PDA

View Full Version : Libby is GUILTY except for one count (Count 3)



BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 12:05 PM
Just heard it on the news.

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 12:10 PM
Count 1: Obstruction of justice GUILTY

Misled and deceived the grand jury about when and how he learned that covert operative Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and about how he disclosed that information to the media.

Count 2: False statement GUILTY

Misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.

Count 3: False statement NOT GUILTY

Misled FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Count 4: Perjury GUILTY

Under oath, knowingly made a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Russert.

Count 5: Perjury GUILTY

Steve Savicki
03-06-2007, 12:11 PM
Get ready for a long sentence.

Guitar Shark
03-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Doubtful. He won't get anything close to the maximum.

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Steve Savicki
Get ready for a long sentence.

You mean you can now type past 30 keystrokes?

fe_lung
03-06-2007, 12:46 PM
Can anyone explain how Scooter, Dick. Karl, Cooper, Novak, and Miller aren't being tried for treason? They knowingly, and with intent, compromised our national intelligence system during a tiime of war.

Off to gitmo with the whole lot of 'em!

FORD
03-06-2007, 12:48 PM
So if Libby didn't hear his info from Timmywhore Russert (not that anyone believed he ever did), then who did he hear it from?

We all know the answer, and if Fitz won't go after the bastard, then hopefully the blood clot will.

Lqskdiver
03-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Fuck you, FORD! :D

Funny, but uncalled for.

I got two words for yer...Sandy Berger.

And add these 2 in two years: Presidential Pardon.

:D

Warham
03-06-2007, 04:16 PM
It's funny, but Richard Armitage was the one who supposedly 'outed' Valerie Plame, yet he wasn't convicted of anything, which means, she wasn't covert at the time.

The maximum sentence is 25 years, but he has no record, so he'll probably get six months. :)

Warham
03-06-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by fe_lung
Can anyone explain how Scooter, Dick. Karl, Cooper, Novak, and Miller aren't being tried for treason? They knowingly, and with intent, compromised our national intelligence system during a tiime of war.

Off to gitmo with the whole lot of 'em!

I think you've got those guys confused with the guys working over at the State Dept and CIA.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
03-06-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver


I got two words for yer...Sandy Berger.

:D

They both should hang.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 06:35 PM
Berger didn't blow the cover of a COVERT CIA front company that Plame was "working for."

Warham
03-06-2007, 06:43 PM
No, Berger was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archive. Why lie to a grand jury when you can just stuff the briefs in your briefs?

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 06:51 PM
He was allegedly covering his ass to get a job in a possible Kerry administration. Not punishing someone by butchering his wife and blowing intelligence operations so that he could help kill 3100 American servicemen and cause the deaths of 660,000 foreign nationals...

Big difference...

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Berger didn't blow the cover of a COVERT CIA front company that Plame was "working for."

Again, Plame wasn't in a covert status. Almost all of Washington knew
Wilson's wife was CIA.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Again, Plame wasn't in a covert status. Almost all of Washington knew
Wilson's wife was CIA.


Here, I'll explain it slowly.

She was "WORKING FOR A FRONT COMPANY!!" By illegally exposing her name, they destroyed the cover of the company and many other CIA agent's lives were jeopardized...

hideyoursheep
03-06-2007, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Again, Plame wasn't in a covert status. Almost all of Washington knew
Wilson's wife was CIA.

Less than 5 sumbitches knew of her status PRIOR to her being outed.

That narrows it down to ALL IN THE WHITEHOUSE.

Someone said it....

"Busting Libby for obstruction and purgery is like busting Al Capone for tax evasion."

hideyoursheep
03-06-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
And add these 2 in two years: Presidential Pardon.

:D

....and justice for all.:rolleyes:

Add these two words: "What, ME?


Fuck Cheney.

America should dance on his grave. :mad:

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 08:13 PM
FROM BRIE'S LATEST LIBBY THREAD, ABOUT TO BE CLOSED.



Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Reid to Bush: No Pardon for Libby
March 06, 2007

ABC News' Paul Fidalgo Reports: Moments after the guilty verdict handed to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was made public Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called on President Bush to promise not to let Libby off the hook with a presidential pardon.

"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," said Reid in a press statement. "Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney’s role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Libby, a former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI in the investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

March 6, 2007
Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/reid_to_bush_no.html)

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
FROM BRIE'S LATEST LIBBY THREAD, ABOUT TO BE CLOSED.

That's because you're a cunt.

FORD
03-06-2007, 09:12 PM
Because the CIA is the CIA and operates in secret, we'll probably never know exactly how many of its operatives and foreign assets were exposed or how many were arrested, tortured, and killed, because Darth Cheney decided to get revenge on Joe Wilson through his wife.

Since this entire story came into public knowledge, it has been revealed that the very purpose of the false entity of "Brewster Jennings" was to gather intelligence on the possibility of WMD's within IRAN.

Now, one has to ask themselves, was personal revenge against Joe Wilson the ONLY motivation of the treasonous plastic hearted undead nazi vampire Darth Cheney, or was he planning ahead, ensuring that the intelligence in Iran would be just as FUCKED UP as the intelligence in Iraq was, by eliminating the only legitmate intelligence gathering apparatus in place, a CIA false front known as "Brewster Jennings" including one Valerie Plame Wilson.

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's because you're a cunt.



LMMFAO

Now here's that mental debate giant we all know. :D

priceless.

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Reid to Bush: No Pardon for Libby
March 06, 2007

ABC News' Paul Fidalgo Reports: Moments after the guilty verdict handed to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was made public Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called on President Bush to promise not to let Libby off the hook with a presidential pardon.

"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," said Reid in a press statement. "Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney’s role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Libby, a former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI in the investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

March 6, 2007





Don't forget my reply

Bush to Reid:

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/bush-finger.jpg

Rikk
03-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's because you're a cunt.

My my...

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Here, I'll explain it slowly.

She was "WORKING FOR A FRONT COMPANY!!" By illegally exposing her name, they destroyed the cover of the company and many other CIA agent's lives were jeopardized...

A front company working on Nuclear Proliferation and WMD in the Middle East.

Mission Accomplished, Shitbags!!!!

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Rikk
My my...

:D

The high road of the intellectually stunted. :D

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Now here's that mental debate giant we all know. :D

priceless.

Had to go down to your level. ;)

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Here, I'll explain it slowly.

She was "WORKING FOR A FRONT COMPANY!!" By illegally exposing her name, they destroyed the cover of the company and many other CIA agent's lives were jeopardized...

That's a great story.

Not true, but a great one nonetheless.

:gulp:

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's a great story.

Not true, but a great one nonetheless.

:gulp:

:rolleyes:

Jesus fucking Christ. :rolleyes:

Fucking moron.

FORD
03-06-2007, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's a great story.

Not true, but a great one nonetheless.

:gulp:

If it's "not true", then why did the NEOCON WHORE Bob Novak make a point of printing in his article that Valerie Plame worked for a CIA false front known as "Brewster Jennings"?

A Langley desk jockey (as your FAUX and hate radio heroes claim Plame was) would not need to hide behind a so called "brass plate company".

So called "liberals" didn't bring the name Brewster Jennings into this. Bob Novak did.

Maybe you neocon shitbags need to pick a story and stick to it?

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:23 PM
There was no crime prior to this investigation because Richard 'Dick' Armitage admitted he leaked Valerie Plame's name, yet wasn't brought before the grand jury and wasn't indicted. Period. The Justice Department knew that a crime wasn't committed, yet they set up a Special Prosecutor to go bag somebody, ie, Scooter Libby, who could only be indicted for a faulty memory. They knew MONTHS before Fitzgerald came on the scene that there was no crime committed.

Now, you've got jurors saying after the conviction that they wished Karl Rove or Dick Cheney were there, and that they felt sorry for Libby, and felt he had a faulty memory. They took 10 days to deliberate and STILL had to ask the judge on the 9th day what they were trying to convict Libby of!

Can you say appeal?

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

Jesus fucking Christ. :rolleyes:

Fucking moron.

Damn dude, if you even knew how the CIA, or any other operation like it operated, you may be able to figure it out.

I'm betting you can't, though.

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by FORD
If it's "not true", then why did the NEOCON WHORE Bob Novak make a point of printing in his article that Valerie Plame worked for a CIA false front known as "Brewster Jennings"?

A Langley desk jockey (as your FAUX and hate radio heroes claim Plame was) would not need to hide behind a so called "brass plate company".

So called "liberals" didn't bring the name Brewster Jennings into this. Bob Novak did.

Maybe you neocon shitbags need to pick a story and stick to it?

Bob Novak just said on TV ten minutes ago that Plame wasn't covert!

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:26 PM
This doesn't even take into account that Joseph Wilson's story was discredited by the Senate Committee that looked into the whole matter.

FORD
03-06-2007, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Bob Novak just said on TV ten minutes ago that Plame wasn't covert!

Then he's now contradicting himself. Which makes him a liar. Not that we didn't already know that.

hideyoursheep
03-06-2007, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This doesn't even take into account that BushCo's story was discredited by Joseph Wilson who looked into the whole matter.


Now you make sense.

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Then he's now contradicting himself. Which makes him a liar. Not that we didn't already know that.

Well, good, if everyone's a liar, then why is Libby up for 25 years?

Joe Wilson's a liar. Bob Lovak is a liar. Who else?

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Then he's now contradicting himself. Which makes him a liar. Not that we didn't already know that.

"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." - Joe Wilson, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer from CNN, July 14, 2005

Link (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
There was no crime prior to this investigation because Richard 'Dick' Armitage admitted he leaked Valerie Plame's name, yet wasn't brought before the grand jury and wasn't indicted. Period. The Justice Department knew that a crime wasn't committed, yet they set up a Special Prosecutor to go bag somebody, ie, Scooter Libby, who could only be indicted for a faulty memory. They knew MONTHS before Fitzgerald came on the scene that there was no crime committed.

Now, you've got jurors saying after the conviction that they wished Karl Rove or Dick Cheney were there, and that they felt sorry for Libby, and felt he had a faulty memory. They took 10 days to deliberate and STILL had to ask the judge on the 9th day what they were trying to convict Libby of!

Can you say appeal?

What's that about?

He's not guilty because you say so?

Oh, okay...

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." - Joe Wilson, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer from CNN, July 14, 2005

Link (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)

Why don't you post the whole interview, dicklick?

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What's that about?

He's not guilty because you say so?

Oh, okay...

Why wasn't Armitage brought before the grand jury?

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why don't you post the whole interview, dicklick?

Call it up yourself, you lazy bastard. I even gave you slow people the link.

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:37 PM
There was no crime committed before the investigation, so Fitzgerald had to make sure there was one committed during the investigation.

Libby couldn't remember what he had lunch with the day before or what the hell he said, so they'll bag him for 25 years.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 09:38 PM
This post is for the dummy cons spewing mindless attempts at semantic befuddlement:


The Big Lie About Valerie Plame


By Larry Johnson | bio (http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/ljohnson)
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.
login or register to post comments
Jul 12, 2005 -- 11:47 PM EST |

TMP Cafe (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340)

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Warham
There was no crime committed before the investigation, so Fitzgerald had to make sure there was one committed during the investigation.

Libby couldn't remember what he had lunch with the day before or what the hell he said, so they'll bag him for 25 years.

True, true.

He'll be pardoned, though.

Until then, if he does do time, it'll be in a low-security Club Med type of facility. He'll get plenty of tennis time with leave on the weekends.

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:42 PM
July 12, 2004, 11:05 a.m.
Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

Joe Wilson's cover has been blown. For the past year, he has claimed to be a truth-teller, a whistleblower, the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy — and most of the media have lapped it up and cheered him on.




After a whirl of TV and radio appearances during which he received high-fives and hearty hugs from producers and hosts (I was in some green rooms with him so this is eyewitness reporting), and a wet-kiss profile in Vanity Fair, he gave birth to a quickie book sporting his dapper self on the cover, and verbosely entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir.

The book jacket talks of his "fearless insight" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and "disarming candor" (which does not extend to telling readers for whom he has been working since retiring early from the Foreign Service).

The biographical blurb describes him as a "political centrist" who received a prize for "Truth-Telling," though a careful reader might notice that the award came in part from a group associated with The Nation magazine — which only Michael Moore would consider a centrist publication.

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential. And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?

Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."

I was the first to suggest, here on National Review Online a year ago ("Scandal!" and "No Yellowcake Walk"), that Wilson should not have been given this assignment, that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator, that his inquiry had been obviously superficial and that, far from being a "centrist," he was a partisan with an ax to grind.

But my complaint was really less with Wilson than it was with the CIA for sending him, rather than an experienced spy or investigator, to check out such an important and sensitive matter as whether one of the world's most vicious killers had been trying to buy the stuff that nuclear weapons are made of.

For this, I received a couple of dishonorable mentions in Wilson's memoir. He has a chapter called "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which might be used as a case study for CIA trainees and others who need to understand the fundamental principle of logic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, Wilson fails to grasp that because he didn't find proof that Saddam was seeking African uranium does not mean that proof was not there to be found.

In reaction to his "fearless candor" and "disarming insight" about the "sixteen-word lie," Wilson writes that "right-wing hatchet men were being wheeled out to attack me. More ominously, plots were being hatched in the White House that would betray America's national security.

He writes: "Clifford May was first off the mark, spewing uninformed vitriol in a piece in National Review Online blindly operating on the principle that facts, those pesky facts, just do not matter."

Well, facts, those pesky facts do matter and a bipartisan Senate investigative committee has now established that Wilson has had very few in his possession. And, for the record, I was never advised anything about Wilson by anyone serving in the White House, the administration, or the Republican party. I never even had a discussion about him with such folks.

There is much more that could be said about the Wilson affair, and certainly many questions that ought to be both asked and answered. But in the interest of time and space, let me leave you with just one: Now that we know that Mrs. Wilson did recommend Mr. Wilson for the Niger assignment, can we not infer that she was working at CIA headquarters in Langley rather than as an undercover operative in some front business or organization somewhere?

As I suggested in another NRO piece (Spy Games), if that is the case — if she was not working undercover and if the CIA was not taking measures to protect her cover — no law was broken by columnist Bob Novak in naming her, or by whoever told Novak that she worked for the CIA.

It is against the law to knowingly name an undercover agent. It is not against the law to name a CIA employee who is not an undercover agent. For example, I know the identity of "Anonymous," the CIA employee who has now written a book trashing the Bush administration for its policies. But since he is not — to the best of my knowledge — a covert operative, I would be committing no crime were I to name him in this piece. Nor, I should add, did he attempt to hide his employment when we sat across a dinner table some months ago.

I don't think Joe Wilson is an evil man. I do think he is an angry partisan and an opportunist. According to my sources, during most of his diplomatic career he specialized in general services and administration, which means he was not the political or economic adviser to the ambassador, rather he was the guy who makes sure the embassy plumbing is working and that the commissary is stocked with Oreos and other products the ambassador prefers.

Just prior to the Gulf War, he did serve in Iraq, a hot spot to be sure, but that was under Ambassador April Glaspie, who failed to make it clear to Saddam that invading Kuwait would elicit a robust response from Washington. I doubt that Wilson advised her to do otherwise. I rather doubt she asked. As he says in his book, she was giving him an "on-the-spot education in Middle Eastern diplomacy. It was a part of the world in which I had no experience."

In 1991, Wilson's book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as "a true American hero," and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.

After that, he says in his memoir, "I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire." Well, that's not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.

But based on one op-ed declaring 16 words spoken by the president a lie, he transformed himself into an instant celebrity and, for a while, it seemed, a contender for power within the chien-mange-le-chien world of foreign policy. That dream has now probably evaporated. It is hard to see how a President John Kerry would now want Wilson in his inner circle. But if he desired to return to Gabon or Niger I, for one, would not be among those opposing him.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

LoungeMachine
03-06-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, good, if everyone's a liar, then why is Libby up for 25 years?

Joe Wilson's a liar. Bob Lovak is a liar. Who else?

You.

and Brie of course.....

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:43 PM
"Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world." - From the fabricated lie Nick posted above.

The company that was her front was defunct as of 1998.

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You.

and Brie of course.....

I think all you libs here fabricate your stories here on a daily basis. If it's not the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies you come up with, or the Bush is Hitler BS I've read over the last few years, or how every Republican is some fascist neocon, you wouldn't have anything to say.

Well, anything positive that is.

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You.

and Brie of course.....

Baked Brie and Roasted Garlic recipe
4 large heads garlic (at least 2 1/2-inch diameter)
1/3 cup olive oil
1 teaspoon coarse salt
4 (4 ounce) wheels brie cheese toasted baguette slices

Heat oven to 350 degrees F.

Remove all but one layer of skin from garlic; do not expose flesh. Arrange garlic tightly in small baking dish. Drizzle with oil. Sprinkle with salt. Cover with foil. Bake until garlic is very tender, 75 to 90 minutes.

Heat broiler. Score a large X in top of each wheel of Brie cheese. Set each in small baking dish. Broil until browned and bubbly, 5 to 7 minutes. Serve immediately with garlic and toasted baguette slices.

Makes 8 servings.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, good, if everyone's a liar, then why is Libby up for 25 years?

Joe Wilson's a liar. Bob Lovak is a liar. Who else?

Because he's the patsy...

FORD
03-06-2007, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Warham
There was no crime committed before the investigation, so (Ken Starr) had to make sure there was one committed during the investigation.



OK, now THAT is a far more accurate statement.

BigBadBrian
03-06-2007, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think all you libs here fabricate your stories here on a daily basis. If it's not the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies you come up with, or the Bush is Hitler BS I've read over the last few years, or how every Republican is some fascist neocon, you wouldn't have anything to say.

Well, anything positive that is.

God forbid they actually talk about the issues.

Well, we know how weak they are on THOSE.

:cool:

Warham
03-06-2007, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by FORD
OK, now THAT is a far more accurate statement.

Oh, please, don't get the Clinton stuff in this thread, or it'll be 100 pages long.

FORD
03-06-2007, 09:54 PM
Cliff May is a traitorous PNAC piece of shit, and his words have as much value as that of Chimp or Cheney themselves.

Absolutely nothing (say it again)

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think all you libs here fabricate your stories here on a daily basis. If it's not the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies you come up with, or the Bush is Hitler BS I've read over the last few years, or how every Republican is some fascist neocon, you wouldn't have anything to say.

Well, anything positive that is.

Yeah, okay Warpussy. Shall we look at your paranoid, obsessive compulsive Clinton-conspiracy posts?

And your mindless, blathering posts in defense of the Bush administration as well?

Here's some highlights of what you've said:

[list=1]Clinton had a planeload of military officers, carrying out a constitutional coup d'état, shot down by secret agents.

He had Vince Foster murdered.

All of the scurrilous Whitewater corruption charges are true, despite a $40 million investigation that came away with virtually nothing related.

It's okay for innocent people to be put to death...

It's okay to torture potentially innocent people

And many other stupid, paranoid "blame Clintonisms"...
[/list=1]

So spare us the sanctimonious crap, mm'kay...

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Warham
July 12, 2004, 11:05 a.m.
Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

J...

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

Look at the Neo Con "blame the victim" using one of the most openly partisan hack journals in America...

Yeah, it's all his fault he told the truth...

Let me ask, if your wife is ever raped, God forbid, will you accuse her of it being her fault?

Warham
03-06-2007, 10:04 PM
Is that all you got, Nick?

I posted one post that I copied from some conspiracy website in a thread that I believe was related to Clinton and some of the mysterious circumstances surrounding people he knew, and you use that as your main offense?

Lame. Lame, and capital Lame.

When did I say it was alright for innocent people to be tortured? Crap!

When did I say it alright for innocent people to be put to death? Crap!

Are you talking about the terrorists down in Gitmo? Since you love those guys so much, maybe the government should send them to your house. It could save us a few tax dollars.

Warham
03-06-2007, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Look at the Neo Con "blame the victim" using one of the most openly partisan hack journals in America...

Yeah, it's all his fault he told the truth...

Let me ask, if your wife is ever raped, God forbid, will you accuse her of it being her fault?

Oh, but he worked for the New York Times, which is your Bible!

You ought to get down on both knees and pray at the alter.

Warham
03-06-2007, 10:07 PM
Joe Wilson didn't tell the truth. He's a hack diplomat with an axe to grind.

His wife wasn't covert, Iraq did try to get cake uranium from Niger, and Karl Rove didn't disclose his wife to Bob Novak.

What's true?

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
God forbid they actually talk about the issues.

Well, we know how weak they are on THOSE.

:cool:

Why don't you check your last 500 posts or so, and show us which ones you simply do not:

a.) posted a cut and past of a partisan op-ed or an article you think proves some agenda you have, with no commentary..

b.) Lob an insult at a newbie or make a negative comment on someone else's opinion without offering anything, in one sentence or less..

Warham
03-06-2007, 10:10 PM
None of you Mrs. Bill Clinton lovers have answered my question about Armitage.

Why wasn't he charged with a crime if Valerie Plame was covert?

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Is that all you got, Nick?

No, I have a lot more actually...


I posted one post that I copied from some conspiracy website in a thread that I believe was related to Clinton and some of the mysterious circumstances surrounding people he knew, and you use that as your main offense?

You were being dead serious and unironic...


Lame. Lame, and capital Lame.

Describes the content of your posts alright...


When did I say it was alright for innocent people to be tortured? Crap!

In a thread about Gitmo...


When did I say it alright for innocent people to be put to death? Crap!

When we were discussing the death penalty, and I mentioned that innocent people have been put to death, sometimes intentionally. You then basically stated that it was alright for a few innocent people to die...


Are you talking about the terrorists down in Gitmo? Since you love those guys so much, maybe the government should send them to your house. It could save us a few tax dollars.

Yeah Warcunt, I gots nuthin' but loves for them terrorists!'

But then again, I'm the one between the two of us that has served in the US military, and actually put my ass on the line while pussybitches like you do nothing but bitch about things you haven't the slightest clue about...

You can go back to pretending to be a "Christian" again now my little evangelical diva...

FORD
03-06-2007, 10:22 PM
Mike Malloy comments on the Libby verdict......



Tuesday March 5 2007

Well, damn. Another "totally innocent" perp convicted. This time it is one of Republican Dick Cheney's many designated chumps - all loyalists dedicated to the protection of Cheney's efforts in the so-far successful destruction of the two formerly co-equal branches of government - Republican operative Irving Lewis Libby.

Guilty on four of the five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, said the jury. "We'll ask for a new trial," croaked his attorney! "And if that doesn't work, we'll appeal! And if that fails, we'll go to the Supreme Court," the attorney shrieked! So (sigh) yet another innocent Republican finds his life of crime and lies and frauds and deceits and hypocrisies interrupted by a guilty verdict - as unfair and, um, incorrect as that verdict actually is.

Why not just sit down and shut up, Irving. You're going to jail, you corrupt Republican (pardon the redundancy). You know damn good and well you and the cyborg criminal you're protecting are guilty as charged. Maybe in the time left before you enter a federal penitentiary, Irving, you can follow the example of one of your criminal Republican predecessors - James McCord of Watergate fame. After being found guilty on six counts he wrote a letter to Judge John Sirica declaring he had committed perjury at trial on the orders of then Republican Attorney General John Mitchell.

His letter set off the Watergate scandal in earnest by implicating many Republican higher-ups in Richard Nixon's Republican Administration, all involved in covering up the conspiracy that was the rat's nest of murder, war, fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, illegal bombings of foreign countries, wiretapping of U.S. citizens - on and on and on, the template for both the Reagan and Bush, Jr. Administrations.

Maybe you'll blow the whistle, Irving, on the real criminals involved in your little caper. You're just the messenger boy, after all. The punk. The doofus. The fall guy. Do you really want justice, Irving? Your attorney still has Patrick Fitzgerald's phone number. Use it.



--MM

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Oh, but he worked for the New York Times, which is your Bible!

You ought to get down on both knees and pray at the alter.

Yeah, 'cause "they're all the same," huh Warocrite?

Nickdfresh
03-06-2007, 10:23 PM
Oh, and Richard Armitage is being sued by Joe and Valarie Wilson...

hideyoursheep
03-06-2007, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Why wasn't Armitage brought before the grand jury?


Good question...

What's your theory? Or should I ask what's Rush's theory?

Warham
03-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah Warcunt, I gots nuthin' but loves for them terrorists!'

You can go back to pretending to be a "Christian" again now my little evangelical diva...

About time to revealed your true feelings!

I'll go back to being a Christian and you can go back to being a Republican.

Warham
03-07-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Good question...

What's your theory? Or should I ask what's Rush's theory?

Have you read any of my posts in this thread?

There wasn't any crime to begin with.

Warham
03-07-2007, 08:03 AM
Libby, taxpayers paying the price
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

So is the nation any safer, any more secure today for Scooter Libby having been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice?
Oh, we are certainly wiser in the ways of Washington. No doubt about that. For those who have never had a peek inside the corridors of power where high ranking government officials schmooze reporters and leak selected tidbits of information to a press corps eager to listen, the Libby trial was a revelation. It exposed the symbiotic nature of the relationship that goes on day in and day out - even today and even without Scooter Libby at its epicenter.
Yes, what the vice president’s former chief of staff did was incredibly stupid - lying usually is. Lying to the FBI or a grand jury most certainly is, even in a town where lying too is a way of life.


But as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald put it, “Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury. The truth is what drives our judicial system. If people don’t come forward and tell the truth, we have no hope of making the judicial system work.”
So after four years of probing how the name of former CIA operative Valerie Plame made it into print, all Fitzgerald was able to prove is that Libby didn’t get his information from NBC’s Tim Russert as he said he thought he did. Wow, there’s a shocker!
Fitzgerald has said no additional charges will be filed.
So, if the aim was to punish the actual leaker of Plame’s name, that’s not going to happen. Libby wasn’t even the source of the original Robert Novak column that outed Plame and identified her as Joe Wilson’s wife. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has already come forward as Novak’s source, however inadvertently.
Wilson and Plame, who have gone on to become Vanity Fair cover celebs, are pursuing a civil suit against Libby and Cheney.
Bob Woodward, who also interviewed Armitage, will have his book. Democrats have their talking points. And the taxpayers will get one helluva bill.

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=186785&srvc=home

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Have you read any of my posts in this thread?

There wasn't any crime to begin with.

No? What's it called when you lie to a grand jury? Not a crime this time huh? I guess with you retards a blowjob is more important than, say, discrediting someone to take the military into a security force role for Halliburton. And the speech your monkey made right here indicates he wasn't interested in WMD's. He once again ignored intel-much like what he ignored about 9/11.

I hope this bastard flips.

YOU LOSE AGAIN.

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Warham
And the taxpayers will get one helluva bill.

But Clinton was worth it to you?

Hypocrite. :mad:

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Warham
“Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury. The truth is what drives our judicial system. If people don’t come forward and tell the truth, we have no hope of making the judicial system work.”


Originally posted by WartHand

There wasn't any crime to begin with



You're an idiot.

Warham
03-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
No? What's it called when you lie to a grand jury? Not a crime this time huh? I guess with you retards a blowjob is more important than, say, discrediting someone to take the military into a security force role for Halliburton. And the speech your monkey made right here indicates he wasn't interested in WMD's. He once again ignored intel-much like what he ignored about 9/11.

I hope this bastard flips.

YOU LOSE AGAIN.

Again, you never read my posts.

I'm not talking about Clinton here. This is about Libby. Stay on subject!

I said there was no crime before the investigation took place.

Warham
03-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
You're an idiot.

DEMON CUNT, is that you?

Warham
03-07-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
But Clinton was worth it to you?

Hypocrite. :mad:

Yep.

Warham
03-07-2007, 03:47 PM
The Libby Verdict
The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal

Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A16

THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.

Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.

It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.

Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.

Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Warham
DEMON CUNT, is that you?


Bill-O, is that you?

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Warham
www.washingtonpost.com

I should have known.... :rolleyes:

Spin that shit, WarFag!

Warham
03-07-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Spin that shit, WarFag!

Such a hateful little liberal.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying with that sheet over your head.

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Such a hateful little liberal.

"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

-GSP jr.

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 05:54 PM
Try reading NEWS instead of right-wing NeoCunt rags and blogs, 'Ham.

Imagine a world in which you can actually form your own opinion without someone else funneling information to you that hasn't been distorted by THEIR opinion.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Again, you never read my posts.

I'm not talking about Clinton here. This is about Libby. Stay on subject!
...

But you were thinking about him, you obsessed little agenda monkey...

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But you were thinking about him, you obsessed little agenda monkey...

:monkey: = WartHand.



:blow: =His obsession.

studly hungwell
03-07-2007, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Here, I'll explain it slowly.

She was "WORKING FOR A FRONT COMPANY!!" By illegally exposing her name, they destroyed the cover of the company and many other CIA agent's lives were jeopardized...

Then why the fuck doesn't the reporter go to jail? In truth...isn't he the real criminal? What if he found out the launch codes? Is he free to report them to the world? What if the press were made aware of a weakness in US security? Should they report it? I could go on...but this "freedom of the press" bullshit should be put to rest when our national security is at risk. I would consider restraint an act of patiotism....but the real purpose of the press is to destroy Bush. Objectivity? Common sense? Fugitaboutit.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by studly hungwell
Then why the fuck doesn't the reporter go to jail?

One did, and one was threatened with prison, for not giving up their sources.

Novak is a dick, but he may not have knowingly "outed" a clandestine agent depending on what he was told.

And why should the press be blamed for the illegal actions of gov't officials?



In truth...isn't he the real criminal?

The "real criminal" as compared/opposed too whom?


What if he found out the launch codes? Is he free to report them to the world? What if the press were made aware of a weakness in US security?

What if those weaknesses in National security was the result of gov't incompetence or malfeasance?

Couldn't they just hide their criminal or incompetent actions by claiming "it's classified" and cover up anything by merely classifying it and prosecuting reporters that only stated the truth?



Should they report it? I could go on...but this "freedom of the press" bullshit should be put to rest when our national security is at risk. I would consider restraint an act of patiotism....

Well, in fact I heard an editor of the much vilified (by conservatives) NY Times claim that they've actually buried many a story out of fear that US agents, or nat'l security secrets, would be put at risk.

The dividing line is the public's' right to know if the leaders, whose salaries they pay, are fucking up or breaking the law...


...but the real purpose of the press is to destroy Bush. Objectivity? Common sense? Fugitaboutit.

Yeah, I mean it's all their fault. I mean, he's such a hypercompetent and well read individual that has made so many great decisions.

If only those damn liberals in the press were not deceiving us as too fearless leaders true greatness, we'd realize how intelligent he really is...

hideyoursheep
03-07-2007, 08:04 PM
Nickdfresh...

Semper Paratus.:baaa:

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Don't forget my reply

Bush to Reid:

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/bush-finger.jpg

Ah yes, the neocon disdain for rule of law these days is truly heartwarming.

Personally, I follow the example set by our leaders. My moral relativism is making the world a worse place to live, but that's ok because I don't go to jail for it.

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
That's a great story.

Not true, but a great one nonetheless.

Great story? What the fuck do you think the CIA does?

Do you think they're just here so Cheney can pressure them into making fake intelligence estimates?

They're suppose to be an intelligence agency...

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Damn dude, if you even knew how the CIA, or any other operation like it operated, you may be able to figure it out.

I'm betting you can't, though.

why don't you give it a shot and explain it to us?

:rolleyes:

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Warham
This doesn't even take into account that Joseph Wilson's story was discredited by the Senate Committee that looked into the whole matter.

oh, so Saddam WAS getting yellowcake uranium from Niger?

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." - Joe Wilson, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer from CNN, July 14, 2005

Link (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)

we already went over the context of that quote moron

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I think all you libs here fabricate your stories here on a daily basis. If it's not the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies you come up with, or the Bush is Hitler BS I've read over the last few years, or how every Republican is some fascist neocon, you wouldn't have anything to say.

Well, anything positive that is.

No, I have plenty to say. I've said plenty, and you guys can't refute 99% of it.

ODShowtime
03-08-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I said there was no crime before the investigation took place.

The why did he have to commit perjury?

Warham
03-08-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
The why did he have to commit perjury?

Do you remember what you had for lunch five weeks ago today?

Warham
03-08-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
we already went over the context of that quote moron

Why does there always have to be some 'context' with you guys. Can't you just take a quote at face value?

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Do you remember what you had for lunch five weeks ago today?

Scooter ate Valerie for lunch?

I think I'd remember that.

Do you bump your head alot, WarHamster?

hideyoursheep
03-08-2007, 06:15 PM
Why do you NeoCunts answer questions with unrelated questions?

Did Rush teach you to do that?