billvon 3,073 #101 March 8, 2007 >I should have added that although she is to blame, she isn't a victim. >She is being treated as a hero, will get rich from it. Even better! Someone call her a "cunt" ("whore" is a favorite as well) and we'll have the trifecta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #102 March 8, 2007 I didn't call her any of those! Besides, whore is in a whole 'nuther category. It really does have a specific meaning as applied to a person, and should not be used as a general insult, as opposed to a general derogatory term that is a body part, which is free to mean whatever you want.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #103 March 8, 2007 QuoteEven better! Someone call her a "cunt" ("whore" is a favorite as well) and we'll have the trifecta. Guys who wear Bluetooth phone ear pieces when they're not on a call are fags. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #104 March 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteEven better! Someone call her a "cunt" ("whore" is a favorite as well) and we'll have the trifecta. Guys who wear Bluetooth phone ear pieces when they're not on a call are fags. But, they pay a lot of money for new gadgets, and damn it, they want everyone to know they have a fancy gadget! If it were not visible, it wouldn't stroke their ego.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #105 March 8, 2007 QuoteBut, they pay a lot of money for new gadgets, and damn it, they want everyone to know they have a fancy gadget! If it were not visible, it wouldn't stroke their ego. agreed. My point of course is that use of the word "faggot" -- sad a reflection on American culture as it may be -- is *widely* used as a "general" insult. Not exactly rehab material as John Edwards suggested, and Ann Coulter questioned. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #106 March 8, 2007 Quote>there is no evidence of what so many claim. Other than the fact that Cheney's chief of staff is guilty of obstructing an investigation into that very claim. We now have proof that White House staff intentionally disrupted attempts to _get_ that evidence. Still - no proof of the White house intentionally, maliciously outed Valerie Plame. No proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #107 March 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteCan someone show me any evidence of the White House intentionally outing Valerie Plame??? Armitage outed her... and he wasn't charged? I wonder why? The evidence is in the form of the grand jury testimony Libby and others. Yes, Armitage outed her as well as Rove and Libbby, at the direction of Cheney. You say Rove and Libby outed her at Cheney's direction. I say that's a complete fabrication... a fantasy... that dog don't hunt! You keep referencing Libby's GJ testimony, but I've researched it and couldn't find where he said Cheney instructed him and Rove to leak Plame's (classified) employment status. In this day and age of polemic spin it's often difficult to discern what is fact from all that is presented as fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #108 March 8, 2007 QuoteYou keep referencing Libby's GJ testimony, but I've researched it and couldn't find where he said Cheney instructed him and Rove to leak Plame's (classified) employment status. I wish I had a link for you, but I heard it with my own ears on Fox News. Aside from the revelation, I was suprised because I thought GJ testimony was supposed to be secret. Maybe it was just a deposition and they called it GJ testimony. The point of the story, as I recall, was that Cheney could not be charged with any criminal act because he had been given the authority by Bush to order the declassification of information...then he ordered Libby to release the info on Plame._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #109 March 8, 2007 I've read about Bush supposedly declassifying portions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, which was to be used by Cheney and Libby to discredit Wilson. But I haven't found anything declassifying Plame's covert status. It seems people are confusing two separate issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #110 March 8, 2007 >no proof of the White house intentionally, maliciously outed Valerie Plame. I agree. Now that the intentional obstruction of that investigation has ended, perhaps we will be able to determine whether or not they did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #111 March 8, 2007 Quote>no proof of the White house intentionally, maliciously outed Valerie Plame. I agree. Now that the intentional obstruction of that investigation has ended, perhaps we will be able to determine whether or not they did. We who? I guess you missed Patrick Fitzgerald stating he doesn't expect any additional charges and that the prosecutors were all going back to their day jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #112 March 8, 2007 >I guess you missed Patrick Fitzgerald stating he doesn't expect >any additional charges and that the prosecutors were all going back to >their day jobs. In that case, I guess we will never know. Score one for the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #113 March 8, 2007 Quote>I guess you missed Patrick Fitzgerald stating he doesn't expect >any additional charges and that the prosecutors were all going back to >their day jobs. In that case, I guess we will never know. Score one for the criminals. Love the presumption of guilty. You bring up inane conspiracy theories in other threads, yet you seem so attached to this one. This situation has been picked over for 2 1/2 years, by expert investigators. They found nothing to support Joe Wilson's claim of Plame being outed as an act of retribution. All evidence indicates it was a lie... plain and simple. Your fantasy just doesn't hold water. Time to move on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #114 March 8, 2007 >Love the presumption of guilty. Uh, no. Presumption of a crime (revealing the name of a covert agent.) >They found nothing to support Joe Wilson's claim of Plame being outed >as an act of retribution. All evidence indicates it was a lie... plain and simple. Right! Which is why someone was just convicted of trying to cover it up. It's possible to spin a lot of things positively, but a conviction of obstructing justice in an investigation into wrongdoing is not one of them. >Time to move on. That's a catchy phrase! You could start your own website. Fear not; I think the left will move on from this as quickly as the right moved on from the failure of Clinton's impeachment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #115 March 8, 2007 Quote>Love the presumption of guilty. Uh, no. Presumption of a crime (revealing the name of a covert agent.) Armitage was the leak. He wasn't charged. Hmm Quote>They found nothing to support Joe Wilson's claim of Plame being outed >as an act of retribution. All evidence indicates it was a lie... plain and simple. Right! Which is why someone was just convicted of trying to cover it up. It's possible to spin a lot of things positively, but a conviction of obstructing justice in an investigation into wrongdoing is not one of them. Obstruction of an investigation is not the same as actually committing the crime being investigated. Nice leap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #116 March 8, 2007 QuoteI've read about Bush supposedly declassifying portions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, which was to be used by Cheney and Libby to discredit Wilson. But I haven't found anything declassifying Plame's covert status. It seems people are confusing two separate issues. No, Libby's testimony was about him revealing Plame's status as an employee of the CIA, which was in and of itself classified information that Cheney told Libby to release to the media. Neither Cheney nor Libby can be criminally prosecuted for doing so, it was just a totally amoral thing to do. If the administration had grounds to fire Plame, I'm sure they would have done so. Instead, they entered into ethical bankrupcy by ruining her career, and in the process probably revealed intelligence gathering methods and endangered foreign sources...all in the name of politics. Great work guys...thanks for nothing._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #117 March 8, 2007 QuoteNo, Libby's testimony was about him revealing Plame's status as an employee of the CIA, which was in and of itself classified information that Cheney told Libby to release to the media. You seem to be the only one making this claim. QuoteIf the administration had grounds to fire Plame, I'm sure they would have done so. Instead, they entered into ethical bankrupcy by ruining her career, and in the process probably revealed intelligence gathering methods and endangered foreign sources...all in the name of politics. That's just speculation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #118 March 8, 2007 Anne Coulter's column today on this was hilarious and quite telling. Even if you don't like her and her acidic humor, it's a good read and an incredible compare and contrast on how crimes are prosecuted and not prosecuted. Clicky Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #119 March 8, 2007 QuoteAnne Coulter's column today on this was hilarious and quite telling. It wants to be fed. If you feed it, it will hang around. If you don't, maybe it will go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #120 March 8, 2007 Quote>no proof of the White house intentionally, maliciously outed Valerie Plame. I agree. Now that the intentional obstruction of that investigation has ended, perhaps we will be able to determine whether or not they did. Since we know it was Armitage in the state department who leaked why don't you go ask him? He sure wasn't a war hawk and neither was his boss Powel. There's so much dishonest bullshit from the left on this it's staggering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #121 March 8, 2007 QuoteAnne Coulter's column today on this was hilarious and quite telling. Even if you don't like her and her acidic humor, it's a good read and an incredible compare and contrast on how crimes are prosecuted and not prosecuted. Clicky Coulter says: QuoteLewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence. It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it. With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention. This is part of the same crowd who was happy to go after Bill Clinton with the long knives for lying about exrtamarital sex, and got a wet crotch defending Ken Starr's abuse of the Whitewater investigation for exactly the same purpose as what she claims is going on here: to nail White House officials at something, anything. She's like Limbaugh: she knows she's a hypocrite and completely full of shit, but she's laughing at all of us because it carries her all the way to the bank. America - what a country! Interesting sidenote: The ad links at the top of the page read: "Online pharmacy" and "Hydrocodone from $0.58". How telling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #122 March 8, 2007 QuoteThis is part of the same crowd who was happy to go after Bill Clinton with the long knives for lying about exrtamarital sex Both sides are guilty of hypocrisy, however Bill's incident had much more going on than just exramarital sex. Yes, Clinton did get a BJ from an intern (like a teacher/student relationship, or congressman/page relationship - usually that is not considered acceptable). But, he didn't just get blowjobs. He was being questioned under oath because of allegations of sexual misconduct. He lied to cover up the pattern that supported the allegations. He didn't just have a bad memory about what he told to whom. There were also substantial allegations of being a rapist, sexual imposition & harassment, making advances to a woman on the day of her husband's death, having the Arkansas state police help him get women...People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #123 March 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteThis is part of the same crowd who was happy to go after Bill Clinton with the long knives for lying about exrtamarital sex Both sides are guilty of hypocrisy, however Bill's incident had much more going on than just exramarital sex. Yes, Clinton did get a BJ from an intern (like a teacher/student relationship, or congressman/page relationship - usually that is not considered acceptable). But, he didn't just get blowjobs. He was being questioned under oath because of allegations of sexual misconduct. He lied to cover up the pattern that supported the allegations. He didn't just have a bad memory about what he told to whom. There were also substantial allegations of being a rapist, sexual imposition & harassment, making advances to a woman on the day of her husband's death, having the Arkansas state police help him get women... Everybody knows that Clinton getting a BJ was nothing more than a right-wing witchhunt. Who he sexually assaulted behind closed doors is really nobody's business. What should be just as obvious to you is, regardless of the outcome of this latest special prosecutor investigation and trial, Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of those fucktard neo-cons intentionally outed Valerie Plame, as an act of retribution, knowing full well about the laws being broken and the immeasurable harm it would do to foreign intelligence. Proof? We duh neeed no stinkin' proof!!! Frog march Karl Rove down to the pokey. Lock him up and throw away the key. We have Joe Wilson's word... and that's good enough for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #124 March 9, 2007 QuoteSo, now that the only charges left are related to perjury which is hard to distinguish from bad memory, how is this different from Ken Starr's much maligned prosecution of Clinton? No one dies with a BJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #125 March 9, 2007 QuoteNo one dies with a BJ. there's a ton of very attractive women married to very rich senior citizens that are counting on you being wrong ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
