With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
Pookie
With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
By Linda Chavez
So now we know. The man behind the leak of former CIA operative Valerie
Plame's identity was not presidential adviser Karl Rove, nor Vice President
Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is under
indictment for allegedly obstructing the investigation into the leak and
lying to investigators. It turns out the leaker was former State Department
deputy secretary Richard Armitage, a man much loved by the media precisely
because he could always be counted on to tell tales out of school.
In his own words, Armitage is "a terrible gossip," an admission he made
during the Iran-Contra congressional hearings in 1987. The credit for
unearthing this information goes to David Corn and Michael Isikoff in their
forthcoming book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling
of the Iraq War."
Corn's role is noteworthy because he is the Washington editor of the
left-wing magazine The Nation and an outspoken critic of the Bush
administration. What's more, he did much to transform the Plame incident
into the national scandal it became.
Corn admits that he was the first reporter to float the idea that whoever
revealed Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who then
published it in a 2003 column, may have violated the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act. The law prohibits government officials from revealing the
identity of covert officers, provided the official knew that the person was
covert and obtained the information through his official duties. And since
Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources in the
article, Democrats in Congress began clamoring for a full-scale
investigation, which ultimately led to the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald
as a special counsel and the indictment of Scooter Libby in October 2005.
Corn deserves recognition for reporting what turns out to be an inconvenient
fact. It can't please him that the investigative trail in the Plame leak led
not to hardliners in the West Wing but to a high-placed dove in Foggy
Bottom. But I'm not ready to take my hat off to Corn just yet. His new
revelations really beg out for a mea culpa for having got it wrong in the
first place when he alleged, shortly after the leak, that "there is evidence
Bushies used classified information and put the nation's
counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score." Yet, Corn
has decided to use the publication of the exculpatory information to
reassert, once again, his attacks on the Bush White House.
Corn implies that it doesn't matter who the original source of the leak was
because Rove confirmed Plame's identity when asked about it by Novak and
passed on the information to Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Corn also blames
Libby for revealing Plame's identity to another reporter, Judith Miller,
then a writer for the New York Times. But neither Cooper nor Miller
disclosed the information; and it was Novak's column that spurred the
federal investigation that later resulted in Libby's indictment. And
Armitage was Novak's primary source.
Corn admits that Armitage was "a war skeptic not bent on revenge" against
Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for publishing a 2003
article critical of administration claims that Iraq was trying to secure
materials used in building nuclear weapons. But instead of acknowledging
that Armitage's role in the leak undermines the whole conspiracy theory that
the White House would stop at nothing - even jeopardizing national
security - to get even with its foes, Corn says the Plame affair "remains a
story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies."
The real ugliness - indeed, cowardice - is that the original culprit who
leaked Plame's name never came forward publicly to explain himself. Although
Armitage did reveal to federal prosecutors that he gave Plame's name to
Novak, he did so only when he may have worried that he could become the
target of the investigation after Novak noted in a column, three months
after the original story, that his source was "no partisan gunslinger."
Nonetheless, Armitage let sharks in the press circle the West Wing looking
for blood for the next two and a half years, knowing he was the real
blabbermouth.
Worse yet, Scooter Libby now faces possible jail time for allegedly
misleading statements in an investigation into a non-crime committed by
someone else, a person, in any event, who was already known to federal
prosecutors. The real crime here appears to be this malicious prosecution.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez083006.php3
stewart_connor
It is too late to try and change the defense tactic now. The genie is
out of the bottle.
Bush Crime Family already went down for this one and even let Libby
goat on it.
This is rather further proof of how stupid the Bush Crime Family is to
think anyone but paid Bush Crime Family Liars even see this crap as
worth repeating.
abracadabra
"Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:axcJg.2985$h51...@newsfe12.lga...
> August 30, 2006
> With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
>
> By Linda Chavez
1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
for an investigation.
2) Scooter was the one who lied to investigators.
It's not the crime, it's the cover up. What is it about BREAKING THE LAW you
conservatives don't understand?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
>for an investigation.
You don't believe that.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Nebuchadnezzar II
> With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit. Don't
shit in your own bed. Starr was a fanatical right-winger. At least
Fitz is in the same party as Bushco.
Voter
> August 30, 2006
> With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
>
> By Linda Chavez
>
<snip>
Note to Linda Chavez: There is a difference between being innocent of a
crime and getting away with one.
Rove and Cheney got away with one, Libby didn't. Libby lied to the Grand
Jury and the FBI, and obstructed the investigation by sending the FBI on
false leads.
In other words, he covered for Cheney and Bush.
If Libby was an honest man, Rove and Bush would be indicted by now, along
with the unnamed White House leaker (Cheney) that Novak alludes to.
As much as the righties try to spin it, the majority of Americans realize
that the foundation of this administration is built on dishonesty and
deceit, and are right to believe that the White House was behind the
leaking of Plame's name.
abracadabra
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:6i3bf2d33gcj8mgem...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> puked:
>
>>
>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
>>for an investigation.
>
> You don't believe that.
Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day one.
Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
Like an investigation into what kind of missile hit the Pentagon...
kyl...@yahoo.com
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:22 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> puked:
>
> >
> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >news:6i3bf2d33gcj8mgem...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> >> puked:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> >>>for an investigation.
> >>
> >> You don't believe that.
> >
> >Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day one.
> >Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
> >
>
> My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
> Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
You mean like a private matter between consenting adults, you
hypocritical blowhard.
lab~rat >:-)
Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
He could have said it was no one's business, but he didn't. He
brought me into the 'private matter' when he came on my tv in my house
and deliberately lied to me.
To me, it was more than a private matter at that point, it became
evidence of poor character and judgement in our political leader. It
was tangible proof of it.
Before you start in about Bush, yours is all CONJECTURE. Mine is
PROOF.
abracadabra
> On 30 Aug 2006 07:14:24 -0700, kyl...@yahoo.com puked:
>
>>
>>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:22 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>>> puked:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:6i3bf2d33gcj8mgem...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>>> >> puked:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no
>>> >>>need
>>> >>>for an investigation.
>>> >>
>>> >> You don't believe that.
>>> >
>>> >Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day one.
>>> >Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
>>> >
>>>
>>> My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
>>> Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
>>
>>You mean like a private matter between consenting adults, you
>>hypocritical blowhard.
>
> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
> look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
>
> He could have said it was no one's business, but he didn't. He
> brought me into the 'private matter' when he came on my tv in my house
> and deliberately lied to me.
That's right - the Bush administration has never lied to us.
They said we'd find massive quantities of WMDs in Iraq, and we did.
They said Iraq was about to acquire nukes, and they were right.
They said that we'd be greeted as liberators, and we were.
They said the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself, and it has.
They claimed they could cut taxes and raise spending and balance the budget,
and we have no deficits now.
Yep, the Bush administration has never lied to you, not once!
KK
> Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
> malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who think that
any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the other
side.
Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and who
don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked twice
as much as you assholes.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Now why would you snip my statement about PROOF vs. CONJECTURE?
LOL, dude, I have you people pegged big time...
George Grapman
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
bval...@aol.com
abracadabra wrote:
> "Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:axcJg.2985$h51...@newsfe12.lga...
> > August 30, 2006
> > With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
> >
> > By Linda Chavez
>
> 1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> for an investigation.>>>
Come clean with what, exactly?
> 2) Scooter was the one who lied to investigators.>>>>
Really? He was convincted? When did that happen?
>>>> It's not the crime, it's the cover up.>>>>>
What "cover up"?
>>>> What is it about BREAKING THE LAW you conservatives don't understand?>>>
What law did the White House break? What are you jabbering about? We
found out who did it, and it wasn't the White House. It was an
anti-war member of the State Department.
bval...@aol.com
abracadabra wrote:
> "Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:axcJg.2985$h51...@newsfe12.lga...
> > August 30, 2006
> > With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
> >
> > By Linda Chavez
>
> 1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> for an investigation.>>>
Come clean with what, exactly?
> 2) Scooter was the one who lied to investigators.>>>>
Really? He was convincted? When did that happen?
>>>> It's not the crime, it's the cover up.>>>>>
What "cover up"?
>>>> What is it about BREAKING THE LAW you conservatives don't understand?>>>
What law did the White House break? What are you jabbering about? We
bval...@aol.com
abracadabra wrote:
> "Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:axcJg.2985$h51...@newsfe12.lga...
> > August 30, 2006
> > With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
> >
> > By Linda Chavez
>
> 1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> for an investigation.>>>
Come clean with what, exactly?
> 2) Scooter was the one who lied to investigators.>>>>
Really? He was convincted? When did that happen?
>>>> It's not the crime, it's the cover up.>>>>>
What "cover up"?
>>>> What is it about BREAKING THE LAW you conservatives don't understand?>>>
What law did the White House break? What are you jabbering about? We
BC
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 07:14:24 -0700, kyl...@yahoo.com puked:
>
> >
> >lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:22 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> >> puked:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:6i3bf2d33gcj8mgem...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> >> >>>for an investigation.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't believe that.
> >> >
> >> >Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day one.
> >> >Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
> >> >
> >>
> >> My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
> >> Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
> >
> >You mean like a private matter between consenting adults, you
> >hypocritical blowhard.
>
> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
> look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
To be fair, a lot of people, including the vast majority
of the young and very sexually active, don't consider
a blow job to be "sex". It's mostly just a form of fooling
around than anything else. So technically, when Clinton
said ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman,"
he being more weaselly than anything else.
Obviously, if you're not sexually active, and consider
even a kiss on the cheek to be having sexual relations,
you would claim that Clinton outright lied to the American
people when he made that statement, and maybe rank
it right up there with or perhaps even higher than, say,
a statement like "There's no question that Saddam
Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
Umm, that *is* what you're claiming, aren't you?
-BC
lab~rat >:-)
<sfge...@paccbell.net> puked:
> Feel the same way about the Cisneros investigation?
PROOF vs. CONJECTURE?
Maybe you should quote what you are responding to just so we're clear
on what you are asking...
BC
Pookie wrote:
> August 30, 2006
> With truth revealed in Plame leak, real crime is malicious prosecution
>
> By Linda Chavez
Not so fast there, Ms. Chavez and doltish reposters
of her silly, fact-free column and others like it.
In their efforts to attack and discredit Wilson over
his piece he wrote for the NY Times
(http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)
the White House and its toadying supporters were
bringing up Wilson's wife, including falsely accusing
her of being the one who sent Wilson to Niger (the
CIA has long denied this, and Plame didn't have the
authority in any case.) Libby and Rove also talked
to reporters about Plame's CIA status, and Libby
was caught lying to the grand jury, which got him
into a lot more trouble.
Media Matters has a detailed analysis of this and
an excerpt from the Isikoff/Corn "Hubris" book here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608290009
"The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the
White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as
Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White
House effort, for Armitage had been sent a key
memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife
and her CIA connection, and this memo had been
written, according to special counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby,
the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked
for the memo because he was looking to protect
his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and
Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence
to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq."
"The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's
role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's
trip. This critical memo was -- as Hubris discloses --
based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going
to have to read the book for more on this.) But
because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate
among State Department officials, including Armitage,
that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife."
Basically Armitage wasn't aware of the covert status
of Plame when he chatted with Novak, and he when
found out he may have leaked classified info, he
immediately reported what he did to the State
Department and the FBI. Coming clean like that
right away basically got Armitage out of legal
trouble with the investigation, although it looks
as though Plame may not include him in her
lawsuits against Rove, Cheney, and Libby:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060822/D8JLOJ402.html
But Armitage wasn't the only source that Novak
used -- it was Rove who confirmed Plame's status,
and Rove likely knew, unlike Armitage, that this
involved classified info. And unlike Armitage accidental
slip, both Rove and Libby were leaking and talking with
media people with malicious intent as part of the
overall smear campaign against Wilson. This was
confirmed by Libby himself:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Some more info is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=116511
Ain't fact-full information the bee's balls?
-BC
lab~rat >:-)
Let's just put it this way, would you consider it sex?
For instance, if your wife blew your neighbors a couple of times a
week, it wouldn't be sex would it? It would be fine...
If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
and maybe rank
>it right up there with or perhaps even higher than, say,
>a statement like "There's no question that Saddam
>Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
>
>Umm, that *is* what you're claiming, aren't you?
>
>-BC
--
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:pan.2006.08.30....@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:56 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
>> malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
>
> Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who think
> that
> any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the
> other
> side.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so why don't you
just shut the fuck up rather than making yourself look like an idiot.
The Whitewater investigation cost the taxpayers $80 million and the best
it could come up with is a blowjob. Clinton was never so much as
indicted for anything. It never served any purpose other than to piss
away government money and detract from the business of government.
>
> Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and who
> don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked
> twice
> as much as you assholes.
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and understand
what happened. That's exactly what the special counsel is for. Fitz is
a Republican and he sure as hell isn't biased. He's not going around
investigating blowjobs either. Again, you have no idea what the fuck
you're talking about.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>what happened.
Is that your justification? In that case, I submit to you that the
public had a strong desire to know about Clinton and the sloppy fat
intern...
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.30....@furburger.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:56 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>
>>> Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
>>> malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
>>
>> Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who think
>> that
>> any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the
>> other
>> side.
>
> You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so why don't you
> just shut the fuck up rather than making yourself look like an idiot.
> The Whitewater investigation cost the taxpayers $80 million and the best
> it could come up with is a blowjob. Clinton was never so much as
> indicted for anything. It never served any purpose other than to piss
> away government money and detract from the business of government.
Go back and read what I said more slowly.
>>
>> Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and who
>> don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked
>> twice
>> as much as you assholes.
>>
>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
> investigation?
I don't need to. Your justification for it is right above: "What goes
around comes around, dipshit". You equated the two investigations, not me.
> The public had a strong desire to know and understand
> what happened. That's exactly what the special counsel is for. Fitz is
> a Republican and he sure as hell isn't biased. He's not going around
> investigating blowjobs either. Again, you have no idea what the fuck
> you're talking about.
All I'm talking about is your using bullshit on the other side to justify
bullshit on your side.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:pan.2006.08.30....@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:53:41 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.30....@furburger.net...
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:56 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
>>>> malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
>>>
>>> Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who
>>> think
>>> that
>>> any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the
>>> other
>>> side.
>>
>> You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so why don't
>> you
>> just shut the fuck up rather than making yourself look like an idiot.
>> The Whitewater investigation cost the taxpayers $80 million and the
>> best
>> it could come up with is a blowjob. Clinton was never so much as
>> indicted for anything. It never served any purpose other than to
>> piss
>> away government money and detract from the business of government.
>
> Go back and read what I said more slowly.
Yep, I'm still convinced you have no fucking clue.
>
>
>>>
>>> Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and
>>> who
>>> don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked
>>> twice
>>> as much as you assholes.
>>>
>>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>> investigation?
>
>
> I don't need to. Your justification for it is right above: "What goes
> around comes around, dipshit". You equated the two investigations,
> not me.
I'm not conceeding Fitz's investigation is unfair. I'm just pointing
out what a hypocrite he is. Go back and read what I said more slowly.
>> The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>> what happened. That's exactly what the special counsel is for. Fitz
>> is
>> a Republican and he sure as hell isn't biased. He's not going around
>> investigating blowjobs either. Again, you have no idea what the fuck
>> you're talking about.
>
>
> All I'm talking about is your using bullshit on the other side to
> justify
> bullshit on your side.
No, you're obviously trying to play the middle when it's quite clear
whose side you're on. You're an uninformed dipshit that has no idea
what you're talking about.
Nebuchadnezzar II
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:53:41 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>
>>Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>>investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>>what happened.
>
> Is that your justification? In that case, I submit to you that the
> public had a strong desire to know about Clinton and the sloppy fat
> intern...
Which was nobody's business other than their own, wasn't illegal, and
had nothing to do with the government's business. Three important
points that completely escape your small mind.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:ccgbf295alr2guhu2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:53:41 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
>> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>
>>>Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>>>investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>>>what happened.
>>
>> Is that your justification? In that case, I submit to you that the
>> public had a strong desire to know about Clinton and the sloppy fat
>> intern...
>
>Which was nobody's business other than their own, wasn't illegal, and
>had nothing to do with the government's business. Three important
>points that completely escape your small mind.
>
My small mind just wizzed a point over your pointy-like head. Maybe
you might want to revisit what you typed.
Your premise and justification has no bearing on whether or not the
investigation is warranted...
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>> Go back and read what I said more slowly.
>
>Yep, I'm still convinced you have no fucking clue.
Seems to be a character flaw, there, Nebbie. Forget your Ritalin?
You seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball...
Nebuchadnezzar II
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:21:26 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>
>>> Go back and read what I said more slowly.
>>
>>Yep, I'm still convinced you have no fucking clue.
>
> Seems to be a character flaw, there, Nebbie. Forget your Ritalin?
> You seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball...
Diversion noted.
Nebuchadnezzar II
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:24:24 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:ccgbf295alr2guhu2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:53:41 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
>>> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>>>>investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and
>>>>understand
>>>>what happened.
>>>
>>> Is that your justification? In that case, I submit to you that the
>>> public had a strong desire to know about Clinton and the sloppy fat
>>> intern...
>>
>>Which was nobody's business other than their own, wasn't illegal, and
>>had nothing to do with the government's business. Three important
>>points that completely escape your small mind.
>>
>
> My small mind just wizzed a point over your pointy-like head. Maybe
> you might want to revisit what you typed.
Name calling and diversion aren't a substitute for debate outside of
junior high, sonny.
> Your premise and justification has no bearing on whether or not the
> investigation is warranted...
Ah, so now we engage in criminal investigation for actions that have no
basis on a violation of the law. How typically Republican of you. Even
Starr admitted the Lewinsky investigation was a mistake.
Nebuchadnezzar II
> Let's just put it this way, would you consider it sex?
>
> For instance, if your wife blew your neighbors a couple of times a
> week, it wouldn't be sex would it? It would be fine...
>
> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
>
> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
>
> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>
> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
Because he has character. When has Bush ever apologized for any of his
lies? I'll be glad to provide you with a list of his lies and willful
deceit all of which I can back up with documentation of facts. The
difference is, the things Bush lied about have a dramatic effect on this
nation and the world. Clinton didn't lie. That's why he was NEVER so
much as indicted for ANYTHING despite an $80 million investigation. The
legal definition of sex doesn't involve a blowjob. He did engage in
willful deceit about a very private matter for which he later
apologized. He certainly never committed an impeachable offense.
KK
> I'm not conceeding Fitz's investigation is unfair. I'm just pointing
> out what a hypocrite he is. Go back and read what I said more slowly.
You didn't "point out what a hypocrite is", you douche, you answered an
accusation that an investigation you support is malicious prosecution with
"what comes around goes around". You justified an accusation of abuse of
power with another.
>
>>> The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>>> what happened. That's exactly what the special counsel is for. Fitz
>>> is
>>> a Republican and he sure as hell isn't biased. He's not going around
>>> investigating blowjobs either. Again, you have no idea what the fuck
>>> you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> All I'm talking about is your using bullshit on the other side to
>> justify
>> bullshit on your side.
>
> No, you're obviously trying to play the middle when it's quite clear
> whose side you're on. You're an uninformed dipshit that has no idea
> what you're talking about.
You don't know what the fuck I know. I know better than to argue with a
angry, red-faced, fists-in-a-ball true believer of either corrupt
political party, because it's like trying to teach a flowerpot to play the
violin.
Know that those of us who don't align with either the left or right set
of assholes don't see your mutually assured corruption as a 'win'.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:hkebf21j5tdppqfsc...@4ax.com...
>
>> Let's just put it this way, would you consider it sex?
>>
>> For instance, if your wife blew your neighbors a couple of times a
>> week, it wouldn't be sex would it? It would be fine...
>>
>> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
>> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
>>
>> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
>> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
>> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
>>
>> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>>
>> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
>> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
>> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
>
>Because he has character.
LOL, yeah, bad character.
> When has Bush ever apologized for any of his
>lies? I'll be glad to provide you with a list of his lies and willful
>deceit all of which I can back up with documentation of facts. The
>difference is, the things Bush lied about have a dramatic effect on this
>nation and the world. Clinton didn't lie. That's why he was NEVER so
>much as indicted for ANYTHING despite an $80 million investigation. The
>legal definition of sex doesn't involve a blowjob. He did engage in
>willful deceit about a very private matter for which he later
>apologized. He certainly never committed an impeachable offense.
>
Anyway, back to the issue. You admitted that Clinton lied. I was
sure that you didn't believe all that zany "oral is not sex" as you
don't seem like a total idiot. I just wanted to confirm it...
Congratulations.
Igor
Who said there were two wrongs? Bush is going to be in some serious
legal trouble after he leaves office. Just wait.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:3bibf25oiplqqv96s...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:24:24 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
>> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>
>>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ccgbf295alr2guhu2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:53:41 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
>>>> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to explain what is "unfair" about the Plame
>>>>>investigation? The public had a strong desire to know and
>>>>>understand
>>>>>what happened.
>>>>
>>>> Is that your justification? In that case, I submit to you that the
>>>> public had a strong desire to know about Clinton and the sloppy fat
>>>> intern...
>>>
>>>Which was nobody's business other than their own, wasn't illegal, and
>>>had nothing to do with the government's business. Three important
>>>points that completely escape your small mind.
>>>
>>
>> My small mind just wizzed a point over your pointy-like head. Maybe
>> you might want to revisit what you typed.
>
>Name calling and diversion aren't a substitute for debate outside of
>junior high, sonny.
How old are you? You may not be in a position to call me sonny.
In the meantime, can we keep on track of the subject matter? You seem
to like to shotgun around the point.
>
>> Your premise and justification has no bearing on whether or not the
>> investigation is warranted...
>
>Ah, so now we engage in criminal investigation for actions that have no
>basis on a violation of the law. How typically Republican of you. Even
>Starr admitted the Lewinsky investigation was a mistake.
>
That wasn't what I said in the least. I merely suggested that your
rationale for the Plame investigation was weak and could be applied to
the Clinton investigation. I knew you didn't think the Clinton
Lewinski thing was legitimate, I was making a comparison using your
logic.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:beibf2hq6sa7is78e...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:21:26 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
>> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>
>>>> Go back and read what I said more slowly.
>>>
>>>Yep, I'm still convinced you have no fucking clue.
>>
>> Seems to be a character flaw, there, Nebbie. Forget your Ritalin?
>> You seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball...
>
>Diversion noted.
>
It appears that you have strayed from the point three times in this
very thread. That was exactly what I was pointing out. If anyone is
guilty of diversion, be it on purpose or accident, it would be you...
Igor
How about perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstruction of justice? All
to protect Bush's ass. And Fitz isn't finished. Cheney will be next.
lab~rat >:-)
I thought he was gonna be impeached, just wait...
Pookie
"BC" <call...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156955296....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I love it...watching you guys tryin' to keep Fitzmas alive...knock yourself
out, libloon...
KK
>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> Who said there were two wrongs?
The answer to the accusation that the Plame investigation is "malicious
prosecution" (wrong #1) was "what goes around comes around" and then talk
about Whitewater (wrong #2).
#2 was used in the "what goes around comes around" sentence to justify #1
> Who said there were two wrongs? Bush is going to be in some serious
> legal trouble after he leaves office. Just wait.
I don't think he is, but would welcome it. I would root against him.
BaJoRi
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1156962740....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not even close. No future president will go after a predecessor, for fear
that some of the things done by that future president will not be all that
popular, and they won't want to set precedence. Do you want proof? Was Nixon
ever charged with a criminal complaint? Was Clinton ever charged with
perjury? Was Reagan or Bush the Elder ever charged for illegal arms sales to
Iran? Was Carter ever charged with abetting the pro-democracy crackdown in
Korea? Was Johnson ever charged with any of the illegalities surrounding the
Vietnam War? Nixon regarding Allende? Clinton regarding Kosovo? Truman and
the nuclear bomb? The list could go on and on....
lab~rat >:-)
Aw, come on. Give them something to live for...
Pookie
Someone's gonna be sad at Fitzmastime...time to get your Bush Derangement
Syndrome treated...poor baby :-(
Sources: State Department official source of Plame leak
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was
the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to
syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal
investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.
The sources said Armitage revealed Plame's role at the CIA almost
inadvertently in a casual conversation with Novak, and it is not clear if he
knew her identity was classified at the time.
Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the
disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. Deliberately
revealing the identify of a CIA operative can be a crime.
The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat
anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a
weapon in Washington's partisan battles.
During the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Armitage was viewed as one of the
more skeptical voices in the administration about the need to depose Saddam
Hussein by force.
In a July 14, 2003, column, Novak noted that Plame was a CIA operative,
citing two senior administration officials. The column was primarily about
Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the
intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.
Wilson and some Democrats contend Plame's identity was released by the White
House to retaliate against her husband for writing a July 2003 column in The
New York Times that questioned the administration's use of prewar
intelligence on Iraq. (Full story)
Last month, Plame and Wilson filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy
that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those
who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for
going to war with Iraq"and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked
at the CIA. This revelation destroyed Plame's career with the agency,
according to the suit.
The scenario described by the sources familiar with Armitage's role,
however, appears to contradict those arguments.
But the Wilsons' attorney, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington, said the revelation that Armitage was the original
source for the leak did not undercut the charge that Vice President Dick
Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and White
House adviser Karl Rove acted to retaliate against Wilson by engaging in a
"whispering campaign" about his wife.
The couple plans to proceed with the lawsuit, Sloan said.
"Mr. Armitage's conduct does not change the facts of what Libby, Cheney and
Rove did," Sloan told CNN. "The case is about the abuse of government
power."
Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame.
However, he has said that Rove confirmed the information and was the second
source cited in the column.
Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source
unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the
CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was
independently.
Fitzgerald has said he does not plan to bring any charges against Novak's
original source.
Calls to Armitage for comment were not returned Tuesday.
The Armitage connection to the Novak column is also outlined in a new book
titled "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and David Korn.
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."
Calls to Ford for comment also were not returned Tuesday.
In September 2003, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Illinois, was
appointed as a special counsel to investigate whether any laws were broken
with the disclosure.
No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's identity, but Libby has been
charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for
allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists
about Plame.
Libby has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.
Fitzgerald notified Rove that he wouldn't be charged in the case, Rove's
attorney, Robert Luskin, said in June.
As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald subpoenaed then-New York Times
reporter Judith Miller and then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. In
2005, Miller spent nearly 12 weeks in jail after she refused to testify to
identify her source to Fitzgerald. (View a timeline of the CIA leak case)
Miller was released after her source, Libby, called her and personally
waived their confidentially agreement.
Armitage, 65, was No. 2 at the State Department under former Secretary of
State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2005.
He left his post after Powell resigned at the beginning of Bush's second
term.
CNN's John King and Brian Todd contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html
BC
How about if your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend kissed your
neighbor on the lips, and it wasn't just a quick peck?
Would you mind and would you consider that sex?
>
> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
What if yours was letting any guy get to second base
with her on a date? (That's "feeling her up" by the way
in case you didn't know) Would that bother you, sex or
no sex?
And what does the term "going all the way" mean to
you, exactly?
>
> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
Is that what I wrote? Really? I thought I wrote that
Clinton was being weaselly when he said ""I did not
have sexual relations with that woman"? That was a
comment on basically how Clinton was being evasive
by using the term "sexual relations" in terms of a
blow job to avoid admitting to any sort of hanky panky
with Monica. He was basically just being a dude.
>
> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
It doesn't matter what it's "called" -- it's about whether
a blow job -- the more widely used term -- is really,
truly having sex.
Here's a trick question for you -- if Monica had been a
virgin before that, would she still have been technically
a virgin afterwards? And if she was still technically a
virgin, how could she have had "sex"?
>
> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
>
Because he did "fool around" regardless, and cheated,
however temporarily, a little bit at least on Hilary.
Suppose at an office party, you and this cute secretary
have a few too many and get a little "playful" -- but it
never gets beyond dirty talking, grabbing and feeling.
There's not even any real kissing involved. It doesn't
mean anything either to you or the secretary afterwards.
Not exactly honorable, but suppose the rumor becomes
that you two actually "did it" and there are people who
don't like you who hear about it and they decide to make
it into a BFD. You and the secretary had only fooled
around. It was very foolish, but it wasn't sex.
Fair or unfair? You deserve whatever personal attacts,
regardless of their truthfulness, and grief that comes your
way over all this, or not?
>
> and maybe rank
> >it right up there with or perhaps even higher than, say,
> >a statement like "There's no question that Saddam
> >Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
> >
> >Umm, that *is* what you're claiming, aren't you?
> >
I notice that you skipped over commenting on this bit.
Why, pray tell?
-BC
BC
What can I say except to paraphrase Steven Colbert:
truthiness is conservative, truthfulness is liberal.
Actually he makes a nice, smart observation here:
http://www.avclub.com/content/node/44705
"Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't
mean the argument over who came up with the
word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's
certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to
matter what facts are. It used to be everyone was
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
"But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not
at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People
love the president because he's certain of his choices
as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't
seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is
very appealing to a certain section of the country. I
really feel a dichotomy in the American populace.
What is important? What you want to be true, or what
is true?"
-BC
Pookie
What is true is that they're *your* facts...
Slo
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
> look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
>
> brought me into the 'private matter' when he came on my tv in my house
> and deliberately lied to me.
>
> To me, it was more than a private matter at that point, it became
> evidence of poor character and judgement in our political leader. It
> was tangible proof of it.
>
> Before you start in about Bush, yours is all CONJECTURE. Mine is
> PROOF.
Bushit! He did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
He got his dick sucked.
Sure, he was being evasive but they were asking him about
personal behaviour: consentual sex. It was none of the press'
business nor any of ours.
Bush lies almost every time he opens his mouth. The guy's
laughably full of shit. Did you see his interview with Brian
Wlliams? The difference is that he lies about stuff that is
the people's business.
Slo
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
To distinguish it from sex.
KK
Then why's vaginal sex called that?
Slo
KK wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:56 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
> > Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
> > malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
>
> Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who think that
> any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the other
> side.
>
> Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and who
> don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked twice
> as much as you assholes.
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
A legal process put in motion by AG Ashcroft is unlikely to be
considered
"unfair play" unless you're an absolute wing-nut. Fitzgerald has
handled
this with integrity.
lab~rat >:-)
Big difference, we're talking about blowjobs.
>
>>
>> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
>> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
>
>What if yours was letting any guy get to second base
>with her on a date? (That's "feeling her up" by the way
>in case you didn't know) Would that bother you, sex or
>no sex?
Why are you changing the subject from blowjobs.
(And the answer would be yes, my daughter's in elementary school)
>
>And what does the term "going all the way" mean to
>you, exactly?
Why are you changing the subject? Is a blowjob a sex act, or is oral
sex not sex?
>
>>
>> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
>> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
>> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
>
>Is that what I wrote? Really? I thought I wrote that
>Clinton was being weaselly when he said ""I did not
>have sexual relations with that woman"? That was a
>comment on basically how Clinton was being evasive
>by using the term "sexual relations" in terms of a
>blow job to avoid admitting to any sort of hanky panky
>with Monica. He was basically just being a dude.
I don't pay taxes to have a president that is a dude, nor that comes
into my living room via tv to lie to my face.
So did he lie? I say he did. Anyone with a brain says so.
>
>>
>> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>
>It doesn't matter what it's "called" -- it's about whether
>a blow job -- the more widely used term -- is really,
>truly having sex.
>
>Here's a trick question for you -- if Monica had been a
>virgin before that, would she still have been technically
>a virgin afterwards? And if she was still technically a
>virgin, how could she have had "sex"?
Her mouth wasn't a virgin, and for the record, in either case she'd be
a pig. Not for what she did so much as the fact that she has a curly
tail and waddles in mud. Figuratively, of course.
>
>>
>> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
>> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
>> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
>>
>
>Because he did "fool around" regardless, and cheated,
>however temporarily, a little bit at least on Hilary.
At least.
>
>Suppose at an office party, you and this cute secretary
>have a few too many and get a little "playful" -- but it
>never gets beyond dirty talking, grabbing and feeling.
>There's not even any real kissing involved. It doesn't
>mean anything either to you or the secretary afterwards.
>
>Not exactly honorable, but suppose the rumor becomes
>that you two actually "did it" and there are people who
>don't like you who hear about it and they decide to make
>it into a BFD. You and the secretary had only fooled
>around. It was very foolish, but it wasn't sex.
>
>Fair or unfair? You deserve whatever personal attacts,
>regardless of their truthfulness, and grief that comes your
>way over all this, or not?
If she gave me a blowjob, it would be sex. Oral sex. And it wouldn't
happen because I'm not a scumbag that cheats on my wife.
>
>>
>> and maybe rank
>> >it right up there with or perhaps even higher than, say,
>> >a statement like "There's no question that Saddam
>> >Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
>> >
>> >Umm, that *is* what you're claiming, aren't you?
>> >
>
>I notice that you skipped over commenting on this bit.
>Why, pray tell?
>
Because I was in the middle of a discussion about something else. I
know the way you people operate, and I'm addressing one part of the
discussion at a time.
Now, just to straighten this whole thing out, did Clinton lie on tv in
your opinion?
KK
Read my post and the one preceding it. I didn't say anything about the
investigation.
BC
What, you're saying that facts are like a bunch of
puppies at the animal shelter, and that you get to pick
which ones to adopt and which ones to ignore and let
stay back at the shelter?
No. Facts are what reality hands you, whether you
find them cute & fun or not. If you get fired for being a
lousy, duty-shirking worker, go ahead and tell all your
friends that it was office politics or that your boss didn't
like your honesty or whatever all you want, but all of
that has nothing to do with reality and facts.
In terms of the Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame situation,
Joe Wilson wrote an article for the NY Times claiming
basically that the Bush administration manipulated
intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs
to justify an invasion of Iraq. This provoked an angry
reaction by the White House and their Republican/right
wing allies, and Wilson was made the target of a
malicious smear campaign. Wilson's wife, a highly trained
and skilled CIA operative, got drawn in with the smear
campaign and the true nature of her real job ended up
being leaked. While Armitage may have been the first to
disclose classified info about Plame, he got that info in
the first place as a result of the White House's attack
strategy on Wilson, and was not made aware of how
sensitive the info was when he chatted up Novak. When
he had realized what he did, he immediately came clean
about it with his bosses at the State Department and with
the FBI, and he fully cooperated with Patrick Fitzgerald.
As far as the evidence goes so far, there was no malicious
intent here.
In contrast, there was plenty and demonstrable
malicious intent by the White House and the GOP
leadership in regards to Wilson, and little or no respect
or discretion was shown towards the classified nature of
Valerie Plame's position at the CIA. Whether her position
was revealed deliberately or because they just didn't give
a f*ck, it caused a security breach that the CIA at least
took very, very seriously. Even if she had been completely
retired as a covert agent, simply revealing what her CIA
function was allowed both enemies and curious allies to
gather possibly useful intel by backtracing where she's
been and who's she been meeting with over the years.
Those are facts you or anyone else can easily verify.
They are not "my facts" -- they are what reality has
dished out, whether you like them or not.
Maybe ice cream makes for a better metaphor than
puppies.
-BC
Pookie
What malicious smear campaign? Those are words of you & your Bush
Derangement Syndrome infected buddies.
The 9/11 commission pointed out some of the lies in his statements. The
administration wanted to know who recommended him to go over there in the
first place.
Wilson's wife, a highly trained
> and skilled CIA operative, got drawn in with the smear
> campaign and the true nature of her real job ended up
> being leaked.
The true nature?
While Armitage may have been the first to
> disclose classified info about Plame, he got that info in
> the first place as a result of the White House's attack
> strategy on Wilson, and was not made aware of how
> sensitive the info was when he chatted up Novak. When
> he had realized what he did, he immediately came clean
> about it with his bosses at the State Department and with
> the FBI, and he fully cooperated with Patrick Fitzgerald.
> As far as the evidence goes so far, there was no malicious
> intent here.
>
> In contrast, there was plenty and demonstrable
> malicious intent by the White House and the GOP
> leadership in regards to Wilson, and little or no respect
> or discretion was shown towards the classified nature of
> Valerie Plame's position at the CIA. Whether her position
> was revealed deliberately or because they just didn't give
> a f*ck, it caused a security breach that the CIA at least
> took very, very seriously. Even if she had been completely
> retired as a covert agent, simply revealing what her CIA
> function was allowed both enemies and curious allies to
> gather possibly useful intel by backtracing where she's
> been and who's she been meeting with over the years.
What is Fitzgerald supposed to be investigating & why has no one been
charged with the original "crime"?
Haven't you availed him of your services?
> Those are facts you or anyone else can easily verify.
> They are not "my facts" -- they are what reality has
> dished out, whether you like them or not.
As I stated originally, they're the facts that *you* like & you keep
repeating them as if they were facts.
abracadabra
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:33:20 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>>>news:o47bf2t1eee77g8va...@4ax.com...
>>> On 30 Aug 2006 07:14:24 -0700, kyl...@yahoo.com puked:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:22 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> puked:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:6i3bf2d33gcj8mgem...@4ax.com...
>>>>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> >> puked:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been
>>>>> >>>no
>>>>> >>>need
>>>>> >>>for an investigation.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You don't believe that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day
>>>>> >one.
>>>>> >Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
>>>>> Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
>>>>
>>>>You mean like a private matter between consenting adults, you
>>>>hypocritical blowhard.
>>>
>>> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
>>> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
>>> look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
>>>
>>> brought me into the 'private matter' when he came on my tv in my house
>>> and deliberately lied to me.
>>
>>They said we'd find massive quantities of WMDs in Iraq, and we did.
>>They said Iraq was about to acquire nukes, and they were right.
>>They said that we'd be greeted as liberators, and we were.
>>They said the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself, and it has.
>>They claimed they could cut taxes and raise spending and balance the
>>budget,
>>and we have no deficits now.
>>Yep, the Bush administration has never lied to you, not once!
>>
>
> Now why would you snip my statement about PROOF vs. CONJECTURE?
>
> LOL, dude, I have you people pegged big time...
It was "snipped" because I thought it was rather a minor point. I'd have
kept it if I was defending Clinton. However I've never defended Clinton's
affair (other than to say that Clinton was a better President while getting
a BJ than Bush was on his best day). I have said REPEATEDLY that Clinton
ought to have resigned after the news of the affair broke - not because
having an affair disqualifies one from higher office, but that it was
soooooo obviously stupid to lie about it. Stupider was having an affair with
a blabbermouth like Lewinski. Worse was sending his wife and all his aids
out to defend him when he knew the truth would come out. It was terrible
judgment on his part. The party and the country would be better off if he'd
resigned.
Now, tell us about how truthful Bush is by comparison!
BC
No, we *were* talking talking about whether a blow job
is the same as having sex or not, but you changed this
into whether it would be fine then if my wife blew my
neighbors a couple of times a week. That means we're
now into what activities would piss you off if your wife
or girlfriend engaged them with the neighbors. Sex,
blow jobs, kissing, making out, talking long walks
while holding hands.... They are all related so sexual
activity in some fashion that would piss you off, but
hardly define what "having sex" is.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted it,
> >> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
> >
> >What if yours was letting any guy get to second base
> >with her on a date? (That's "feeling her up" by the way
> >in case you didn't know) Would that bother you, sex or
> >no sex?
>
> Why are you changing the subject from blowjobs.
See my earlier response. You changed the subject when
you apparently tried to make the criteria for whether a
blow job is sex or not by how much it would bother you
if your wife engaged in with the neighbors. By that logic,
it's fair to ask if kissing is the same as sex if that would
bother you if your wife engaged in that with the neighbors
are well.
>
> (And the answer would be yes, my daughter's in elementary school)
>
> >
> >And what does the term "going all the way" mean to
> >you, exactly?
>
> Why are you changing the subject? Is a blowjob a sex act, or is oral
> sex not sex?
You tell me. Is it a form of fooling around or is it sex?
And is your criteria by how much it bothers you?
>
> >
> >>
> >> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From what
> >> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
> >> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
> >
> >Is that what I wrote? Really? I thought I wrote that
> >Clinton was being weaselly when he said ""I did not
> >have sexual relations with that woman"? That was a
> >comment on basically how Clinton was being evasive
> >by using the term "sexual relations" in terms of a
> >blow job to avoid admitting to any sort of hanky panky
> >with Monica. He was basically just being a dude.
>
> I don't pay taxes to have a president that is a dude, nor that comes
> into my living room via tv to lie to my face.
Yeah, well, Presidents lying on TV, on the radio, and in
speeches seem to be the norm these days, although I
personally would prefer that it involved a dude-related
matter like messing around with a girl rather than a not-
so-dude related matters involving invasions and wars.
But that's just me.
>
> So did he lie? I say he did. Anyone with a brain says so.
He weaseled, which I do consider a form of lying outside
of a courtroom environment where weaseling and
avoiding admitting directly to anything is the norm to
avoid self-incrimination. Even though he may have been
technically not lying in the way he shaped his statement,
the intent was to avoid admitting to having any sexual
shennanigans with Monica. That may be fine for a
courtroom setting in battle of verbal wits with a hostile
attorney, but not in a public address to the nation.
While not a blatent lie, it was deceitful enough to be
considered a lie.
Still, though, when it's all said and done, it was never
more than just some foolish fooling around between
consenting adults.
>
> >
> >>
> >> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
> >
> >It doesn't matter what it's "called" -- it's about whether
> >a blow job -- the more widely used term -- is really,
> >truly having sex.
> >
> >Here's a trick question for you -- if Monica had been a
> >virgin before that, would she still have been technically
> >a virgin afterwards? And if she was still technically a
> >virgin, how could she have had "sex"?
>
> Her mouth wasn't a virgin, and for the record, in either case she'd be
> a pig. Not for what she did so much as the fact that she has a curly
> tail and waddles in mud. Figuratively, of course.
That's not exactly answering the question is it?
By the way, you might find this article interesting:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/press/2005/091505.htm
Basically, government promotion of sexual abstinence
before marriage has evidently cause the popularity of
oral sex to soar, since that's considered a way to
maintain virginity.
Considering who have been pushing the sexual
abstinence programs, this little side effect is kind of
amusing:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199633,00.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=43475
>
> >
> >>
> >> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
> >> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
> >> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
> >>
> >
> >Because he did "fool around" regardless, and cheated,
> >however temporarily, a little bit at least on Hilary.
>
> At least.
>
> >
> >Suppose at an office party, you and this cute secretary
> >have a few too many and get a little "playful" -- but it
> >never gets beyond dirty talking, grabbing and feeling.
> >There's not even any real kissing involved. It doesn't
> >mean anything either to you or the secretary afterwards.
> >
> >Not exactly honorable, but suppose the rumor becomes
> >that you two actually "did it" and there are people who
> >don't like you who hear about it and they decide to make
> >it into a BFD. You and the secretary had only fooled
> >around. It was very foolish, but it wasn't sex.
> >
> >Fair or unfair? You deserve whatever personal attacts,
> >regardless of their truthfulness, and grief that comes your
> >way over all this, or not?
>
> If she gave me a blowjob, it would be sex. Oral sex. And it wouldn't
> happen because I'm not a scumbag that cheats on my wife.
Again, you're not answering the question. Suppose it was
just some drunken fooling around -- well?
>
> >
> >>
> >> and maybe rank
> >> >it right up there with or perhaps even higher than, say,
> >> >a statement like "There's no question that Saddam
> >> >Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
> >> >
> >> >Umm, that *is* what you're claiming, aren't you?
> >> >
> >
> >I notice that you skipped over commenting on this bit.
> >Why, pray tell?
> >
>
> Because I was in the middle of a discussion about something else. I
> know the way you people operate, and I'm addressing one part of the
> discussion at a time.
Yeah, right, I'm sure....
>
> Now, just to straighten this whole thing out, did Clinton lie on tv in
> your opinion?
Yeah, I answered that earlier. His word weaseling might
have been OK in a courtroom, but not in a public address.
I consider a deliberately deceptive statement, however
worded to not technically lie legally-wise, to be a lie.
Perhaps not a blatent lie, but still a lie. I would consider
a more blatent lie to be a statement where there is no
such technical/verbal wiggle room -- it's not only utterly
deceptive but it just outright lies. Something like, hmmm,
what's a good example....hmmm....oh, I know: "There's
no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
Hope this helps.
-BC
Voter
He was investigating whether or not there was a breach of security by a
White House in the leaking of the name of a covert CIA agent.
The investigation was put in motion after the FBI and the CIA deemed that
an investigation was warranted.
The Attorney General, upon being notified that all White House documents
relating to the case were to be subpoenaed, waited 24 hours before
notifying White House officials (enough time to do quite a bit of shredding
and deleting).
You probably forgot the part where Bush promises the American people that
anyone from his administration who was "involved" in the leak of Plame's
name, would be "fired".
And you probably forgot the part where Rove lied to Scott McLellan about
his involvement in the affair, and you probably forgot the part where Bush,
upon learning of Rove's involvement, rather than keeping his word
(surprise, surprise), he instead raised the bar (flip flopped) and said
that anyone "indicted" in the Plame case would be "let go".
And you probably forgot the part where they assigned Rove a new position
and moved his office to another floor, thus symbolically indicating "a
distancing" from the president, because the sense in the White House was
that Rove was going to be indicted (they were almost certain of his
indictment because they knew he was guilty).
And, of course, you forgot the huge sigh of relief, mixed with gasps of
surprise, which emanated from the White House when Rove wasn't indicted.
It was close, but he got away with it.
It is amusing to think back to when you righties considered perjury to be
the crime of all crimes when it involved Bill Clinton, and then suddenly
find perjury no big deal when committed by one of your own.
Sounds to me like "one of those contridikshins", as George Bush would (try
to) say.
Nebuchadnezzar II
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:02:40 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:hkebf21j5tdppqfsc...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Let's just put it this way, would you consider it sex?
>>>
>>> For instance, if your wife blew your neighbors a couple of times a
>>> week, it wouldn't be sex would it? It would be fine...
>>>
>>> If it got around that your daughter was blowing anyone that wanted
>>> it,
>>> that wouldn't be any kind of sex either, right?
>>>
>>> I guess that's what separates conservatives from liberals. From
>>> what
>>> you have written, you consider marital infidelity to be no problem
>>> whatsoever, and you don't even consider oral SEX to be SEX.
>>>
>>> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>>>
>>> And BTW, I'm not for one second buying any of that crap. The entire
>>> reason he wagged his fist at me and lied to my face was to deceive.
>>> If you don't believe me, answer this: WHY DID HE APOLOGIZE?
>>
>>Because he has character.
>
> LOL, yeah, bad character.
Ah, so he admitted his mistake and apologized, and by your yardstick
this represents bad character. Forgive the repetition, but I'm just
trying to understand how your warped logic works. It would be
interesting to hear what your point of reference is for this judgement
when you consider Shrub has engaged in willful deceit and outright
baldface lies on several occassions and NEVER apologized. So tell us
how Shrub rates on your character scale. I'm very interested to know.
>
>> When has Bush ever apologized for any of his
>>lies? I'll be glad to provide you with a list of his lies and willful
>>deceit all of which I can back up with documentation of facts. The
>>difference is, the things Bush lied about have a dramatic effect on
>>this
>>nation and the world. Clinton didn't lie. That's why he was NEVER so
>>much as indicted for ANYTHING despite an $80 million investigation.
>>The
>>legal definition of sex doesn't involve a blowjob. He did engage in
>>willful deceit about a very private matter for which he later
>>apologized. He certainly never committed an impeachable offense.
>>
>
> Anyway, back to the issue. You admitted that Clinton lied. I was
> sure that you didn't believe all that zany "oral is not sex" as you
> don't seem like a total idiot. I just wanted to confirm it...
Go back and read what I posted slower this time. Clinton didn't lie
regarding the Lewinsky scandal. He engaged in willful deceit. Perhaps
your brain isn't large enough to comprehend the difference, so just take
my word for it, there is a difference. So don't put words in my mouth,
OK? Personally I would have preferred Clinton did deceive me about
getting a blowjob from a fat intern. I don't really need that mental
image, and it damn sure doesn't warrant a full fledged federal
investigation to the tune of millions of dollars to discover the
contrary. To add insult to injury, the Republican House impeached him
for it. It was a very sad day for America when partisan politics stoops
so low as to impeach a sitting President over a blowjob.
Nebuchadnezzar II
If you're going to act like a punk, I'm going to treat you like one. I
don't have any problem with insults and I'll throw them in myself, but
if that's all you're capable of and you lack the ability for serious
debate, you're nothing more than a punk in my book. As far as how old I
am, that's none of your business, but I will say that I've been around
the block quite a few times.
>
> In the meantime, can we keep on track of the subject matter? You seem
> to like to shotgun around the point.
Given your last retort, you need to seriously think about practicing
what you preach.
>
>>
>>> Your premise and justification has no bearing on whether or not the
>>> investigation is warranted...
>>
>>Ah, so now we engage in criminal investigation for actions that have
>>no
>>basis on a violation of the law. How typically Republican of you.
>>Even
>>Starr admitted the Lewinsky investigation was a mistake.
>>
>
> That wasn't what I said in the least. I merely suggested that your
> rationale for the Plame investigation was weak and could be applied to
> the Clinton investigation. I knew you didn't think the Clinton
> Lewinski thing was legitimate, I was making a comparison using your
> logic.
Apparently the Bush administration doesn't agree with you because they
are the ones that requested the special counselor. How soon your forget
Shrub's pledge to fully investigate the matter. So if you want to
question the rationale for the Plame investigation, you should direct
that towards the Bush administration and overwhelming public opinion
from both sides of the political spectrum. The Lewinsky scandal was a
completely different situation. Starr requested and was granted the
approval to extend his investigation to the alleged blowjob. He later
admitted that was a big mistake. So the two situations are not directly
comparable and it just so happens that the special counselor in the
Lewinsky scandal happens to agree with me. The rationale for the Plame
investigation is still just as valid today as it was at the time. More
than one individual in the Bush administration outed a covert federal
agent. It may pan out that nobody is ever indicted for that crime.
Much of that is up to the discretion of the Grand Jury. If indeed there
is any bias by Fitz one way or the other, it damn sure isn't against the
Bush administration. If he was, Armitage would be in the same boat as
Scooter.
Nebuchadnezzar II
Wrong. Work your way back up this thread and you'll see that I was not
replying to you but was instead providing a well thought out response to
an idiot whose best retort was "fuck you". My reply was much more than
he deserved, so if I'm guilty of anything it's responding to a moron.
So do yourself a favor and try to keep up and perhaps you won't be so
confused.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:pan.2006.08.30....@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:21:26 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> I'm not conceeding Fitz's investigation is unfair. I'm just pointing
>> out what a hypocrite he is. Go back and read what I said more
>> slowly.
>
> You didn't "point out what a hypocrite is", you douche, you answered
> an
> accusation that an investigation you support is malicious prosecution
> with
> "what comes around goes around". You justified an accusation of abuse
> of
> power with another.
Jesus H. Christ, please tell me you're shitting me and you're not really
that fucking stupid. It was his allegation that the Plame investigation
is unfair. Rather than dispute his allegation, I pointed out how
hypocritical such an allegation coming from the right is to begin with.
Just because I didn't dispute his allegation, doesn't mean I agreed with
him. Learn to read between the lines. There's volumes of information
you're missing, and I'm growing quite tired of putting things into Big
Bird terms you can understand. While you're at it, practice coming up
with better retorts than "fuck you", OK? Throw in "get a life" and
"loser". It's no less lame, but at least you'll have some variety.
>>>> The public had a strong desire to know and understand
>>>> what happened. That's exactly what the special counsel is for.
>>>> Fitz
>>>> is
>>>> a Republican and he sure as hell isn't biased. He's not going
>>>> around
>>>> investigating blowjobs either. Again, you have no idea what the
>>>> fuck
>>>> you're talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> All I'm talking about is your using bullshit on the other side to
>>> justify
>>> bullshit on your side.
>>
>> No, you're obviously trying to play the middle when it's quite clear
>> whose side you're on. You're an uninformed dipshit that has no idea
>> what you're talking about.
>
> You don't know what the fuck I know.
You're exactly right. I don't know what you know, but I sure as hell
know what you don't. And as far as this thread's subject matter is
concerned, you don't know your thumb from your dick. I'm quite sure of
that much.
> I know better than to argue with a
> angry, red-faced, fists-in-a-ball true believer of either corrupt
> political party, because it's like trying to teach a flowerpot to play
> the
> violin.
Do you really? Why do you do exactly that every chance you get? You're
full of shit.
> Know that those of us who don't align with either the left or right
> set
> of assholes don't see your mutually assured corruption as a 'win'.
I find it rather interesting that you always seem to contradict the left
and agree with the right and yet you expect us to believe your line of
bullshit that you aren't aligned with either. Sorry Sparky. If it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Just because you
refuse to admit it, doesn't make it any less so.
BC
You choose the descriptivve words then:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swiftboating_Joseph_Wilson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1558
http://tinyurl.com/l9bke (A posting of mine from April)
> The 9/11 commission pointed out some of the lies in his statements.
Nope, that's just another fact-free, tidbit of nonsense,
courtesy of the usual right-wing sources:
http://politus.blogspot.com/2004/11/911-commission-report.html
>The administration wanted to know who recommended him to go over there in the
> first place.
Well, we know that Cheney asked the CIA, and the CIA
ended up asking Wilson, who had done still-classified work
for them in Niger. I guess you can say Cheney was
responsible for Wilson going over, eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html
>
>
> Wilson's wife, a highly trained
> > and skilled CIA operative, got drawn in with the smear
> > campaign and the true nature of her real job ended up
> > being leaked.
>
>
> The true nature?
She wasn't a glorified secretary, as some of the right
wingers have labeled her, she wasn't a consultant, as
her neighbors thought, she wan't an energy analyst for
"Brewster Jennings & Associates," which was one of
her CIA covers; but she was stiill a covert agent working
in counterproliferation division (CPD) of the CIA, and
indeed apparently was working on some Iran-related
issues:
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html.
Some more info:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392451
>
>
> While Armitage may have been the first to
> > disclose classified info about Plame, he got that info in
> > the first place as a result of the White House's attack
> > strategy on Wilson, and was not made aware of how
> > sensitive the info was when he chatted up Novak. When
> > he had realized what he did, he immediately came clean
> > about it with his bosses at the State Department and with
> > the FBI, and he fully cooperated with Patrick Fitzgerald.
> > As far as the evidence goes so far, there was no malicious
> > intent here.
> >
> > In contrast, there was plenty and demonstrable
> > malicious intent by the White House and the GOP
> > leadership in regards to Wilson, and little or no respect
> > or discretion was shown towards the classified nature of
> > Valerie Plame's position at the CIA. Whether her position
> > was revealed deliberately or because they just didn't give
> > a f*ck, it caused a security breach that the CIA at least
> > took very, very seriously. Even if she had been completely
> > retired as a covert agent, simply revealing what her CIA
> > function was allowed both enemies and curious allies to
> > gather possibly useful intel by backtracing where she's
> > been and who's she been meeting with over the years.
>
>
> What is Fitzgerald supposed to be investigating & why has no one been
> charged with the original "crime"?
I think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that he's investigating
how Plame's classified position was leaked, and by
whom, and for what reason. I have the general impression
that's sort of what he's suppose to do. He got Lewis Libby
so far, and while Libby was only, at one point or the other,
Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice
President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National
Security Affairs, that's not so bad a start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801056.html
And there are still some other fun, deserving targets:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_seen_to_press_for_Rove_1213.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051301258.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek
> Haven't you availed him of your services?
Have I ever mentioned that I'm just a troll? Anyway,
Fitzgerald seems to be covering all his bases.
>
>
> > Those are facts you or anyone else can easily verify.
> > They are not "my facts" -- they are what reality has
> > dished out, whether you like them or not.
>
> As I stated originally, they're the facts that *you* like & you keep
> repeating them as if they were facts.
Since I and anyone can verify "my" facts, and since I and
others have rather consistently -- and you know this --
disproven over and over again the nonsensical, pulled-from-
butt "facts" appearing in these articles you keep reposting,
whose "facts" actually have some connection to reality?
-BC
Pookie
Again, your facts are different than most of the accepted facts. Finally,
gald to see that you feel Fitz is doing his job (whether or not he should be
at this point now) because when the case is finished, he'll disagree with
you & then you can send him all your links...after which I'm sure he'll
reopen the case...
lab~rat >:-)
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>
>To distinguish it from sex.
Tell your wife I have some friends that would like blowjobs. Not sex,
mind you, they just want to ejaculate in her mouth.
lab~rat >:-)
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
>> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv,
>> look me in the eye and shake that dumbass fist at me and LIE.
>>
>> He could have said it was no one's business, but he didn't. He
>> brought me into the 'private matter' when he came on my tv in my house
>> and deliberately lied to me.
>>
>> To me, it was more than a private matter at that point, it became
>> evidence of poor character and judgement in our political leader. It
>> was tangible proof of it.
>>
>> Before you start in about Bush, yours is all CONJECTURE. Mine is
>> PROOF.
>
>Bushit! He did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
>He got his dick sucked.
>
>Sure, he was being evasive but they were asking him about
>personal behaviour: consentual sex. It was none of the press'
>business nor any of ours.
>
It was none of the press's business, it wasn't our business, it was
consensual. Fine, now that we have this out of the way, Clinton made
it our business when he got on tv and lied about it. He later
apologized for lying about it. I guess die hard people like you with
the morality of a rabbit are the only ones left that don't get it.
>Bush lies almost every time he opens his mouth. The guy's
>laughably full of shit. Did you see his interview with Brian
>Wlliams? The difference is that he lies about stuff that is
>the people's business.
CONJECTURE.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Are you saying the above examples that you cited were indisputable
lies? That's the CONJECTURE I was laughing about you snipping...
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
Are you suggesting he did that of his own volition? BS
Forgive the repetition, but I'm just
>trying to understand how your warped logic works. It would be
>interesting to hear what your point of reference is for this judgement
>when you consider Shrub has engaged in willful deceit and outright
>baldface lies on several occassions and NEVER apologized. So tell us
>how Shrub rates on your character scale. I'm very interested to know.
Bush is a politician, and as such he's on equal footing with all
politicians in my book, not very high. But I feel that there are a
lot of people that have been manipulated into hating him and he gets a
bad rap.
People like you...
>
>>
>>> When has Bush ever apologized for any of his
>>>lies? I'll be glad to provide you with a list of his lies and willful
>>>deceit all of which I can back up with documentation of facts. The
>>>difference is, the things Bush lied about have a dramatic effect on
>>>this
>>>nation and the world. Clinton didn't lie. That's why he was NEVER so
>>>much as indicted for ANYTHING despite an $80 million investigation.
>>>The
>>>legal definition of sex doesn't involve a blowjob. He did engage in
>>>willful deceit about a very private matter for which he later
>>>apologized. He certainly never committed an impeachable offense.
>>>
>>
>> Anyway, back to the issue. You admitted that Clinton lied. I was
>> sure that you didn't believe all that zany "oral is not sex" as you
>> don't seem like a total idiot. I just wanted to confirm it...
>
>Go back and read what I posted slower this time. Clinton didn't lie
>regarding the Lewinsky scandal. He engaged in willful deceit.
Look, if that's your defense of him, the discussion is over. I can't
deal with someone as intellectually dishonest as you appear with that
statement.
A lie is a lie.
lab~rat >:-)
>
>By the way, you might find this article interesting:
>http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/press/2005/091505.htm
>Basically, government promotion of sexual abstinence
>before marriage has evidently cause the popularity of
>oral sex to soar, since that's considered a way to
>maintain virginity.
Thank your trailer park dwelling low life Billy Bob for that little
tid bit. You people should be so proud. Tell your wife my buddies
will be over around lunch time...
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
>>
>> In the meantime, can we keep on track of the subject matter? You seem
>> to like to shotgun around the point.
>
>Given your last retort, you need to seriously think about practicing
>what you preach.
I was sticking to the subject.
lab~rat >:-)
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> puked:
You are delusional. No wonder you can't follow a discussion.
Mitchell Holman
"Manipulating into hating him"?
That's rich.
Tell that to the conservative who foam at the
mouth about Senator Clinton but can't point to
anything in her voting record they disagree with.
BC
??
Trying to get a right-winger to stay on topic and
not make bizarre, random comments is like
trying to teach a skunk not to be stinky.
-BC
BC
Pookie wrote:
> "BC" <call...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156989811.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Pookie wrote:
> >> "BC" <call...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1156970589.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
> >>
> >> > Those are facts you or anyone else can easily verify.
> >> > They are not "my facts" -- they are what reality has
> >> > dished out, whether you like them or not.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> As I stated originally, they're the facts that *you* like & you keep
> >> repeating them as if they were facts.
> >
> > Since I and anyone can verify "my" facts, and since I and
> > others have rather consistently -- and you know this --
> > disproven over and over again the nonsensical, pulled-from-
> > butt "facts" appearing in these articles you keep reposting,
> > whose "facts" actually have some connection to reality?
>
> Again, your facts are different than most of the accepted facts. Finally,
> gald to see that you feel Fitz is doing his job (whether or not he should be
> at this point now) because when the case is finished, he'll disagree with
> you & then you can send him all your links...after which I'm sure he'll
> reopen the case...
Ah, so you think "facts" are whatever people believe and
accept. Well, that explains a lot....
-BC
lab~rat >:-)
<NoEmai...@comcast.com> puked:
Maybe they hate her as a person. Which is legitimate, BTW...
lab~rat >:-)
Don't criticize me because you don't understand something...
BC
Do I really need to point out that you clipped off the
section I posted which clearly showed "Dubya" and
the usual right-wing suspects pushing that little "tidbit":
Just in case that was accidental, let me put it back:
"Considering who have been pushing the sexual
abstinence programs, this little side effect is kind of
amusing:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199633,00.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=43475"
Hope that clarifies and purifies.
-BC
Slo
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 12:44:14 -0700, "Slo" <Slos...@gmail.com> puked:
>
> >
> >lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> >>
> >> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
> >
> >To distinguish it from sex.
>
> Tell your wife I have some friends that would like blowjobs. Not sex,
> mind you, they just want to ejaculate in her mouth.
You're changing the subject. When people talk about
"having sex" and they're talking about heterosexuals we
all know what they mean.
I used to work with these guys from El Salvador who would
complain that people from the USA called their country
"America". They claimed this was wrong because they
were from America too. Their argument is about the same
as yours.
Slo
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 12:42:12 -0700, "Slo" <Slos...@gmail.com>:
> >> Before you start in about Bush, yours is all CONJECTURE. Mine is
> >> PROOF.
> >
> >Bushit! He did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
> >He got his dick sucked.
> >
> >Sure, he was being evasive but they were asking him about
> >business nor any of ours.
> >
>
> It was none of the press's business, it wasn't our business, it was
> consensual. Fine, now that we have this out of the way, Clinton made
> it our business when he got on tv and lied about it.
That's spin to make Clinton's role in this assertive. To listen
to you it sounds like he preempted prime time TV to get on
the big 3 and tell the American public - from the scene of
the crime - that he didn't have sex with that woman, Ms.
Lewinsky. He was hounded by the press on this and they
wouldn't take silence for an answer. He couldn't, like
Bush's dad, get away with saying "I will not dignify that
question with an answer" when he was asked about *his*
affair.
> He later
> apologized for lying about it. I guess die hard people like you with
> the morality of a rabbit are the only ones left that don't get it.
labrat, as a friend I urge you not to act like a douchebag. I'm
extremely moral. But I'm not moralistic about other people's
sex lives. For all we know Bill & Hill have an open marriage.
I really don't care. It's none of my business and I'm not a gossip
hound.
Sending people to their death for an unjustified war? Now *that*
is immoral.
>
> >Bush lies almost every time he opens his mouth. The guy's
> >laughably full of shit. Did you see his interview with Brian
> >Wlliams? The difference is that he lies about stuff that is
> >the people's business.
>
> CONJECTURE.
Bush told Williams that he never thought about attacking Iraq
until we were attacked (he was referring to 9/11 as he seems
to do every time he speaks before the public). According to
Paul O'Neill, who was in the cabinet, Bush et al were talking
about taking out Saddam from the beginning, early 2001.
Slo
KK wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:47:15 -0700, Slo wrote:
>
> >
> > KK wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:20:56 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
> >>
> >> > Quite ironic that a right winger would be pissing and moaning about
> >> > malicious prosecution. What goes around comes around, dipshit.
> >>
> >> Fuck you and every asshole entrenched on the right and left who think that
> >> any wrong their part does is forgivable considering the deeds of the other
> >> side.
> >>
> >> Fuck you from the rest of us who are disgusted by both of you, and who
> >> don't consider unfair play from *either* side okay. We get fucked twice
> >> as much as you assholes.
> >>
> >> Two wrongs don't make a right.
> >
> > A legal process put in motion by AG Ashcroft is unlikely to be
> > considered
> > "unfair play" unless you're an absolute wing-nut. Fitzgerald has
> > handled
> > this with integrity.
>
> Read my post and the one preceding it. I didn't say anything about the
> investigation.
I thought that was the original topic. Ya know, the alleged
"malicious prosecution".
KK
Jeez.
Someone else, other than me, called it malicious prosecution. NII said,
in response, "what goes around comes around, dipshit" - meaning that
impropriety by one administration is justified by impropriety by another.
*That* is what I take exception to.
kyl...@yahoo.com
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 07:14:24 -0700, kyl...@yahoo.com puked:
>
> >
> >lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:47:22 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:59:45 GMT, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> puked:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>1) If the WH had come clean in the first place, there'd have been no need
> >> >>>for an investigation.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't believe that.
> >> >
> >> >Yes I do. The WH was uncooperative with the investigation from day one.
> >> >Aside from that, Scooter did lie to investigators, no?
> >> >
> >>
> >> My comment is that no matter how forthcoming any Republican is,
> >> Democrats would STILL see a need for an investigation on ANYTHING.
> >
> >You mean like a private matter between consenting adults, you
> >hypocritical blowhard.
>
> Look, the major, and I do mean MAJOR issue I had with that whole thing
> was the fact that Clinton took time out of his busy day to go on tv
Bzzzzzt! The major, and I do mean MAJOR issue was that your government
chose to spend > $50,000,000 of tax payer money in a failed
witch-hunt/coup attempt and had to settle for a pathetic issue of
personal indiscretion. THAT is the real issue here, lap-rat.
lab~rat >:-)
Well now it's my turn not to understand something. I see a
consistency between abstinence AND considering oral sex sex.
Are you trying to suggest that Bush somehow feels oral sex isn't sex
and is condoning it through abstinence programs? You people are just
sick, aren't you?
lab~rat >:-)
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 12:44:14 -0700, "Slo" <Slos...@gmail.com> puked:
>>
>> >
>> >lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If it isn't, why is it called oral SEX?
>> >
>> >To distinguish it from sex.
>>
>> Tell your wife I have some friends that would like blowjobs. Not sex,
>> mind you, they just want to ejaculate in her mouth.
>
>You're changing the subject. When people talk about
>"having sex" and they're talking about heterosexuals we
>all know what they mean.
Yeah, like getting some. Maybe I'm wrong, but I consider getting head
getting some.
Look, just because you're trying to explain away your mother, wife and
daughter blowing everyone doesn't mean that normal decent people don't
consider oral sex SEX!
>
>I used to work with these guys from El Salvador who would
>complain that people from the USA called their country
>"America". They claimed this was wrong because they
>were from America too.
I agree with them.
Their argument is about the same
>as yours.
No it isn't.
lab~rat >:-)
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 12:42:12 -0700, "Slo" <Slos...@gmail.com>:
>> >> Before you start in about Bush, yours is all CONJECTURE. Mine is
>> >> PROOF.
>> >
>> >Bushit! He did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
>> >He got his dick sucked.
>> >
>> >Sure, he was being evasive but they were asking him about
>> >personal behaviour: consensual sex. It was none of the press'
>> >business nor any of ours.
>> >
>>
>> It was none of the press's business, it wasn't our business, it was
>> consensual. Fine, now that we have this out of the way, Clinton made
>> it our business when he got on tv and lied about it.
>
>That's spin to make Clinton's role in this assertive. To listen
>to you it sounds like he preempted prime time TV to get on
>the big 3 and tell the American public - from the scene of
>the crime - that he didn't have sex with that woman, Ms.
>Lewinsky.
He SO did! LOL You don't remember?
> He was hounded by the press on this and they
>wouldn't take silence for an answer. He couldn't, like
>Bush's dad, get away with saying "I will not dignify that
>question with an answer" when he was asked about *his*
>affair.
Ever wonder why?
>
>> He later
>> apologized for lying about it. I guess die hard people like you with
>> the morality of a rabbit are the only ones left that don't get it.
>
>labrat, as a friend I urge you not to act like a douchebag. I'm
I'm glad you look at me as a friend, but as a friend you're gonna have
to put up with my negatives as well as my positives. I can't change
just for you...
>extremely moral. But I'm not moralistic about other people's
>sex lives. For all we know Bill & Hill have an open marriage.
>I really don't care. It's none of my business and I'm not a gossip
>hound.
He probably shouldn't have waved his fist in my face and lied so
convincingly about it. I know that the ACT is looked at as no big
deal by a lot of people, but that aside, my biggest problem is that he
went out of his way to lie to ME. All of the perjury and whatnot is
one thing, but take it under the radar. Don't go out of your way to
lie. It reminded me of that press conference Michael Jackson did
telling everyone that he did not have sex with that little boy...
>
>Sending people to their death for an unjustified war? Now *that*
>is immoral.
>
>>
>> >Bush lies almost every time he opens his mouth. The guy's
>> >laughably full of shit. Did you see his interview with Brian
>> >Wlliams? The difference is that he lies about stuff that is
>> >the people's business.
>>
>> CONJECTURE.
>
>Bush told Williams that he never thought about attacking Iraq
>until we were attacked (he was referring to 9/11 as he seems
>to do every time he speaks before the public). According to
>Paul O'Neill, who was in the cabinet, Bush et al were talking
>about taking out Saddam from the beginning, early 2001.
Considering that intelligence at the moment showed Iraq to be brewing
up some nasty stuff, in conjunction with the fact that he had been
firing on US aircraft and disregarding UN Resolutions, I would say
that option should have been on Clinton's shortlist as well...
lab~rat >:-)
It is an issue. We can talk about the problems we have with many
facets of the government, but at the moment we're talking specifically
about the character of Clinton.
And it's funny how you bring that waste of money spent on a witch hunt
in, of all places, a Plame investigation thread...
BC
How do you function in life with such leaps of
"logic"? If a waitress asks you, say, "Do you
want to hear our specials?" do you respond with
something like, "I think it's cruel to make retarded
people sing. You people are just sick, aren't you?
Sure, bring them on -- do I get to feed them?"
I was suggesting -- well, actually pointing out --
that Bush in particular and the right-wing in general
are utterly devoid of anyting resembling a clue.
-BC
kyl...@yahoo.com
No, we're talking about the character of neocon thugs and their
pathetic attempt at subverting the will of Americans who elected
Clinton.
>
> And it's funny how you bring that waste of money spent on a witch hunt
> in, of all places, a Plame investigation thread...
Exposing classified information about intelligence operatives is
damaging to the country and cries out for an investigation. It damages
whatever projects in which the operative was involved (in this case,
Iran's nuclear program), endangers the lives of any who had covert
contact with the operative and makes it more difficult to recruit
agents and informants for future operations. Why wouldn't you want such
things investigated, lap-rat? I mean sure -- it's not oral sex, but its
serious stuff anyway.