 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:07 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 - 10:02 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:46 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: 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: 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: 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 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 - 06:26 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: 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: 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: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:12 PM I would say that it's completely inconsequential. The whole point of the "Monica-gate" brouhaha was to character-assassinate Clinton. The Right had been trying to do that ever since he took office. See Kenneth Starr and the whole Whitewater thing. Far from trying to scam people in a real estate deal, the Clintons themselves got taken in by it and lost $60,000. The Right were tripping over their own feet trying to get something on Clinton, and when he hanky-panked with Monica, he foolishly left himself vulnerable. There was no damage to the country, only to himself. This whole Phlame affair is just another part of the Right-Wing "If you get in the way of our agenda, we'll mash you, no matter what we have to do" tactic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:59 PM Neocons truely believe that their murky motives are good for the nation. ITs hard to argue that a lie about a blowjob is either good or bad for the nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM No, beardedbruce, but I think there is a qualitative difference between lying about getting a blowjob and lying to the American people get the United States involved in an illegal war, with the inevitable casualties. In one case, horniness is a fairly straightforeward motive. In the other, the motives get pretty murky. Oil, dominance, imperial expansion, GWB simply trying to demonstrate that he, too, has balls, or all of the above. transgretion resulted in a stain on a dress, the other resulted in 2000 American corpses and at least 30,000 Iraqi dead. Not quite the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM Scooter is not nailed with that charge because they can not prove he "did it"* maliciously or with the intent to cause personal damage. The investigation revealed that Plames status was indeed a secret. Not only a national security secret but one which was known only to a few central insiders. *with the caveat of innocence until proven guilty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM I said "has anyone heard who actually outed Valerie Plame" in a joking manner. She WAS NOT outed - it is a known fact that she had not been covert for some time. Otherwise, I think "Scooter" would have been nailed with that charge. I bet that had Scooter taken the 5th, he would be home free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:29 PM The CIA is still reorganized under the intimidation of neocon control. The days of independent intelligence gathering without the micromanagement of the Vice President's and Rumsfeld's special office are practically ancient history. Perhaps these indictments may further intimidate the few remaining veteran CIA administrators who were allowed to stay on after Porter Goss took over. I think the damage to the agency will be long lasting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM Gee, Amos, I recognize more than a few Mudcat posters in yours description... ( on both sides) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM Jees Amos, I think you may have nailedit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:38 PM You don't punch people out in a bar-room brawl because you want to get even for something mean they said, and then come up with a rational explanation for it, Lefty. Some foks have mean, antisocial dispositions and believe that slamming down hard on any critics is a good policy because it will intimidate the critics; this is called reigning by intimidation. Bush's machine has always favored coming down hard on those who get out of line or criticize himself or his policies. Their policies are often to do anything to snuff out criticism -- lie, stonewall, tapdance, duck and weave, slime the accusers, ruin the lives of a few folks here and there to shut them up. All part of the hardball approach so admired by criminals, violent types, the hard-brained and the ruthless. Thus, W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM Whiplash, So, you would apply a different set of rules to different administrations? Law in the the US depends heavily on precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:20 PM I think you'll find out who outed Ms Wilson in the next couple of weeks. My real interest is in why. Was it vindictivness for Joe Wilson's assessment? Didn't the Brits draw the same conclusions? I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure out how anyone could have thought they had something to gain from outing a CIA agent. Futhermore, why in hell would Novak think this was fit to print? If he knew other classified info would he print that too? It seems like treason to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM General observation: on these threads, any time the Bush administration is under fire, someone will try to divert the discussion by bringing up Clinton, making a big deal out of indiscretions in his personal life, ignoring the fact that in the final analysis he was one of the better presidents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM SRS - point taken about spending - I have not seen any sign of budget control. Both sides must think we don't about spending somewhat within our means. Leftydee - The 12 missles (@ a million bucks each) were not justified afterwards. Maybe a "wag the dog" scenario? Monica was a hot topic (no pun intended) at the time. Sort of an expensive way of getting rid of an Aspirin factory. And Clinton was comvicted of perjury. Now to the non-intellectual part of this thread. Bobert, do not try do lecture me. And in that vein, I have two words for you; Spell checker. I am not on a high horse as you crassly tried to imply. By staying on subject, a couple of us were having a pretty good conversation on the overall aspects of the WJC and GWB administrations, not on individual items such as BJs and the war. Speaking of the war, go back to news articles from the late 90s and you can see where WJC was advocating action against Iraq along with the concept of what a "grave danger" Iraq was. See what the New York Times had to say also. The quotes from that time period and the comments from the GWB administration were almost interchangable. If I need to be told "how the game is played", I will go to Amos, B'dBruce, SRS, Peace, Dianavan (sorry about Cheney, DV) and Leftydee among others. NOT from a blustery, doesn't seem to understand facts and certainly can't come up with any fellow in dire need of spell check. Sorry, don't want to get personal but some of your stuff is difficult to understand at first read and consequently wastes time. Yes, I am convinced I walk into the "friggin' retard room" and you of all people know who I saw first. Now, "back on subject", has anyone heard who actually outed Valerie Plame? |
|
Subject: Libby Fibbed From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM The indictment boils down to 4 fibs by Libby. At most he faces a realistic 10 years and a minimum of 2 years. The bad news for Scooter is that the judge appointed to his case has the ominous nickname "Judge Longball" and is best known for handing out maximum sentences ever since the time he worked for the DEA. Cheney seems to have given himself enough wiggle room on to evade prosecution unless Libby stabs him in the back. Cheney's Meet the Press statements are not under oath. Besides he is allowed to share classified information with others who hold a similar clearence. In a manner of speaking the jury is still out on Rove. What I find most interesting is the sheer irony of W's father creating the law that has scarred his son's administration. "Anyone who exposes a covert CIA agent is the most insidious traitor of the United States!" quote GHW Bush. "If we find out who leaked we will deal with them" Quote GWB. ......... This administration has their own agenda as to what constitutes an Axis of Evil. It seems that W and his Kabal considers the axis of evil to be: the Geneva Convention, Bill of Rights, Rule of Law, and the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:27 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:23 PM No, Beardedbruce, they should only resign if they are someone YOU support. That would be nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM and "no decision yet" on Rove. I suppose he will end up not being indicted, although everyone knows he MUST have known and discussed just as much as Libby did.....ah, well...the system runs on proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM Too bad. Scooter has resigned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM Nope, I want him to stay right where he is...in the administration, and on the front page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:24 PM So, any member of the executive branch indicted should take a leave of absense, resign, or be suspended? Clinton Articles of impeachment - Purjury, obstruction of justice,... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM Libby has been indicted on 5 counts: 1 obstruction of justice, 2 perjury, and 2 making false statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM Hey, listen GUEST A... Yer the one who brought up Clinton... Not me... So get off yer high n' mighty righteouisly indignant horse... Yeah, you may be new around this joint but you ain't waltzed into to the friggin' retard ward... You bring up stu7ff and it's comin' back atcha so don't go sayin' carp like "Get back to the subject" after you done went off into Clinton-burg... You gonna put it out here then it's comin' back yer way... That's the rules here in the Catbox... If I go off on a tangent, hey,m I'm gonna have to defend myself out there and not claim some executive priviledge to get myself off the hook... You brought up Slick Willie Clinton first... Check appropriate response: _________ yes _________ no See the way the game is played??? Purdy simple, ain't it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:36 PM Good call, Amos. I suspect we may see a Rove/Jeff Gannon contection too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:32 PM Guest A, you've got a weird memory. Don't you recall the s**t fit your guys threw when WJC took a shot at Bin Laden with cruise missles? |
