[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FACT: Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Correct, but she nominated him to those who did have the authority, and apparently lobbied to make it happen.[/quote]
Thank you for admitting that Valerie did not send her husband to Niger as she did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Can’t use that busted assertion again…next.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FACT: Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Correct, but she nominated him to those who did have the authority, and apparently lobbied to make it happen.[/quote]
Logical fallacy…if you actually believe that Valerie sent Joe to Niger then the following stupid ass assertion is true:
It is your fault our soldiers are dying in Iraq because you voted for Bush and he sent the troops to Iraq.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lying under oath isn’t a crime? Cool, important infomation to know.
[/quote]
There have been no indictments handed either up or down that have anything to do with Plame.
The indictments handed down last week were not even related to Plame.
But - evidently you don’t think lying under oath is a crime if your last name is Clinton. Why is that?
Sorry, I thought it was obvious from the context of the article and the discussion that we were referring to the national-security related crimes for which the independent prosecutor was originally impaneled.
Of course perjury is a crime – though the article and the discussion had nothing to do with the perjury indictment.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Attack the messenger and not the messege.
The WH admits the Niger claims were suspect and Wilson precipitated.
F Wilson but the Niger documents were forgeries and the Niger claims are false.
[b]FITZGERALD SAID:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.
Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.[/b]
Fitz would have to be lying about Valerie Plame for you to be correct about Valerie’s cover.
So, is Fitz lying?[/quote]
No, he’s merely laying out items that he wants the judge to assume for the purposes of his indictment – which, coincidentally, are unrelated to the national-security issues. The defense can challenge the factual allegations if it wants, though it doesn’t have to – and probably won’t bother, to the extent they’re not related to the underlying charge.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lying under oath isn’t a crime? Cool, important infomation to know.
There have been no indictments handed either up or down that have anything to do with Plame.
The indictments handed down last week were not even related to Plame.
But - evidently you don’t think lying under oath is a crime if your last name is Clinton. Why is that?
[/quote]
Aaaaaaaaand…CLINTON! Man, you are consistent.
When, precisely, did I say that Clinton lying under oath wasn’t wrong, immoral, or illeagl? Please find me the post where I say that.
You can’t. Because I did’t. You’re just making shit up now.
It’s not about Clinton. It’s not about Wilson, or Plame, or Novak, or Judith Miller.
It’s about this administration outing a CIA operative to punish her husband, then lying about it under oath.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Attack the messenger and not the messege.
The WH admits the Niger claims were suspect and Wilson precipitated.
F Wilson but the Niger documents were forgeries and the Niger claims are false.
[b]FITZGERALD SAID:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.
Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.[/b]
Fitz would have to be lying about Valerie Plame for you to be correct about Valerie’s cover.
So, is Fitz lying?
No, he’s merely laying out items that he wants the judge to assume for the purposes of his indictment – which, coincidentally, are unrelated to the national-security issues. The defense can challenge the factual allegations if it wants, though it doesn’t have to – and probably won’t bother, to the extent they’re not related to the underlying charge.[/quote]
Libby was successful.
The perjury, obstruction, and making false statements help Bush more than you want to admit.
FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.
If the trueth that the WH ‘unknowingly’ leaked the identity of a CIA NOC hit the press in October 2004 it would have given Kerry more ammunition than he needed to drown out the Smear Boat Liars.
That would have changed everything. Bush was re-elected and the fact Libby stalled this investigation to help his boss is huge. Bush is going to have to pardon Libby to keep him and his entire cabinet off of the stand which will be broadcast on every cable news station 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
It does not matter if Libby ‘unknowingly’ did anything because he did make mistakes in his testimony.
This information would have been very damaging to the 2004 election because it would have proved that the WH lied about their involvement in leaking Valerie’s identity.
At the very least that act was very unethical and would have change the 2004 presidential election discussion 100%.
Libby took one for the team. I predict that either Libby will be pardoned or he will plea bargan to keep Bush, Cheney, etc. off of the witness stand.
This will not go away and this second term is lost.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Aaaaaaaaand…CLINTON! Man, you are consistent.
When, precisely, did I say that Clinton lying under oath wasn’t wrong, immoral, or illeagl? Please find me the post where I say that.
You can’t. Because I did’t. You’re just making shit up now.
It’s not about Clinton. It’s not about Wilson, or Plame, or Novak, or Judith Miller.
It’s about this administration outing a CIA operative to punish her husband, then lying about it under oath.
[/quote]
You are a partisan hack - through and through. A clinto whore. You prove it everytime you post. me drawing parallels between this situation and your cum-buddy’s legal woes is fair game. Ooops, I guess I should have called you a “free thinker”.
No one on here has said that lying under oath is not a crime. Find the proof - or you are a fucking liar.
As of this morning, there have been no indictments handed either up or down that even approach the Plame outing. I know that is hard for hacks like you to understand, but until there is an indictment - there is no crime - and even then the prosectution has to get a conviction.
Did I use too many big words? You do know what an indictment is, right? And the prosecution? How about conviction? Funy thing about our criminal justice system - you can’t just make allegations like you are fond of doing. You actully have to PROVE your case using a thing called evidence. You do know what evidence is - right?
I have my doubts.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FACT: Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Correct, but she nominated him to those who did have the authority, and apparently lobbied to make it happen.
Thank you for admitting that Valerie did not send her husband to Niger as she did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Can’t use that busted assertion again…next.[/quote]
How’s that? She was involved, and apparently instrumental, in getting him over there.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FACT: Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send anyone to Niger.
Correct, but she nominated him to those who did have the authority, and apparently lobbied to make it happen.
Logical fallacy…if you actually believe that Valerie sent Joe to Niger then the following stupid ass assertion is true:
It is your fault our soldiers are dying in Iraq because you voted for Bush and he sent the troops to Iraq.
[/quote]
That’s the stupidest anology I’ve ever heard. She did not have the final say on whether or not he went, but she played a large role in getting it done. I wasn’t that influencial in getting Bush elected.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Funy thing about our criminal justice system - you can’t just make allegations like you are fond of doing. You actully have to PROVE your case using a thing called evidence. You do know what evidence is - right?
[/quote]
Yep. That’s what we had to prove WMD’s…evidence. That shit is never wrong.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are a partisan hack -
[/quote]
That is classic!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Libby was successful.
The perjury, obstruction, and making false statements help Bush more than you want to admit.
FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.
If the trueth that the WH ‘unknowingly’ leaked the identity of a CIA NOC hit the press in October 2004 it would have given Kerry more ammunition than he needed to drown out the Smear Boat Liars.
That would have changed everything. Bush was re-elected and the fact Libby stalled this investigation to help his boss is huge. Bush is going to have to pardon Libby to keep him and his entire cabinet off of the stand which will be broadcast on every cable news station 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
It does not matter if Libby ‘unknowingly’ did anything because he did make mistakes in his testimony.
This information would have been very damaging to the 2004 election because it would have proved that the WH lied about their involvement in leaking Valerie’s identity.
At the very least that act was very unethical and would have change the 2004 presidential election discussion 100%.
Libby took one for the team. I predict that either Libby will be pardoned or he will plea bargan to keep Bush, Cheney, etc. off of the witness stand.
This will not go away and this second term is lost.[/quote]
Now you’re just engaging in fanciful speculation – which, coincidentally, has nothing to do with the original points that 1) no one claimed Fitzgerald was lying and 2) what is the purpose of the recitations in an indictment.
I think you just like to visit the various left- and right-wing sites, and then drop in the arguments you find there, whether they’re applicable to the threads at hand or not.
And by the way, I don’t know how you’re interpreting “unknowingly” above – w/r/t the underlying crime or the perjury? It would seem you’re attempting to make some mish-mash of a point, but they’re two separate issues.
And just like everyone else who wants to go off on speculative fantasies, you’re assuming things about the alleged underlying crimes related to national-security issues, none of have yet to be even charged.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…
Clinton was worse?
How many unnecassary wars did he start?
If Clinton had done his job better, perhaps we could have avoided this war.
[/quote]
If Daddy Bush would have taken care of it nobody would be dying now!!!
[quote]ron33 wrote:
If Daddy Bush would have taken care of it nobody would be dying now!!!
[/quote]
I said this yesterday and it was amazing the excuses that came out excusing and defending the first Bush’s actions while lambasting Clinton for his actions. It was simply amazing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Aaaaaaaaand…CLINTON! Man, you are consistent.
When, precisely, did I say that Clinton lying under oath wasn’t wrong, immoral, or illeagl? Please find me the post where I say that.
You can’t. Because I did’t. You’re just making shit up now.
It’s not about Clinton. It’s not about Wilson, or Plame, or Novak, or Judith Miller.
It’s about this administration outing a CIA operative to punish her husband, then lying about it under oath.
You are a partisan hack - through and through. A clinto whore. You prove it everytime you post. me drawing parallels between this situation and your cum-buddy’s legal woes is fair game. Ooops, I guess I should have called you a “free thinker”.
No one on here has said that lying under oath is not a crime. Find the proof - or you are a fucking liar.
As of this morning, there have been no indictments handed either up or down that even approach the Plame outing. I know that is hard for hacks like you to understand, but until there is an indictment - there is no crime - and even then the prosectution has to get a conviction.
Did I use too many big words? You do know what an indictment is, right? And the prosecution? How about conviction? Funy thing about our criminal justice system - you can’t just make allegations like you are fond of doing. You actully have to PROVE your case using a thing called evidence. You do know what evidence is - right?
I have my doubts.
[/quote]
RRRRRRRR!!! I’M RAINMAN AND I HATE STUFF!
And, if I remember…Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.
What did Bush and his thugs lie about?
(I bet 10 bucks we hear “yeah, yeah…Bush lied, people died.” Or ABB or one of your recurring motifs. Or you just call me stupid or a 'thinktard.)
(Oh, and “thinktard”? Thaaaaaat’s not gonna catch on.)
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Libby was successful.
The perjury, obstruction, and making false statements help Bush more than you want to admit.
FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.
If the trueth that the WH ‘unknowingly’ leaked the identity of a CIA NOC hit the press in October 2004 it would have given Kerry more ammunition than he needed to drown out the Smear Boat Liars.
That would have changed everything. Bush was re-elected and the fact Libby stalled this investigation to help his boss is huge. Bush is going to have to pardon Libby to keep him and his entire cabinet off of the stand which will be broadcast on every cable news station 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
It does not matter if Libby ‘unknowingly’ did anything because he did make mistakes in his testimony.
This information would have been very damaging to the 2004 election because it would have proved that the WH lied about their involvement in leaking Valerie’s identity.
At the very least that act was very unethical and would have change the 2004 presidential election discussion 100%.
Libby took one for the team. I predict that either Libby will be pardoned or he will plea bargan to keep Bush, Cheney, etc. off of the witness stand.
This will not go away and this second term is lost.
Now you’re just engaging in fanciful speculation – which, coincidentally, has nothing to do with the original points that 1) no one claimed Fitzgerald was lying and 2) what is the purpose of the recitations in an indictment.
I think you just like to visit the various left- and right-wing sites, and then drop in the arguments you find there, whether they’re applicable to the threads at hand or not.
And by the way, I don’t know how you’re interpreting “unknowingly” above – w/r/t the underlying crime or the perjury? It would seem you’re attempting to make some mish-mash of a point, but they’re two separate issues.
And just like everyone else who wants to go off on speculative fantasies, you’re assuming things about the alleged underlying crimes related to national-security issues, none of have yet to be even charged.[/quote]
Confused much?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
ron33 wrote:
If Daddy Bush would have taken care of it nobody would be dying now!!!
I said this yesterday and it was amazing the excuses that came out excusing and defending the first Bush’s actions while lambasting Clinton for his actions. It was simply amazing. [/quote]
I explained Bush I’s partial action. He did not do enough - but he was trying to appease the UN and abide by the resolution. Blame him if you want to, but I don’t think there is a valid excuse for Clinton’s total inaction wrt terror, and Iraq.
A nice look at the revisionist history surrounding the fervent hopes attached to this issue here:
http://instapundit.com/archives/026509.php
ONE OF THE THINGS I’VE NOTICED in the Judy Miller / Scooter Libby coverage is the development of a new history that’s very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:
We only went to war because of WMDs – that was the only reason ever given.
Bush lied about those.
He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them.
Everyone else gullibly went along.
There are lots of problems with this, beginning with the fact that it’s not true. I’ve addressed much of this – especially parts 1 & 2 – in earlier posts like this one ( Instapundit ), this one ( Instapundit ), and especially this one ( Instapundit ). It gets tiresome having to repeat this stuff, but the new history, despite its falsity, is just too convenient for too many people to be stopped by anything as simple as the truth.
Democratic politicians ( Instapundit ) who supported the war want an excuse to tack closer to their antiwar base. Shouting “It’s not my fault --I’m easily fooled!” would seem a substandard response, but it is a way of changing position while pretending it’s not politically motivated. Meanwhile, journalists, most of whom were reporting the same kind of WMD stories that Miller did (because that’s what pretty much everyone thought – including the antiwar folks who were arguing that an invasion was a bad idea because it would provoke Saddam into using his weapons of mass destruction), now want to focus on her so that people won’t pay much attention to what they were reporting themselves. This makes Judy Miller a handy scapegoat.
But, as I say, the biggest problem with this revisionism is that it’s not true. I guess we’ll just have to keep pointing that out.
BTW, if you need any further indication that the Democrats don’t think the Libby trial is going to turn into a chance to re-hash Iraq-related subjects, just check out what Harry Reid did with his Rule 21 stunt today. Pretty funny – and pathetic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051101/pl_nm/bush_leak_congress_dc
I guess they’re feeling rather beleagured, what with “l’affaire de Plame” essentially fizzling out, the President nominating a stellar USSC candidate, and even scoring political brownie points by battling the Bird Flu…