NationStates Jolt Archive

White House officials will be required to attend briefings next week on ethics and the handling of classified information after the indictment last week of a senior official in the CIA leak probe, according to a memo released on Saturday.

The briefings will provide a refresher course on general ethics rules, including "the rules governing the protection of classified information," the memo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051105/pl_nm/bush_leak_briefings_dc

Isn't this a bit like closing the barn door after someone has poured gasoline all over the roof and set it on fire?

:rolleyes:

Nice metaphor. :)

Nice metaphor. :)

agreed.

Isn't it funny that the Bush administration is stressing ethics from one side of their mouth while they are lobbying for torture from the other?

Oh wait, it's not funny. It's incredibly tragic.

Good for Bush for ordering this.

All meetings are also mandatory too.

Good for Bush for ordering this.

All meetings are also mandatory too.

Would you have been satisfied if Clinton signed up for a gender sensitivity course?

You are forgetting that no one in the Bush administration, not even Mr. Libby, was found guilty or accused officially of outing that gutterslut spy.

You are forgetting that no one in the Bush administration, not even Mr. Libby, was found guilty or accused officially of outing that gutterslut spy.

This is also indeed true.

Would you have been satisfied if Clinton signed up for a gender sensitivity course?
It wouldn't have done him any good. The world's worst gutterslut. No hope for him at all.

Edit: worst until some worse comes along and due to him promoting gutterslutting. I mean sleeping with other women despite that he and they were married at the time. That fills the definition of gutterslut.

You are forgetting that no one in the Bush administration, not even Mr. Libby, was found guilty or accused officially of outing that gutterslut spy.
There's a reason for that--and you'll want to read this bit slowly so it penetrates your thick skull--Libby was obstructing the investigation, which is why he's been charged with Obstruction of Justice. I'll give you this much--at least you admit that she was a spy and was outed--that's more than some of your moron right-wing mouthpieces have admitteed to. They're still trying to spin the story that Plame wasn't a spy, even though Fitzgerald said she was in the indictment.

You are forgetting that no one in the Bush administration, not even Mr. Libby, was found guilty or accused officially of outing that gutterslut spy.

Ah, the troll quotient has been noticably low since you were banninated.

I love this line of reasoning. It's akin to this scenario:

At 12 o'clock last night, the window of Fred's Bakery had a brick heaved through it. As there were no fingerprints or any other evidence tying a specific person to the act of vandalism, the chief of police has declared that, in fact, the window was not broken.

See, Fitzgerald indicated clearly that a criminal act occurred, that Plame's identity was indeed classified and that identity was not common knowledge. That a crime occurred is not in doubt by anyone with fully functioning brain cells. The window, as it were, was broken by a human hand. But, and Fitzgerald indicated this was in part because of the LIES Libby told, no one could be charged AT THIS TIME, since the level of proof and intent is very high to convict in a case of this sort.

As for calling Plame a gutterslut, I sure hope the CIA, armed fully with their Cheney-lobbied torture exemption, visit you some night.

There's a reason for that--and you'll want to read this bit slowly so it penetrates your thick skull--Libby was obstructing the investigation, which is why he's been charged with Obstruction of Justice. I'll give you this much--at least you admit that she was a spy and was outed--that's more than some of your moron right-wing mouthpieces have admitteed to. They're still trying to spin the story that Plame wasn't a spy, even though Fitzgerald said she was in the indictment.

If she was a spy, then the outers would have been convicted under the law for outing her. They got nothing but obstruction of justice out of the two years of investigation. In the end, no one was convicted of actually doing anything wrong that was directly tied to "outing" her.

If she was a spy, then the outers would have been convicted under the law for outing her. They got nothing but obstruction of justice out of the two years of investigation. In the end, no one was convicted of outing her.

So, you're saying no one murdered Nicole Brown Simpson? No one was convicted in that crime either. I guess she committed suicide by hacking herself apart with a knife.

A crime occurred and Plame was covert, as the indictment says. The fact that the crime couldn't be pinned on someone does not mean that a crime hasn't occurred.

Oh, and you no doubt know, the investigation is not over.

So, you're saying no one murdered Nicole Brown Simpson? No one was convicted in that crime either. I guess she committed suicide by hacking herself apart with a knife.

Big difference. There was a crime committed, and a person was accused of the crime. OJ was tried for the crime, and was indicted specifically for it. Rove and Libby and the others never were indicted for outing her.

A crime occurred and Plame was covert, as the indictment says. The fact that the crime couldn't be pinned on someone does not mean that a crime hasn't occurred.

There's no conviction. They have the evidence and know that she was outed but still can't actually arrest them because they didn't actually break the law. If they did, there'd be an indictment for specifically outing her as opposed to obstruction of justice.

If she was a spy, then the outers would have been convicted under the law for outing her. They got nothing but obstruction of justice out of the two years of investigation. In the end, no one was convicted of actually doing anything wrong that was directly tied to "outing" her.
Listen to yourself--no one's even been tried yet. Hard to have a conviction if no one's stood trial, isn't it? And Fitzgerald has said that his work is not done yet, that more indictments may be forthcoming. Rove's own defense lawyers have said he remains in serious legal jeopardy. Come back when you actually know something.

Apparently, according to Republicans (specifically Bush butt kissers, not good upstanding Republicans,) a crime is only a crime if you get caught. Really shines a light on the Republican (again, specifically the ones claiming that no crime occurred here,) morality system.

Listen to yourself--no one's even been tried yet. Hard to have a conviction if no one's stood trial, isn't it? And Fitzgerald has said that his work is not done yet, that more indictments may be forthcoming. Rove's own defense lawyers have said he remains in serious legal jeopardy. Come back when you actually know something.

Two years of investigation and no one has yet to even be indicted for outing her. If they have a case here, why haven't they indicted anybody for outing her as opposed to "obstructing" the investigation?

Big difference. There was a crime committed, and a person was accused of the crime. OJ was tried for the crime, and was indicted specifically for it. Rove and Libby and the others never were indicted for outing her.



There's no conviction. They have the evidence and know that she was outed but still can't actually arrest them because they didn't actually break the law. If they did, there'd be an indictment for specifically outing her as opposed to obstruction of justice.

If they didn't obstruct justice, then they would have been indicted. In other words, it was smart of them to obstruct justice, because otherwise the crime would have been easy to prove.

Apparently, according to Republicans (specifically Bush butt kissers, not good upstanding Republicans,) a crime is only a crime if you get caught. Really shines a light on the Republican (again, specifically the ones claiming that no crime occurred here,) morality system.

This actually fits with most who are not upstanding to their party, Democrats included. Not really limited to the Republicans, doncha think?

Two years of investigation and no one has yet to even be indicted for outing her. If they have a case here, why haven't they indicted anybody for outing her as opposed to "obstructing" the investigation?
Because of the obstruction and the perjury, the ability to charge the underlying crime, the cause for the investigation in the first place, has been hampered--thus the obstruction indictment. What don't you get? It's not that complex of a concept, unless you have an incurable case of Limbaugh.

If they didn't obstruct justice, then they would have been indicted. In other words, it was smart of them to obstruct justice, because otherwise the crime would have been easy to prove.

Even if they did manage to obstruct the investigation enough to prevent the crime, they still know that this CIA agent was leaked, and so would have grounds to at least get some kind of indictment related to the leak. It's not like they're investigating the possibility that a CIA agent was leaked; it's been common knowledge for almost 2 years that someone did it. And, if you know that someone did it and you could trace it to Rove/Libby, then you have at least enough evidence to hand down an indictment for outing her.

Two years of investigation and no one has yet to even be indicted for outing her. If they have a case here, why haven't they indicted anybody for outing her as opposed to "obstructing" the investigation?

Uh, because they obstructed the investigation! Geez, why do you think it's a crime to obstruct an investigation anyway?

Again, a crime definitely occurred here, that's not in doubt. What is still in doubt is whether enough evidence will be gathered to pin it on a person or not.

You HAVE to admit that crimes happen every day that people remain unindicted on. Hell, the BTK killer was free for 20 years with no indictment! But hey, no indictment after the first 2 years...I guess all those people BTK brutally killed weren't murdered...until 20 years later.

No indictment (at this time) != No crime. Read Fitzgerald's press release, please.

Because of the obstruction and the perjury, the ability to charge the underlying crime, the cause for the investigation in the first place, has been hampered--thus the obstruction indictment. What don't you get? It's not that complex of a concept, unless you have an incurable case of Limbaugh.

There are multiple people besides Libby and Rove involved in this and all of them clearly named these two as responsible. So, if these people named these two (and others) as responsible under oath, why couldn't they have indicted them for outing her even though justice was instructed?

There are multiple people besides Libby and Rove involved in this and all of them clearly named these two as responsible. So, if these people named these two (and others) as responsible under oath, why couldn't they have indicted them for outing her even though justice was instructed?
Because if you're a responsible prosecutor, you don't indict people you can't make a case against--if you can't make a case for the underlying crime because the investigation has been obstructed, you make a case for obstruction. This isn't rocket science, Vetalia--I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping it.

Even if they did manage to obstruct the investigation enough to prevent the crime, they still know that this CIA agent was leaked, and so would have grounds to at least get some kind of indictment related to the leak. It's not like they're investigating the possibility that a CIA agent was leaked; it's been common knowledge for almost 2 years that someone did it. And, if you know that someone did it and you could trace it to Rove/Libby, then you have at least enough evidence to hand down an indictment for outing her.

No, because the obstruction caused enough confusion that a conviction would be very hard to get...especially because in the specific laws involved INTENT has to be proven. Intent is almost impossible to probe if the arget of the investigation obstructs justice. Fitzgerald, being the contientious prosecutor that he is, won't indict unless he's reasonably certain he'll convict. Besides, it seem that he's trying to get Libby to "flip" on his bosses by threatening him with a lot of jail time. Remember too that if Fitzgerald indicts and can't get a conviction, then Libby can't be tried for the same crime again. Therefore it's in Fitzgerald's best interest to jail Libby for some time in the hopes that he sings...finally allowing Fitzgerald to indict on the original crime involved in the investigation.

I'm sorry, but your knowledge of the law pertaining to this matter is woefully lacking. You're just spouting talking points as if they were fact.

There are multiple people besides Libby and Rove involved in this and all of them clearly named these two as responsible. So, if these people named these two (and others) as responsible under oath, why couldn't they have indicted them for outing her even though justice was instructed?

Read this carefully. In order to indict and convict on this specific offense, not only the how has to be proven but also the why. When individuals obstruct justice, it is nearly impossible to determine the why.

Perhaps the laws need to be rewritten.

Because if you're a responsible prosecutor, you don't indict people you can't make a case against--[/b]

Ding Ding Ding. I guess there is no case against Rove then. Libby is only indicted on Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. That is the strongest case they have. Notice that Libby hasn't been found guilty yet of these charges either.

Uh, because they obstructed the investigation! Geez, why do you think it's a crime to obstruct an investigation anyway?

Again, a crime definitely occurred here, that's not in doubt. What is still in doubt is whether enough evidence will be gathered to pin it on a person or not.

Obstruction of justice doesn't require any a substantiated incident to be charged against someone.

If there was a crime committed, and they know with at least some certainty who did it, they indict them for it. No one has actually been accused of doing anything illegal, even though they have sufficient evidence linking Rove/Libby to this.

You HAVE to admit that crimes happen every day that people remain unindicted on. Hell, the BTK killer was free for 20 years with no indictment! But hey, no indictment after the first 2 years...I guess all those people BTK brutally killed weren't murdered...until 20 years later.

They didn't know who the BTK killer was, because otherwise the suspect would have been indicted for the crimes. They know who outed Plame, and they have the testimony of the reporters, and they have access to the evidence.

Obstruction of justice doesn't require any a substantiated incident to be charged against someone.

If there was a crime committed, and they know with at least some certainty who did it, they indict them for it. No one has actually been accused of doing anything illegal, even though they have sufficient evidence linking Rove/Libby to this.



They didn't know who the BTK killer was, because otherwise the suspect would have been indicted for the crimes. They know who outed Plame, and they have the testimony of the reporters, and they have access to the evidence.

Whatever. You apparently have made up your mind. This is simple, and Nazz and I have tried to outline it in several ways, but you insist on sticking to your talking points.

Read this carefully. In order to indict and convict on this specific offense, not only the how has to be proven but also the why. When individuals obstruct justice, it is nearly impossible to determine the why.

Perhaps the laws need to be rewritten.

Perhaps, but obstruction charges aren't the same as committing the crime of outing a CIA officer. You can obstruct justice in an investigation even if there is no crime committed, and that's what appears to be happening here. Now, if Libby/Rove were indicted for actually outing Plame, the situation would be different.

Ding Ding Ding. I guess there is no case against Rove then. Libby is only indicted on Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. That is the strongest case they have. Notice that Libby hasn't been found guilty yet of these charges either.

Ding ding ding, neither is the investigation over.

You realize as well that Al Capone, guilty of many murders, alcohol smuggling, and other acts of organized crime was only ever convicted of tax evasion.

According to Republican dogma, I guess that means that Capone was just bad with money.

Ding Ding Ding. I guess there is no case against Rove then. Libby is only indicted on Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. That is the strongest case they have. Notice that Libby hasn't been found guilty yet of these charges either.Guess that all you want--you're wrong. What Rove's own lawyers have said is that Rove still remains in serious legal jeopardy. What part of that don't you understand, Corneliu? I'll spell it out--Rove's still potentially going to be indicted, and both he and his lawyers know it. Fitzgerald is making sure of everything before he asks for one, because he's being apolitical about it.

As to you other asinine comment about no convictions yet, well fuck, Corneliu--Libby was only arraigned two or three days ago. This isn't fucking Law and Order:D.C. Style. This is real life, and this shit takes time. Now when you're ready to deal in objective reality, we can talk. As long as you're going to continue to spout right-wing talking points, you're going to have your ass handed to you.

Perhaps, but obstruction charges aren't the same as committing the crime of outing a CIA officer. You can obstruct justice in an investigation even if there is no crime committed, and that's what appears to be happening here. Now, if Libby/Rove were indicted for actually outing Plame, the situation would be different.

Can you read? This is painfully and embarrassingly obvious, and yet you REFUSE to see it. Un-fucking-believable.

Whatever. You apparently have made up your mind. This is simple, and Nazz and I have tried to outline it in several ways, but you insist on sticking to your talking points.

There simply isn't a crime. They investigated for two years, and never indicted anyone for outing her.

In fact, they did nothing wrong at all if Plame hadn't been out of the country for five years prior to her outing in the service of the CIA. That would mean she is no longer covert according to the law.

Can you read?

I can read, but I see no crime committed other than obstructing justice. Plame hadn't been out of the US for five years prior, and so wasn't covert. They never outed her because according to the law, she was no longer covert.

There simply isn't a crime. They investigated for two years, and never indicted anyone for outing her.

In fact, they did nothing wrong at all if Plame hadn't been out of the country for five years prior to her outing in the service of the CIA. That would mean she is no longer covert according to the law.

But since her activities abroad during her entire career are STILL classified, anyone who claims to know that she hadn't been out of the country is full of shit.

Ding ding ding, neither is the investigation over.

Duh. I already knew it wasn't over but I doubt Rove will get indicted.

You realize as well that Al Capone, guilty of many murders, alcohol smuggling, and other acts of organized crime was only ever convicted of tax evasion.

Yep. They couldn't make anything stick and they finally got the Tax evasion charge to stick.

According to Republican dogma, I guess that means that Capone was just bad with money.

*sighs* I'm really getting tired of these cheap shots at political parties.

There simply isn't a crime. They investigated for two years, and never indicted anyone for outing her.

In fact, they did nothing wrong at all if Plame hadn't been out of the country for five years prior to her outing in the service of the CIA. That would mean she is no longer covert according to the law.Read the goddamn indictment--she was covert and there was a crime committed, but Libby obstructed the investigation into who committed the crime, so that's what was charged--for now.

It's obvious you haven't read the indictment. It's obvious you've gotten your understanding of this case from right-wing sources--their fingerprints are all over it. What I don't understand is why you're refusing to use simple undertanding of the english language to realize that they--and by extension, you--are full of shit on this.

I can read, but I see no crime committed other than obstructing justice. Plame hadn't been out of the US for five years prior, and so wasn't covert. They never outed her because according to the law, she was no longer covert.

She WAS covert! Fitzgerald says it, Wilson himself says it. Plame's comrades at the CIA say it! Who says differently? Right wing nutjobs who are too dense too read simple black and white print.

Again, how do you KNOW she wasn't out of the country in the last 6 years? Her activities with WMD are still classified, you moron. Again, anyone who claims to KNOW that she wasn't doing covert work in the last 6 years is full of it.

I think it will be easier to see how this all turns out, then we can tell the Republicans (ala WMD) I told you so.

Guess that all you want--you're wrong. What Rove's own lawyers have said is that Rove still remains in serious legal jeopardy. What part of that don't you understand, Corneliu? I'll spell it out--Rove's still potentially going to be indicted, and both he and his lawyers know it. Fitzgerald is making sure of everything before he asks for one, because he's being apolitical about it.

Did I say that Rove was out of danger? No I didn't. So far they don't have anything to indict him on. That was what I was saying.

As to you other asinine comment about no convictions yet, well fuck, Corneliu--Libby was only arraigned two or three days ago.

No kidding. I was stating it for people who thought that Libby was guilty of a crime. He is innocent until proven guilty. I love how people try to twist my words to mean something else.

This isn't fucking Law and Order:D.C. Style.

I don't even watch law and order.

This is real life, and this shit takes time. Now when you're ready to deal in objective reality, we can talk.

When you actually figure out that I do know the judicial process, then we'll talk.

As long as you're going to continue to spout right-wing talking points, you're going to have your ass handed to you.

As stated earlier, people are trying to twist my words.

I think it will be easier to see how this all turns out, then we can tell the Republicans (ala WMD) I told you so.

And if no one is indicted for outing her then we can tell the democrats I told you so.

That can go both ways. So far, no one has been indicted for outing her and I am now sincerely thinking that no one will.

Duh. I already knew it wasn't over but I doubt Rove will get indicted.

What evidence leads you to think this. You realize that Fitzgerald has a history of nailing "Official A" in prior investigations, don't you?


Yep. They couldn't make anything stick and they finally got the Tax evasion charge to stick.


As is the case here, except it's perjury and obstruction.


*sighs* I'm really getting tired of these cheap shots at political parties.

Then stop spouting talking points and actually think for yourself. You lie with dogs, you get up with fleas. Also, if you read the entire thread, you'll see the context in which I made that statement and who was excluded...or does your memory only extend to the last post?

What evidence leads you to think this. You realize that Fitzgerald has a history of nailing "Official A" in prior investigations, don't you?

Yes I do but this has been going on for 2 years and nothing about outing ms. Plame.

As is the case here, except it's perjury and obstruction.

You are indeed correct.

Then stop spouting talking points and actually think for yourself.

I wasn't using any talking points.

You lie with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Go screw yourself.

Also, if you read the entire thread, you'll see the context in which I made that statement and who was excluded...or does your memory only extend to the last post?

I have a very good memory and I use it during school. I'm usually right when I use my memory too.

Yes I do but this has been going on for 2 years and nothing about outing ms. Plame.

I guess you didn't read the indictment or the press release then. See, when you say something that a monolithic group says that is in direct contradiction to the facts as we know them, that's known as "a talking point"

You are indeed correct.

Thank you.



I wasn't using any talking points.

Yes, you are, though I concede that you may be unaware of that.



Go screw yourself.

If I could, I wouldn't be here.



I have a very good memory and I use it during school. I'm usually right when I use my memory too.

Then how come you weren't aware of the exclusionary nature of my comment about Republicans?

There simply isn't a crime. They investigated for two years, and never indicted anyone for outing her.

And there are several different explanations for that fact. One is that there was no crime committed. This is contradicted by the fact that Valerie Plame is now outed as an agent, and to knowingly do this is against the law. So it is an explanation without merit, because it does not take into account all the facts of the matter.

Another explanation is that they haven't been able to find out who outed her because the administration has been stonewalling for two years. Based on what we know about Cheney's posse, this is by far the more likely explanation.


In fact, they did nothing wrong at all if Plame hadn't been out of the country for five years prior to her outing in the service of the CIA. That would mean she is no longer covert according to the law.

That would, if that were what the law says and you knew for sure whether or not she had been out of the country for five years. You, however, don't seem to know either.

Ah, the troll quotient has been noticably low since you were banninated.

I love this line of reasoning. It's akin to this scenario:

At 12 o'clock last night, the window of Fred's Bakery had a brick heaved through it. As there were no fingerprints or any other evidence tying a specific person to the act of vandalism, the chief of police has declared that, in fact, the window was not broken.

See, Fitzgerald indicated clearly that a criminal act occurred, that Plame's identity was indeed classified and that identity was not common knowledge. That a crime occurred is not in doubt by anyone with fully functioning brain cells. The window, as it were, was broken by a human hand. But, and Fitzgerald indicated this was in part because of the LIES Libby told, no one could be charged AT THIS TIME, since the level of proof and intent is very high to convict in a case of this sort.

As for calling Plame a gutterslut, I sure hope the CIA, armed fully with their Cheney-lobbied torture exemption, visit you some night.
Since I was banninated? Dude, since you have a small brain, I was not banned. I just haven't been on due to the fact I was in the process of relocating. I'm no longer in the states. I'm in Iraq now. And it's taken a couple of weeks for them to get some kind internet access up at the place I'm at.

Mr. Fitz. said there was no to indict on the false charges you are tossing at the Bush administration. Furthermore, Mrs. Plame is indeed a gutterslut. She has no moral values whatsoever. She was more than willing to betray her own country and jeopardize the lives of American forces in Iraq. Especially through the actions of her husband, who should be charged with treason.

Listen to yourself--no one's even been tried yet. Hard to have a conviction if no one's stood trial, isn't it? And Fitzgerald has said that his work is not done yet, that more indictments may be forthcoming. Rove's own defense lawyers have said he remains in serious legal jeopardy. Come back when you actually know something.
Liberals. Always spouting off conspiracy theories. They just won't rest until they've succeeded in destroying the world or subjugating it to communism.

Liberals. Always spouting off conspiracy theories. They just won't rest until they've succeeded in destroying the world or subjugating it to communism.

Neo-Conservatives and their allies...always alternating between having their head in the sand, their head up Bush's butt or their head on a platter when they eventually get convicted of their crimes...like Libby will be.

Welcome back Whittier. The ranks of Bush of apologists have been thinning noticably, and NS is poorer in comic relief for it.

*sigh*
This is a pretty obvious sign....

Since I was banninated? Dude, since you have a small brain, I was not banned. I just haven't been on due to the fact I was in the process of relocating. I'm no longer in the states. I'm in Iraq now. And it's taken a couple of weeks for them to get some kind internet access up at the place I'm at.

Mr. Fitz. said there was no to indict on the false charges you are tossing at the Bush administration. Furthermore, Mrs. Plame is indeed a gutterslut. She has no moral values whatsoever. She was more than willing to betray her own country and jeopardize the lives of American forces in Iraq. Especially through the actions of her husband, who should be charged with treason.

A press release issued by the special counsel's office said that before Plame's name appeared in the press in July 2003, her CIA employment was classified and her affiliation with the agency "was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community." It said that disclosing such information "has the potential to damage the national security" by preventing the person from operating covertly in the future, compromising intelligence-gathering and endangering CIA employees and those who deal with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153_2.html

You're full of crap Whittier. Exposing Plame, whatever YOU might think of her, exposed a whole slew of OTHER CIA agents, all working with WMD, and hurt national security.

Also, what did Valerie Plame do to jeopardise troops in Iraq? Did she leak information that hurt human intelligence gathering operations? Oh wait, no. The people who did that, identified in the indictment, are Libby and "Official A."

What did Wilson do, other than be lauded as a Hero by George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Iraq War? He got sent, at the request of the V.P.'s office to the CIA, to see if a rumored deal with Niger did or could have gone down....which he found didn't happen and couldn't have happened. And then he told the truth about it AFTER clearing it with the CIA. At which point, the White House set into motion a series of events that threaten EVERY CIA agent Valerie Plame has ever had contact with abroad and EVERY CIA agent who used the same cover energy consultation company as Plame did.

Whittier, I am so tired of your trolldom that I almost want to say something unforgivable, but I won't, because I don't stoop to those depths.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
Fitzgerald's press release from the DOJ

Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.


The indictment itself:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153_2.html

You're full of crap Whittier. Exposing Plame, whatever YOU might think of her, exposed a whole slew of OTHER CIA agents, all working with WMD, and hurt national security.

Also, what did Valerie Plame do to jeopardise troops in Iraq? Did she leak information that hurt human intelligence gathering operations? Oh wait, no. The people who did that, identified in the indictment, are Libby and "Official A."

What did Wilson do, other than be lauded as a Hero by George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Iraq War? He got sent, at the request of the V.P.'s office to the CIA, to see if a rumored deal with Niger did or could have gone down....which he found didn't happen and couldn't have happened. And then he told the truth about it AFTER clearing it with the CIA. At which point, the White House set into motion a series of events that threaten EVERY CIA agent Valerie Plame has ever had contact with abroad and EVERY CIA agent who used the same cover energy consultation company as Plame did.

Whittier, I am so tired of your trolldom that I almost want to say something unforgivable, but I won't, because I don't stoop to those depths.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
Fitzgerald's press release from the DOJ




The indictment itself:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Whittier? Whittier? *crickets chirping*

Whittier? Whittier? *crickets chirping*

Don't forget the Ben Stein monotone :D

He's one of the more amusing Busheviks on NS isn't he?

Don't forget the Ben Stein monotone :D

He's one of the more amusing Busheviks on NS isn't he?

I'm so glad that your posts always contain intellectual material, Gauthier.

I'm so glad that your posts always contain intellectual material, Gauthier.

Oh, they can when I feel like it. Then again intellect is usually wasted on a brainwashed Bushevik Commissar like Whittier. I mean, take a look a few posts back. He claimed Plame's exposure was insignificant, that claim was refuted, he whined about political cheapshots, he was told that you get fleas when you lie with dirty dogs, then caved in with a vulgar remark.

This whole Bush ordering staff to attend ethics briefing deal in the aftermath of the Intelligence brouhaha and Plame's exposure is in the same neighborhood as "Let Them Eat Cake." Maybe not the same intensity, but it's definitely in the same neighborhood.

Oh, they can when I feel like it. Then again intellect is usually wasted on a brainwashed Bushevik Commissar like Whittier. I mean, take a look a few posts back. He claimed Plame's exposure was insignificant, that claim was refuted, he whined about political cheapshots, he was told that you get fleas when you lie with dirty dogs, then caved in with a vulgar remark.

This whole Bush ordering staff to attend ethics briefing deal in the aftermath of the Intelligence brouhaha and Plame's exposure is in the same neighborhood as "Let Them Eat Cake." Maybe not the same intensity, but it's definitely in the same neighborhood.

Well, if Plame's leak is significant, then the leak to the Washington Post about the secret prisons is even more significant from a national security/top secret information/where are our agents? standpoint. But I digress.

Having worked in government contracting in the DC area for some time, I can tell you that just about everything the government does or is involved in is unethical - it's pervasive and ignores party lines. At the same time, the contractors are required to attend ethics classes every year.

I find your outrage over ethics violations a waste of time - largely because it's been obvious to me for some time that most national leaders use their heads for hat racks, have big mouths that say nothing, and are supported by the same bureaucracy no matter who wins office - the same bureaucracy that fomented the intelligence on Ira - the same bureaucracy that screwed up the Katrina respons - the same bureaucracy that failed to stop 911 - shall I go on?

And the bureaucracy runs on no matter who is in charge - and the person in charge is powerless to stop it, move it, turn it, slow it, or make it right.

It's probably the most unethical organization on Earth. But I am assured that most major governments have a bureaucracy - so it's got to be universal.

The revolt in France is evidence that they have an idiot bureaucracy, whose ill-advised immigration policies have led to this disaster.

Well, if Plame's leak is significant, then the leak to the Washington Post about the secret prisons is even more significant from a national security/top secret information/where are our agents? standpoint. But I digress.

Having worked in government contracting in the DC area for some time, I can tell you that just about everything the government does or is involved in is unethical - it's pervasive and ignores party lines. At the same time, the contractors are required to attend ethics classes every year.

I find your outrage over ethics violations a waste of time - largely because it's been obvious to me for some time that most national leaders use their heads for hat racks, have big mouths that say nothing, and are supported by the same bureaucracy no matter who wins office - the same bureaucracy that fomented the intelligence on Ira - the same bureaucracy that screwed up the Katrina respons - the same bureaucracy that failed to stop 911 - shall I go on?

And the bureaucracy runs on no matter who is in charge - and the person in charge is powerless to stop it, move it, turn it, slow it, or make it right.

It's probably the most unethical organization on Earth. But I am assured that most major governments have a bureaucracy - so it's got to be universal.

The revolt in France is evidence that they have an idiot bureaucracy, whose ill-advised immigration policies have led to this disaster.

If the bureaucracy is corrupt and goes on its own no matter who's in charge like you claim it is, then it would be pointless of right wingers to continually sing the paean on "How Clinton Fucked Up the Country" just as it's useless for the left to bicker about "How Bush Destroyed America."

Then again in my opinion Bush is in charge now, and aggravating the situation and digging a bigger grave with his inability to admit making any mistakes to begin with, and his habit of "staying the course" in some vain hopes that he had the right idea all along to begin with. And it's not just the Middle East either. It's also his Tax Cuts and other domestic ideas.

Guess that all you want--you're wrong. What Rove's own lawyers have said is that Rove still remains in serious legal jeopardy. What part of that don't you understand, Corneliu? I'll spell it out--Rove's still potentially going to be indicted, and both he and his lawyers know it. Fitzgerald is making sure of everything before he asks for one, because he's being apolitical about it.

As to you other asinine comment about no convictions yet, well fuck, Corneliu--Libby was only arraigned two or three days ago. This isn't fucking Law and Order:D.C. Style. This is real life, and this shit takes time. Now when you're ready to deal in objective reality, we can talk. As long as you're going to continue to spout right-wing talking points, you're going to have your ass handed to you.
As opposed to the fabricated and conspiracy theorish left wing talking points you are espousing?

If the bureaucracy is corrupt and goes on its own no matter who's in charge like you claim it is, then it would be pointless of right wingers to continually sing the paean on "How Clinton Fucked Up the Country" just as it's useless for the left to bicker about "How Bush Destroyed America."

Exactly. You may not be aware of this, but since the 1970s, most of the intelligent people who would have worked for the government bureaucracy now work for consulting firms that do 90 percent of its work. And the means to get those contracts, and the corporations that now dominate that work, never changes with any administration. Halliburton is only a small government contractor by comparison to the others, and it has worked through all administrations. Most of the decisions that affect our lives are made by bureaucrats and consultants rather than legislators or the executive.

As an example of how this started, the EPA was created by Nixon. Sounds good, right? Well, the way it's written, the EPA can make regulations without having to pass a bill through Congress, and the President can't keep up with the rate at which they make them, no matter who he is.

The Supreme Court has questioned this ability - invalidating much of the Clean Air Act as a result - but no one has said or done anything about it since - and the bureaucracy continues to run the country unchallenged.

Then again in my opinion Bush is in charge now, and aggravating the situation and digging a bigger grave with his inability to admit making any mistakes to begin with, and his habit of "staying the course" in some vain hopes that he had the right idea all along to begin with. And it's not just the Middle East either. It's also his Tax Cuts and other domestic ideas.

Our economy is still growing, at a better than expected rate, even in the 3rd quarter where energy prices rose. Interest rates are low, and the number of unemployed is low.

That has far, far more to do with the bureaucracy than with any President. Who do you think has more effect on the economy - Alan Greenspan, or the President?

Both the Republicans and Democrats are full of fluff and hot air - they really are two sides of the same coin in most cases, and the differences are moot, since they can't get the bureaucracy to change at all.

Read the goddamn indictment--she was covert and there was a crime committed, but Libby obstructed the investigation into who committed the crime, so that's what was charged--for now.

It's obvious you haven't read the indictment. It's obvious you've gotten your understanding of this case from right-wing sources--their fingerprints are all over it. What I don't understand is why you're refusing to use simple undertanding of the english language to realize that they--and by extension, you--are full of shit on this.
Again I ask:
As opposed to your own claims?

As opposed to the fabricated and conspiracy theorish left wing talking points you are espousing?
The more you ignore the facts, the more hacktackular you appear. Answer the indictment that Gymoor linked to. Answer the statements made by Fitzgerald. Oh, that's right--you can't, because they prove you're full of shit. I really hope you're getting paid to look this dumb, Whittier, because otherwise, it can't possibly be worth it.

The more you ignore the facts, the more hacktackular you appear. Answer the indictment that Gymoor linked to. Answer the statements made by Fitzgerald. Oh, that's right--you can't, because they prove you're full of shit. I really hope you're getting paid to look this dumb, Whittier, because otherwise, it can't possibly be worth it.
Ah ha.
Since I haven't even read the supposed links, I won't answer that yet.

I will say however, that seeing things first hand, a lot of the claims that you and the other liberals here, regarding the situation in Iraq, (such as the liberal claim that American forces are deliberately targeting massive numbers of civilians and that Iraqis hate American troops) have been proven to be BS since I now have a front line view. But hey nothing wrong with making such assertions now is there? After all, they are only Democratic party and anti american talking points. Even though all the anti Bush people aren't here to see things for themselves. Yet they make grandiose proclamations much like the Bolsheviks did just before they initiated the very gruesome Russian revolution and its accompanying purges that killed even more people.

agreed.

Isn't it funny that the Bush administration is stressing ethics from one side of their mouth while they are lobbying for torture from the other?

Oh wait, it's not funny. It's incredibly tragic.


That is absurd. The Bush administration is under no circumstance advocating torture. The issue they have with the bill currently on the house floor is that it does not exepmpt the CIA. If it would do that Bush would pass it. He is not advocating torture he is advocating not tying the hands of the CIA. There is a huge fundamental difference.

Liberals. Always spouting off conspiracy theories. They just won't rest until they've succeeded in destroying the world or subjugating it to communism.


I agree completely Whittier, excellent remark on the true nature of liberals

That is absurd. The Bush administration is under no circumstance advocating torture. The issue they have with the bill currently on the house floor is that it does not exepmpt the CIA. If it would do that Bush would pass it. He is not advocating torture he is advocating not tying the hands of the CIA. There is a huge fundamental difference.
What exactly is it that this bill would keep the CIA from doing? Torturing prisoners. Now, if the administration, in the form of VP Dick Cheney (who voiced his support openly from the floor of the Senate) and Bush (who threatened a veto) is saying that it wants to leave the CIA exempt from the anti-torture statute, then how else are you supposed to understand that other than that they are advocating the use of torture by the CIA? There is no other way to take it--it's as clear as anything they've ever said. They want the CIA to able to torture people legally--period, full stop.

Now here's the big question--do you ally yourself with an administration that advocates torture? No equivocation here--have some stones and say it. If you stand with Bush, you stand with torturers. With whom do you stand?

What exactly is it that this bill would keep the CIA from doing? Torturing prisoners. Now, if the administration, in the form of VP Dick Cheney (who voiced his support openly from the floor of the Senate) and Bush (who threatened a veto) is saying that it wants to leave the CIA exempt from the anti-torture statute, then how else are you supposed to understand that other than that they are advocating the use of torture by the CIA? There is no other way to take it--it's as clear as anything they've ever said. They want the CIA to able to torture people legally--period, full stop.

Now here's the big question--do you ally yourself with an administration that advocates torture? No equivocation here--have some stones and say it. If you stand with Bush, you stand with torturers. With whom do you stand?

I don't know about Whittier, but it depends on your definition of "torture".

Pulling fingernails out is torture to me.

Using Versed and methamphetamine to make a person believe that I'm his best friend, and have him talk about his life story to me over and over again is not torture (in my opinion). That, and he doesn't remember talking to me when he comes around.

I don't know about Whittier, but it depends on your definition of "torture".

Pulling fingernails out is torture to me.

Using Versed and methamphetamine to make a person believe that I'm his best friend, and have him talk about his life story to me over and over again is not torture (in my opinion). That, and he doesn't remember talking to me when he comes around.This is a link to what claims to be the text of the McCain amendment. (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html) These seem to be the relevant portions: (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Where your scenario falls in these definitions, I don't know--the first I would say is most certainly torture. The second, I don't know.

This is a link to what claims to be the text of the McCain amendment. (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html) These seem to be the relevant portions:

Where your scenario falls in these definitions, I don't know--the first I would say is most certainly torture. The second, I don't know.

As it happens, there is binding international law on this subject, as well as U.S. domestic law. The former stems from an important treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereafter, "UNCAT"), which the U.S. ratified in 1994. The treaty defines torture as any act, done at the direction or with the knowing acquiescence of a public official, by which

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

U.S. domestic law is even more stringent. It brands as "torture" (under Section 2340 of Title 18, U.S. Code) any act by an official that is "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering...upon another person within his custody or physical control" (emphasis added). In other words, unlike the UNCAT, a person can be guilty of torture under U.S. law even without proof that his abusive act was motivated by a purpose to obtain information, to punish, or to intimidate. Still, however, the pain inflicted must be extreme before any discussion of torture is triggered.

So, my method would be perfectly OK. Pulling out the fingernails is already a violation of US law. But what is the definition of "extreme"?

And, since we already have a Federal law, why are they passing another?

Ah ha.
Since I haven't even read the supposed links, I won't answer that yet.

Then a bunch of strawman stuff that also changes the subject

The SUPPOSED links? A direct link to the US Department of Justice isn't good enough for you? I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so toolish.

The SUPPOSED links? A direct link to the US Department of Justice isn't good enough for you? I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so toolish.

I have. Whenever I use the Department of Justice links, CanuckHeaven dismisses them with a wave of the hand.

So, my method would be perfectly OK. Pulling out the fingernails is already a violation of US law. But what is the definition of "extreme"?

And, since we already have a Federal law, why are they passing another?
Good questions. As to the first, extreme means, I imagine, whatever a judge says it means, in this context anyway. It's one of those abstract words that is impossible to pin down in any meaningful way.

As to why they're passing another, I would imagine it has to do with the opinion held by the administration that the executive branch is above the law when it comes to the conduct of a war--the Yoo memo and Alberto Gonzales's opinions on torture, for instance. I guess that McCain is trying to nail their feet to the floor on this, close any potential loopholes.

I agree completely Whittier, excellent remark on the true nature of liberals

Read through Whittier's commnets again and think about what you're agreeing with.

Someone is in denial of relity, and I have Department of Justice links to prove my side. What, pray tell, do you and Whittier have?

The first is certainly torture and ought to be banned. The second case, may not be torture per se, but it sure is unethical and possibly unamerican.

I see no reason to exempt the CIA from the ban on torture. You're not really tying their hands by including them. They will still be able to get verifiable information. Just because you got the info by torturing someone, doesn't mean its automatically bona fide. You still have to go through a long verification process. The same process you have to use to verify information gathered from nontorture techniques.

The idea of allowing any US government agency whether federal, state, or local, ought to be enough to disturb any moral thinking American.

I have. Whenever I use the Department of Justice links, CanuckHeaven dismisses them with a wave of the hand.

I'm not Canuck. Nor have I seen Canuck do such a thing, but if you could link the exchange in your free time, I'll properly chide him for such toolish foolishness...as I'd hope you'll do to Whittier in this case. He might actually process information from you.

Read through Whittier's commnets again and think about what you're agreeing with.

Someone is in denial of relity, and I have Department of Justice links to prove my side. What, pray tell, do you and Whittier have?

It is certainly possible to disagree with Whittier on the subject at hand, and accept your links as proof (which I do), and still think that the motivation for liberals is not justice, humanity, etc. I believe that 99 percent of liberal motivation these days is a "get Bush, get America" mentality.

A lot of it comes from having had full power over the US government fo 40 years - and when they began to lose that power in 1994 (losing Congress), and it's only gotten worse since losing to Bush twice, liberals find only a few explanations:

1. Most Americans are stupid, and don't know what's good for them. That's why the Democrats lose elections.
2. The Republicans are lying cheats all the time, and that's why the Democrats lose elections.

They NEVER sit down and ask, "why would a seemingly rational person want to vote for a Republican".

Until that happens, I won't believe that most liberals have any other motivation.

The SUPPOSED links? A direct link to the US Department of Justice isn't good enough for you? I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so toolish.
I thought I made it clear in that post that I won't respond to something I haven't read. And you call that toolish? I call it strategic wisdom.

I'm not Canuck. Nor have I seen Canuck do such a thing, but if you could link the exchange in your free time, I'll properly chide him for such toolish foolishness...as I'd hope you'll do to Whittier in this case. He might actually process information from you.

Keckibukia and I get Canuck to do it all the time.

All you have to do to see him do it again is to post a thread on the Second Amendment and gun violence.

The Department of Justice is full of stats that show a radical increase in gun ownership, with a 63 percent drop in violent crime and murder over the same period. He won't be bothered to look at it.

I thought I made it clear in that post that I won't respond to something I haven't read. And you call that toolish? I call it strategic wisdom.

Then read them.

Keckibukia and I get Canuck to do it all the time.

All you have to do to see him do it again is to post a thread on the Second Amendment and gun violence.

The Department of Justice is full of stats that show a radical increase in gun ownership, with a 63 percent drop in violent crime and murder over the same period. He won't be bothered to look at it.

Okay, (though I reserve judgement until I see such a thing myself.) but you at least know that's not how I operate.

The only way the words "Bush" and "Ethics" come together on the same page normally is in the case of Ethics Violations, so this is (sadly) a step up for Bush and his cabal of handlers.

I thought I made it clear in that post that I won't respond to something I haven't read. And you call that toolish? I call it strategic wisdom.
You won't respond to something you haven't read, huh? Liar.
Mr. Fitz. said there was no to indict on the false charges you are tossing at the Bush administration. Care to retract anything?

I agree completely Whittier, excellent remark on the true nature of liberals


What I am saying is that I don't like liberals, at least in America. Their tactics are the most annoying of any group. They bash the other side as much as they can without attempting to show any sign of a rational plan of their own. They whine and scream about how stupid America is, well wake up liberals of America, you are Americans too. Stupidity is not when someone disagrees with you.

Okay, (though I reserve judgement until I see such a thing myself.) but you at least know that's not how I operate.

Well, yes.

I know that Fitz hasn't finished investigating, although it may end up that another prosecutor and another grand jury may end up finishing that. And I'm sure something will come out in Libby's trial - but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Libby has made a smart move and hired an extremely good lawyer. Proving perjury is not as simple as people make it out to be. On one hand, Libby did a lot of damage to himself by talking so much, but on the other hand, it's his statements against the statements or notes of reporters.

Not as clear cut as say, "I never spent the million dollars" and seeing bank records.

It is certainly possible to disagree with Whittier on the subject at hand, and accept your links as proof (which I do), and still think that the motivation for liberals is not justice, humanity, etc. I believe that 99 percent of liberal motivation these days is a "get Bush, get America" mentality.

A lot of it comes from having had full power over the US government fo 40 years - and when they began to lose that power in 1994 (losing Congress), and it's only gotten worse since losing to Bush twice, liberals find only a few explanations:

1. Most Americans are stupid, and don't know what's good for them. That's why the Democrats lose elections.
2. The Republicans are lying cheats all the time, and that's why the Democrats lose elections.

They NEVER sit down and ask, "why would a seemingly rational person want to vote for a Republican".

Until that happens, I won't believe that most liberals have any other motivation.


Dude, even though I disagree with Republican/Conservative political philosophy, I don't make those kinds of sweeping judgements about every day Rep/Cons. I don't hate America. And I don't dislike the current administration just because they are Republicans or named Bush. I dislike them because I can see them palpably hurting America, it's citizens and the world.

In respinse to 1. above, well that's true. Most Americans...or rather humans...ARE stupid, shortsighted, greedy individuals, no matter what their political affiliation. In response to 2., well, I do think, and I think experience and factual support lends credence to this, that the current group of Republicans in the Whitehouse and in powerful positions in Congress do have a severe problem with ethics and truthfulness.

On the other hand, I have no problem understanding why someone would vote for McCain.

I see and understand the Republican/Conservative viewpoint with regards to smaller government, less interference in Americans daily lives and less regulation on business...though how THIS administration lives up to the first 2 parts of that, I have no idea. I too would like a more streamlined and efficient government. I too would like to government to be more hands off when it comes to my personal life. I merely strongly disagree with the Republican predilection towards rewarding the already rich and powerful.

The real problem is that the current crop of Republicans have only taken 10 years to top the level or cronyism, corruption and greed the Dems took 40 years to cultivate.

What I am saying is that I don't like liberals, at least in America. Their tactics are the most annoying of any group. They bash the other side as much as they can without attempting to show any sign of a rational plan of their own. They whine and scream about how stupid America is, well wake up liberals of America, you are Americans too. Stupidity is not when someone disagrees with you.

How is this any different from how you and Whittier are operating now? At least I give a factual basis for my remarks. All I've seen you and Whittier do is bash bash bash and not really say anything substantive.

Wake up. Usually the only stuff that pierces the partisan partition (say that 3 times fast,) is the hyped negative stuff. Liberals have PLENTY of ideas...but no one YOU listen to has any interest in telling you those ideas, and you, apparently, don't have any interest in finding out for yourself.

I don't see any liberals doing this childish "waaaaa, the other side hates America!" crap, and yet you just did. How embarrassing.

Perjury alone, even without any crime having been committed, is serious enough that recent former President was impeached for it.
If we take perjury that seriously when the President does it, we ought to hold the members of the President's administration to the same standard. I would venture that perjury alone is enough for jail time. Mr. Libby does not have to be guilty of anything else.
You cannot say, "It's ok for this person to lie, but not for that person." Such a thing goes against the American value and tradition of fairness and equality under the law. If Democrats can be impeached or imprisoned for perjury, then so can Republicans. There can be no exemptions.

According to the indictment, it looks like they are indeed close to charging Mr. Libby with outing of an American spy. But that Mr. Libby sidetracked them with his misstatements and what appear to me, to be a deliberate attempt at a cover up.

This has shades of the Watergate scandal except that in this case, the President is not closely involved in the planning or the carrying out of the law breaking.

Mr. Libby looks like he will be found guilty. However, there are clear doubts, regarding the guilt of both Mr. Rove and VP Cheney. It looks to me, from reading between the lines of the written indictment, that Mr. Libby did violate US law by even discussing Mrs. Plame's association with the CIA with his associate.

My prediction:
Mr. Libby=guilty
Mr. Rove=not guilty
Cheney=not guilty

snip

(collects jaw from floor)

Holy crap! Whittier just made a reasoned and sound analysis (though we disagree on the Rove detail.)

Are you feeling all right Whittier?

You won't respond to something you haven't read, huh? Liar.
Care to retract anything?
That's funny. They haven't found Bush or Cheney guilty of anything nor have they indicted him. Yet you were claiming they had.

That's funny. They haven't found Bush or Cheney guilty of anything nor have they indicted him. Yet you were claiming they had.
Bullshit. You cannot find a place where I've written anything of the sort. If you can, then do it--it's your chance to finally beat me in an argument. If you can't, then I expect an apology and an admission that you were wrong.

the link to where you are saying that Rove is guilty and will be indicted:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9888886&postcount=32

the link to where you are saying that Rove is guilty and will be indicted:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9888886&postcount=32
Read it again, and then apologize. Or don't you understand the meaning of the term "potentially?"

the link to where you are saying that Rove is guilty and will be indicted:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9888886&postcount=32

Nazz clearly didn't say what you claim he is saying

Guess that all you want--you're wrong. What Rove's own lawyers have said is that Rove still remains in serious legal jeopardy. What part of that don't you understand, Corneliu? I'll spell it out--Rove's still potentially going to be indicted, and both he and his lawyers know it. Fitzgerald is making sure of everything before he asks for one, because he's being apolitical about it.

Whittier, you're fucking busted on this and you know it. Retract and apologize--it doesn't hurt as bad as you think it will.

Read it again, and then apologize. Or don't you understand the meaning of the term "potentially?"


Not to mention that his assertion was that you said Bush and Cheney were guilty in this misadventure and would be indicted...as opposed to what you said, which was that Rove could still potentially be indicted.

Not to mention that his assertion was that you said Bush and Cheney were guilty in this misadventure and would be indicted...as opposed to what you said, which was that Rove could still potentially be indicted.
Maybe I should have read more carefully as per Bush and Cheney which are not mentioned in the post.
As for "potentially", I doubt that is what he really intended to convey. I think its more like he was intending to convey "Rove is guilty and they're going to get him."
See that's what I get from the way he phrased the whole thing. Small clues and inuendos that he left in there.

Maybe I should have read more carefully as per Bush and Cheney which are not mentioned in the post.
As for "potentially", I doubt that is what he really intended to convey. I think its more like he was intending to convey "Rove is guilty and they're going to get him."
See that's what I get from the way he phrased the whole thing. Small clues and inuendos that he left in there.
Maybe you just ought to read more carefully before you throw out baseless charges. So is this the closest thing I'm going to get to a retraction?

Maybe I should have read more carefully as per Bush and Cheney which are not mentioned in the post.
As for "potentially", I doubt that is what he really intended to convey. I think its more like he was intending to convey "Rove is guilty and they're going to get him."
See that's what I get from the way he phrased the whole thing. Small clues and inuendos that he left in there.

No, you're inferring something that may or not be there and then stating it as fact. Nazz, on the other hand, made it clear that he was speaking of potential, not certainty.

Aaaaaargh! I want to be able to keep up with this thread, but ever since Jolt "upgraded," I can't use the thread tools or the search function, and I'm certainly not just going to bump it.

Ethics Briefing Summary: STOP GETTING CAUGHT!!!

:D

Aaaaaargh! I want to be able to keep up with this thread, but ever since Jolt "upgraded," I can't use the thread tools or the search function, and I'm certainly not just going to bump it.

then use an unusual word in one of your posts in this thread and use the search tab on the main general page directly below the NationStates logo and right next to the FAQ tab to search for that word. That search tab still works.