|
20 Oct 05 - 05:38 PM (#1587262) Subject: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Okay, here's the short list of possibilities: A. Dick Cheney B. Scotter Libby C. Karl Rove D. No Indictments E. B & C F. None of the above Vote early and vote often.... My guess is "B" or "D".... But, given the crooks in charge, "D" is more likely... They can say stuff like, "Well, Scooter, didn't intend for Valarie Plame to get outed as a CIA operative in retaliation for her husband's blowing the whistle on the Niger lie. Intent is hard to prove... Blah, blah, blah..." But what yer take... Bobert |
|
20 Oct 05 - 05:58 PM (#1587279) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Rapparee You forgot "None of the above." That's who I always want to vote for these days. |
|
20 Oct 05 - 06:02 PM (#1587286) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace I have no faith in American justice when it comes to politicians and bureaucrats. Bastards protect each other and justice is never served. My thoughts? Indictments with pardons for Scotter and Karl. |
|
20 Oct 05 - 08:29 PM (#1587383) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: CarolC I don't know, but the question is bringing up some interesting possibilities in my mind. Consider this scenario... Cheny resigns and Condoleeza Rice is appointed VP (I heard there's a rumor going around about this possibility). Then Bush gets impeached and removed from office. That would make Condoleeza Rice both the first female president and the first African American president. Since she's such a neocon blood-for-oil war monger, we wouldn't want her in office for too long, but a couple of years would be enough to at least pave the way for a woman with an actual conscience to have a decent shot at the job (and I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton). Plus, the Republicans would be much less inclined to try to shoot her down just for being a woman because if they did, they would be shooting down one of their own. |
|
20 Oct 05 - 09:54 PM (#1587458) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan I vote for B and C and that probably won't happen. B will have to take the fall for C if only for the govt. to save face. Of course, I doubt if he will do any jail time. Probably restrictions of some sort and a fine. Behind the scenes, he will reap huge benefits and will be set for life. Some people will do anything for money. Prostitutes come in all shapes and sizes. |
|
21 Oct 05 - 06:21 PM (#1587987) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Uncle_DaveO That's "Scooter", not "Scotter". Dave Oesterreich |
|
22 Oct 05 - 01:44 AM (#1588215) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan I changed my mind in view of new evidence. Rove got the info from Libby and Libby got the info from Cheney. I'm gonna go for broke and put all of my money on Cheney. Definitely A but also B and C. But if its anyone, C will have to take the fall. |
|
22 Oct 05 - 02:35 AM (#1588223) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Right ya are, Uncle Dave. |
|
22 Oct 05 - 06:13 PM (#1588616) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: DougR Wow, Carol C, you DO have a vivid imagination don't you? DougR |
|
22 Oct 05 - 06:15 PM (#1588618) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: CarolC Possibly. But it's a hell of a lot more fun than the alternative. |
|
22 Oct 05 - 06:48 PM (#1588638) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Ouch, Dougie!!! You gonna take that, buddie??? Heck, I met CarolC at the Getaway and she might be 5 feet tall and 80 pounds... Like I said, "You gonna take that?" |
|
22 Oct 05 - 06:51 PM (#1588641) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Bobert: She play accordian. |
|
26 Oct 05 - 12:27 PM (#1590893) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,saulgoldie Time now: 12:26. Won't be long now. All the ins and outs of the case hurt my purty little head trying to keep em straight. But I am guessing 2 or more indictments, and at least one of them will really hurt Bush & Co. At any rate, this will make any second term "progress" (read: REgress, IMHO) will be much more difficult than it was a month ago. The only thing more pathetic than this whole escapade is the Democrats' non-response. Apparently, they want to be an EX-party. Oh, sorry for the thread drift. Please return to the question at hand, which is "Who will be indicted?" |
|
26 Oct 05 - 12:50 PM (#1590916) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A I just wish I could do something to lessen the bad news for the Libs and Socialists in this and other threads. Won't be long now"??? It has already been announced that "no indictments today". Hold your applause - and watch out for the Wilsons' problems to increase. |
|
26 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM (#1590919) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp My guesses: Libby - 95+% likely to be indicted, probably for obstruction of justice Rove - 50% Cheney >5% |
|
26 Oct 05 - 01:13 PM (#1590940) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Janice way up North Libby and no one else. They'll heap all the crap on one fall guy, just like blaming Lt. Calley for all the shit that happened in Viet Nam, or Sgt. Grainer and Pvt. England for US torture policy in Iraq. Scooter will do a deuce in Club Fed, when it's you-know-who should be in the dock at the Hague. |
|
26 Oct 05 - 03:45 PM (#1591074) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee I suspect that Scooter will take the rap and find a way to stay out of jail until W gives him the Prez Pardon on his way out. I sure wish they'd indict that smarmy frat boy Rove though. You just know he set the whole deal up. The arrogance of the whole Bush crowd astounds and sickens me. |
|
26 Oct 05 - 05:10 PM (#1591148) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,a Leftydee, now you some of the feeling we had during the Clinton years. Take a few minutes this evening and compare how many were indicted during the Clinton years as compared to the past 5 years. Forget about the suspicious deaths and any imprisonment(s). |
|
26 Oct 05 - 05:16 PM (#1591152) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage I sure would love to see a headline |
|
26 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM (#1591166) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,a Why? Do you want his job? |
|
26 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM (#1591211) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage No, instead, do a little research on the million$ wasted by republicans zealots as they hounded the Clinton administration for baseless charges and trumped up stupid affairs. Clinton may have had some personal habits that republicans didn't like, but he was an articulate, intellectual, talented president who left this country in pretty good shape (particularly financially) despite the fact that he was smeared every step of the way. Bush has had several opportunities handed to him on a platter that he has not only blown, he has made far far worse than any could imagine. Afghanistan and Iraq are abominable examples of his strutting and posturing just to prove he can do it. He is spending us into a sinkhole while his cronies in business get richer beyond their wildest dreams. The fact that he was elected this second time proves that the American educational system is a shambles, that so many people couldn't think for themselves and were swayed by the rhetoric of his managers. His presence in the White House is an insult to all thinking people. SRS |
|
26 Oct 05 - 06:33 PM (#1591224) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee guesta, Take a good look at what SRS has to say, Then read "And The Horse He Rode In On" by James Carville. Carville names names and times of the smear (cost about $8 million by most accounts) perpetrated against Clinton. It's shocking. I'm also quite certain it's true or Ken Starr would have sued. Never even objected as far as I can discern. No convictions either..... how lame is that? |
|
26 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM (#1591295) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Difference here GUEST, a, is that we ain't talkin' about a blow job 'er even leing about gettin one, we're talkin' about a conspiarcy to hold down the truth in ordwer to take our country to awar that has killed tens upon thousands of innocent women and children, over 2,000 Americans and with no end in sight... Amd guess what??? Clinton weren't involved in this conspiracy and subsequest war... Yer guy was!!! Ain't do dogin' it... Yer guy was!!! Bobert (oh, and don't give me no Clinton loving right winged bullcrap... I'm a Green and wouldn't have voted fir Clinto fir dog catcher... Though lookin' at Monika Lewinski, he prolly would have been good at it...) |
|
27 Oct 05 - 08:33 AM (#1591666) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A I don't care who you are, stay on subject for a change. BJ wasn't mentioned. My guy, as you put it and he isn't totally, has never been indicted. Do you know why all the living former Presidents could practice in front of the Supreme court and WJC can't? Besides, we were not talking about the war persay, it was the overall conduct of the presidency and compared indictments in the administration of WJC as opposed to GWB. Leave out imprisonments and unexplained deaths. Why could you not ascertain that. Go back and reread please. |
|
27 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM (#1591672) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A One other thing, WJC, in the late '90s, talked about how something should be done about Iraq but neglected to do so. He just continued to allow destruction of our Barracks, Embassies and things like the USS Cole plus the first bombing of the World Trade Center to go unpunished. So, embolden by this apparent unwillingness to respond, we then were greeted with 9-11. But, here I am, going off topic almost as much as you do. |
|
27 Oct 05 - 08:48 AM (#1591673) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos Look for an inside scandal on Scooter shacking up with Judith Miller. You heard it here first!! A |
|
27 Oct 05 - 08:32 PM (#1592120) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee 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? |
|
27 Oct 05 - 08:36 PM (#1592125) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Good call, Amos. I suspect we may see a Rove/Jeff Gannon contection too. |
|
27 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM (#1592206) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM (#1592452) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Libby has been indicted on 5 counts: 1 obstruction of justice, 2 perjury, and 2 making false statements. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 01:24 PM (#1592464) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce 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,... |
|
28 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM (#1592479) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,TIA Nope, I want him to stay right where he is...in the administration, and on the front page. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM (#1592505) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Too bad. Scooter has resigned. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM (#1592517) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bill D 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:23 PM (#1592527) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage No, Beardedbruce, they should only resign if they are someone YOU support. That would be nice! |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:27 PM (#1592529) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM (#1592542) Subject: Libby Fibbed From: Donuel 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM (#1592552) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A 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? |
|
28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM (#1592554) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 03:20 PM (#1592571) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM (#1592576) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Whiplash, So, you would apply a different set of rules to different administrations? Law in the the US depends heavily on precedent. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 03:38 PM (#1592579) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM (#1592583) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Jees Amos, I think you may have nailedit |
|
28 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM (#1592585) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Gee, Amos, I recognize more than a few Mudcat posters in yours description... ( on both sides) |
|
28 Oct 05 - 04:29 PM (#1592619) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM (#1592631) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM (#1592635) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM (#1592639) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 04:59 PM (#1592653) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 05:12 PM (#1592667) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 05:15 PM (#1592672) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Every dog has it's day! Let them eat yellowcake. wdyat12 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 05:54 PM (#1592695) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 06:26 PM (#1592715) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM (#1592726) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 06:55 PM (#1592734) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM (#1592737) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Ah, c'mon, GUEST, don't be a total twit. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 07:05 PM (#1592739) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 07:46 PM (#1592771) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 07:52 PM (#1592777) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
28 Oct 05 - 07:57 PM (#1592779) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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.. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 08:03 PM (#1592784) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: DougR 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 08:21 PM (#1592797) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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... |
|
28 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM (#1592831) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 09:19 PM (#1592840) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert "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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM (#1592848) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bert 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 10:02 PM (#1592859) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM (#1592863) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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? |
|
28 Oct 05 - 10:18 PM (#1592876) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 05 - 10:52 PM (#1592893) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 11:05 PM (#1592898) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies Guest A-- You must have a lot of trouble with Mark Twain also. Get over it. |
|
28 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM (#1592901) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
29 Oct 05 - 12:30 AM (#1592919) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: mg 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 |
|
29 Oct 05 - 12:31 AM (#1592921) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Azizi 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 04:23 AM (#1592962) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A "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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 06:20 AM (#1592999) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
29 Oct 05 - 06:53 AM (#1593014) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ron Davies 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..... |
|
29 Oct 05 - 08:00 AM (#1593034) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 08:30 AM (#1593059) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
29 Oct 05 - 09:31 AM (#1593098) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Azizi 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... |
|
29 Oct 05 - 10:13 AM (#1593123) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Greg F. The blockage is not one of creativity ...... |
|
29 Oct 05 - 10:57 AM (#1593143) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST .........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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 11:09 AM (#1593149) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Azizi 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.... |
|
29 Oct 05 - 11:16 AM (#1593154) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Azizi 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 01:36 PM (#1593225) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: freda underhill 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 02:25 PM (#1593244) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Good to see that folks still have 'faith' in the system. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM (#1593256) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace BTW, which hand are they gonna slap? |
|
29 Oct 05 - 03:03 PM (#1593266) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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." |
|
29 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM (#1593280) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 03:24 PM (#1593282) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
29 Oct 05 - 10:13 PM (#1593499) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
29 Oct 05 - 11:07 PM (#1593540) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie Because, you see, if he doesn't admit it in a court of law, it didn't happen. See? |
|
29 Oct 05 - 11:32 PM (#1593551) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
29 Oct 05 - 11:53 PM (#1593560) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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. " |
|
30 Oct 05 - 01:06 PM (#1593631) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan 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. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 02:27 PM (#1593674) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM (#1593681) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST 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). |
|
30 Oct 05 - 02:54 PM (#1593695) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan 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? |
|
30 Oct 05 - 04:13 PM (#1593743) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace "Clinton's administration" No more or less shoddy than the present one, IMO. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 04:32 PM (#1593754) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie "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. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 04:33 PM (#1593755) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Far be it from the US government to commit murder. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 05:02 PM (#1593772) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie 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. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM (#1593883) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan 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. |
|
30 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM (#1593897) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
31 Oct 05 - 01:43 PM (#1594279) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos 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. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 08:10 AM (#1665925) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert refresh |
|
10 Feb 06 - 08:35 AM (#1665944) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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.... |
|
10 Feb 06 - 09:14 AM (#1665975) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos According to a citation on another thread he already has named Cheney as authorizing the leak. A |
|
10 Feb 06 - 09:53 AM (#1666001) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Alba 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 |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:06 AM (#1666007) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
06 Apr 06 - 02:24 PM (#1712022) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie Anybody Surprised? |
|
06 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM (#1712063) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bee-dubya-ell 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. |
|
06 Apr 06 - 03:41 PM (#1712090) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie He refused to go quail hunting. *G* |
|
08 Apr 06 - 08:50 AM (#1713096) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
08 Apr 06 - 09:20 AM (#1713110) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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:( |
|
08 Apr 06 - 10:33 AM (#1713142) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Susu's Hubby "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 |
|
08 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM (#1713157) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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 |
|
08 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM (#1713276) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,dianavan 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. |
|
08 Apr 06 - 02:48 PM (#1713280) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,G Did not WJC bomb the hell out a country? From a height where no one could discern the amount of "collateral damage". |
|
08 Apr 06 - 03:05 PM (#1713288) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Ebbie "Did not WJC bomb the hell out a country?" And what, pray tell, has that to do with this subject? |
|
08 Apr 06 - 03:11 PM (#1713293) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST About as much as "Only a very evil leader would go so far to justify a war." Okay? |
|
08 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM (#1713320) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST 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. |
|
08 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM (#1713321) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,dianavan The post above was from me. |
|
08 Apr 06 - 06:51 PM (#1713392) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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... |
|
11 Apr 06 - 08:26 AM (#1715090) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Susu's Hubby 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 |
|
11 Apr 06 - 11:52 PM (#1715801) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,dianavan 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. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM (#1999058) Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert 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"... |