Quote:
At least Bush doesn’t hold up air traffic over a major airport for over one hour so he can get a haircut on Air Force One while it’s sitting on the tarmac. Slick Willy the cigar bearer did that. Props as used in context it means a portable object used on the scene of a play or film. Props are commonly a look-alike of real objects, or are a simulationl of an object that does not actually exist. As such props by nature are “fake”. Therefore, a “fake prop” must refer to the real thing. The statement “one could conclude George W. Bush really doesn't exist at all - he's just a production of the GOP's rather stale imagination” is interesting and revealing. It clearly reveals that the criticism levied against the President and his staff is motivated by political agendas, not by the quest for truth, justice, or responsibility and integrity in government. Well, “as this indictment continues to get parsed” what doesn’t appear is an indictment for leaking the identity of the CIA operative to the public. As I understand it, that is what (supposedly) is under investigation. Now that Libby didn’t say what they wanted to hear, they just want to throw up their hands and say “Libby lied so we can’t figure it out”. The investigation is a sham. Because the “investigation” was steered for political ends, the grand jury term will expire without discovering who uncovered the identity of the CIA operative. Justice and the interests of the people of the United States has not been served. All they have to show on Libby is an indictment for “perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements” - multiple ways to say they think he lied. This will only result in conviction if it can be proved that Libby knowingly and willingly testified falsely. Proving the accusations is going to be substantially more difficult than making them. Remember the grand jury testimony of William Jefferson Clinton? I have a video tape of it. Over four hours of nearly continuous lies. His landmark statement “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” proven to be false with scientifically based (pardon the pun) hard evidence. He didn’t get indicted. I guess we have to modify the rule of law stated above to “The rule of law is only something Democrats apply to Republican presidents”. Oh well, no big deal - liberals should have no difficulty picking another “talking point” and coming up with more rumors and more obscure, meaningless “facts”. |
I'll nit pick the statement that Clinton didn't get indicted since impeachment is essentially an indictment.
The bold not guilty votes of democratic senators after the voting public saw the indisputable video evidence was imo a big factor in their expulsion. Funny how the liberal propaganda parrots can't even remember that far back in history, let alone Nixon's corruption. My own cowardly congressman Arlen Specter with his 'not proven' slithering lost my vote. Damn advances in cancer treatment. |
be here now.
you guys really need to move on - Clinton was last century, ffs :to3:
meanwhile. in today's news, the Libby indictment continues to ripple: Quote:
Quote:
|
Are they turning into cacti? We were warned about tampering with genes; but I guess it's working out ok.
The terrorists must be proud to have the dems fighting alongside, even if it is only ankle biting and annoying their enemies. But lacking the courage to put forth their own policies, it seems that's all they're capable of. |
Quote:
Nice dodge of my main points. |
Quote:
oh, you did accuse Fitzgerald, praised by virtually all (including Bush) as fair-minded, apolitical, and one of the best proscutors in the country, as having conducted a "sham" investigation which he "steered for political purposes". that's a new one, but since you're all alone out there with it, i'll assume you pretty much made it up. |
Boy knife, your thread has really wandered off topic, but you've pretty much started the wandering yourself.
"Did Karl Rove commit treason?" was a good headline grabber for the liberal media long ago but has long since been revealed to be as baseless as any liberal propaganda campaign and rather than come out and admit 'no he didn't', the democrats are just grasping at any straws they can use to keep the campaign going. If the mass media was conservative the headlines would have been "Did a CIA agent and her husband conspire to undermine the U.S. government?" And the activities and lies of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson that triggered the 'outing' and subsequent inquest and obstruction would be revealed instead of concealed. The refusal of Fitzgerald to get their testimony under oath shows just how biased his "investigation" is. Your sudden respect for Bush's opinion when it reguards Fitzgerald is nothing short of amazing in light of everything you've proclaimed in the past. |
the White House still cannot make a coherent comment on the Valerie Plame affair - today's press gaggle with Stonewall Scott:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4961
The Wilson Gambit by Clarice Feldman November 3rd, 2005 Quote:
|
well,as long as we're quoting conservative op-ed pieces, let's not forget this one from the godfather of American conservatism, William F. Buckley:
Quote:
|
Awe, you missed a key part again knife. You really need to read articles more carefully.
Quote:
Another question that goes strangely unanswered is why the supposedly professional CIA would use a womans real name in constructing her fake identity. WTF is that about. The limits the liberals have put on the information than gets released concerning this matter are just ridiculous. It's obvious their only agenda is propaganda, not justice. |
Quote:
we can all go round and round on this whole subject, debating the daily talking points, but a couple of things are glaringly obvious: nobody in the administration has told the truth about this story - not the Prez, who said he wanted to get to the bottom of it and fire whomever was involved, not Rove and Libby, who ostensibly told McClellan they were not involved, not McClellan, who told the press no one was involved (unless everyone lied to McClellan). to this day, neither the Prez nor Cheney nor any of their spokespeople can explain any of it. why? if it's all so innocuous, what are they afraid of? one of my oldest friends is a police captain in a medium-sized East Coast city - he told me something once about illegal /unethical behaviour that i never forgot: it's usually exactly what it looks like. and i think that's the case here: it's about a campaign to smear and discredit a war critic, orchestrated by the VP's office. was it illegal? probably not (but if Libby or anyone lied to investigators or the grand jury, those are certainly felonies and deserving of prosecution). but clearly, the White House doesn't have much confidence in the ethical behaviour of it's staff if they are unable to offer a word of explanation or justification for the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity to the press. it's also clear that they didn't have much confidence in the validity of the pre-war intel, if critics had to be answered with smear campaigns instead of facts....which is whole 'nother can of worms that will be opened by this case. |
Oh, I thought your initial concern was who outed Valerie Plame and ruined her career in some indistinguishable way, which was obviously Novak.
Now you seem solely concerned about why republicans won't provide the liberal media with more information for it to filter and distort into yet more propaganda. Aren't you puzzled why Novak would damage his own career and bring all kinds of trouble down on himself by revealing information he knew should be kept quiet? Doesn't it seem silly that Wilson would claim his wife's outing was intended to harm him even though the only result was an enjoyable bout of popularity and publicity that the two obviously reveled in? And don't you wonder why Fitzgerald, with his pathetic attempt to camouflage himself with something american, Quote:
What's truely obvious it that whatever small bits of information the republicans haven't yet revealed pales in front of the mountain that the Wilson's, the liberals and the hunting dog Fitzgerald pretend doesn't even exist. But between the liberal media telling you what it looks like and your police captain friend telling you it's usually exactly what it looks like, you never bothered to find out what it actually looks like yourself. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Uh-oh, the liberal propaganda generating machine is malfunctioning again.
It must have tried to do its own thinking. |
John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel, on the Libby indictment:
Quote:
Quote:
|
you'll have to read it yourself to believe it, but The Washington Post editorial staff finally came to their senses re: the Plamegate "scandal".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800895.html Quote:
|
rather bizarre then, that the WaPost editorial staff doesn't read their own paper, don't you think?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800916.html http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/14311340.htm |
How dare they defend themselves!
I love how "critics" can relentlessly savage Bush, et al but as soon as they fire back it's all "OMG BUSH IS SO MEAN!!!". |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)