 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:15 PM Every dog has it's day! Let them eat yellowcake. wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:54 PM Well, GUEST A, since you have righteously indignified yerself, go one over the "Popular Opinions" thread, hang with me fir a wahil on some serious discussions about the failings of the DHS, then come back 'round here and say yer sorry fir insinuatin' that Iz is a friggin' "retard"... And fir the record, screw "spell check"... Iz been 'round here a long time and held my own on a wide spectrum of issues... You don't have a clue 'bout me but I'm sure gettin' a lotta clues 'bout you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:26 PM And, BTW, fir those of us who have had to listen to decades of brownshirt dribble, there has been more than one occasion where the word "retard" has entered my mind since the 2000 Supreme Court Selection when Bush's failurs seem to be Clinton's fault??? Personally, I don't get it... I thought you guys were fir the "personal responsibility" stuff??? Well, maybe we're workin' with different definitions here??? Well, I guess if George was caught with an intern ther first thing that would come outta his mouth, "Well, Clinton gave me the idea..." Geeze, Louise... Give ol' Slick Wille a break... Best pure Republican you all ever had... The worst thing he did, in yer eyes, was get laid and bettin Bush I... Other than that, he was as middle the road Republican as one could hope to find... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM Whiplash, did you ever stop to think that if WJC had not been screwing with Monica and those other Bimbos and, instead, been paying more attention to governing, that perhaps 9-11 could have been prevented. That was 3000+ plus American corpses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:55 PM That's exactly right!!! Bill Clinton told Osoma to run the airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon... (BTW, how many days has AWOL Frat Boy been on vacation as president??? Dare to venture a guess??? Okay, once you got that one go back and check how many days Clinton was not at his desk...) (Oh, I hate havin' to defend Clinton 'cuase he was indeed a slick Repubocrat... But he did at least show fir work...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM Ah, c'mon, GUEST, don't be a total twit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:05 PM Bobert, just go away. Lefty, I just read the transcript of todays press conference and the word is there was no indication that Plames CIA cover was done in. She had not been covert for 6 years, the requirement is "within five years of being covert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:46 PM Well, lets' see, GUEST, you say that she had not been "covert" fir 6 years??? Hmmmmm... Then why hadn't she wriiten a book 'er been on the tlak show circuit??? Why is it that evn her closest friends didn't know what she did fir a living??? Think we're dealin' with some fuzzy definations of "covert" here... And no, GUEST, ol' Bobert ain't goin' nowhere... The fun is just beginnin'... Hey, I been callin' 'um purdy much the way they've fallen for the years Iz been scratchin' here in the Catbox... Okay, so far I missed on Rove... I predicted last year that he's end up gettin' charged but, hey, it ain't over 'til it's over so "im holdin' out some faith that Fat Boy will get his just deserts... Ain't the won't be to tastey... Thinkin' maybe some "deliverance" in the joint.... (Oh, folks runnin' thru the streets screamin' "Bobert hates Bush!!!" like from some Japanese big bug movie...) Nah, I don't hate nobody... ...but sho nuff hate some folks actions... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:52 PM Sorry, whiplash- the charge was perjury and obstruction of justice. WJC CHOSE to lie. But I guess it IS ok for liberals to lie to a grand jury, as long as you really want to... Try reading the indictments... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:57 PM I'm a liberal an' you can believe me that liberals din't consider Slick "Repubocrat" Willie as no liberal... He was politcian who wnatwed to bem popular so he buddied up to Alan Gereenspan and he buddied up to the Repub Congress and he didn't show me one ounce of courage... Heck, rather than Slick Willie I'd consider him Slick Wuss... That's closer to the truth... The only thing that Repubs didn't like about him is that he beat Daddy Bush and that he didn't say he was a Repub... Otheer tha that he walked the Repub line on policies... I mean, lockstep... Wuss.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: DougR Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:03 PM Donuel: Libby was not indicted because he "outed" Wilson's wife. Whiplash: So tell me, what will be Clinton's legacy? What great thing or things did he do as president? Lettydee: Wilson "outed" his wife in his book. I'm surprised you haven't read it. beardedbruce: yes, there are different standards for liberals as opposed to conservatives. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:21 PM I agree with Dougie: Waht did Clinton do that was so great??? Nuthin', that's what... He lucked into a economic recovery... All he had to do was no blow it by listening to his bussom budy, Alan Greenspan, and he did it... Other than that, is was the usual Republican agenda... Nuthin' liberal about the man... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM DougR, among other things, he left a balanced budget for the first time in God knows how many presidential terms. Your beloved Bush has managed to start from the best fiscal condition the country has been in since before the Civil War and run it deeper into debt than at any time in its history. Right now, the United States owes several countries, especially China, so much money that they can make the U. S. dance like a puppet if they decide it would be to their advantage to do so. So much for being the world's only remaining superpower. Bush has managed to thoroughly screw up the agenda of one of his two patrons, the neo-conservative cabal. And he's mananging to lose the confidence of his other partrons, the religious Right, with his crony nominations for Supreme Court justice. The Democrats didn't have to do anything there, they could just stand back and let him self-destruct. The man has a life-long record of incompetence. No one would ever mistake him for a Rhodes Scholar. Clinton, on the other hand, was. beardedbruce, Clinton's original blunder was something that was nobody's business except his own, Monica's, and his wife's. Clinton's second blunder was that when they started asking him questions, instead of lying, he should have told them that his personal life was nobody's damned business and refused to say anything further about it. This had absolutely nothing to do with how good a president he was. It's been said before many times: when Clinton lied, nobody died. And here we are, discussing Clinton instead of the original topic of this thread. The Right Wing diversion squad wins again. Let's get back to discussing the perfidious behaviour of Libby, Rove, and Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 09:19 PM "Libby, Rove and Bush..."... Lets not forget the Fat boy behind it all: Dickleberry Cheney... He is the drivin' force behind everything that happens in the Bush Whitehouse.... He is the engine... Least not forget who Libby got his information from!!!! Cheney is my candidate fir America;s "Enemy Number One"... He is terribly demented and corrupt... And doesn't care who the heck knows... That is arrogance beyond comprehension... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM GUEST A. You can rant and rave all you like about politics, anything is fair game; but on Mudcat it is considered extremely bad form to criticize a person's spelling. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:02 PM Thanks, Bert... Sniff... Ain't like I don't try 'cause I kinda do... Lexdexia ain't like real fun but, hey, we lexdexics is known fir being great musicans and all 'round decent kinda folks so... ...hey, I rather be a right decent musican than a good speller, any day of the week... And fir the record, Iz still stickin' wid my "screw spell check" comment... Sho nuff am... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM Guest A, it appears that you have a problem discerning content as opposed to style. The Bobert may have a somewhat eccentric way of spelling but his reasoning is impeccable. What's your excuse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:18 PM Ouch, GUEST A... You hear that??? "Impeccable" reasonin'... Danged if that don't sound like, ahhhh, if you gonna mess wid me you better bring yer "A Game".... Impeccible??? Sure that ain't impeckable??? 'Er impeackable??? 'Er empeachable??? Just don't look right, Eb... Think it needsm ahhh, a "q" in it somewhere to kinda balance it up artisticly... But, sniff, thanks fir yer support and I'll try to hang wif GUEST A with my usual impeckable reasonin'... And.... ... screw spell check... I hate gentrification and spellin' is the first step toward a world of little pink houses... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:52 PM You're not alone, Bobert. As you know, a few generations ago many learned people felt that way. Does anyone here remember Little John Cameron? I miss him and I never told him how much I enjoyed his writing. I didn't know he was seriously ill until after he died. Anyway, Little John wrote in Scots, not just Scots but in his own region's peculiar brand of Scots. If I tried to figure it out, syllable by syllable, word by word, it was an uphill task but if I let it flow over me the meaning was - well, impeccable. He could have written in regular English, and in fact, sometimes did. The same thing is true of Beaubear. The thing is, Bobert's reasoning is coherent, it flows, it leads one on into the conclusion he is drawing. What more can you ask? You can argue with his conclusions- but if you attack the English he is using to make his argument, you sound a lot more illiterate and uneducated than he ever does. Have you ever actually listened to what he says? Thought not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:05 PM Guest A-- You must have a lot of trouble with Mark Twain also. Get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM I'z fearin' that GUEST A is real happy to have that GUEST designation tonight... I put on my best pink houses coat over at Amos's thread and read him my "Bill o' Particulars" on Bush's handlin' of the Dept. of Homeland Security... He counters by criticizin' my typin' an' spellin' over here in Snitch-burg and then Ron and Ebbbie, especially Ebbie come in wid the hard wood and put it up side GUEAST A's pink house head an... ...ouch!!! GUEST A gets 'nuther lesson in Mudville... I tired to deliver that lesson to GUEST A last night but he/she said he/she din't want no lecture... Too bad... Man tell me the stove is hot, I ain't gonna call him no retard and stick my hand on it... Hey, hot stove is a hot stove... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: mg Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:30 AM Is it necessary to use the word "retard?" Do not many people find that offensive? And it sure looks like treason to me and I can't understand Novak's actions at all. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Azizi Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:31 AM Who's feeling the heat right now? The Neocons-that's who. * And it's about time. Happy Fitzmas to us all and to all a good nite! {well, actually good morning!} * This is probably incorrect grammar but you get where I'm comin from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Oct 05 - 04:23 AM "Don't be a total twit". Why not, it seems to be the norm here. Ebbie, I apologize for the comments on the spelling by one of the people here. I seriously do. However, if you think those are coherent trains of thought by that same person, then I must gather what remaining dignity I have left and go elsewhere. I know, don't let the door.............. This is a large collection of sore losers, not all, and mixed in is some real hatred, both real and imagined. No insult taken, although I know some was vaguely intended and yes, I do know the difference. It is more easily identified, however, when it is done in an intellectual manner. No win there, Bobert. You are trying to blame GWB for something he was against to begin with. Thanks for bringing up Katrina, things might have worked better if the Congress had NOT built an organization that was ineffective - Homeland Security. Again, you admitted that GWB was against it so I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:20 AM Guest A-- Who dominates Congress? Do you think Bush had nothing to do with the fact that Homeland Security has bcome the incompetent Leviathan it is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:53 AM Guest A-- You need not go elsewhere. But how about some indication you are not just a "politics only" poster? However, if you are, if you can't stand the heat..... |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: Greg F. Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:13 AM The blockage is not one of creativity ...... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM BTW, which hand are they gonna slap? |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:33 PM Far be it from the US government to commit murder. |
