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

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"...

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: 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: 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: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM

The post above was from me.

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
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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:41 PM

He refused to go quail hunting. *G*

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 - 02:24 PM

Anybody Surprised?

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: 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: 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: 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: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:10 AM

refresh

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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:33 PM

Far be it from the US government to commit murder.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:32 PM

"If they are capable of sending 2000 soldiers to their death, what makes you think they would think kindly of one of their own if he snitched on them." dianavan

Making war, sending soldiers to their death, is a far cry from taking out a contract on someone. War, in the minds of some, has an historical mystique that most people don't grasp but is very real to them. You don't have to go back many generations to find references to its glory. I know a man whose main interest lies in his days at war in WWII.

I believe there are under-developed spirits who still think of war as a game, an activity that can be life threatening but a game, nonetheless.

Utilizing a crime syndicate or dealing with its denizens in any way is a different thing entirely. A political 'snitch', in all likelihood, would be dealt with politically. I stand by my original opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:13 PM

"Clinton's administration"

No more or less shoddy than the present one, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:54 PM

Ebbie - I didn't say anything about "rubbing out" anyone, I said his life wouldn't be worth a damn. What kind of life would he be able to make for himself if he snitched on the present administration? Life as he knows it today, would not exist. 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.

As to engaging in Mafia-type solutions, I wouldn't put anything past an administration that engages in torture. You sound like you think this administration is only slightly 'shoddy'. If they are capable of sending 2000 soldiers to their death, what makes you think they would think kindly of one of their own if he snitched on them.

GUEST - I am basing my conclusion on the information that is available to all of us. The prosecutor isn't finished, yet. He has only indicted Libby for lying, (covering up); perhaps he's saving the question of who actually 'outed' Plame, for later.

At this point, anyone can speculate and I'm not the only one guilty of that. In fact, isn't that what this thread is all about?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM

Dianavan, you said that "it looks to me like both Rove and Cheny are guilty".
Well, since the special prosecutor couldn't come up with the information to prove that, please share with us your source(s).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:27 PM

dianavan, you are making a stupendous leap here. 'White collar criminals' rarely go in for 'rubbing out'. In my opinion, it takes a different kind of mindset entirely to engage in Mafia type solutions. Your take on it reminds me unpleasantly of those who sincerely believe that in Clinton's administration there were many 'suspect deaths' and no facts or analysis will convince them otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 01:06 PM

Looks to me like both Cheney and Rove are guilty. All we can hope for is that Libby will feel sufficiently threatened by jail time that he will cop a plea and testify against Cheney. Of course, that will probably not happen because his life wouldn't be worth a damn as he knows all too well. The best he can hope for is a new identity and CIA protection.

In other words, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. My guess is that he will go for the conviction and many, many appeals. After that, he will be looking at early parole. The present administration will ensure that, upon release, (if convicted) he will be set for life. Like I said, prostitutes come in all shapes and sizes.

As to Rove - well lets just say that this will be in court for years to come. There is no way that these guys will be convicted and for sure they do not care about their reputations. As long as they can continue 'business as usual' the politics of the matter doesn't really matter. They are neither Republicans or Democrats and they don't give a damn about religion, either. They are white collar, career criminals.

Those who have blindly supported this administration should be outraged that they have been duped by their deadly lies.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:53 PM

Here is an interesting article by Joseph Wilson himself, pubished today.

And Here is an article about what was and was not known about Valerie Plame's profession.

"Washington - At least seven Bush administration officials outside the CIA knew Valerie Plame was a CIA employee before the disclosure of her name in a column by Robert Novak in July 2003, according to the indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"In no case other than Libby's does the indictment claim that one of the government employees provided the name to reporters. And the indictment does not identify anyone other than Libby.

"But some are easy to determine. Of course, the "vice president of the United States" is Dick Cheney, for whom Libby worked as chief of staff. Cheney told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA, information that Libby understood came from the agency, the indictment said.

"And the person referred to as "then White House press secretary" is Ari Fleischer. Libby discussed Plame's employment at the CIA with Fleischer, noting "that such information was not widely known," the indictment said.

"A person described in the indictment as "a senior official in the White House" and identified as "Official A" also talked with Novak about Plame's job and identity a few days before his column appeared. Three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified this person as Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser. "

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:32 PM

I would like everyone to remember that this investigation was NOT initiated by the Justice Dept. It was damn well NOT requested by the White House.

It was started by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Soon after the investigation began, Tenet was out, the new director Goss was appointed and the agency was purged of all suspected "anti neocons". The agency was truely decimated and lost most of the old school agents who would not agree to turn the agency into a political re election machine for Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The old CIA was like a submarine that was destroyed but managed to send a torpedo back at the White House before they were sunk.

This would make an interesting illustration but I fear few people would get it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:07 PM

Because, you see, if he doesn't admit it in a court of law, it didn't happen. See?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:13 PM

Hey, don't get me wrong here but Iz sniffin one big ol conspiracy here...

If you look at the list of suspects that I originally offered up here there are some fish a lot bigger than Scotter Libby that the Bush administartion could have offered up to the gods... Scotter Libby was the least of them...

Hey, Rove had allreadyy hired an attorney beforwe his first meeting wtih the prosector...


My take on this is that they would make Scooter Libby6 the fall guy and probably with Libby's full nowledge and then [proceeded to say what they each needed to say to get us to this point...

Hey, Rove ahs admitted to outin' Plame except sayin' in was done casually???

Like what the heck is that about... I can't go out an shoot my neighbor's dog and say "Oh, it was just a causual shot...Tsk, tsk..."

Rove has admitted he did it!!!

Why is he not charged???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:24 PM

Interesting article, Ebbie.

Wow, Libby facing a possible 30 years in the hoosegow! Now, wouldn't it be interesting if, in the interests of getting a greatly reduced sentence, he decides to cop a plea and testify as to what really happened and who told who to do what?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM

I hope you're right, Ebbie. I truly do. Maybe it's just too many years of seeing the rich, powerful and politically connected escaping even the semblance of justice being administered as it would to those less fortunate. I will hold my tongue. It isn't my business anyway, because I am Canadian. Just seems one more nail in the coffin of American justice and its administration. We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:03 PM

Peace, I'm one of those who still has hope that somebody out there has the integrity to go by the rules without fear or favor. The turn of a tide is inexorable.

I wonder if the arrogance and just plain gall of the administration doesn't blind itself to what is happening, so that they WILL be caught in the maze?

What They're Saying

"The indictment means the next stage of the case will play out in open court, in contrast to the secret two-year grand jury investigation directed by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity.

"Libby's indictment represented the first criminal charges arising from the investigation, and Fitzgerald said the probe would continue. One key figure still under scrutiny is    President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, lawyers involved in the case said.

"At the arraignment, Libby, 55, who faces up to 30 years in prison, is expected to plead not guilty, and the judge in the case could set a trial date.

"Lawyers involved in the case said Cheney himself and other top White House officials named in the indictment could be called as witnesses. A trial could expose the role played by Cheney's secretive office in seeking to discredit a leading critic of the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

"It's a horrible situation for the vice president. Libby has been so close to Cheney," said one of the lawyers involved in the case. "If there's one thing that's got to be open, it is a criminal trial and the vice president is a key witness."

"Another lawyer said it is clear from the indictment that any trial would have to delve into the private conversations between Cheney and Libby about the CIA operative, Valerie Plame, and her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson. Wilson had challenged the administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

CONVERSATIONS WITH CHENEY AT ISSUE

"The prosecutors will seek to prove that Libby's statements are lies by going through a very detailed chronology of the events that occurred in the vice president's office, including conversations with Cheney, one of the lawyers said.

"It has the potential to be politically damaging," the lawyer said. "What exactly were they doing in that office in their discussions about Wilson?"

"According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney himself on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

BTW, which hand are they gonna slap?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:25 PM

Good to see that folks still have 'faith' in the system.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:36 PM

Bush presidency on shaky ground as top aide charged
By Alec Russell October 30, 2005; Telegraph, London

George Bush's presidency has been rocked to its core by the indictment of senior White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and other criminal charges. The scandal threatens to expose the inner workings of Mr Bush's administration in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Even as the US Administration confronts the growing challenge of Iran and the mounting difficulties of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush's team risks seeing out the last three years of his presidency in a mire of legal and judicial uncertainty. Libby immediately resigned from his role as Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The President's own chief political adviser, Karl Rove, escaped indictment for the time being, but he was warned he would continue to be the subject of the criminal investigation into a White House intelligence leak at the heart of the Administration's case for going to war in Iraq. Libby was charged by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald with two counts each of perjury for lying to a grand jury, two counts of making false statements by lying to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice by hindering a grand jury investigation into the leak.

Libby predicted that, "at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated".

Mr Fitzgerald issued the indictment on the last day of a two-year investigation into whether Libby or other White House aides knowingly "outed" a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in July 2003. Unmasking a spy can be a Federal offence. If convicted on all five charges Libby could face 30 years in jail and a heavy fine. But far more damaging to the US Government is that the case threatens to expose the workings of the key decision-makers in the countdown to the increasingly unpopular Iraq war. Mr Cheney himself is mentioned in the indictment and may have to testify in the trial. Mr Fitzgerald said the indictments showed "the world that this is a country that takes its justice seriously, that all citizens are bound by the law". The White House was spared its ultimate nightmare, the loss of Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief adviser, another key suspect in the case, who is known to his critics as "Bush's brain". But Mr Fitzgerald has made it clear to Mr Rove he remains under investigation and at risk of legal action.

Many Republicans believe Mr Bush's difficulties in recent weeks stem from his aide's preoccupation with the case. The indictment is the climax to a disastrous week for Mr Bush with the number of US deaths in Iraq passing 2000 and the collapse of the President's attempt to install a friend and aide, Harriet Miers, on the Supreme Court. Mr Bush's nomination of Ms Miers, who has been the President's lawyer, was rejected by his own party. Ms Plame was unmasked by a conservative columnist citing senior administration officials, just a week after her husband accused the White House of twisting intelligence to make the case for war. Ms Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, said that she had been "outed" to punish and discredit him. Libby was not charged with the alleged original crime of leaking Ms Plame's identity. Instead, the prosecutor has accused him of lying about how and when he learnt of her CIA role.

The prosecutor dismissed the argument of Bush loyalists that Ms Plame was not a covert agent. He said her cover was blown in 2003 and that before then even friends and neighbours did not know she worked for the CIA.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:16 AM

But then again, I do hate what the neocons stand for as exemplified by the Bush2 White House.

And I consider this a righteous hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:09 AM

Well "sticks and stones" and all that jazz.

I guess if I call you a neocon, you can call me a liberal-but "hate filled???"

Naw....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:57 AM

.........it is one of fear that they will be mistaken for some of the hatred filled liberals that reside here.
Besides, a single letter is as good for cross-reference as is a
Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:13 AM

The blockage is not one of creativity ......

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:31 AM

What's up with these initials that "new" Guest political poster{s?} on Mudcat selected as their {?} screen names?

Are they {?} sufferring from a creativity block or something?

I'm just saying...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:30 AM

This Congress has been a lockset rubber swtamp Congress and any deniying that just shows that one isn't paying any particular attention to the fatcs of the last 4 or 5 years... This Congress is a like drunkard's dream Congress... Until the Miers deal, Bush got everything he wanted outta it...

And don't even mention the Social Security thing... Bush killed any chances of that going thru all by himself with his phony town meetings... Had he had the courage to go before a cross sectional group of Americans he would have stood a better chance but he doesn't particularlly like being confronted... But he sho nuff loves his lapdog yes people...

Now, GUEST A, what is not coherant about what I have just said???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
From: GUEST,A
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:00 AM

Ron, Congress is our main problem. It matters not who has the White House or who is in the majority. The career politicians, both sides of the aisle, have only their self-interest to concern them. The good of the citizens is secondary.

Actually, I sometimes feel a chill when engaged here. Politics only - sorta, I just like to see a little fairness engaged in the discussion. While Amos is certainly consistent, some his sources are more than maligned. Moveon.org, Buzzflash and Soros are not always truthful. Not to say, however, that the far right sources are all the time.

The only way to get out of this mess is to study both sides of the political spectrum, if such a thing still exists, and try to ascertain what is going on. Have you ever given thought to the possibility that we have but one gang in Washington who feed off one another and just do an occasional stunt to keep us off balance.
Think Monica-gate and the recent Leak-gate.
While I think of myself as a moderate Conservative, I certainly have no place to approve of the spending tatics of the Repubs. In reality, I don't consider myself a Republican. Running out of choices as I was a died-in-the-wool Democrat for a number of years.
Denigrating either party is not going to obtain us any relief. I sometimes wonder if they don't go to their nightly cocktail parties and laugh at us.
In closing, saying things like "tax cuts for the rich" is not true. It was an across the board cut, helping to expand a once sagging economy, creating a low unemployment rate and building the largest housing market in our history. (after adjusting for a growing population) The market for home improvement, be it room additions, windows/siding and interior improvements has been at a record level the past several years in the midwest. Many good things happen with any administration and in spite of Congress. The opportunities are all most limitless for those who go after them. College grads starting at 80 thou are not unusual. I know, someone will say that some can't find jobs. This is always true. Who can remember the PHDs on the West Coast with no work after 20+ years and playing Santa Claus at Malls in the late 70's? Bitching and moaning at one political party will never solve anything. Actually, bitching and moaning never solved anything.