The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

02/11/2006 10:25:18 AM · #301

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Scooter Libby: "I was only following orders ..."

Oh, Yeah. It appears that some automatically assume that credibility is gained when "Truthout.org" reprints the same innuendo-laden National Journal article that Reuters based its reporting on.
I especially like the part where even the original article won't put the word "classified" in quotes when referring to the information contained in the "leak". Instead they imply that the "leaked" information was classified by saying that the document that contained it was classified.
Why, by extension, one would have to infer that the words "a", "the", "it", and "is" are also classified if they appeared in the document. Heaven forbid if anyone in the Bush administration "leaks" those words to the press.

Pardon me if I will not believe any of the left's innuendo until I can read the document ( that is, Fitzgerald's letter to Libby's attorneys ) for myself.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/11/2006 12:03:13 PM · #302

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Scooter Libby: "I was only following orders ..."

From another thread:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else thatâ��s more BS.

Originally posted by RonB:

Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Although those papers were not peer reviewed.

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ...

It's interesting that you accuse ME of being "misleading" when I carefully craft my words to state only that which is true ( though more may be inferred ) yet you so willingly endorse any statement made by an author who supports your position on an issue.

As I see it, there are three major differences between the writers of the National Journal and myself:

1) I make myself available to anyone who wants to challenge my statements / implications; they do not.
2) I can, and do, openly support my statements / implications with references to credible data that can be scrutinized by anyone; they are not expected to.
3) Many of MY statements / implications are actually challenged by those who dislike religion and / or the Bush Administration; theirs are not.

Message edited by author 2006-02-11 12:05:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/11/2006 12:09:01 PM · #303

I agree -- in virtually every political discussion, writers on every side use whatever rhetorical tricks they can think of to distort or hide the "truth" to their best advantage -- one of my favorite games is to parse the language of commercials to find out what they really claim:

"Two out of three doctors recommend _____!"

I think a truly scientific poll would have asked more than three doctors ....

MadMordegon

04/08/2006 01:27:09 PM · #304

Well, it was the president himself.

AP:
After long denouncing leaks of all kinds, Bush is confronted with a statement â�� unchallenged by his aides â�� that he authorized a leak of classified material to undermine an Iraq war critic.

CNN:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that his boss said President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Message edited by author 2006-04-08 13:28:14.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

04/08/2006 06:13:34 PM · #305

Originally posted by President Bush, Sept. 30, 2003:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." sfgate.com

Apparently he knew where the leak was in this case ...

As to whether the leak is in violation the law, I guess "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" or some such reasoning.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/13/2006 12:43:23 AM · #306

An Updated Plamegate Timeline

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/13/2006 11:24:26 AM · #307

"The real point, however, is not the outing of a covert CIA officer. The tragedy is that our President lied to make the case to go to war in Iraq. He manipulated and ignored intelligence. And, when the lie was exposed, he blamed the CIA rather than take responsibility for his own actions. As I have said before, that is a definition of a coward."

Text taken from above posted link.

This conclusion (in my opinion) is opinion. There has been ample evidence of multiple intelligence agencies from numerous countries that held similar beliefs in Sadam's suspected WMD enterprise. The after the fact evidence that they were wrong, does not prove lying nor cowardice. However, for some citizens, it matters not.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

04/13/2006 11:29:17 AM · #308

Is this a "24" thread?

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/14/2006 11:12:53 AM · #309

What I find funny is that a president who did some rather harmless sexual stuff with an employee who was totally ok with that almost got impeached. But the president who lies about more important stuff, to be able to go to war and to frustrate his opponents, gets away with a small section on the 2nd scroll down on CNN.com.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

04/14/2006 12:04:42 PM · #310

Originally posted by Azrifel:

For the record:
1) Former President Clinton did not "almost" get impeached - he actually was impeached.
2) No one has yet been able to provide documentary evidence that Bush "lied" to be able to go to war - that is, made statements that he knew to be false at the time that he made them . You are more than welcome to attempt to be the first.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/14/2006 05:06:15 PM · #311

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Azrifel:
What I find funny is that a president who did some rather harmless sexual stuff with an employee who was totally ok with that almost got impeached. But the president who lies about more important stuff, to be able to go to war and to frustrate his opponents, gets away with a small section on the 2nd scroll down on CNN.com.

For the record:
1) Former President Clinton did not "almost" get impeached - he actually was impeached.
2) No one has yet been able to provide documentary evidence that Bush "lied" to be able to go to war - that is, made statements that he knew to be false at the time that he made them . You are more than welcome to attempt to be the first.

1) I don't know the specifics of that process and as he had not to resign as president I used 'almost'.

2) I was not inside so I cannot do that. Let's say that I do not trust that man anymore. But hey, it's not my president and not my problem. It simply looks strange and he looks untrusthworthy from an outsiders (non US) point of view.

milo655321

Nikon D70

04/14/2006 05:13:34 PM · #312

Originally posted by Azrifel:

It simply looks strange and he looks untrusthworthy from an outsiders (non US) point of view.

President Bush being the lowest approval rating since his presidency began, he's currently looking strange and/or untrustworthy for the majority of the insiders as well.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/14/2006 06:24:06 PM · #313

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by Azrifel:
It simply looks strange and he looks untrusthworthy from an outsiders (non US) point of view.

President Bush being the lowest approval rating since his presidency began, he's currently looking strange and/or untrustworthy for the majority of the insiders as well.

That is because the majority of the "insiders" are fickle. In both USA Today/CNN and Gallup polls conducted on June 5-6, 1993 ( ref here), ex-President Bill Clinton had a job approval rating of only 37% - one point LOWER than the latest polls for President Bush - yet, Clinton won re-election just a few years later.
Namely, polls don't mean very much in the long term.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/29/2006 02:40:16 PM · #314

Robert Novak and the Perfect Stranger

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/29/2006 02:45:56 PM · #315

We all know that those in power can pretty much do whatever and are almost above the law. One sneak peek back at Clinton says that. What do we think would happen if we lied to the Supreme Court? Get a slap on the wrist and go out and sell books and makes a butt-load of money doing so?
Ha!

Used to be little Johnny, when asked in Kindergarden what he wanted to be when he grew up, would pick the utmost respected position avaible - "I wanna be the President".

Sad.

vtruan

Nikon D5100

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

08/30/2006 09:34:55 AM · #316

another article

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

08/30/2006 09:56:40 AM · #317

The Republicans are done.

My wife and I used to vote Republican..not that we liked them anymore than Democrats (we are independents with libertarian interests) mainly to lower taxes. Give the government less money is my main"philosphy".

Well, we know how that goes now after 6 years. We both are done....anybody I knew that voted republican is done. The Reagan Republican voters, the great middle that Reagan won over are pretty much gone. I would vote for Hilary Clinton in a heartbeat..and I dislike her like a boil on my rear.

Karl Rove and his goons are worse than anything Dick Morris cooked up in his squads....

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/30/2006 01:35:23 PM · #318

"In the book, Armitage is quoted as telling former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford that "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing""

original source

Message edited by author 2006-08-30 13:37:28.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/30/2006 01:41:29 PM · #319

Originally posted by hokie:

Both parties are full of thieves. That said, your sole criteria for voting being 'lower taxes', taxes were lowered and have stayed there. That will change if the Dems gain control. They say so all the time. So why would you vote against your own interest? Just to prove a point that Bush & Co. are thieves out to make things better for themselves and their cronies? That does not differentiate them from any prior administration.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/30/2006 07:52:31 PM · #320

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The only two presidents to have been impeached were Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton. No Nixon was never impeached he resigned. No president was ever convicted in the history of the United States. Now to the statement that President Bush lied that I will not argue cause the only person that truly knows is the president. None of us nor the press or any other member can prove he lied cause if they could they would have by now. Fact is if your given information and it comes from more that one repitable source anyone with common sence is going to follow this information. Theres an old saying Hindsight is 20/20 if we only knew what we know now then things might have been different. But wait did we not find weapons of Mass ditructions in Iraq After all? Oh wait no nothing now is good enough even if it could kill millions it can't be !

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Azrifel:
What I find funny is that a president who did some rather harmless sexual stuff with an employee who was totally ok with that almost got impeached. But the president who lies about more important stuff, to be able to go to war and to frustrate his opponents, gets away with a small section on the 2nd scroll down on CNN.com.

For the record:
1) Former President Clinton did not "almost" get impeached - he actually was impeached.
2) No one has yet been able to provide documentary evidence that Bush "lied" to be able to go to war - that is, made statements that he knew to be false at the time that he made them . You are more than welcome to attempt to be the first.

1) I don't know the specifics of that process and as he had not to resign as president I used 'almost'.

2) I was not inside so I cannot do that. Let's say that I do not trust that man anymore. But hey, it's not my president and not my problem. It simply looks strange and he looks untrusthworthy from an outsiders (non US) point of view.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/08/2006 07:44:08 AM · #321

truth and admittance

will this sway any of the BS accusations posted previously in this thread????

I doubt it.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

09/08/2006 10:14:37 AM · #322

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy...this is how I see this whole thing.

a) how come the senator smuggling top secret reports did not cause a whole year long tuff. (Or are Democrats excused?)

b) Let's seriously look at the Plame affair. Okay, her husband is sent to make an investigation (possibly at her recommendation). Her husband then attempts to provide misleading evidence in hopes of embarrassing the president to whom he has a difference of opinion.

Um folks, this was a national security issue of utmost level in a matter of extreme safety to the U.S. populace. To, out of political spite, endeavor to provide mis-leading information to embarrass a political opponent while in turn jeopardizing the safety of American citizens is called treason.

We're debating whether some official should be impeached or what not. The real question is should Plame and her husband be hanged for treason.

Of course, that's to harsh for our present society. I have my suspicions that the CIA was directly involved in the leak to blow her cover. She in conjunction with her husband directly endangered the United States. This makes her no longer qualified to be an undercover agent (she could no longer be trusted). Rather than pursue a charge of treason and a lengthy gruesome public trial. They simply chose to invalidate her potential as an undercover agent and thus remove her from the rosters.

So, I'll support impeaching whoever blew the cover. As long as we also support charging Mrs. Plame and her husband with high treason and endangering the lives of U.S. citizens.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

09/08/2006 02:27:48 PM · #323

Hey Saj! Quit it man I hate agreeing with you!!! LOL