budget surplus and turn it into a record debt."Combination of war, recession, and retooling America's security apparatus proved expensive. Perhaps you would prefer a balanced budget and more planes flying into your neighborhood buildings? :fire:

...and create a nation financed by former enemies?."Not sure what you meant here? Perhaps you could elaborate... :confused:

...Is it his ability to create a situation where the cost of oil has created havoc on the entire world.The president does not control wholesale oil prices; it is managed and set by a cartel. :rolleyes:

...Or maybe its his expertise in appointing "responsibility ignorant" croonies which have led us into a no win war which has cost this country over 2000 US military lives..Lincoln's war in 1860 cost this nation 600,000 lives and they later built a monument to him on the National Mall. Lives lost in the pursuit of freedom do not detract from the validity of the mission. :uhoh:

...Those who have forced the retirement of many of this countries best military leaders...Who retired? :confused:

...and those who bang their heads on the wall trying to communicate with other egotistical idiots while a major American city floods... Actually Governor Babco did nothing at all, Mayor Chocolate did nothing except take firearms from law abiding citizens, and the Federal Government was ill-prepared to assist. You should however apportion some blame to the hurricane as I understand it was partly responsible! ;)

...Could be its his charismatic personality which has demoralized the american public to the point that very few have any confidence in his ability to govern....Actually his polls reflect normally for a second-term president fighting an overseas war. Nationally, his economic policies have done well for the economy, yet the ongoing war drag down his numbers in polling. Insofar as his "charismatic personality" which you sarcastically cite, I would far rather have Bush than Clinton anyday! :cool:

...And certainly one would have to consider his proven abiiltiy to isolate the United States from most of the world to the point that it is dangerous for an American citizen to travel, anyplace in the world.....Two words: Leon Klinghoffer. It has always been dangerous for Americans to travel abroad, no more so now than ever before. Seems a good reason to be patriotic and save your travel/vacation money for domestic travel to our great National Parks and keep money in this nation, rather than giving it to foreigners!!! ;)

Lobotomy Boy
April 13, 2006, 12:38 PM
CD, Bigjack's "strawman" was Shermacman, whom he was directly quoting.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think that the following statement:

Combination of war, recession, and retooling America's security apparatus proved expensive. Perhaps you would prefer a balanced budget and more planes flying into your neighborhood buildings?

is getting mighty hard to back up. The Bush administration is compiling such an incredible record of incompetence that it seems more and more likely that the only reason we haven't been attacked again is dumb luck. The fear card is starting to wear thin, and only works for those who are so timid that they have to wear disposable undergarments when driving in heavy traffic.

Camp David
April 13, 2006, 12:48 PM
... it seems more and more likely that the only reason we haven't been attacked again is dumb luck.

I suppose that is your opinion but I don't share it. Too many people, in government within Homeland Security, in intelligence within the CIA and FBI, and at DoD within the Armed Services, are working hard to prevent further acts of domestic terrorism for it to be prevented by simply "dumb luck" in my opinion.

RecoilRob
April 13, 2006, 09:09 PM
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
Could any of the 'Bush squandered the surplus' people please explain where the previous administration actually HAD a surplus?

They PROJECTED a surplus based on a gross overestimation (read lie) of the US economy but never, never actually paid down the debt.

Yes, they had much publicised "we paid down the debt" news conferences, but didn't bother to say that the debt went back up the next day. It goes up and down daily and the Bush Administration could have had dozens of PR events saying that the debt went down millions, even billions on this or that day. But, they are honest and would not stoop that far trying to dupe the dupeable.

Sorry, there never was a Clinton 'surplus'.

Oh, if you want to see the figures, go to Debt Clock. Remember it was always featured at the end of the Nightly News with about 15 seconds of "the Debt is STILL RISING". Once Clinton was elected, the Debt Clock was banished from the News. Not needed any more because the smear campaign was finished.

But, happily, the Debt Clock people are still there watching over every penny. Good read if you are brave enough to admit the truth.

gc70
April 13, 2006, 09:34 PM
Is it his ability to create a situation where the cost of oil has created havoc on the entire world.Wow, that is incredible; I had no idea that GWB was single-handedly responsible for China's recent boom in economic activity.

shermacman
April 13, 2006, 09:58 PM
RecoilBob
Please, in the future do not post facts. It disturbs those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Makes 'em think strange thoughts.

But for those who do not yet suffer from BDS, look at this little graph of National Debt, especially compare it to the Clinton years:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtAsPercentofGDP1940-2009.gif

robertbank
April 13, 2006, 11:14 PM
The graph you posted is not the national debt but rather the national debt as a percentage of GDP. They are not the same thing. :rolleyes:

Take Care

shermacman
April 13, 2006, 11:18 PM
Well, RobertBank, what would you think is the correct format for 60 years of economic analysis? Post a better comparison.

robertbank
April 13, 2006, 11:27 PM
Debt as a percentage of GDP is an important measurement to be sure but debt is debt. If government income ever reaches the point where income just meets or fails to meet interest totals a country is effectively bankrupt. It reached that point in New Zealand a number of years ago and Canada came very close to it over a decade ago.

If the numbers posted in Recoilrobs post are correct, then post the resultant graph that would reflect the annual debt - not the total debt but the annual debt. A simple search on google should give you the total annual accumulated debt for each year, graph those totals and you have a graphic display of the growth of the US National Debt which is what I think you were trying to convey. If you want a simple example of the effects of deficits then look no further than the US dollars value against other currencies or somewhat more simple what the dollar will buy. Deficit financing works as long as you can convince somebody to buy your bonds. What scares me is that the third largest holder of US debt is China - if it scares me - it ought to frighten the hell out of Americans.


ps Recoil please find me a government in the western world that does not overestimate income and underestimate expenses when they present their budgets. You can call it a lie, I suspect it is no more than one can expect from the idiots we elect. Predicting a deficit of 10 and achieving a deficit of 20 is no less a "lie" just numbers and for you and I unimaginable numbers - unless you can imagine a trillion....I can't.


Take Care

Take Care

CAnnoneer
April 14, 2006, 01:07 AM
When people talk about Clinton's surplus, they mean surplus in the yearly budget and thus a shrinking national debt, rather than an overall surplus of national credit. Maybe some get it all mixed up, but it remains undeniable that Slick Billy did balance the budget and generate a surplus towards paying the debt.

It amazes me that after all the damage this gangster administration has done in virtually all aspects of government, there are still people that staunchly support and defend it.

Malone LaVeigh
April 14, 2006, 05:08 AM
jfruser:
Malone:

Peruse pages 39-47 of the Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq if you want to know what the bigwigs of both parties thought of Wilson:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
OK, I "perused" the pages. I don't see the "evisceration" you claimed. Some differences of opinion, that's all. I see some other sources agree with your assessment. Maybe they're right. It doesn't matter, though. Wilson could have been completely wrong in his assessment and what he wrote later. His wife was still an undercover CIA agent, and someone in the administration outed her. That looks to me like a "high crime or misdemeanor."

Oh, and I hope you don't think that I am swayed by what "the bigwigs of both parties thought." Surely, you're aware that "the bigwigs of both parties" believe in "reasonable" gun control.

There's a "Bush derangement syndrome" around here, all right.

LAK
April 14, 2006, 05:16 AM
jfruserSo, you did not read any of the report on the role of intel failures leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or you do not find the report believeable? If the latter, I would kindly appreciate it if you & yours would refrain from quoting the portions that are damning WRT GWB & his administration as a geture of intellectual consistency & honesty.
"Intel failures"? That's a cute understatement; more like fraudulent intelligence and gross misrepresentations on the part of the WH.

Let's talk about intellectual consistancy and honesty, and take just one example in the form of Douglas Feith. If George W Bush can claim ignorance to Feith's background, and then subsequent activities and conduct in the WH, he can not claim to be ignorant after the fact of the implications over the whole Iraq picture.

Neither can he absolve himself of the responsibility of using the Iraq-Niger issue as one of the pretexts for the invasion of a sovereign nation. Instead of pushing Stephen Hadley front and center to be the fall guy later, why did he not simply take responsibility and step down?

British intelligence is not something I would take even with the proverbial pinch of sand either, as they have the greatest interest in the region at stake than anyone else in this picture. Chalabi was a good example of what we could have expected from them and the unhealthy relationship between the WH and London.

I guess you also are not impressed with documentary evidence to include internal CIA memos written by Valerie Plame herself that contradicts her husband's writings and statements? Or statements by Joe Wilson himself that he had misspoken about some of his bogus claims?
I would find it more suspect if Plame's and Wilson's stories and opinions matched in every detail. But in an age when fake documents are so routine, why should anyone be impressed anymore?

I have seen a filmed interview with Wilson, and it is obvious that he has been under immense pressure - with practically no allies within the "Republican" party nor the "Democratic" party. For him to have concocted the main substance of his views over the invasion and war to place himself precisely in this position of political and occupational isolation makes no sense at all.

Whether Plame and Wilson had different views over some of the minutae concerning how important Plame was in Wilson investigating the Niger issue is a rather trivial issue.

An analogy applied between a phoney document used as a pretext for war and counterfeit currency is absurd. And when it comes down to brass tacks; if Niger was truly attempting to deal in dangerous substances to North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran - and possibly others - why not invade Niger?

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

RecoilRob
April 14, 2006, 08:30 AM
When people talk about Clinton's surplus, they mean surplus in the yearly budget and thus a shrinking national debt, rather than an overall surplus of national credit. Maybe some get it all mixed up, but it remains undeniable that Slick Billy did balance the budget and generate a surplus towards paying the debt.


If you start the year owing $10, and finish the year owing $20....you didn't pay down your debt and didn't have a 'balanced budget'.

The numbers I posted are the Official Government Debt and it went up every year under Clinton. There were a couple of years where the rate of rise wasn't as fast as the previous or later ones....but this ISN'T paying down the debt.

To actually pay down an outstanding debt, you must cut your spending more than your current income...hence, actually have a surplus to apply to the debt above and beyond the interest being charged or you will continue to get behind.

I am confused that anyone is confused about this. Seems simple to me. As well as the overall 'Strategery' of our dealing with Iraq.

We now have significant troops on two of Iran's borders and can squeeze them into abandoning their nuke weapons program....I hope. Iran was the end game the whole time.

The whole 'Libby, Bush, Leak, Outing' thing is a really sad attempt to politically smear the other side. We went to war for FAR more things than the WH will or can ever say. I am confident that our Country is on the correct course and believe that history will prove the current President to be one of the greatest ever.

gc70
April 14, 2006, 09:30 PM
There Is Ample Evidence On The Public Record To Cast Considerable Doubt That A Crime Has Been Committed

That is not a conclusion from some Bush-apologist blog - that is the title of Section B of a brief (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:spZhI03qiSwJ:www.digenovatoensing.com/15_page_brief_by_Vt_%26_BS.doc+valerie+plame+04-3138&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a) filed in the US Court of Appeals for DC by "36 major news organizations and reporters' groups."
Case Nos. 04-3138, 04-3139 and 04-3140
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller No. 04-3138
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Matthew Cooper No. 04-3139
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Time Inc. No. 04-3140

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOTION OF 36 MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND REPORTERS’ GROUPS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICI CURIAE AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC OF APPELLANTS JUDITH MILLER, MATTHEW COOPER AND TIME INC.Unfortunately, the juiciest tidbits in the brief are in footnotes in the original Word document (http://www.digenovatoensing.com/15_page_brief_by_Vt_&_BS.doc) that don't convert to the HTML view linked above.
7Bill Gertz, “CIA officer named prior to column,” The Washington Times, July 23, 2004, at A4 (noting that a Moscow spy first disclosed Plame’s identity to Russia in the mid-1990s, and a more recent “inadvertent disclosure” stemming from references to Plame in “confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana,” which was read by the Cubans) (Tab C).
In short, the media's brief claims that Plame had already been 'outed' long before Robert Novak's first article; therefore, there could be no crime in revealing and publishing Plame's identity.

Does anyone else see just a little hypocrisy in the media telling the court there was no crime while busily publishing breathless stories about "illegal leaks?"

roo_ster
April 15, 2006, 10:14 PM
LAK & Malone:

I read your posts & thought about responding with more documentation as to Joe Wilson's mendacity, but then it hit me: it is a matter of faith with y'all.

Facts or documentation won't matter.

...in an age when fake documents are so routine, why should anyone be impressed anymore?
Any documentation (supporting the position that JW's words can not be trusted and are an unwise peg on which to hang one's credibility) can be dismissed as a Rather-esque frame-up.

I see some other sources agree with your assessment. Maybe they're right. It doesn't matter, though.
Even if the facts are verified and the documents are accepted as authentic, JW's stories are "fake but accurate" as to what really happened :rolleyes: ...and the uncomfortable facts are shrugged off as the article of faith is asserted.
His wife was still an undercover CIA agent, and someone in the administration outed her. That looks to me like a "high crime or misdemeanor."

I can understand this epistemology. I don't think it appropriate in politics, but in a culture where some folks believe they have an alien trapped in their brain and others think the plane crash into the Pentagon was a fake, it is all too common.

Lobotomy Boy
April 15, 2006, 10:37 PM
I read your posts & thought about responding with more documentation as to Joe Wilson's mendacity, but then it hit me: it is a matter of faith with y'all.

Facts or documentation won't matter.

The point they, and a lot of us, have been trying to make is that the issue is the leaking of information for political gain by the Bush administration. Trying to distract everyone from this fact with talk of Joe Wilson's background is a perfect example of mendacity, but it is the tactic of choice for the current administration.

gc70
April 15, 2006, 10:41 PM
The entire brouhaha over the Wilson-Plame affair is an example of the Queeg Syndrome. Many people who disagree with the war in Iraq feel compelled to reinforce their opinion by "proving" Bush's duplicity "beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic" (click, click, click, click ... ).

Malone LaVeigh
April 16, 2006, 01:55 AM
it is a matter of faith with y'all
Whereas your beliefs flow totally from your flawless logic...

I don't see what you are having a hard time understanding. Wilson's motives or arguments could have been questionable. Bush and his goons might have honestly thought so, but there are a lot of ways they could have responded. Outing an undercover CIA agent strikes me as destructive to the security of our country.

I suppose Bush and co. might have considered the CIA to be an "enemy", insufficiently enthusiastic about their orders to find evidence to invade Iraq, but sabotaging an intelligence agency by an administration is pretty much unprecedented as far as I can remember.

gc70
April 16, 2006, 02:17 AM
Outing an undercover CIA agent strikes me as destructive to the security of our country.See #127 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2385936&postcount=127)

If Plame's cover had previously been blown, she could not be "outed" - at least that's what "36 major news organizations and reporters' groups" claimed in a brief to the US Court of Appeals for DC.

RecoilRob
April 16, 2006, 02:35 AM
Yes, the way I understand the deal was that Bob Woodward knew of Valerie Plame BEFORE speaking with Libby. So did Novak. Her existance and employer was a poorly kept secret at best in Washington.

In the conversation about Joe Wilson the reporters mentioned her and the worst Libby did was acknowledge that he knew what they already knew. Not much of an 'Outing' if you ask me....

Oh, please remember that the upcoming trial of Libby is NOT for 'outing' anyone. It is thinly built on him 'lying' to the Grand Jury about the times and sequence of his meetings with various reporters. If you met with dozens of people months ago, could you keep the sequence in proper order? Who said what and when? Seems to be asking a lot to me. Libby WILL walk.

Malone LaVeigh
April 16, 2006, 02:43 AM
See #127
I saw it the first time. It said the Russians had identified her. However, apparently, the CIA was still using her as an asset in the Middle East. The CIA apparently still considered her to have value as an undercover agent.

gc70
April 16, 2006, 03:03 AM
The CIA apparently still considered her to have value as an undercover agent.The CIA may have held that view, which the brief (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:spZhI03qiSwJ:www.digenovatoensing.com/15_page_brief_by_Vt_%26_BS.doc+valerie+plame+04-3138&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a) addressed derisively:

At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be “covert” for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad – for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.

Novak’s column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency’s response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President’s office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have “low level” bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife’s suggestion. See also Wilson Op-Ed. Did no one at Langley think that Plame’s identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?

LAK
April 17, 2006, 05:06 AM
jfruserA Matter of Faith
Right on the money. It is always a matter of faith. It boils down to what and who you believe.

I mentioned just a few points - I could list many; going back to the beginning, before Iraq, and into previous administrations as well. This isn't just about G W Bush. But aside from his own trangressions and those around him, he has continued to carry the stinking ball for some before him as well.

He is a global socialist, like his father, and like their mutual cronies. Iraq is but one aspect, and he continues to give this country away. Wilson was not behaving like a good yes man, and that is why his wife's status was revealed the way it was.

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

gc70
April 17, 2006, 07:53 AM
Wilson was not behaving like a good yes man, and that is why his wife's status was revealed the way it was.Plame's identity may have been revealed as punishment for Wilson's public advocacy. But a more mundane answer would be that Plame's employment was incidental to showing that Wilson's trip to Niger was a junket arranged through nepotism... and everyone inside the Beltway knows that nothing credible ever comes out of junkets.

LAK
April 17, 2006, 08:27 AM
Yep; and in that regard everyone outside the Beltway knows the same could be applied to presidencies ;)

In any case I doubt that it was Plame's "tremendous clout" :rolleyes: in the highest echelons of the CIA and the WH that sent Wilson to Niger on such a matter.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Lobotomy Boy
April 17, 2006, 09:12 AM
Cheney might just as well have sent a trained monkey to Niger because the administration had made up its mind to go to war and they were going to use any intelligence that would support that aim regardless of how dubious. Ultimately those who say that is the real issue will be proven correct, I believe. It remains to be seen whether or not those who claim the Plame incident will disappear are correct, however. They've been saying that for nearly three years, and instead of going away it has just gotten larger, so they've been wrong for the past 2.5 years. I see nothing happening to make them any more right in the coming year.

Carl N. Brown
April 17, 2006, 04:45 PM
www.slate.com/id/2139609/?nav=navoa

Wowie Zahawie
Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 10, 2006, at 4:43 PM ET


In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq's interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between "secular" Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception—an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and Götterdämmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.

If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence.

However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery—it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent.

But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination?

There seem to be only three possibilities here. Either a) American intelligence concocted the note; b) someone in Italy did so in the hope of gain; or c) it was the product of disinformation, intended to protect Niger and discredit any attention paid to the actual, real-time Zahawie visit. The CIA is certainly incompetent enough to have fouled up this badly. (I like Edward Luttwak's formulation in the March 22 Times Literary Supplement, where he writes that "there have been only two kinds of CIA secret operations: the ones that are widely known to have failed—usually because of almost unbelievably crude errors—and the ones that are not yet widely known to have failed.") Still, it almost passes belief that any American agency would fake a document that purportedly proved far more than the administration had asked and then get every important name and date wrapped round the axle. Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.

According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was—follow me closely here—that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.

Zahawie's name and IAEA connection were never mentioned by ElBaradei in his report to the United Nations, and his past career has never surfaced in print. Looking up the press of the time causes one's jaw to slump in sheer astonishment. Here, typically, is a Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003:

The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun.

A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all." Well, sorry for the inconvenience of the questions, then, my old IAEA and NPT "veteran" (whose nuclear qualifications go unmentioned in the Time article). Instead, we are told that Zahawie visited Niger and other West African countries to encourage them to break the embargo on flights to Baghdad, as they had broken the sanctions on Qaddafi's Libya. A bit of a lowly mission, one might think, for one of the Iraqi regime's most senior and specialized envoys.

The Duelfer Report also cites "a second contact between Iraq and Niger," which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad "to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems." According to the deposition of Ja'far Diya' Ja'far (the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only "cash in exchange for petroleum." West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket, but you may if you wish choose to believe that a near-bankrupt African delegation from a uranium-based country traveled across a continent and a half with nothing on its mind but shopping for oil.

Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem. But please read my first three paragraphs again and tell me if the original story still seems innocuous to you.

shermacman
April 17, 2006, 08:03 PM
Doesn't matter Carl.

There are members here who hate the Bush administration so much that facts do not matter. These people scream about corruption and pretend the Duelfer Report didn't exist. They wail about Bush acting unilaterally and ignore the fact that the previous president, NATO and the entire UN also believed that Saddam was packing serious armaments.

They have had lobotomies, but they don't suffer quietly.

Lobotomy Boy
April 17, 2006, 08:37 PM
Shermacman, your astounding wit should be packaged and sold by the ounce. Or perhaps by the half ounce to make it last longer.

gc70
April 17, 2006, 09:43 PM
Just to refresh the topic, what is the whole Wilson-Plame affair supposed to prove?

Is it about the administration "endangering national security" by revealing that a woman who commutes daily to her job at Langley actually works for the CIA?

Is it about the administration "punishing" Wilson for the opinions he expressed in his article?

Is it about the administration trying to discredit the views Wilson expressed in his article?

So what is it about this affair that prompts so much passion?

Lobotomy Boy
April 17, 2006, 09:51 PM
Just to refresh the topic, what is the whole Wilson-Plame affair supposed to prove?

Is it about the administration "endangering national security" by revealing that a woman who commutes daily to her job at Langley actually works for the CIA?

Is it about the administration "punishing" Wilson for the opinions he expressed in his article?

Is it about the administration trying to discredit the views Wilson expressed in his article?

So what is it about this affair that prompts so much passion?

None of the above. These are all mere distractions from the issue that keeps this thing alive and keeps people angry--the Bush administration condemning leakers out of one side of its mouth and leaking information out of the other. This may be standard practice for presidential administrations, but a lot of Bush's supporters are upset because they honestly believed Bush was above such things. For cynical political observers like many of us on this list, this is not surprising, but for people who genuinely believed in Bush, saying, "Clinton did it too" is small consolation.

gc70
April 17, 2006, 10:01 PM
Interesting, LB, although I really thought that brand of naivete was laid to rest around the time that 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' was filmed.

While your answer addresses shocked and disappointed Republicans, it does not explain why many Democrats are also passionate about the topic.

Malone LaVeigh
April 18, 2006, 12:25 AM
Well, I've tried to respnd to this a couple of times now, but things keep jumping in the way, and besides, I am just about worn down by the Bush-deranged parrots around here.

Here (http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/africa.html) is a link to what Wilson actually said in the article he wrote for the NY Times. He does not say Cheny sent him. He does not say Iraq never wanted to procure uranium. What he apparently found was that Niger did not try to sell uranium to Iraq, and he states that the admin should have been aware of this fact.

All in all, I find it a mildly worded, reasonable article that raises some important questions. He states that he was a critic of going to war. As far as the nepotism charges are concerned, he claims that he took the trip as a bro bono service. That would be easy to check if he were lieing. Given that someone in the administration was willing to at least break the letter of the law to get back at him, I would have to guess that he's telling the truth on that one.

As far as the whole question of just how undercover she was is concerned, it seems we have some members of the press in an amicus paper claiming the right to publish the leak for the reason (among others) that she wasn't (really) undercover. That's not the same as claiming the leak itself was legal. Those members of the press, eg NY Times/Judith Miller, let us not forget, were the main cheerleaders of the administration in the runup to the war. So they're not exactly clean in this whole thing, either.

I don't re4ally have much more to say on this. You Bush devotees keep drinking the Kool-aid.

Art Eatman
April 18, 2006, 12:30 AM
Sarcasm and getting personal is what gets threads closed...

Art

Lobotomy Boy
April 18, 2006, 12:38 AM
Interesting, LB, although I really thought that brand of naivete was laid to rest around the time that 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' was filmed.

I would have thought so too, but there seems to be a core group of Bush supporters who voted for him because they thought he strived for higher principles than the previous president. These people aren't too thrilled with the "Clinton did it too" argument.

While your answer addresses shocked and disappointed Republicans, it does not explain why many Democrats are also passionate about the topic.

I'd say the disappointed Republicans represent a much bigger problem for the Republican party than the disappointed Democrats.

gc70
April 18, 2006, 02:08 AM
...someone in the administration was willing to at least break the letter of the law to get back at him...

...claiming the right to publish the leak for the reason (among others) that she wasn't (really) undercover. That's not the same as claiming the leak itself was legal.Well, you've stumped me with this.

Everything I have read suggests the question about Plame was whether the law against disclosing the identity of a "covert agent" had been violated. The Special Prosecutor apparently didn't think Plame met the legal definition of a "covert agent" because he did not make those charges.

Is there another law that would prohibit the "leak" of information about Wilson's trip and his findings?

I'd say the disappointed Republicans represent a much bigger problem for the Republican party than the disappointed Democrats.So true. :evil:

Kaylee
April 18, 2006, 08:34 AM
I'd say the disappointed Republicans represent a much bigger problem for the Republican party than the disappointed Democrats.
So true.

Can I get an Amen?


Anyhow, I'd say the Democrats have for better or worse become the Boy Who Cried Wolf in this.

They've tried so many times to manufacture one scandal or another over GW that at this point he could be found standing over the bodies of political opponents with a knife and crazy-man laugh, and a significant portion of the population would just yawn.

"Hrmm.. It's Tuesday. I wonder what they're gonna try to pin on him today? Ooh.. what's for breakfast?"

RealGun
April 18, 2006, 08:43 AM
I'd say the disappointed Republicans represent a much bigger problem for the Republican party than the disappointed Democrats.

Some may be "disappointed", but that doesn't mean they will vote Democrat. They will go after specific issues with the next Republican.

Lobotomy Boy
April 18, 2006, 08:51 AM
It's going to be a weird year no doubt. Just about anything is possible. We might even see some third-party candidates getting into congress.

I think we're crossing threads though. There is another thread on the outlook for the Republicans in the upcoming election. We've probably beat this Plame case into glue already anyway.

RealGun
April 18, 2006, 08:55 AM
I don't think we are crossing threads, because this one was about bashing Republicans from the get go. They're all libertarian rants in disguise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!