BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 05:02 PM

Your implication is true, no doubt, Peace. But retribution has still to be minuscule, I think. (Elimination of a foreign leader or fomenting revolution, I can see.)

Elimination of a trouble maker, I can see- before he can cause more trouble. But the time-honored way to eliminate- check our elections process - is to discredit by smearing, (remember McCain's "mental instability"?), or by dredging up old indiscretions, or starting whisper campaigns of various sorts whether the allegations are outright lies or have a smidgen of truth... Our politicians know all the tricks. They don't have to resort to killing each other.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

Ebbie - ...and I stand by what I have said, "He would have to go underground to escape the intimidation that would follow him. Look at what they have done to Wilson and his totally innocent, wife."

You don't think that they endangered her life? And she was totally innocent. What kind of people go after the wife of an enemy? Doesn't sound like its too far from 'Mafia' tactics if you ask me. Your words, not mine. I think you are giving these guys too much credit. They will stop at nothing to profit financially. Human lives mean nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM

In Cesare Borgia's Renaissance Italy, if someone got in your way or otherwise met with your disfavor, the popular method of solving the problem was a drop or two of poison in a goblet of wine or a sudden dagger-thrust in a dark hallway.

In 21st century America, we have, perhaps, become a bit more sophisticated in our methods. Character assassination or revealing something about a person that is best left secret is not considered to be quite as heinous as stealthy murder. But as a method of "removal" it accomplishes essentially the same thing.

And the motive is, of course, the same.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:43 PM

I don't see how anyone can defend someone in Rove or Libby's position for talking about a CIA agent. I'm at the low end of the totem pole and even I know that you don't discuss things like that. If it was intentional they deserve whatever is handed down. If it was accidental then they at least should have their security clearances revoked (which would be the same as firing them anyway because they couldn't keep the job). I've seen plenty of military folks get punished for far less in the way of an incident.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:10 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:35 AM

Hmmmmmmm?

I can't believe that Libby is going to turn on Cheney??? I'm still trying to figure out that stategy... It has to be more than just "telling the truth, the whole truth and nuthing but the truth." These crooks don't do that... Ain't in their DNA...

I mean, if yer going to roll someone unner he bus, it ceratinly wouldn't be the evilest-ot-the-evil...

Oughtta be intersting....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:14 AM

According to a citation on another thread he already has named Cheney as authorizing the leak.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Alba
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:53 AM

An aside but could be troublesome is an article in the New York Times today: Abramoff hasn't disappeared yet!!

'He says then they say', is not proof by any means but it does not help clean, what are already, Murky waters IMO.

What I have trouble (among the many other things:) with on the Abramoff issue is if there is nothing to hide..why does the White House not just tell it like it is.
Evading the Questions only makes people dig deeper into issues.
No doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should...but the picture we are being shown is slightly blurry these days.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:06 AM

Oh yeah...

Seems that the Bush folks are pulling a page outtta drunk-frat-boy's paet playbook... Confess with an excuse...

Yeah, early in Bush's poluitical career when the "family" knew that drunk-frat-boy had some PR issues he just "accepted Christ" (yeah, right...)... In doing that, he could say that none of that counted... You know, like a one time get-outta-personal-responsibilty-card... So he played it...

TO WIT: Now drunk-frat-boy has been caught breaking laws yet again and it's shaping up as a one-defense-fits-all philopshy: We're just trying to protect the American people!!!

Haha...

Yeah, they will argue, it's okay to break the law if the *motives* are right...

Just yesterday they showed piccures of some bigass building in Los Angelos which Richard "the shoe bomber" was going to take out not long after 9/11... Yeah, I saw the piccures at least a half a dozen times yesterday... Oh, how scarey... And they want you to think that illegal spying stopped that plot, right??? Well, do they come right out and say that????????

Well, Hell no, they don't!!!!

Why??? ecuaase the illegal wiretaps didn't stop this... A bad shoe bomb and some alert passangers stopped it!!! Bush's crimes didn't stop jack!!! Yeah, last week Dick Cheney puffs out his dumbass chest and states that the NSA iretaps have saved thousands of American lives yet when it comes down to offering up the proff all the Bushites can do is come up with is some bad luck on Richard "the shoe bombers" part???

But, yeah, I think the defense has been set, protecting the American people"; and it's going tyo be the same no matter what they are a caught doing.....

"Ahhhh, we had to take Happy Jack's dough becuase at the time we took it we thought we were taking it to protect the American people..."

How do you spell p-a-t-h-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l l-i-a-r-s???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:24 PM

Anybody Surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM

Yeah, I'm surprised. I'm not surprised at the revelation about Bush and Cheney. What I'm surprised about is that Mr. Libby wasn't the victim of an unfortunate accident before he got a chance to open his mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:41 PM

He refused to go quail hunting. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:50 AM

Wow!!!

I can hardly believe the story that the Bush folks have concocted now... Let nme see if I can unravel this bit of masterfull mythology???

1. Bush tells Libby to roll Val. Plame and her hubby under the bus on July 8th during the mad dash to Iran by ratting her out as a CIA operative...

2. Scott McLennon then says that the Bush administration doesn't have a clue who leaked the info and makes big bold statements how they hate leakers...

3. Then on July 18th, 10 days later, Scott McLennon says that the leak wasn't a leak at all but "declassified" information becuase the Americ an people needed to have all the fatcs, 'er something along those lines...

4. Now Libby says that the information was leaked in retribution against Joe Wilson pulling the yellowcake covers on the Bush war machine but says the president can do what the heck he wants... And that being so, he is innocent???...

Yep, folks, that seems to be the defense here and I'll tell ya what... Seeing as the Bush war machine is in control of the White House, the Congress and the courts, they are most likely going to have the same necessary 36% believing this fairy tale in order to keep on "ruling" the country!!! Imagine that???...

Tom Jefferson warned us of this scenerio...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:20 AM

Oh, and just as a sidebar, wonder why if the ratting out of Valarie Plame had been been part of a declassification then why thwe Bush administartion's own Justice Department opened an investigation into who did the ratting on Sept. 23, 2003???

Boy, oh, boy... This story is getting harder and harder to believe???

B:(

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:33 AM

"Boy, oh, boy... This story is getting harder and harder to believe???"


It's because the version of the story that you WANT to believe is not true.

Bush never told Libby to out Plame.

Bush allowed the disclosure of some of the classified info of Iraq's weapons programs to the press. That's all he allowed. Go back and read again what Libby said and then change your version to go with what the truth is instead of trying to once again to take bits and pieces of the truth and making it into what you want it to be.

It's the presidents perogative to declassify ANY info that he sees fit.

It's been that way since 1982.

Get over it. You're chasing rabbits.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM

Hmmmmmm, Hubster??? Maybe you'd like to go over the time line... If you need a refresher there's a good one onn today's washingtonpost.com...

Do you know what it's called when you after-the-fact change rules and stories??? Obstruction of justice come to mind fir starters...

that's washingtonpost.com....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM

Susu's hubby - Please answer the question, "..then why did the Bush administartion's own Justice Department open an investigation into who did the ratting on Sept. 23, 2003?"

Only a very evil leader would go so far to justify a war. He's a liar and a loser. Defend someone who is worth it. There is nothing more pathetic than the cowards who stand around supporting the actions of a bully.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,G
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:48 PM

Did not WJC bomb the hell out a country?

From a height where no one could discern the amount of "collateral damage".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:05 PM

"Did not WJC bomb the hell out a country?"


And what, pray tell, has that to do with this subject?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:11 PM

About as much as "Only a very evil leader would go so far to justify a war."

Okay?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM

Guest, G - Please answer the question, "..then why did the Bush administartion's own Justice Department open an investigation into who did the ratting on Sept. 23, 2003?"

I'm not accusing or defending WJC.

We're talking about Bush.

Go ahead, answer the question.

You can't because everyone knows that Bush is a slimeball.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM

The post above was from me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:51 PM

What Clinton did was lie about sex...

What Bush has done is lie about _______________ (fill yer yer favorite) which has been used to justify the US invading 2 countries, causing the deaths of tens upon thousnads of people...

Now, exactly how can you compare the two, GUEST G???

Bobert

p.s. And BTW, Bush will go down in history as the president who started 2 wars, both which were lost...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:26 AM

Susu's hubby - Please answer the question, "..then why did the Bush administartion's own Justice Department open an investigation into who did the ratting on Sept. 23, 2003?"

Simple, dianavan....Bush is the only one that can declassify information. He is ALLOWED to by law. If he didn't do it or tell someone to do it then that means someone else BROKE the law. Why else would you have an investigation? Now the question is that why are they investigating this? This woman was already known to be working for the CIA. How could she be outed when her identity is already known? It's all a bunch of crap.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:52 PM

But Hubby, Bush did leak the information. So why did he ask the Justice Department to investigate if he knew that it was legal for him to de-classify the information? It makes no sense.

BTW - Who knew that Plame worked for the CIA? That was not public knowlege and jeopardized others as well.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

Hmmmmmmm???

After Valarie Plame's testimoney today maybe there's a couple folks in the White House who could have co-written O.J.'s book, "If I Did It, Here's How I Did It"...