Plame Leak Said to Come From Cheney
- Thread starter smurphy
- Start date
Edward I told you long ago there would be no indictments for revealing covert op. 1st way to hard to prove intent even if there was one. 2nd her status is debatable as she was list as under NOC
(nonofficial cover) from what I gather. In addition USA reported long ago she hadn't been out as NOC since 1997 when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins.
Be that as it may if they are indicted for perjury it is just that PERJURY-regardless of what they lied about. You won't hear me say it was "white lie" ect.
Purjury is lying under oath-period.
Now a question for you council--If they are indicted what punishment do you think they deserve?
(nonofficial cover) from what I gather. In addition USA reported long ago she hadn't been out as NOC since 1997 when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins.
Be that as it may if they are indicted for perjury it is just that PERJURY-regardless of what they lied about. You won't hear me say it was "white lie" ect.
Purjury is lying under oath-period.
Now a question for you council--If they are indicted what punishment do you think they deserve?
Punishment for Cheney/Libby? From my perspective, I do not believe one lie is the same as another. Depends on the matter, context, intent etc.
For example, I have never told you what 65 privately e-mailed me about your character several years ago. As a matter of fact I have often referred to your Bowling Green neighbor as "your friend" when in fact the content of his email would certainly suggest otherwise.
Did I lie to you about your retaionship with 65? Yes, I did. Do I consider that lie the same as lying about outing a CIA agent. No. One has much more serious consequences than the other. I lied to you to protect your feelings.
Cheney/Libby's intentions I suspect are much more nepharious and designed to hurt. My lie was designed to help. See the difference.
Eddie
For example, I have never told you what 65 privately e-mailed me about your character several years ago. As a matter of fact I have often referred to your Bowling Green neighbor as "your friend" when in fact the content of his email would certainly suggest otherwise.
Did I lie to you about your retaionship with 65? Yes, I did. Do I consider that lie the same as lying about outing a CIA agent. No. One has much more serious consequences than the other. I lied to you to protect your feelings.
Cheney/Libby's intentions I suspect are much more nepharious and designed to hurt. My lie was designed to help. See the difference.
Eddie
I see-- In otherwards you have you have degrees of pregury--depending on if you like the person or not.
"IF" 6-5 informed you of any personal info on me I would say you could take it to the bank and would consider his judge of character to be right on.
Now believing what a liberal personal injury attorney claims and what is truth is quite a different matter
Don't believe I've ever made a personal claim that wasn't backed up with documentation.Most know my real name-- where I live --my office location ect.Pretty transparent as most with nothing to hide---
---AND YOU????????????????
"IF" 6-5 informed you of any personal info on me I would say you could take it to the bank and would consider his judge of character to be right on.
Now believing what a liberal personal injury attorney claims and what is truth is quite a different matter
Don't believe I've ever made a personal claim that wasn't backed up with documentation.Most know my real name-- where I live --my office location ect.Pretty transparent as most with nothing to hide---
---AND YOU????????????????
Wayne:
Twisting words this early in the morning? I'll give you one thing, you're consistent.
Different degrees of perjury depending on who I like. I didn't say that. You and I both know thats a right wing thing.
I said, different degrees of perjury depending on what it is your lying about. A bj, 5 year old saying "I didn't do nuthin", 65 saying he slept with you,..... no big deal. Outing a CIA agent.... big deal.
Again, Wayne, I'm a moderate civil litigator. Frankly quited versed in the truth. As far a who I really am, why does that matter. Why is it that you consider your business solicitations a badge of honor or some other statement about your character and veracity.
There are plenty of valid reasons why people do not use there real identity on forums that are viewed by hundreds of people every day. Frankly you are one of the few that doesn't cloak his identity.
Why? I don't know nor do I care. But I was going to go to AC several years ago. Jmizeus knows who I am cause he needed Reds tix. Jack of course. Even numbskulls like Saint would have known who I was if he took me up on my offer for UC tickets a couple of weeks ago.
For that matter, I'd meet any Madjacker (except Dr. Freeze and Vyrus) if they came here to the Queen City for a cocktail and a cigar (they must buy of course). I'm not hiding behind a screen. I'd rather remain anonymous to the vast majority of morons who post here on a daily basis. Thats only using your head.
As far as your support documentation goes, I've said it a million times before, you can find support for any wacked out, radical, psychotic thing you want on the internet. We all know most of your "support documentation" comes from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the National Review, the National Enquireror some other right wing teen porn site.
Hell, Wayne yesterday in the paper they showed a picture of some tree that some people (obviously well balanced) claimed they saw a picture of Jesus in the bark. I mean really. You can find anything you want to support any position you want nowadays. Means nothing.
I don't post links, cites from Liberal Lawyers for Lenin, Attorneys for the Subversion of America, or other crap I find on the internet for several reasons including that stated above. That is, I don't have the time to find it, read it and post it, its not gospel, and it really doesnt' matter.
Is the source persuasive? Sometimes. I mean you take your Fox News stuff and claim it can't be challenged. I think I'm a little more discerning with my NPR stuff but again, all this proves is that this country is divided and you and I live in different Americas.
Hopefully one day you will see that I am right and you are wrong, but alas, such hope is flickering in the late autumn twilight. Remember to set your clocks back tomorow night when you get back from the diner with the Mrs. and are digesting that sweet tater pie.
I can see you tomorrow night sitting across from Mrs. Dogs in the booth at the diner, tater pie hanging from the corners of your mouth, pointing your fork at her saying, "Its them damn liberals in DC that arrested that Carl Robe and Libbie Scooter." "All cus of that damn Bill Clinton."
The scene fades out with Mrs. Dogs quietly nodding her head in polite, and fearful, agreement.
Eddie
Twisting words this early in the morning? I'll give you one thing, you're consistent.
Different degrees of perjury depending on who I like. I didn't say that. You and I both know thats a right wing thing.
I said, different degrees of perjury depending on what it is your lying about. A bj, 5 year old saying "I didn't do nuthin", 65 saying he slept with you,..... no big deal. Outing a CIA agent.... big deal.
Again, Wayne, I'm a moderate civil litigator. Frankly quited versed in the truth. As far a who I really am, why does that matter. Why is it that you consider your business solicitations a badge of honor or some other statement about your character and veracity.
There are plenty of valid reasons why people do not use there real identity on forums that are viewed by hundreds of people every day. Frankly you are one of the few that doesn't cloak his identity.
Why? I don't know nor do I care. But I was going to go to AC several years ago. Jmizeus knows who I am cause he needed Reds tix. Jack of course. Even numbskulls like Saint would have known who I was if he took me up on my offer for UC tickets a couple of weeks ago.
For that matter, I'd meet any Madjacker (except Dr. Freeze and Vyrus) if they came here to the Queen City for a cocktail and a cigar (they must buy of course). I'm not hiding behind a screen. I'd rather remain anonymous to the vast majority of morons who post here on a daily basis. Thats only using your head.
As far as your support documentation goes, I've said it a million times before, you can find support for any wacked out, radical, psychotic thing you want on the internet. We all know most of your "support documentation" comes from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the National Review, the National Enquireror some other right wing teen porn site.
Hell, Wayne yesterday in the paper they showed a picture of some tree that some people (obviously well balanced) claimed they saw a picture of Jesus in the bark. I mean really. You can find anything you want to support any position you want nowadays. Means nothing.
I don't post links, cites from Liberal Lawyers for Lenin, Attorneys for the Subversion of America, or other crap I find on the internet for several reasons including that stated above. That is, I don't have the time to find it, read it and post it, its not gospel, and it really doesnt' matter.
Is the source persuasive? Sometimes. I mean you take your Fox News stuff and claim it can't be challenged. I think I'm a little more discerning with my NPR stuff but again, all this proves is that this country is divided and you and I live in different Americas.
Hopefully one day you will see that I am right and you are wrong, but alas, such hope is flickering in the late autumn twilight. Remember to set your clocks back tomorow night when you get back from the diner with the Mrs. and are digesting that sweet tater pie.
I can see you tomorrow night sitting across from Mrs. Dogs in the booth at the diner, tater pie hanging from the corners of your mouth, pointing your fork at her saying, "Its them damn liberals in DC that arrested that Carl Robe and Libbie Scooter." "All cus of that damn Bill Clinton."
The scene fades out with Mrs. Dogs quietly nodding her head in polite, and fearful, agreement.
Eddie
Last edited:
A: I don't eat potatoes
B: I rarily eat out
on pergury --Your yapping against someone not even indicted and take the Monica positon on person already convicted.
Doesn't take a legal Einstein to know diff of possible indictment and convicted disbarred felon--of course you can always try to convince your 80% demographical lemmings that the latter is the lesser of evils.
B: I rarily eat out
on pergury --Your yapping against someone not even indicted and take the Monica positon on person already convicted.
Doesn't take a legal Einstein to know diff of possible indictment and convicted disbarred felon--of course you can always try to convince your 80% demographical lemmings that the latter is the lesser of evils.
Last edited:
"Rule of Law" was the Republican mantra when attacking Clinton, but lately they seemed to have strayed from their beliefs when they are confronted about one or more of their own being charged with perjury and or obstruction. Here are their comments about the law when attacking Clinton, so lets see how they spin this one when Scooter's indictment comes down:
On February 2, 1999, Hutchison stood with a bipartisan group of senators at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, Hutchison said it was vitally important to prosecute on perjury charges because telling the truth is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system:
ROUND ROCK, Texas (June 8, 1999 11:46 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Texas Gov. George W. Bush, cranking up his still-unofficial run for the White House, said on Tuesday he would have voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
In response to a reporter's question, Bush said he supported impeachment for a simple reason: "The man lied
Rep. Henry Hyde
Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for such offenses.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Interviewers questioning the president's [Clinton's] lawyers Sunday struck a tone of disbelief. After White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff insisted on "Meet the Press" that Clinton had not committed perjury, host Tim Russert said: "Now, are the American people supposed to believe that?"
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. Blackstone's famous Commentaries--widely read by the framers of the Constitution--put perjury on equal footing with bribery as a crime against the state. Perjury was understood to be as serious as bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. Today, we punish perjury and obstruction of justice at least as severely as we punish bribery. Apparently, the seriousness of perjury and obstruction of justice has not diminished over time. Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The Senate has removed seven federal judges from office.
On February 2, 1999, Hutchison stood with a bipartisan group of senators at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, Hutchison said it was vitally important to prosecute on perjury charges because telling the truth is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system:
ROUND ROCK, Texas (June 8, 1999 11:46 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Texas Gov. George W. Bush, cranking up his still-unofficial run for the White House, said on Tuesday he would have voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
In response to a reporter's question, Bush said he supported impeachment for a simple reason: "The man lied
Rep. Henry Hyde
Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for such offenses.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Interviewers questioning the president's [Clinton's] lawyers Sunday struck a tone of disbelief. After White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff insisted on "Meet the Press" that Clinton had not committed perjury, host Tim Russert said: "Now, are the American people supposed to believe that?"
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. Blackstone's famous Commentaries--widely read by the framers of the Constitution--put perjury on equal footing with bribery as a crime against the state. Perjury was understood to be as serious as bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. Today, we punish perjury and obstruction of justice at least as severely as we punish bribery. Apparently, the seriousness of perjury and obstruction of justice has not diminished over time. Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The Senate has removed seven federal judges from office.
after 2 years....and all the b.s. and supposition on this board regarding rove and cheney..impeachment and other ludicrous speculation.....libby looks like the best that this prosecutor `s gonna do.....
hardly going to bring the administration to it`s knees...lol
foolish political partisanship....outting an "undercover" operative that hasn`t been out of country or really "undercover" for roughly 5 years....
and they`ll be prosecuting libby...as they did clinton...not for outting her....but for "lying" to the grand jury....
this is every bit as silly as the lewinsky crap...
a waste...
i`ll say this...the white house should get their shit together...
how the hell does the cia send a partisan democrat to investigate the niger issue...a guy that`s been out to screw the administration for years....and no one mentions that wilson wasn`t exactly honest in his reportage...
that`s amazing to me...
a libby deliberate lie?....an omission?....forgetfulness?....
who gives a shit...
clinton said "i don`t recall" or something similar during his trial over 100 times...lol...
who cares?...other than the partisan harpies...
what a waste..
i really hope that there are more indictments than are being reported...on more substantive issues...because this was useless...
much like the clinton witch hunt...
partisan politics....pathetic..
hardly going to bring the administration to it`s knees...lol
foolish political partisanship....outting an "undercover" operative that hasn`t been out of country or really "undercover" for roughly 5 years....
and they`ll be prosecuting libby...as they did clinton...not for outting her....but for "lying" to the grand jury....
this is every bit as silly as the lewinsky crap...
a waste...
i`ll say this...the white house should get their shit together...
how the hell does the cia send a partisan democrat to investigate the niger issue...a guy that`s been out to screw the administration for years....and no one mentions that wilson wasn`t exactly honest in his reportage...
that`s amazing to me...
a libby deliberate lie?....an omission?....forgetfulness?....
who gives a shit...
clinton said "i don`t recall" or something similar during his trial over 100 times...lol...
who cares?...other than the partisan harpies...
what a waste..
i really hope that there are more indictments than are being reported...on more substantive issues...because this was useless...
much like the clinton witch hunt...
partisan politics....pathetic..
Last edited:
this is every bit as silly as the lewinsky crap...
a waste...
Exactly and how much money did Kenneth Starr'switch hunt cost the US tax payers? Just like this Scooter indictment is costing us tons of bucks, but the Republicans started this tit for tat by going after Clinton with Starr so I do not want to here their leaders crying about petty charges. It's the "rule of law" as Kay Hutison said in 1999!
a waste...
Exactly and how much money did Kenneth Starr'switch hunt cost the US tax payers? Just like this Scooter indictment is costing us tons of bucks, but the Republicans started this tit for tat by going after Clinton with Starr so I do not want to here their leaders crying about petty charges. It's the "rule of law" as Kay Hutison said in 1999!
i couldn`t agree more...
the only saving grace is that guys like yourself,m.c.,are basically getting coal in your christmas stocking....not the goodies...
no rove...no cheney....nothing really juicy...
carry on whining..
the only saving grace is that guys like yourself,m.c.,are basically getting coal in your christmas stocking....not the goodies...
no rove...no cheney....nothing really juicy...
carry on whining..
and if Libby is Cheneys chief of staff, it just goes to show you Cheney was the leak but knew enough to let Libby fall on the sword.
no coal in my stocking, I just want whomever was guilty to be prosecuted according to the rule of law!
Clem D said:
And if he is, what bearing should that have made on the CIA sending him. I didn't realize that the CIA was a political body that would naturally send a right winger to gather information for them.
Forget about Wilson for a second. Bush KNEW (via the CIA) that the one flimsy piece of 'evidence' was a fake but he still used it during his State of the Union address.
We can argue all day whether W 'lied' about WMD, but there is no question he lied about the Niger uranium nonsense. That apparently doesn't bother some people, who seem to be more worried about the political predilection of Joe Wilson.
joe wilson`s not a liberal?.....
lets make it simple...he`s anti-administartion....anti iraq war....he had an agenda....
this investigation is a proxy for the larger political war about the iraq war.....
wilson used his insider status as a former cia consultant to accuse the bush administration of lying about iraq wmd as an excuse to go to war. ..
a political furor erupted, and wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the kerry for president campaign.
amid an election campaign and a war, bush administration officials understandably fought back. ...one way they did so was to tell reporters that wilson's wife had been instrumental in getting him the cia consulting job..... this was true...even though wilson denied it at the time...as a bipartisan report by the senate intelligence committee documented in 2004...
lets make it simple...he`s anti-administartion....anti iraq war....he had an agenda....
this investigation is a proxy for the larger political war about the iraq war.....
wilson used his insider status as a former cia consultant to accuse the bush administration of lying about iraq wmd as an excuse to go to war. ..
a political furor erupted, and wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the kerry for president campaign.
amid an election campaign and a war, bush administration officials understandably fought back. ...one way they did so was to tell reporters that wilson's wife had been instrumental in getting him the cia consulting job..... this was true...even though wilson denied it at the time...as a bipartisan report by the senate intelligence committee documented in 2004...
Was there any evidence that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger?
Did Bush use that to bolster his case for war?
Prior to using that, was he briefed by the CIA that the document he had was a fake?
All this other crap about Wilson is just white noise.
Did Bush use that to bolster his case for war?
Prior to using that, was he briefed by the CIA that the document he had was a fake?
All this other crap about Wilson is just white noise.
"And if he is, what bearing should that have made on the CIA sending him. I didn't realize that the CIA was a political body that would naturally send a right winger to gather information for them."...kosar...
that`s the dumbest statement you`ve ever keyed on this forum,kosar...
wilson's original claims about what he found on the cia trip to africa, and even "why" he was sent on the mission have since been discredited.....
this isn’t so difficult....in 1999, a senior iraqi “trade” delegation went to niger..... uranium accounts for 75 percent of niger’s exports. the rest is goats, cowpeas and onions.
so, who sends senior trade missions to niger? maybe saddam dispatched his baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and major wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal....lol
but that’s not what wilson found. ....wanke’s prime minister, among others, told wilson that he believed iraq wanted yellowcake.....and wilson told the cia..... and the cia’s report agreed with the british and the europeans that “iraq was attempting to procure uranium from africa.”
but,that`s not what he told his liberal,anti-war,anti-bush media buddies...not surprisingly,you don`t see this in the mainstream media...
that`s why you don`t want an anti-administration partisan doing the leg work on important security isuues...
get your facts straight...
that`s the dumbest statement you`ve ever keyed on this forum,kosar...
wilson's original claims about what he found on the cia trip to africa, and even "why" he was sent on the mission have since been discredited.....
this isn’t so difficult....in 1999, a senior iraqi “trade” delegation went to niger..... uranium accounts for 75 percent of niger’s exports. the rest is goats, cowpeas and onions.
so, who sends senior trade missions to niger? maybe saddam dispatched his baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and major wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal....lol
but that’s not what wilson found. ....wanke’s prime minister, among others, told wilson that he believed iraq wanted yellowcake.....and wilson told the cia..... and the cia’s report agreed with the british and the europeans that “iraq was attempting to procure uranium from africa.”
but,that`s not what he told his liberal,anti-war,anti-bush media buddies...not surprisingly,you don`t see this in the mainstream media...
that`s why you don`t want an anti-administration partisan doing the leg work on important security isuues...
get your facts straight...
Last edited:
Wilson or Dick and Harry were sent and came back with same info. That was then put away for a few days or weeks. Sending a x ambassador was not such a bad idea. Sending a undercover CIA agent to look around for a half a year was not in the cards. It really did not matter who was sent in the end because no one listen in the white house.
