Someone please tell me...

[Clem D]

If Karl Rove is Bush's right hand man, and Scooter Libby is Dick Cheneys' chief of staff, I s it safe to say that Bush and or Cheney either ordered them to out Plame, or new about about it and have been deceitful on the matter since?

Or they just have very poor control of their employees,



Which is it boys?



DTB
Clinton lied under oath about getting his helmet polished and or Sandy Berger stole documents is not an acceptible answer. :mj07: :s4:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Will consider the question if---
A: either are indicted then-- B:found quilty

Question Clem-- Do all liberals consider questioning in inquiry equal to proven quilty beyond any doubt whatsoever, or just a few of you?

P.S. Would you mind listing cabinet members in this admin that have been indicted so far--it won't take long--Do you know which pres had 19 independent council inquiries in his admin with 7 resulting in indictments?? Come on Clem venture a guess

 

[smurphy]

DTB
Clinton lied under oath about getting his helmet polished and or Sandy Berger stole documents is not an acceptible answer. :mj07: :s4:

:mj14: :mj07:

You know he's trying hard as hell to avoid going there....and yet he still does.

Come on DTB, up yer game, lad.

 

[Master Capper]

P.S. Would you mind listing cabinet members in this admin that have been indicted so far--it won't take long--Do you know which pres had 19 independent council inquiries in his admin with 7 resulting in indictments?? Come on Clem venture a guess


How many do you think would be indicted in the current administration if the DEMS were allowed to have a highly paid special prosecutor such as Kenneth Starr to attack every questionable move by Bush and friends?

 

[Master Capper]

Clem,


You can bet that it's a lock that Cheney knew and was more than likely involved, but the odds are that Bush was more than likely on vacation and clearing brush so he was out of the loop.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Why is it EVERYTIME you ask a liberal for facts supporting an allegation they have no answer except more allegations?

If your going to convince anyone-- your going to have to come up with factual coherant ideas.

Pujo's quote in other thread >NOTE: i am not anti BUSH-- but i am anti scammers and a liars !

makes about as much sense as National Org of Women backing Clinton and dissing GW or Gays carring signs "Stop Aids"

 

[Master Capper]

I dont see anything from Pujo in this thread am I missing something here?

 

[Chadman]

Why is it EVERYTIME you ask a liberal for facts supporting an allegation they have no answer except more allegations?

If your going to convince anyone-- your going to have to come up with factual coherant ideas.

These comments are pure :bs: as far as I am concerned. Personally, I do not make allegations without having information about them. I do post when I have an opinion about something that it is a personal one. I do post stories that contain allegations when they have some documentation and are not just sensationalism. Most opinion-stories will have some things that can not be verified, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed and thought about. If I have done something like this, you have every right to call me on it. I know some make comments like that, but I sure try not to.

To label liberals as people who cannot support allegations is simplistic, generic and lacking the same kind of supportive evidence that you criticize others for.

In other words, it's a :bs: comment. I have come to expect more from your posts...you generally seem to be pretty thoughtful and definitely come up with some good stuff to back up your points. It just smacks of the same kind of thing as liberals who don't fall in line and support the policies of this administration as being unpatriotic and communistic, etc.

I guess conservatives continue to be dismissive and holier-than-thou, right?

 

[Master Capper]

If your going to convince anyone-- your going to have to come up with factual coherant ideas


You mean sort of like the factual coherant ideas that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or the factual coherent idea that Iraq tried to import enriched uranium from Nigera? Those damn Liberals never tell the story straight!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

EXACTLY what I mean--I am assuming -you think- it is "fact" that Iraq never had wmd's nor tried to buy enriched uranium.


The way I see it there is plenty of evidence to support each theory both ways of which neither can be proven.

The only thing that can be proven as fact is Iraq did have and use them--the later on uranium you have alleged reports that say one way and a liberal with a motive that says another--I would conclude probabably both are tainted--but thats just me--
--- one thing is apparent--we have different opinion of what facts and opinions are.
I concur with the definition----
"Fact--a concept whose truth can be proved"

 

[Master Capper]

Why is it that anyone whom disagree's with this administration and actually tells the truth becomes either partisan or unpatriotic? Wilson told the truth and with the exception of Blair and Bush nearly all other intelligense agencies in the world are in agreement with his facts. Who knew the Nigerian Government better Wilson whom had many inside contacts and had worked in that country for years or Dick Cheney whom was hidden in his undisclosed bunker? Two years now and we still have found not one single WMD, and we cannot include Cheney's mobile trucks of mass destruction that turned out to be helium trucks, so where did all of these strategic weapons go to did they just vanish with the snap of Saddm's finger into the thin air? Don't you think with the capture of pretty close to 85% of Saddam's regime that just one of these people by now would of cried wolf and told us what happened to these weapons? Don't you think we offered them pretty handsome rewards to tell us this information? If we use your definition for the word fact then your basically asserting that the administration went to war against a country without factual information since the concepts they put forth surely cannot be proved factual but instead it was just blind allegations with not factual based truth.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"If we use your definition for the word fact then your basically asserting that the administration went to war against a country without factual information since the concepts they put forth surely cannot be proved factual but instead it was just blind allegations with not factual based truth."

If your speaking of reason for war being facts of still having WMD's you'd be correct--as I said earlier--however I thought in his speech before going to war and why we were going to war had something to do with resolutions Saddam "factually" failed to comply with.

and on taking Wilson's word as fact--you might want to do a little fact checking--I conclude there are no facts either way and definately don't lean in Wilson direction---
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

thought this might be interesting on issues of WMD's--will use someones (Tony Blair) insight other than GW's as not to start some with negative vibes--also while reading remember they since have found WHY France vetoed the resolution and WHY UN did not enforce i--then remember who support France and U.N. in debates and who said we don't need their permission

--also remember all the political leaders on the left that have been quoted about wmd's also until the press and sentiment change and they decided to do about face and ride the winds of sentiment of the occasion.(can you picture the weather vane spinning)

Link from Blair--too long to cut and paste--
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3294.asp

 

[djv]

None have the balls to say how wrong they all were or. They seem to lack the guts to tell the administration they were ling.

As for Rowe and Scooter. It's not hard to guess one new just how game plan was to go. Did they tell Bush maybe not. Cheney I think we all know he knows all. Will all escape. Just depends how big the broom is.