|
|
#32
10-28-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
Example A (re: attempt to assert Cheney cleared). From the indictment, page 5 item 9:
[ QUOTE ] On or about June 12, 2003 LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#33
10-28-2005, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not at all what was insinuated. What was insinuated was that the WH didn't want Cheney to testify because he had something to hide. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure he does, but who knows if it's anything that could be considered a crime. To suggest that he doesn't have anything to hide is pretty funny, though. All people, especially politicians, have something to hide. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, I meant to infer that I was speaking in relation to the issue at hand. I am unfortunately going to have to let you in on a secret. I have nothing to hide. I have done nothing in my life that I am ashamed of or unwilling to discuss.
|
|
#34
10-28-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What facts do you want? [/ QUOTE ] I think that I was perfectly clear. Give me facts to back up your claims. [/ QUOTE ] Um, ok. How about you just go read the way this issue was covered in the press. Why is it that Rove's name was always involved? Why was his name always first? You want me to prove a conspiracy without the power to call people to testify? Can't do it. Give me power, I will do my best to prove my claims. I am speaking mainly through circumstantial evidence that is widely available if you wish to look for it as opposed to ignore it. As for the stuff about the Dem. party, I will submit for exibit A Cindy Sheehan B Howard Dean C George Soros D CBS E the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff. There is way more stuff out there, but the fact is that the Dems that run the party are WAY out of touch with the typical Dem voter, but right in goose stepping line with the Dem base. As for my assertion that they never offer solutions, only a litany of complaints I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything.
|
|
#35
10-28-2005, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No Rove, let alone Cheney or investigation into the lies that led us to war. [/ QUOTE ] Again with this nonsense. If Bush lied, then so did Clinton. So did France. So did the UN. So did Russia. Is this a vast rightwing/leftwing/socialist/ignorant/semidemocratic conspiracy to make Haliburton money? [/ QUOTE ] I don't have all the facts. I don't have all the answers. We know a lot. We know that Cheney said "no doubt" there are nukes, but CIA said no. We know that Colin Powell feels mislead. We know that Neo-cons had planned the invasion well before 9-11. We know that there were no weapons. We know that Hans Blix had inspected over 1/2 the suspected sites, but Bush stopped him and invaded without a vote from the UN which Bush said he would have. I love how Pat Buchanan criticizes Congress for not investigating this. There was an investigation. Pat Roberts (R - Kansas) chaired it. The idea was to investigate the intelligence gathering prior to the election. Then investigate the use of intel post election. Well they did the first part. Then it was killed, Roberts saying well we had the election so why do we need to do this?
|
|
#38
10-28-2005, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Thanks. That was an enoyable read. [/ QUOTE ] A perfectly predictable response. [/ QUOTE ] As was yours, and I thanked you for it. I see no reason to continue. Do you?
|
|
#39
10-28-2005, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What facts do you want? [/ QUOTE ] I think that I was perfectly clear. Give me facts to back up your claims. [/ QUOTE ] Um, ok. How about you just go read the way this issue was covered in the press. Why is it that Rove's name was always involved? Why was his name always first? You want me to prove a conspiracy without the power to call people to testify? Can't do it. Give me power, I will do my best to prove my claims. I am speaking mainly through circumstantial evidence that is widely available if you wish to look for it as opposed to ignore it. As for the stuff about the Dem. party, I will submit for exibit A Cindy Sheehan B Howard Dean C George Soros D CBS E the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff. There is way more stuff out there, but the fact is that the Dems that run the party are WAY out of touch with the typical Dem voter, but right in goose stepping line with the Dem base. As for my assertion that they never offer solutions, only a litany of complaints I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything. [/ QUOTE ] Since Angry didn't respond that much to this, I'll take a shot. You made this post in order to provide facts for your earlier statement that the Plame thing was a politically motivated attack by the Dems. So you start off by using the media. I guess I missed when the "media" was elected to political office. But anywho, you say that since the media always says Rove first, they are bias. How about this: Rove is the bigger name, more people know him. Therefore the media will list Rove first since more people know who he is. Then you go on to say that Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, George Soros, CBS and the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff are somehow the Democratic party. Yes Howard Dean is part, but Sheehan...nice stretch. CBS? Hi, that's part of the media. Soros? The guy who faked the National Guard papers? Wow, they are such big parts of the Democratic party. Keep trying. Lastly you say that "I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything". Funny, the republican have been in office for the past 5 years and I can't find any information on how they've done anything right. Perhaps where and how you look influences that.
|
|
#40
10-28-2005, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libby indicted - five counts
It amazes me how some can't understand what's going on. Basically Fitz believes the underlying crime was committed but thinks that Libby's lying is preventing him from figuring out who to charge. This perjury charge is just the beginning of a long process. He didn't comment on anyone else but said that his investigation would continue. When Scooter realizes the trouble he is in I would not be surprised if he flips and future charges are brought against now unknown people or Rove.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
