[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why isn’t the Friend of the Court brief filed by a couple of lawyers on behalf of 36 news agencies getting any airtime?
Could it be that the brief could exhonerate Rove and anyone else(including the reporters) accused of revealing the identity of CIA operatives?
I just find it odd that the press that is now tryng to get Rove nailed to a cross have conveniently forgotten thay they excused Rove for any wrongdoing - if there was any to begin with.[/quote]
Rove is not a whistle blower that needs to be protected.
Wilson, technically is the whistle blower.
Wilson did take things too far after they out his wife…then again I an not sure I blame him.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
BB, thanks for the clarification.
My posts in my opinion (and we both know opinions are like assholes) are relevant to the discussion.
Zeb likes to attempt to define the tempo with his ridiculous scrutinizing that is not applied to guys on your side of the proverbial fence.
If he persist in these games the threads will continue to flow like they have. If he desists and accepts an opinion for what it is, then maybe the flow can be more to your liking and when somebody dislikes a certain post (much like I dislike yours and you mine) they can be ignored instead of making a mole hill into a mountain and raising rainjacks blood pressure (I worry about him).
Good day to you.[/quote]
When was the last time you posted anything even remotely relsted to the topic? You go off on racial tangents, and then blame others for responding to your drivel?
You are laughable. BTW - my blood pressure is fine. I find it a little more than hypocritical of you to say these things when you are incapable of staying on topic when your position is challenged. You are the queen of the baseless insult.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Rove is not a whistle blower that needs to be protected.
Wilson, technically is the whistle blower.
Wilson did take things too far after they out his wife…then again I an not sure I blame him.
Chewbacca defense.
This is a partisan witch hunt. I’m not sure what the Chewbacca defense is. But I do know that the MSM is grossly slanting the story aganst Rove. [/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
BB, thanks for the clarification.
My posts in my opinion (and we both know opinions are like assholes) are relevant to the discussion.
Zeb likes to attempt to define the tempo with his ridiculous scrutinizing that is not applied to guys on your side of the proverbial fence.
If he persist in these games the threads will continue to flow like they have. If he desists and accepts an opinion for what it is, then maybe the flow can be more to your liking and when somebody dislikes a certain post (much like I dislike yours and you mine) they can be ignored instead of making a mole hill into a mountain and raising rainjacks blood pressure (I worry about him).
Good day to you.
When was the last time you posted anything even remotely relsted to the topic? You go off on racial tangents, and then blame others for responding to your drivel?
You are laughable. BTW - my blood pressure is fine. I find it a little more than hypocritical of you to say these things when you are incapable of staying on topic when your position is challenged. You are the queen of the baseless insult.
[/quote]
Would you quit crying about the racial comment already!!! You are like a newborn child with colic screaming through the night. You have made it abundantly clear that your precious feelings were hurt. You sound like the one with the vagina!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
… I’m not sure what the Chewbacca defense is. …[/quote]
To go really and truly off topic, the Chewbacca Defense is a reference to a South Park episode that came out a few years ago, back when I was still in law school. It was Johnnie Cochrane’s secret weapon, which no jury could resist. And it made no sense whatsoever. And I believe it caused heads to explode.
I don’t know if I’ve ever laughed harder at a South Park episode than at that one. Amusingly, I think it was an analogy for a lawyer using a racism defense, but given I’m not Trey Parker nor Matt Stone, I don’t know that for sure.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
BB, thanks for the clarification.
My posts in my opinion (and we both know opinions are like assholes) are relevant to the discussion.
Zeb likes to attempt to define the tempo with his ridiculous scrutinizing that is not applied to guys on your side of the proverbial fence.
If he persist in these games the threads will continue to flow like they have. If he desists and accepts an opinion for what it is, then maybe the flow can be more to your liking and when somebody dislikes a certain post (much like I dislike yours and you mine) they can be ignored instead of making a mole hill into a mountain and raising rainjacks blood pressure (I worry about him).
Good day to you.[/quote]
Elk:
Someone can say that you are from Mars and that you are going to have Michael Moores baby…It’s the Internet. However, isn’t it better to make reasonable statements which are backed by at least some proof from a reliable source? It’s about credibility.
I think it’s good form to have some facts to back up a statement. The more outlandish the statement the more facts (or proof) one should have to back it up. Otherwise, we are just a bunch of knuckle heads ranting on an Internet message board (I hope that’s not the case). You are obviously entitled to your opinion. However, it makes more sense when that opinion is couched with at least some proof to support it.
You stated that the President was guilty of criminal behavior, I asked for proof, you supplied none and virtually admitted that there was no proof. Vroom took up your cause stating that you were merely making an anaology. Between the two of us (you admitting the accusations and me posting them clearly) we pretty much shut vrooms argument down.
That is the entirity of what happened. I left out the many name calling tangents that your friend vroom went on, as he is known to do that on a regular occasion when things do not go his way.
If you would like to proceed with the original debate I would be more than happy to oblige.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
… I’m not sure what the Chewbacca defense is. …
To go really and truly off topic, the Chewbacca Defense is a reference to a South Park episode that came out a few years ago, back when I was still in law school. It was Johnnie Cochrane’s secret weapon, which no jury could resist. And it made no sense whatsoever. And I believe it caused heads to explode.
I don’t know if I’ve ever laughed harder at a South Park episode than at that one. Amusingly, I think it was an analogy for a lawyer using a racism defense, but given I’m not Trey Parker nor Matt Stone, I don’t know that for sure.[/quote]
The chewbacca defense is a straw man arguement that is intended to deflect from the real topic.
i.e. “If the gloves don’t fit you must acquit”
i.e. “This is not Rove’s fault it is (fill in the blank)'s fault”
All Rove had to do was not talk about the CIA and this would not be an issue.
In retrospect it was unneccessary and Rove’s discussing of Wilson and the CIA with reporters has kept this story in the headlines much longer than it would have had he ignored it.
This is a perfect example of arrogance coming before a fall.
Newt Gingrich said it best: “You see the same people on the way up as you do on the way down”
What is the matter Zeb? Can’t type in a post without resorting to childish tattle tale tactics?
Mommy, mommy, big mean vroom was mean to me on the forums today… wauuuugh. I mean seriously, I remember this stuff from when I was in grade school.
Things went entirely my way. You can’t even fathom the concept of an opinion, or that people can form their opinion based on their interpretation of events.
Until then, what is there to discuss? How you want everyone to see things? No thanks.
It seems Valerie Plame was what is called a Non-Offical Cover agent. In other words, she could be on an assignment and if her cover were blown the government would disavow any knowledge of her and basically she would be screwed. It cost lots of moeny and time to train her to this level of skill and because of the current situation she can no longer be utilized in the capacity.
It also seems that she was phasing out of this capacity because she had children but at the time her name was leaked she was still officially considered an undercover operative. And it also seems Fitzgerald is not quite ready to reveal the findings of his investigation and we most certainly don’t have all the facts at our disposal (by our I mean those of us on this forum).
Boston Barrister,
What about the legalities of denying a speedy trial, due process and reprsentation to those in US custody?
Okay, Zeb, I will attempt to clarify my position and use of the analogy I made even though we have rehashed this before. True, I don’t have actual proof to back this up and if I did, I would do everything in my power to bring it to light, but as Vroom alluded to it is proof regular aw shucks folks like us will never have access to.
I believe that GWB and his associates had a desire and plan to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 came to pass. I believe they deceptively pushed this agenda aggressively after 9/11 by making claims they themselves knew to be false.
I believe that they aggressively went after any one who opposed their agenda or said “hey wait minute this doesn’t match up”. By going after people who weren’t onboard with their plan, I believe they used deceptive tactics to smear or discredit individuals. These tactics were at the very least dishonorable at the most criminal. No, I can’t prove that but from my interpretation of the information I have gone over that is my opinion.
I believe that people who think like you Zeb, have come to the conclusion that as long as your agenda gets met (prayer in school, overturning of Roe V Wade, Iraq approval, christianity as a powerful political force with strong Gov. and legislative power) You will approve of any tactics whether honorable or not that gets your goals met, all while wrapping yourself in the flag of decency and the blanket of feigned naivety.
So, I hope this somewhat explains my position to those who have the ability to look at things objectively. I don’t expect that from you, but rather you pulling out your trusty magnifying glass and searching for some minute detail in which to whip up the sheep.
These are not the same as criminals in our judicial system.
Nothing illegal is ocurring, so just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong. Are some innocents being caught up in the process–I’m sure yes. It is an unfortunate by-product of the war and current world situation.
If it has or will save one American life, then I stand by it. As you are want to say–we are not afforded all the facts here and probably never will know what was learned through the interrogation process of these people.
Yeah, Rove opened his turd blossom pie hole because the MSM had a gun to his head.
ROTFLMFAO![/quote]
He admits to talking to the reporter about the CIA agent. He signed a blanket waiver of confidentiality for all conversations pertaining to this issue.
There were 36 journalists that filed a Friend of the Court brief that excused all the reporters - and Rove from any breach of security. Now the MSM is gunning for Rove for the exact same ‘offense’ that they filed a brief protesting.
How is that a Chewie defense? When the facts are brought to light - as they have been in most places except the MSM - Rove will be found to have done nothing wrong.
I think you fall into the class of folks that wish so badly for him to have done something that truth means nothing. He HAD to have done something wrong.
All you have to do is prove it. But you can’t. That must frustrate the hell out of you. You just know that that mean old Rove is guilty of something, yet he slips through your fingers because you can’t even come up with a valid charge against him.
I’m sure you and the rest of the ABB crowd will work very diligently - ignoring facts and truth until you can invent something that can stick.
Before pinning the Bush supporters with the Chewie Defense label - maybe the ABB side should come up with a crime., eh?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Would you quit crying about the racial comment already!!! You are like a newborn child with colic screaming through the night. You have made it abundantly clear that your precious feelings were hurt. You sound like the one with the vagina! [/quote]
Do you even know what the topic of this thread is, elk? C’mon. What is the topic? I’ve yet to read where you even approach talking about the alleged leaks. You have spent you time making up lies about Bush and trying to pass them off as truth. Or you have been calling people names, or hurling racist inferences around.
Can’t you either shut the hell up, or stay on topic here? Talk about straw man arguments - that’s all you have offered up here.
I’ll ak you for about the 13th time - do you even know what the topic of this thread is?
[quote]vroom wrote:
That is the entirity of what happened. I left out the many name calling tangents that your friend vroom went on, as he is known to do that on a regular occasion when things do not go his way.
What is the matter Zeb? Can’t type in a post without resorting to childish tattle tale tactics?
Mommy, mommy, big mean vroom was mean to me on the forums today… wauuuugh. I mean seriously, I remember this stuff from when I was in grade school.
Things went entirely my way. You can’t even fathom the concept of an opinion, or that people can form their opinion based on their interpretation of events.
Until then, what is there to discuss? How you want everyone to see things? No thanks.[/quote]
I am simply looking for good debate based on facts. If you can do that let’s talk. If you can’t let’s just agree to not talk. I can live with either one.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Would you quit crying about the racial comment already!!! You are like a newborn child with colic screaming through the night. You have made it abundantly clear that your precious feelings were hurt. You sound like the one with the vagina!
Do you even know what the topic of this thread is, elk? C’mon. What is the topic? I’ve yet to read where you even approach talking about the alleged leaks. You have spent you time making up lies about Bush and trying to pass them off as truth. Or you have been calling people names, or hurling racist inferences around.
Can’t you either shut the hell up, or stay on topic here? Talk about straw man arguments - that’s all you have offered up here.
I’ll ak you for about the 13th time - do you even know what the topic of this thread is?
I didn’t think so.[/quote]
I thought it was about your vagina.
Mark57, it is hard to fathom especially with that pic.
These are not the same as criminals in our judicial system.
Nothing illegal is ocurring, so just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong. Are some innocents being caught up in the process–I’m sure yes. It is an unfortunate by-product of the war and current world situation.
If it has or will save one American life, then I stand by it. As you are want to say–we are not afforded all the facts here and probably never will know what was learned through the interrogation process of these people.[/quote]
Why exactly are they not the same as criminals in our judicial system? We are calling them criminals, accusing them of things, interrogating them and basically violating our own constitution by holding them indefinitely. I mean this nation was founded on the concept of the rule of law, was it not? And if any innocents are caught up in it, it’s wrong.
Are you a lawyer? That is why I addressed the question to BB. I figured he could explain the legal loophole that is allowing this to go on. The people in charge at Guantanamo have said themselves that most of the people still in custody have no ties to terrorism. If that is the case, they should be released immediately and at the very least given a public apology by all those responsible. I’m sure you would not be so complacent about it if it was you or a family member being detained.
Many things that we know to be wrong were once quite legal: slavery, segregation, wife beating, child labor, etc., etc. So don’t try that weasel defense. An act does not have to be specified in a legal code to be wrong.
And the idea that American lives are somehow more valuable than, well, anybody else’s rights, life or dignity doesn’t even deserve a response.