P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-11-05, 02:21 PM   #101
Drakonix
Just Draggin' Along
 
Drakonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
since the prez only appears in carefully scripted stage events and manufactured photo opportunites, with fake props and prepped, prescreened audiences, one could conclude George W. Bush really doesn't exist at all - he's just a production of the GOP's rather stale imagination.
In modern times, a U.S. President NEVER makes a public appearance without every step of the way being carefully planned. The primary reason is to protect the President. A secondary reason is to project the President (and the government) in a positive image to the people. The same thing applies to press conferences. Every administration does all of the above, yet it’s only evil if the current Republican administration does it.

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”.
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors.

I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
Drakonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-05, 03:07 PM   #102
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-05, 09:40 PM   #103
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default be here now.

you guys really need to move on - Clinton was last century, ffs

meanwhile. in today's news, the Libby indictment continues to ripple:
Quote:
In a day of political drama, Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.
could the Dems be growing spines? Harry Reid kicked Bill Frist's ass today and nailed the Libby indictment cold:
Quote:
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-05, 10:16 PM   #104
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-05, 03:38 AM   #105
Drakonix
Just Draggin' Along
 
Drakonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Clinton was last century, ffs
Clinton's term ended in the year 2001. I'm just comparing the current administration to the previous administration.

Nice dodge of my main points.
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors.

I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
Drakonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-05, 06:08 AM   #106
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakonix
Clinton's term ended in the year 2001. I'm just comparing the current administration to the previous administration.

Nice dodge of my main points.
uh, Drak, you really didn't make any points. you stuck up for Bush with "everybody does it" (and no, not to the extent he did), slammed Clinton a few times coz it's a lot easier than defending Bush, and reiterated what Fitzgerald said about Libby: that Libby lied to such an extent that he can't prove the initial cirme.

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.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-05, 10:51 AM   #107
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-05, 10:12 PM   #108
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

the White House still cannot make a coherent comment on the Valerie Plame affair - today's press gaggle with Stonewall Scott:

Quote:
"Q Kind of a housekeeping question. You repeatedly say that you've been instructed not to comment on the CIA leaks case, because there's an ongoing investigation. Can we infer from that that when Fitzgerald announces his investigation is completed you will be in a position to comment?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I said I'd be glad to talk more about it after it's come to a conclusion.

"Q Well, would that mark the conclusion?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Would what?

"Q The end of the Fitzgerald investigation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's an investigation and legal proceeding. And the comments I make --

"Q So now you're adding court cases.

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Bob, I think any time there's been a legal matter going on, we've said, that's a legal matter.

"Q No, what you said is, you can't comment on an ongoing investigation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think what I said last -- and look what I said --

"Q So you've added the words, 'legal proceeding.'

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, now there is a legal proceeding.

"Q So you're adding the words, 'legal proceeding,' to the formulation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: That's not -- any time there is a legal proceeding such as that, we don't discuss it. I mean, I think you can look back at --

"Q Because --

"MR. McCLELLAN: Because it's a legal matter, and it's before the courts.

"Q The world is crawling with legal matters that the White House comments on all the time. What sets this apart?

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, there are legal matters that occur all the time that we do not comment on, because they're ongoing legal matters that are before the courts. Remember, numerous times we've referred stuff to the Justice Department because it's an ongoing legal proceeding."
Scott is also unwilling to clariify the question of who was actually lying when he told the press that Rove and Libby had personally assured him they were not involved. you'd think the Prez might want to try and turn this thing around with a little housecleaning, but Bush continues to bet on his Nixon-like, hunker-down-and-ride-it-out strategy. this doesn't appear to be working out too well for him, as new polls indicate: some 86% surveyed consider the Valerie Plame affair of some or great importance, while his approval rating has fallen to a record low, in the Nixon-like neigborhood of the 30%'s.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 12:41 AM   #109
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
"MR. McCLELLAN: That's not -- any time there is a legal proceeding such as that, we don't discuss it. I mean, I think you can look back at --

"Q Because --

"MR. McCLELLAN: Because it's a legal matter, and it's before the courts.

"Q The world is crawling with legal matters that the White House comments on all the time. What sets this apart?

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, there are legal matters that occur all the time that we do not comment on, because they're ongoing legal matters that are before the courts. Remember, numerous times we've referred stuff to the Justice Department because it's an ongoing legal proceeding."
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 07:48 AM   #110
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4961

The Wilson Gambit
by Clarice Feldman

November 3rd, 2005

Quote:
Senate Democrats employed a stealthy maneuver the other day, to reinforce their demand into an affair they like to call “Plamegate.” They are right that an investigation is required. But they have gotten the subject matter wrong.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that the real scandal is the genesis, not the unmasking, of an irregular and highly questionable mission: “the Wilson Gambit.” It is time for serious examination, equipped with the tools of subpoena and testimony under oath, into the genesis and conduct of this anomalous operation.

The mainstream media, of course, is entirely uninterested in determining why the Wilson Gambit was undertaken. Once upon a time, the New York Times and the rest of the American liberal establishment worried about CIA dirty tricks aimed at influencing domestic politics. The more effervescent leftists fulminated about a “secret government” and muttered darkly about a threat to democracy itself, emanating from Langley.

How times (and The Times) have changed! Today, the darlings of the American left and its house organ are a CIA employee and her husband, who set up and implemented a highly irregular operation which, if not explicitly designed to do so, has had the net effect of discrediting an elected leader and his foreign policy. The Wilson Gambit was a stealth operation undertaken outside normal procedures and supervision, used as a political weapon, complete with lies spread by a cooperative media establishment interested in bringing down a leader and his policies which they detest.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 09:33 AM   #111
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

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:
The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 10:23 AM   #112
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Awe, you missed a key part again knife. You really need to read articles more carefully.
Quote:
The great question here is Robert Novak. It was he who published, in his column, that Mrs. Joseph Wilson was a secret agent of the CIA. I am too close a friend to pursue the matter with Novak, and his loyalty is a postulate. What was going on? If there are mysteries in town, that surely is one of them, the role of Novak.
There's the real offense. But since Novak isn't in the republican administration the liberals hardly acknowledge his existance.

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.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 11:34 AM   #113
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
Awe, you missed a key part again knife. You really need to read articles more carefully. There's the real offense. But since Novak isn't in the republican administration the liberals hardly acknowledge his existance.
obvious, isn't it? because Novak couldn't have been his own source.

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.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 02:25 PM   #114
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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:
Originally Posted by Patrick Fitzgerald
If a pitcher hit a batter in the head with a pitch, you would want to know all the context to figure out why: What was going on before the game? Was there tension in the dugout?
shows absolutely no interest at all in what was going on 'before the game' despite his rhetoric; just like the mass media?

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.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-05, 10:28 PM   #115
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
your initial concern was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
you seem solely concerned...
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
Aren't you puzzled...
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
don't you wonder...
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
telling you what...
Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
you never bothered...
me,me,me.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-05, 03:44 AM   #116
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Uh-oh, the liberal propaganda generating machine is malfunctioning again.


It must have tried to do its own thinking.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-05, 07:31 AM   #117
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel, on the Libby indictment:
Quote:
Now, however, one indictment has been issued -- naming Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the defendant, and charging false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. If the indictment is to be believed, the case against Libby is, indeed, a clear one.

Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted.

Indeed, when one studies the indictment, and carefully reads the transcript of the press conference, it appears Libby's saga may be only Act Two in a three-act play. And in my view, the person who should be tossing and turning at night, in anticipation of the last act, is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.
anybody remember Spiro Agnew?
Quote:
Libby Is The Firewall Protecting Vice President Cheney

The Libby indictment asserts that "[o]n 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."

In short, Cheney provided the classified information to Libby - who then told the press. Anyone who works in national security matters knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations -- the covert side of the CIA, where most everything and everyone are classified.

According to Fitzgerald, Libby admits he learned the information from Cheney at the time specified in the indictment. But, according to Fitzgerald, Libby also maintained - in speaking to both FBI agents and the grand jury - that Cheney's disclosure played no role whatsoever in Libby's disclosure to the media.

Or as Fitzgerald noted at his press conference, Libby said, "he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from [the reporter] Mr. [Tim] Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new."

So, in Fitzgerald's words, Libby's story was that when Libby "passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls."

This story is, of course, a lie, but it was a clever one on Libby's part.

It protects Cheney because it suggests that Cheney's disclosure to Libby was causally separate from Libby's later, potentially Espionage-Act-violating disclosure to the press. Thus, it also denies any possible conspiracy between Cheney and Libby.

And it protects Libby himself - by suggesting that since he believed he was getting information from reporters, not indirectly from the CIA, he may not have had have the state of mind necessary to violate the Espionage Act.

Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-06, 02:25 PM   #118
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

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:
A Good Leak

President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?

Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page B06

President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney's tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to "get to the bottom" of it.

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-06, 06:28 PM   #119
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

rather bizarre then, that the WaPost editorial staff doesn't read their own paper, don't you think?

Quote:
A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic
Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story

By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A01

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
and while the Post editorial left out the most important detail, the Post journalists did not:

Quote:
One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.
in other words, the "evidence" of Saddam's wmd's that was being leaked was not true - and Bush, Cheney, and Libby knew it.

Quote:
By the time Libby disclosed portions of the NIE, the Niger allegation already had been largely discredited, and much of the other classified information that administration officials revealed about Iraq was wrong, exaggerated or disputed.

Additionally, the court papers suggest that Libby mischaracterized the NIE.

The court filing said he "understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was `vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

But the key judgments of the NIE, which were released publicly days after Libby briefed Miller, made no reference to the uranium allegation, which the State Department disputed in the body of the estimate.
like my cop friend says, it is what it looks like - a campaign orchestrated out of the White House to discredit a war critic, for political reasons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800916.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/14311340.htm
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-06, 08:07 PM   #120
Hegemonic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!!!".
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:19 AM.


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)