[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, you expect us to get excited about a bunch of political blogs? Get serious.[/quote]
Well vroom,
The blogs were merely putting stuff together for you – what do you think about the underlying point, as shown with the various transcripts?
Sassy,
If you recall, the few times that I went and grabbed some bloggy material, I prefaced the links with the fact it was biased material simply for the point of getting the discussion going again.
I can’t believe you are still getting your panties in a twist about that. What was that, six months ago now?
The day I present blogs as a viable source of proven information, then you can come along and remind me of my disdain for them. Until then, why don’t you work on removing your head from your own ass?
Boston,
Your post is confusing. Reading through you have people trying to pick apart the meaning of her statements through several interviews. It isn’t clear at all.
I’d imagine you can take from it what you want to take from it. Either way, I don’t think it has very much to do with the situation at hand.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sassy,
If you recall, the few times that I went and grabbed some bloggy material, I prefaced the links with the fact it was biased material simply for the point of getting the discussion going again.
I can’t believe you are still getting your panties in a twist about that. What was that, six months ago now?
The day I present blogs as a viable source of proven information, then you can come along and remind me of my disdain for them. Until then, why don’t you work on removing your head from your own ass?[/quote]
I know…I know
You always have a justification for your end.
And you always drop straight to the gutter with each post.
Always antagonistic, even when totally unnecessary. My post was not an attack, merely showing your penchant for accepting or dissing information on a very inconsistant basis. If it lends credence to your belief you use it or disseminate it freely. If not, you dismiss it accordingly.
Then you top that off with a personal dig, just to prove you are right.
Get your dig in, then wake me up the day Scooter goes to jail. I’m sure you’ll start a thread with all the ‘pertinent’ info. Fair and balanced as usual.
Sassy, I’m going to apply to work at Faux News…
It ain’t over until it’s over… even though many would like you to think that it is all over.
Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051118/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
As usual, a few quips for the terminally lazy…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing
CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.
This is probably the item that has led to the latest series of events…
Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame’s position at the agency.
Hadley Won’t Say if He Spoke to Woodward
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_hadley_4
[i]Accompanying President Bush at a summit here, Hadley was asked at a news briefing whether he was Woodward’s source.
Referring to news accounts about the case, Hadley said with a smile, “I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources.” He said he would not comment further because the CIA leak case remains under investigation.
Leaving the room, Hadley was asked if his answer amounted to a yes or a no. “It is what it is,” he said.[/i]
Well, Hadly seems to either be practicing his obfuscation or he is just pretty smug with himself. However, apparently it isn’t Dick anyway…
The vice president did not talk with Woodward on the day in question, did not provide the information that’s been reported in Woodward’s notes and has not had any conversations over the past several weeks about any release for allowing Woodward to testify, said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity because the federal probe is still under way.
This whole thing is a joke. Not only do they not know who (if anyone) leaked her name, they can’t even say if she was undercover or if a crime was originally committed.
This is starting to look like the gotcha game Ken Starr played.
When he couldn’t find a crime he kept going until Clinton perjured himself on an unrelated subject.
This whole Woodward angle is quite interesting. Woodward, at any rate, has indicated both that no one considered Plame to be undercover, and that whoever his source was had mentioned it to him in an offhand remark, not as a focused “leak” that was part of some “smear” campaign.
Here a series of good posts by Tom Maguire relating to Woodward, his possible sources, and speculation of how this all fits together:
I postred this in a different thread, but I think it is on topic in this thread as well.
Bob Woodward knew that Plame was an undercover agent a month before Libby was accused of leaking the information.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/16/news/leak.php
Rumors are going around that Scooter may have at least some of the charges dropped against him.
Kinda blows a hole in the thinktard’s argument.
My argument? What is it that you think I’m arguing?
Somehow, I don’t see that fact that a senior administration official is apparently telling Woodward about Plame makes any of this go away.
Again, some of the criminal aspects could go a way if people were unaware of her undercover status, that much is probably so, as outlined by the legal analysis way back in this thread and elsewhere.
However, you’d have to be blind to think that outing her wasn’t a ploy used to combat Wilson. The ethics of the administration are very much up in the air at this point.
It must be time to start discrediting Fitzgerald - instead of addressing the issue in an open and honest way. I wonder why that is?
So, what is it you think I’m arguing? I’d like to see this.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, what is it you think I’m arguing? I’d like to see this.[/quote]
Oh - wait. You’re changing horses? You were all over Scooter, now you are changing it to “administration official”?
Fine - but I think this takes Bush/Cheney’s staffers off the hot seat. THat blows a hole in your whole “Bush is evil” argument.
Proof - it’s not just for breakfast anymore.
Rainjack, the fact that other people may also have been involved does not take the spotlight off Scooter.
I don’t have any more information than anyone else, but the current news is the Woodward issue… how am I changing my tune?
If, and that is the allegation, the staff were out cold calling reporters to get this information out, then there is an ethics problem and it lies squarely with the administration/staff.
Besides, isn’t the security advisor also an appointed staff position?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, the fact that other people may also have been involved does not take the spotlight off Scooter. [/quote]
It makes the charge that he lied to the Grand Jury basless. I know, I know - Fizgerald is saying that none of the charges will be dropped, but I think Woodward filling in the timeline the way he did nothing but good things for Libby’s side of the table.
I have no idea what tune you are whistling. But you are now off of Libby, and replacing it with ‘official’. You are sounding a lot like those that are of the opinion that Bush did something wrong: “We don’t know what it is, or who did it, but he has to be guilty of something. Proof doesn’t really matter. We’ll find the proof later. He’s guilty though”
[quote]
If, and that is the allegation, the staff were out cold calling reporters to get this information out, then there is an ethics problem and it lies squarely with the administration/staff.[/quote]
Cold-calling reporters? I don’t think I have seen that in any of the allegations. If someone in the Whitehouse staff did it - then they should be punished. But there is now a big question as to whether the leak came from the Whitehouse, or - if the supposed Plame outing was even a crime. Not things you want to discuss - since they don’t jive with your theory/opinion. But hey - what’s new?
[quote]
Besides, isn’t the security advisor also an appointed staff position? [/quote]
Are implicating Condi? You can’t get to Scooter, so now you think Condi did it? Can you say witch hunt?
Rainjack, I may have gotten the name or the title wrong, but I thought the Yahoo article above discussed a Hadley. I didn’t go back today and reread it to be sure.
Anyway, again, what are you talking about? Who is this “you” that you are referring to? This “you can’t get to Scooter” reference is amusing.
Have you somehow lumped me in with some vast liberal conspiracy to go after members of the White House. I am a powerless meathead posting in a politics forum on a bodybuilding site – I’ll never get to anybody. No matter who you might try to lump me in with.
By the way, I use the term cold-calling because it is illustrative, give me some artistic license already. It isn’t a personal insult to you or any other supporter of the administration when I do so. The administration is a public group, public figures, they are fair game for such things.
Anyway, it looks to me like you are giving out talking points. I’ve seen it mentioned that because it, this earlier leak to Woodward, may have happened in advance of Scooter’s alleged indiscretion that his, Scooter’s, becomes unimportant.
That is not necessarily the case. It’s also supposition to suggest that charges are going to be dropped, don’t you demand PROOF before you believe statements such as that? perhaps the actual dropping of the charges or a statement by the person responsible for making that decision.
I can’t believe you’d repeat talking points without actual proof and claim you actually had something worth posting.
See? We all do it. We argue a point and use outside crap to support, but not prove, our allegations. Stop being such a hypocrite in this respect. Well, on second thought, don’t, it gives me more ammo for poking fun at you.
Anyway, I’m at the library on a wireless network proceeding to do my homework, practicing my thinktarding skills. I so desperately want to become the elitist you accuse me of, so I’m going to read a book… ahahahahaha.
Hey, they do have books with cartoons at the library still don’t they?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, I may have gotten the name or the title wrong, but I thought the Yahoo article above discussed a Hadley. I didn’t go back today and reread it to be sure.[/quote]
I can’t read your mind by looking at your ass.
[quote]Anyway, again, what are you talking about? Who is this “you” that you are referring to? This “you can’t get to Scooter” reference is amusing.
Have you somehow lumped me in with some vast liberal conspiracy to go after members of the White House. I am a powerless meathead posting in a politics forum on a bodybuilding site – I’ll never get to anybody. No matter who you might try to lump me in with.[/quote]
Walk like a duck - quack like a duck. And coming from the one that calls an entire side of an argument “Bible thumpers” you are really not the guy to be griping about being labeled.
But it is a slanderous accusation. Read Zap’s reply to you in one of the other threads. He sums it up quite nicely.
[quote]Anyway, it looks to me like you are giving out talking points. I’ve seen it mentioned that because it, this earlier leak to Woodward, may have happened in advance of Scooter’s alleged indiscretion that his, Scooter’s, becomes unimportant.
That is not necessarily the case. It’s also supposition to suggest that charges are going to be dropped, don’t you demand PROOF before you believe statements such as that? perhaps the actual dropping of the charges or a statement by the person responsible for making that decision.
I can’t believe you’d repeat talking points without actual proof and claim you actually had something worth posting.[/quote]
I never presented it as anything other than opinion, or a reporting of rumors. What proof weould you like me to provide? Unlike you - I don’t shy from proving myself when asked
I’m not trying to win an argument with my opinions, or something I heard on the radio. You build entire positions around you opinions - there is a difference. I think most everyone on here with a functioning brain stem understands that - except for you. I am probably making a huge assumption in thinking you have a functioning brain stem - silly me.
Thanks for the update - FYI the books are read from left to right, top to bottom.
I don’t know - why don’t you ask that third-grader that lent you the laptop?
The rest of your insults aren’t worth addressing, but this one is.
You yourself engage in slanderous politics when it comes to the left. Damn, to listen to you every attrocity possible can be attributed to Clinton.
It’s only a problem when I use a bit of artistic license because it conflicts with your opinion or beliefs. Artistic use in the opposite direction is no problem at all.
Even the third grader who lent me his laptop understands that when someone says the administration was cold-calling the press that it is a type of penmenship.
I should get going, Billy wants his laptop back soon and I’ve got some more work to do yet.
P.S. Zap doesn’t really know what he is talking about, although he does know he is offended by my viewpoint. As I suggested to him, dissent is required to be lawful, not meek and apologetic.
[quote]vroom wrote:
P.S. Zap doesn’t really know what he is talking about, although he does know he is offended by my viewpoint. [/quote]
And you know what you are talking about? Please - down here, you are the definition of clueless. You are a legend in your own mind.
Artistic license? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
That third grader sitting next to you shows more artistic talent using shaving cream and food coloring than you have in your entire pathetic posting history in the political forum.
[quote]vroom wrote:
…
P.S. Zap doesn’t really know what he is talking about, although he does know he is offended by my viewpoint. As I suggested to him, dissent is required to be lawful, not meek and apologetic.[/quote]
Zap knows exactly what he is talking about. Dissent is fine, in fact it is healthy.
When you go overboard and say the US policy is “willy nilly” torture and ass-rape it is not healthy dissent.
Zap is now the arbitrar of what is true and or not and what is appropriate dissent.
I have not said it was “US policy” but that it is allowed or encouraged. There is a difference if you want to imply I’ve suggested it is “US policy”. What thread is this anyway?
Well, this certainly verifies that somebody talked to Bob Woodward. Unfortunately, it doesn’t tell us who it was though…
Aide: Rice Was Not Woodward’s Source
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_rice
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not the senior Bush administration official who told Washington Post editor Bob Woodward that White House critic Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, a Rice aide said Saturday.