NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html

A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that President George W. Bush authorized him to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter. Details of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's testimony were included in a court filing made yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in connection with the probe into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

Now, the defense for this classified information leak that will be proposed by Bush butt-kissers will likely be something along the lines of, "Well, he's the President, so he's the final authority on what is classified or not. If he wants it said, then it's not classified anymore."

I submit that these very same people, probably wanted Clinton's head for distributing classified material to the Chinese.*


*even though there's never been any evidence that Clinton did anything of the sort.**


**aside from unsupported accusations by the good people at the Free Republic and NewMax.

I'm waiting for Cornhole and the other members of the NationStates Bushevik Party to swarm in to the defense of Il Bushe.

John Dean wrote an entire book on how this administration is even more crooked than Nixon's ever was and this is just icing on the crumb cake.

Well, at least they DO provide a scanned copy of the document, which is more than we can say for the people who posted their comspiracy theory tripe.

Here's a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/index.html

The more likely defense will be "Scooter Libby's a fucking liar who'll say anything to save his ass." My only reply to that is that no matter what Libby says about who gave the okay to leak, it won't change the charges against him, namely, that he lied to the grand jury.

wow that is so wrong its scary.

the link says that he was told by cheney that it was authorized by bush

so

maybe bush did authorize it

or

maybe cheney lied about bush authorizing it

or

maybe libbly lied about cheney telling him that bush authorized this

but

im going to put my money on this being the administrations story

libby is clinically insane and went off his meds and halucinated the whole thing.

Here's a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/index.html
If it's on CNN, then well... it's actually got some credibility because we all know that CNN is typically a mouth piece for the White House? Or was that FOX?

If it's on CNN, then well... it's actually got some credibility because we all know that CNN is typically a mouth piece for the White House? Or was that FOX?

CNN is Fox Lite, the same way the Democratic establishment is Republican Lite.

CNN is Fox Lite, the same way the Democratic establishment is Republican Lite.
Ok, close enough. :D

If it's on CNN, then well... it's actually got some credibility because we all know that CNN is typically a mouth piece for the White House? Or was that FOX?

That's Fox.

CNN has a definite western bias, but is otherwise neutral when it comes to political affiliation.

im going to put my money on this being the administrations story

libby is clinically insane and went off his meds and halucinated the whole thing.

...while scamming target by 'returning' things he didn't actually buy, and while soliciting sex from 14 year old girls. it all makes sense now!

Y'know, just yesterday I was wondering what had happened to Plamegate. I guess I know now.

Someone really ought to keep a full count of the new scandals coming off of this administration, seeing as how they appear to come weekly.

Bets some appologist either says "Bush has the right to reveal any spy he wants" or "Libby's just trying to get a lighter sentence"?

Assuming Libby can prove that, I'd be rather curious to see how El Presidente weasels out of the situation.

Assuming Libby can prove that, I'd be rather curious to see how El Presidente weasels out of the situation.
Scapegoats someone else and hires some one with the name of Bolton.

Y'know, just yesterday I was wondering what had happened to Plamegate. I guess I know now.

Someone really ought to keep a full count of the new scandals coming off of this administration, seeing as how they appear to come weekly.
Who's got that kind of time?

Scapegoats someone else and hires some one with the name of Bolton.

Oooo... Michael Bolton as... as... well, Shrub'll find a place for him too!

"Libby's just trying to get a lighter sentence"?

Well, he probably is.

Someone really ought to keep a full count of the new scandals coming off of this administration, seeing as how they appear to come weekly.

it really needs some sort of hyperlinked graphic flow chart and timeline

Well, he probably is.

Doesn't mean its not true as well.

Oooo... Michael Bolton as... as... well, Shrub'll find a place for him too!
Who was Attorney General during the Plame thing? Gonzalez? Bush will says Gonzalez said it was ok and not fire him, he will "resign" before the blame reaches the White House so they can dodge the bullet like in the Matrix.

Doesn't mean its not true as well.

Yeah. Usually Prosecuters only support these deals if the criminal tells the truth. If they're caught lying, the deal is up.

At least that's how it is on Law And Order. :p

Everyday there's a scandal, everyday the Democrats wonder if that's the time to oust this criminal administration, but complain amongst them and do nothing for it, everyday the Republicans defend said administration by claiming it'd even be ok if they were eating human babies in the White House, and everyday the net result is a White House dodging the bullet through some underhanded means and undermining American civil rights a tad further.

Everyday.

Doesn't mean its not true as well.

Just saying, if it meant a lesser sentence, I'd be making shit up too.

Just saying, if it meant a lesser sentence, I'd be making shit up too.
I don't see how this affects the charges against him, though. It's not like Libby's been charged with outing Plame--he's been charged with making false statements to the Grand Jury and obstruction of justice.

That's it. Is it wrong to make a thread on betting when the president will be assassinated? Is that against forum rules?

Seriously.

I thought about making up such a betting pool when he was first elected, cuz I figured it would be sooner, rather than later. Apparently my gut instinct was wrong... but seriously... if he makes it through to the end of his term without even being shot at, I will be absolutely stunned. Even if only half of the things that are put against Bush are true, he's still a horrific leader, and his administration needs to be removed.

Just saying, if it meant a lesser sentence, I'd be making shit up too.

So would I... You know, if I had some proof to back it up, like this guy probably has. Which means he's likely saying the truth anyways, wether or not to cover his ass.

Come on, these people are the masters of distraction. They'll probably have Bushs pants fall down in the middle of a press conference or something to divert attention (if it seems to be getting too close). Don't you just love Democracy :rolleyes:

I don't see how this affects the charges against him, though. It's not like Libby's been charged with outing Plame--he's been charged with making false statements to the Grand Jury and obstruction of justice.

It only affects the charges against him in that they'll reduce his sentence in exchange for ammo to go after someone higher up.

That's it. Is it wrong to make a thread on betting when the president will be assassinated? Is that against forum rules?

Seriously.

I thought about making up such a betting pool when he was first elected, cuz I figured it would be sooner, rather than later. Apparently my gut instinct was wrong... but seriously... if he makes it through to the end of his term without even being shot at, I will be absolutely stunned. Even if only half of the things that are put against Bush are true, he's still a horrific leader, and his administration needs to be removed.

The would-be killers are hampered by two facts:

a) Bush is a fascist that only surrounds himself by people that agree with him;

b) If Bush dies, CHENEY assumes.

That said... Ten bucks on six months or less! :p

It only affects the charges against him in that they'll reduce his sentence in exchange for ammo to go after someone higher up.

You mean the judges nominated by Dubya? Right.

The would-be killers are hampered by two facts:

a) Bush is a fascist that only surrounds himself by people that agree with him;

b) If Bush dies, CHENEY assumes.

That said... Ten bucks on six months or less! :p

LMAO
Yeah, I was thinking everyone could bet a dollar on the day they figure it'd be. :)
My father figured that if I did start that sort of thing 1) Bush would find a way to arrest me, or have me killed. 2) the pot would eventually get large enough that I'd have people betting, and then taking aim on the day that they made the bet for. :p
Although I don't like option #1, #2 sounds like it'd all be worth it. ;)

Alas... that thread might offend some people... I just reread the rules, and if it's offensive, you can't post it...
Although, with his constantly plummeting approval ratings, pretty soon it might happen that no one would complain about such a topic. ;)

The would-be killers are hampered by two facts:

a) Bush is a fascist that only surrounds himself by people that agree with him;

b) If Bush dies, CHENEY assumes.

That said... Ten bucks on six months or less! :p


5 bucks on him finishing his term.
EDIT: the one time I'd be overjoyed to lose a bet

It only affects the charges against him in that they'll reduce his sentence in exchange for ammo to go after someone higher up.
But can they really go after anyone higher up? Would Cheney or Bush ever be perp-walked out of the White House? Or would they be forced to resign or be impeached first?

But can they really go after anyone higher up? Would Cheney or Bush ever be perp-walked out of the White House? Or would they be forced to resign or be impeached first?

You can't arrest the President of the United States. He'd have to be removed from office by congress before he can be charged with a crime.

5 bucks on him finishing his term.
EDIT: the one time I'd be overjoyed to lose a bet

I also think he'll finish his term, I just said that for the joke effect. Ah well. :(

I thought about making up such a betting pool when he was first elected, cuz I figured it would be sooner, rather than later. Apparently my gut instinct was wrong... but seriously... if he makes it through to the end of his term without even being shot at, I will be absolutely stunned.
Well, he was elected in 2000, and it's tradition that presidents elected in years divisible by 20 get an assassination attempt at some point. I know he's on his second term but I think it still counts.

You can't arrest the President of the United States. He'd have to be removed from office by congress before he can be charged with a crime.
That's what I thought, and no way that's happening. I mean, there's no way that impeachment proceedings get started in the Republican controlled House, for starters, or that you get the 2/3 you need to remove in the Senate, even if the Democrats sweep the Senate races in November (and considering some of the folks up for re-election, a sweep is practically impossible). Why? If the Dems got control of the House and started impeachment proceedings and nailed both Bush and Cheney--which looks like would have to happen, based on these documents--the next person in line is Speaker of the House, who would presumably be Nancy Pelosi. Senate Republicans wouldn't vote for a President Pelosi if they personally witnessed Cheney in the Oval Office fucking Bush while wearing a Che tee-shirt and screaming "Viva La Revolucion."

Well, he was elected in 2000, and it's tradition that presidents elected in years divisible by 20 get an assassination attempt at some point. I know he's on his second term but I think it still counts.

Yeah, it still counts. I heard about another case of someone on their second term being shot at... but I don't remember who. I avoided American history like the plague. ;)

I also think he'll finish his term, I just said that for the joke effect. Ah well. :(
I know but seriously, if he was going to be shot at it would have happened by now. We've already had 6 years of Bush I'll be supprised if anything changes in the next 2.

Cheney in the Oval Office fucking Bush while wearing a Che tee-shirt and screaming "Viva La Revolucion."

HEY! There are people trying to eat here! You just made me throw up things I haven't eaten yet!

Someone really ought to keep a full count of the new scandals coming off of this administration, seeing as how they appear to come weekly.


I tried that already with the Republican Rap Sheet (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473272) thread but it's way too much work!

That's what I thought, and no way that's happening. I mean, there's no way that impeachment proceedings get started in the Republican controlled House, for starters, or that you get the 2/3 you need to remove in the Senate, even if the Democrats sweep the Senate races in November (and considering some of the folks up for re-election, a sweep is practically impossible). Why? If the Dems got control of the House and started impeachment proceedings and nailed both Bush and Cheney--which looks like would have to happen, based on these documents--the next person in line is Speaker of the House, who would presumably be Nancy Pelosi. Senate Republicans wouldn't vote for a President Pelosi if they personally witnessed Cheney in the Oval Office fucking Bush while wearing a Che tee-shirt and screaming "Viva La Revolucion."

Considering how many Republican "leaders" Bush has managed to irritate over the past few months, I would be surprised, again assuming Mr. Libby can prove his allegations, if they too didn't start talking impeachment proceedings. There are a few, (one or two) honest Republicans in the Senate/House, now that Delay is out, and that may be all it takes to get the ball rolling.

One can hope anyways.

Wow. 3 pages and not a single peep from Corny and the Bushevik Defense League.

I see, so it's bad for the president to break the law, but it's okay for someone to break the law by assassinating him. What wonderful logic. :rolleyes:

Bring impeachment articles against him, remove him from office and then file criminal charges against him. But I draw the line at murder, as well as any human being should.

BTW here's the full twenty-year curse of the presidency:

1840: William Harrison, died of pneumonia after a month in office
1860: Abraham Lincoln, assassinated
1880: James Garfield, assassinated
1900: William McKinley, assassinated
1920: Warren Harding, died of heart disease in office
1940: Franklin Roosevelt, died of a brain hemhorrage in office
1960: John Kennedy, assassinated
1980: Ronald Reagan, survived attempted assassination, served two full terms
2000: George W. Bush, ??? [impeachment and removal would probably fulfill the curse]

HEY! There are people trying to eat here! You just made me throw up things I haven't eaten yet!
At least I didn't mention the weasels or the soundtrack to the Sound of Music playing in the background.

Considering how many Republican "leaders" Bush has managed to irritate over the past few months, I would be surprised, again assuming Mr. Libby can prove his allegations, if they too didn't start talking impeachment proceedings. There are a few, (one or two) honest Republicans in the Senate/House, now that Delay is out, and that may be all it takes to get the ball rolling.

One can hope anyways.
Even if they start the impeachment proceedings by the time they make a decision he will be out anyway

Wow. 3 pages and not a single peep from Corny and the Bushevik Defense League.

awaiting marching orders, perhaps? when they run out ahead of orders they look even more foolish than usual - maybe they're learning.


nah

awaiting marching orders, perhaps? when they run out ahead of orders they look even more foolish than usual - maybe they're learning.


nah

Exactly. They're waiting for Rush, O'Reilly or Hannity to tell them what to think about this development.

At least I didn't mention the weasels or the soundtrack to the Sound of Music playing in the background.

*Vomits more*

Even if they start the impeachment proceedings by the time they make a decision he will be out anyway
I know. I bring this up every time the subject comes up over at Kos. There's a window of about 6 months after the November 2006 elections where anything would have to be done, because after that, it's the beginning of the 2008 Presidential primary cycle, and the Senators who are running aren't going to want to be stuck in Washington being hounded by reporters who are going to make them look bad for going after Bush. We had our shot in 2004--we lost. Time to just work on reversing the damage Bush has done by getting Congress in 2006 and replacing him in 2008.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html



Now, the defense for this classified information leak that will be proposed by Bush butt-kissers will likely be something along the lines of, "Well, he's the President, so he's the final authority on what is classified or not. If he wants it said, then it's not classified anymore."

I submit that these very same people, probably wanted Clinton's head for distributing classified material to the Chinese.*


*even though there's never been any evidence that Clinton did anything of the sort.**


**aside from unsupported accusations by the good people at the Free Republic and NewMax.
I'm not trusting this until I see it on Bill O'Reilly's show.

Y'know, as a Brit, I haven't been following all of these leaks and incidents and things that come out of the White House, but surely the sheer volume of criticism, leaks of bad decisions and other scandals is enough to gain some sort of indictment against Bush?

I'm not trusting this until I see it on Bill O'Reilly's show.That's funny. :D
It was a joke, right?

Y'know, as a Brit, I haven't been following all of these leaks and incidents and things that come out of the White House, but surely the sheer volume of criticism, leaks of bad decisions and other scandals is enough to gain some sort of indictment against Bush?
Not when Bush's party is more concerned with keeping power than with doing the right thing. To be fair, if the tables were turned, party-wise, if the Dems held all the power, we'd probably see the same thing.

Not when Bush's party is more concerned with keeping power than with doing the right thing. To be fair, if the tables were turned, party-wise, if the Dems held all the power, we'd probably see the same thing.

Ordinarily I'd agree...but the sheer number of leaks, scandals and other things is rather stunning...

That's funny. :D
It was a joke, right?
Yes, and no. I don't watch O'Reilly because he's a prick, and I don't think Bush is bad enough to actually do this. It's like an upside down, inside out, paradox.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually testify about this? If he did, doesn't that make him guilty of lying to a congressional comittee a la Bill Clinton? That's a federal offense and a felony and is definately impeachable.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually testify about this? If he did, doesn't that make him guilty of lying to a congressional comittee a la Bill Clinton? That's a federal offense and a felony and is definately impeachable.
Not under oath as I recall. He supposedly consented to an interview with Fitzgerald, but only with Cheney there, and no one knows what went on in there.

Yes, and no. I don't watch O'Reilly because he's a prick, and I don't think Bush is bad enough to actually do this. It's like an upside down, inside out, paradox.
Dude, the court documents are right there in the link. You don't need some political pundit to explain it to you. You can read the documents yourself.

Not under oath as I recall. He supposedly consented to an interview with Fitzgerald, but only with Cheney there, and no one knows what went on in there.
Well, fuck. :mad: We need to save the country and the world from these guys somehow. If they'd only sworn him in. :(

personally witnessed Cheney in the Oval Office fucking Bush while wearing a Che tee-shirt and screaming "Viva La Revolucion."
Do you know how many time I have had dream? And yeah, no Pres. Pesoli

Dude, the court documents are right there in the link. You don't need some political pundit to explain it to you. You can read the documents yourself.
oh, wow, i just saw the story on yahoo news. maybe you're on to something.

Well, fuck. :mad: We need to save the country and the world from these guys somehow. If they'd only sworn him in. :(
Well, there's still the "lying to a federal agent" statute, which is one of the ones they've got n Libby (aka, the Martha Stewart statute), but as LG mentioned above, you can't arrest the President of the US. He has to be impeached first.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush actually testify about this? If he did, doesn't that make him guilty of lying to a congressional comittee a la Bill Clinton? That's a federal offense and a felony and is definately impeachable.

Of course it's only impeachable if a publically sworn oath or fellatio is involved.

Even if he did do it, but knowing I doubt it, is it really that bad? From what I heard from Rush, she was just a secrety or something.

Even if he did do it, but knowing I doubt it, is it really that bad? From what I heard from Rush, she was just a secrety or something.
Please stop listening to Rush. I'll give you a dollar.

Even if he did do it, but knowing I doubt it, is it really that bad? From what I heard from Rush, she was just a secrety or something.
She was a spy in Nigeria before the invasion. Remember the whole yellow-cake papers? basically, she said that nigeria wasn't selling uranium to saddam, and bush would (reasonably) want to censore her for that. removing her from the cia is one way to censor her.

Well, there's still the "lying to a federal agent" statute, which is one of the ones they've got n Libby (aka, the Martha Stewart statute), but as LG mentioned above, you can't arrest the President of the US. He has to be impeached first.
Actually he doesn't need to be arrested at all. Just impeached. If the impeachment proceedings result in a conviction he is out of office. Then I believe he can actually be tried criminally which would be kinda neato. Of course, getting him out of office is the most important thing, but we're probably going to have to wait for the next election for that.

She was a spy in Nigeria before the invasion. Remember the whole yellow-cake papers? basically, she said that nigeria wasn't selling uranium to saddam, and bush would (reasonably) want to censore her for that. removing her from the cia is one way to censor her.
How could she be a spy in Nigeria? Shes white, she'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Please stop listening to Rush. I'll give you a dollar.
yeah, but listening to Rush is like gold

How could she be a spy in Nigeria? Shes white, she'll stick out like a sore thumb.
She was just Nigeria's secretary.

She was a spy in Nigeria before the invasion. Remember the whole yellow-cake papers? basically, she said that nigeria wasn't selling uranium to saddam, and bush would (reasonably) want to censore her for that. removing her from the cia is one way to censor her.
The UN abassadorship is riding you--he's not serious. His act has actually gotten better in the last couple of weeks, I must say.

yeah, but listening to Rush is like gold
I agree it's like a hard metal.

I see, so it's bad for the president to break the law, but it's okay for someone to break the law by assassinating him. What wonderful logic. :rolleyes:

Bring impeachment articles against him, remove him from office and then file criminal charges against him. But I draw the line at murder, as well as any human being should.

BTW here's the full twenty-year curse of the presidency:

1840: William Harrison, died of pneumonia after a month in office
1860: Abraham Lincoln, assassinated
1880: James Garfield, assassinated
1900: William McKinley, assassinated
1920: Warren Harding, died of heart disease in office
1940: Franklin Roosevelt, died of a brain hemhorrage in office
1960: John Kennedy, assassinated
1980: Ronald Reagan, survived attempted assassination, served two full terms
2000: George W. Bush, ??? [impeachment and removal would probably fulfill the curse]
My dad use to make a big deal of the twenty year curse in his history classes. I remember he had this wierd little formula involving the terms that each president died that predicted that when Regan should have died. On the day that would have been was the day where he went under for that surgery that left him all wierd for the remainder of his term and during which the VP temporarily assumed the presidencey while he was knocked out for the surgery.

Ok two things, why dose every one want to impeach, kill, etc. Bush, he's just a target dummy (emphasis on dummy) for Cheney. And 2 is dose any one still think that Bush is better than Bill?

Even if he did do it, but knowing I doubt it, is it really that bad? From what I heard from Rush, she was just a secrety or something.
She was an undercover agent during the 90s who worked in official capacities in American Embassies overseas. She used her official status as cover to get information for the CIA from foreign contacts. The day her name came out in the paper every one of those contacts were put in danger and any current agents fulfilling her old duties were also put in danger if they had dealings with the same contacts she did. Remeber who asked for this investigation. It was not the democrats that asked for it, it was George Bush's apointed Director of the CIA who asked for the investigation. He read teh name of one of his coverts in the paper and said, "Fuck that noise!" The prosecutor is a Bush Appointee to the court. This is pure Republican up and down. It is Republicans leaking names, a Republican getting pissed about the leak and asking for heads on a platter and a Republican prosecutor leading the investigation.

Ok two things, why dose every one want to impeach, kill, etc. Bush, he's just a target dummy (emphasis on dummy) for Cheney. And 2 is dose any one still think that Bush is better than Bill?
1. An impeachment of the president would put the whole of his administration under close scrutiny.

2. Yes but who cares?

She was a spy in Nigeria before the invasion. Remember the whole yellow-cake papers? basically, she said that nigeria wasn't selling uranium to saddam, and bush would (reasonably) want to censore her for that. removing her from the cia is one way to censor her.
Actually her husband was an ambasador that led the investigation in Nigeria and concluded that Nigeria wasn't selling uranium to Saddam. Bush and co ignored him and he went public, next thin you know its been conviently leaked by Novaik that his wife is spy.

1. An impeachment of the president would put the whole of his administration under close scrutiny.

2. Yes but who cares?

Yo, Desperate Times was calling you.

Anyways, yes, you have a point. I just wanted to make the joke. :)

How could she be a spy in Nigeria? Shes white, she'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Jesus, you need to read a little more.

Her husband blew the whistle on the Admin that the claim the Saddam was looking for yellowcake in Nigeria wasn't true. He had been to Nigeria and investigated the claim on behalf of the CIA in an overt capacity. In an effort to discredit him the admin leaked to the press the name of his wife, Valerie Plame, said she was a covert agent in the 90s and that she was a Democrat and that it was her that sent him to Nigeria. The information was printed in the NY Times and teh director of the CIA saw it and screamed bloody murder. An investigation ensued.

Jesus, you need to read a little more.

Her husband blew the whistle on the Admin that the claim the Saddam was looking for yellowcake in Nigeria wasn't true. He had been to Nigeria and investigated the claim on behalf of the CIA in an overt capacity. In an effort to discredit him the admin leaked to the press the name of his wife, Valerie Plame, said she was a covert agent in the 90s and that she was a Democrat and that it was her that sent him to Nigeria. The information was printed in the NY Times and teh director of the CIA saw it and screamed bloody murder. An investigation ensued.
Wasn't Novaik(sp) the first to print a story on it, you know in addition to being the only one of the three writers to not face any censure.

Wasn't Novaik(sp) the first to print a story on it, you know in addition to being the only one of the three writers to not face any censure.
May have been, but I don't think it's important.

Dude, the court documents are right there in the link. You don't need some political pundit to explain it to you. You can read the documents yourself.

That's the thing. The "Bush sucks" crowd pays attention to court documents, sworn testimony and articles with multiple quoted sources backed up by articles in other publications, also with open sources, that state basically the same thing. Plus there's also videotape (which often shows the Bush admin contradicting itself.)

The "Bush is teh greatest!" group tends to listend to the OPINIONS of pundits who warp evidence, take things out of context or just plain make shit up.

Yo, Desperate Times was calling you.

:)
Everybody gets one.

Even if he did do it, but knowing I doubt it, is it really that bad? From what I heard from Rush, she was just a secrety or something.
Rush Limbaugh? You have to be a troll puppet, only a troll puppet would cite Rush Limbaugh.

That's the thing. The "Bush sucks" crowd pays attention to court documents, sworn testimony and articles with multiple quoted sources backed up by articles in other publications, also with open sources, that state basically the same thing. Plus there's also videotape (which often shows the Bush admin contradicting itself.)

The "Bush is teh greatest!" group tends to listend to the OPINIONS of pundits who warp evidence, take things out of context or just plain make shit up.
I don't know if thats fair, though. I mean, the anti-Bush crowd can basically just make something up like the Pro-Bush crowd. Except that after we make it up, we can do a little investigating and find out that its true.

Like, lets say I make up, "Bush had a woman get an abortion."

Now, all I have to do is investigate a little...

The "Bush is teh greatest!" group tends to listend to the OPINIONS of pundits who warp evidence, take things out of context or just plain make shit up.

Apparently, the anti-bush crowd is just as capable of manipulation... one need only look to the title of this topic, "Smoking Gun: Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak" to see that. Reading the document, and the intro, it is plainly clear that the smoking gun is not making such a claim, nor does the document point to anyone except Scooter Libby as making such a claim. The actual title should be "Libby: Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak," which oddly enough, is exactly the way the smoking gun has it posted. That would make it clear that no outside party is making that claim, but that only Scooter Libby is making such a claim. But if that was posted, it'd be clear that no independent third party was making the claim, but only that a defendant in a criminal investigation was, and it would lose some of the authority that it has as currently written. Think of it this way... is it fair to convict a man based on nothing but the testimony of an accomplice? Would you be satisfied with a murder defendant being convicted based on nothing but the word of someone, trying to help himself, who helped the accused perpetrate the act? I know i wouldn't, nor would most people. But that's exactly what's happening here, so far. The same people who whine when criminal defendants aren't given every right that the most tortured reading of the Constitution can produce are here siding against an accused only because of who the accused is. How sad. I'm not saying it didn't occur as Libby claims... I'm just saying i'm not going to take his word alone for it. And yet, the article is posted here in such a way to make it seem as if Libby's claim is gospel.

But then again, why let something like facts get in the way of a good partisan bashing? Cheers to both sides! You deserve each other.

Come on, these people are the masters of distraction. They'll probably have Bushs pants fall down in the middle of a press conference or something to divert attention (if it seems to be getting too close). Don't you just love Democracy :rolleyes:I suppose this means that Cheney will have to shoot someone else in the face to get the press to stop talking about this.

I suppose this means that Cheney will have to shoot someone else in the face to get the press to stop talking about this.
Nah they don't (to the best of my knowlege) do the same thing twice.

Apparently, the anti-bush crowd is just as capable of manipulation... one need only look to the title of this topic, "Smoking Gun: Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak" to see that. Reading the document, and the intro, it is plainly clear that the smoking gun is making such a claim, nor does the document point to anyone except Scooter Libby as making such a claim. The actual title should be "Libby: Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak," which oddly enough, is exactly the way the smoking gun has it posted. That would make it clear that no outside party is making that claim, but that only Scooter Libby is making such a claim. But if that was posted, it'd be clear that no independent third party was making the claim, but only that a defendant in a criminal investigation was, and it would lose some of the authority that it has as currently written. Think of it this way... is it fair to convict a man based on nothing but the testimony of an accomplice? Would you be satisfied with a murder defendant being convicted based on nothing but the word of someone, trying to help himself, who helped the accused perpetrate the act? I know i wouldn't, nor would most people. But that's exactly what's happening here, so far. The same people who whine when criminal defendants aren't given every right that the most tortured reading of the Constitution can produce are here siding against an accused only because of who the accused is. How sad. I'm not saying it didn't occur as Libby claims... I'm just saying i'm not going to take his word alone for it. And yet, the article is posted here in such a way to make it seem as if Libby's claim is gospel.

But then again, why let something like facts get in the way of a good partisan bashing? Cheers to both sides! You deserve each other.
So, how about we have a good old impeachment? Find out from Bush himself what is what.

So, how about we have a good old impeachment? Find out from Bush himself what is what.

If Congress chooses to impeach, so be it. That's its right under the Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh? You have to be a troll puppet, only a troll puppet would cite Rush Limbaugh.

UN abassadorship is an attention whore troll and so far nobody's set up an embargo on attention.

*snip*
Nitpicking. Everyone here is clear that it is Libby who is making the claim. The title of the thread doesn't change that. If you want to nitpick that much, the title of the thread actually sounds like Bush authorized Plame to do something.

Nitpicking. Everyone here is clear that it is Libby who is making the claim. The title of the thread doesn't change that. If you want to nitpick that much, the title of the thread actually sounds like Bush authorized Plame to do something.

Reading some of the responses, i'd have to disagree that "everyone" is clear. Not that that was really the point, as it does not change the fact that the statement as made is still misleading, nor that many here appear to be taking the statements as completely true. But hey, why address that when you can just replace the text with "snip," call it nitpicking, and dismiss it out-of-hand as such?

Some say nitpicking, others say accuracy. But, why let that get in the way of a good witch-hunt? I mean, after all, it is president bush, satan incarnate, right? It's damning to him, so it must be true!

Reading some of the responses, i'd have to disagree that "everyone" is clear.

Very first sentence in this thread:

A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that President George W. Bush authorized him to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter.

Is that in any way unclear? No.

I am not saying that any of therm are true or not, but it seems that Bush has had at least twice as many scandals as any other president.

UN abassadorship is an attention whore troll and so far nobody's set up an embargo on attention.
But if we ship attention there, the nation will reform and elect a new leader!

Nah they don't (to the best of my knowlege) do the same thing twice.Ah, that's true. Perhaps it will be 'revealed' that Cheney wears lingerie?

Reading some of the responses, i'd have to disagree that "everyone" is clear. Not that that was really the point, as it does not change the fact that the statement as made is still misleading, nor that many here appear to be taking the statements as completely true. But hey, why address that when you can just replace the text with "snip," call it nitpicking, and dismiss it out-of-hand as such?

Some say nitpicking, others say accuracy. But, why let that get in the way of a good witch-hunt? I mean, after all, it is president bush, satan incarnate, right? It's damning to him, so it must be true!
That's bullshit. This isn't some article from Moveon.org claiming they have inside info from some obscure aid who claims he delivered a message to Libby from Bush. This is a man under federal indictment who was a very close aid to the president who claims that when he leaked the name of a covert agent to the press it was Bush who told him to do it. Is he lying? Maybe but he's in every way, shape and form as credible a witness as you can possibly get other than Bush himself and it's an extremely relevent news item and it would be ridiculous for you not to expect us to discuss it.

And no, Bush is not Satan. He's an idiot and I'm not basing that opinion on anything other than my observations.

As for snipping yoru post, your whole post could have been summed up thusly:
The headline on this post is misleading and you guys are convicting him based on just what Libby said.

I responded directly to that so why quote spam my response?

Very first sentence in this thread:



Is that in any way unclear? No.

Did i say the first post is unclear? No. I said the title is misleading. The first post does name scooter libby, but in light of the title, the casual reader (most of those on both sides who post on any of the hot button topics like the president, abortion, gay marriage, the existance of god, etc.) is left to think that the claim also comes from the smoking gun, which it flatly does not. And then the original poster has the audacity to decry the spin tactics used to warp facts used by the pro-bush crowd (which he takes a dig at by misspelling "the" as "teh"), when he in fact did the exact same thing to make it appear his original post had more credibility than it actually does by making it appear as if an independent source is making the claim in the title, when it is not even remotely doing so. In fact, the poster went out of his way to change the headline of the smoking gun to remove "Libby:" and in its place insert "Smoking Gun:" while keeping the rest of the headline the same.

My dad use to make a big deal of the twenty year curse in his history classes. I remember he had this wierd little formula involving the terms that each president died that predicted that when Regan should have died. On the day that would have been was the day where he went under for that surgery that left him all wierd for the remainder of his term and during which the VP temporarily assumed the presidencey while he was knocked out for the surgery.

Actually, didn't his election fulfil the curse? :p

Actually, didn't his election fulfil the curse? :p
But it's supposed to be his bad luck... not bad luck for the rest of us...

That's bullshit. This isn't some article from Moveon.org claiming they have inside info from some obscure aid who claims he delivered a message to Libby from Bush. This is a man under federal indictment who was a very close aid to the president who claims that when he leaked the name of a covert agent to the press it was Bush who told him to do it. Is he lying? Maybe but he's in every way, shape and form as credible a witness as you can possibly get other than Bush himself and it's an extremely relevent news item and it would be ridiculous for you not to expect us to discuss it.

And no, Bush is not Satan. He's an idiot and I'm not basing that opinion on anything other than my observations.

As for snipping yoru post, your whole post could have been summed up thusly:
The headline on this post is misleading and you guys are convicting him based on just what Libby said.

I responded directly to that so why quote spam my response?

Where did i suggest it not be discussed? I merely pointed out the truism that the title is misleading by implying a third party is making the claim, and commented that the original poster then decried the spin of the pro-bush crowd while using his own spin in making up the title. Kind of like if i were to say a headline from say, cnn, said "Bush: Economy Stronger than ever" and posted it so it read "CNN: Economy Stronger than ever." See the difference?

Show me where the smoking gun actually attributes the conclusion "Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak" to itself, and i'll give an apology for wasting several posts.

Oh, and Libby was not, is not, nor has he ever been an aide to the president. He was an aide, and chief of staff to the vice president.

I'd be rather curious to see how El Presidente weasels out of the situation.he has an All-star team ready to help him Weasel-out..

Where did i suggest it not be discussed? I merely pointed out the truism that the title is misleading by implying a third party is making the claim, and commented that the original poster then decried the spin of the pro-bush crowd while using his own spin in making up the title. Kind of like if i were to say a headline from say, cnn, said "Bush: Economy Stronger than ever" and posted it so it read "CNN: Economy Stronger than ever." See the difference? He did not decry spin. He pointed out that many of the Bush supporters here often don't have the kind of quality source for their arguments that is exhibited here, namely the Vice President's Chief of Staff and the actual court documents in the case as the source with regard to wether he was given the okay to leak Plame's name. Specifically, he was referring to a post by a Bush supporter who was saying that he'd wait for Bill O'Reilly's take on this particular subject before he believed the report. I pointed out that the actual court documents were posted on the site and that he could just look at the documents himself rather than wait to hear what O'Reily had to say to decide wether he believed Libby actually had said that. The OP then pointed out that Bush critics, in this case me, use actual court documents and other quality sources while Bush supporters often refer to pundits to back their claims. BTW - While I absolutely agree that he is right with regards to most of the Bush supporters that I have seen debating on this site, I do not agree that that is a universal rule. I own a website with a politics room and have had many well informed, articulate Bush supporters debate with me there. In fact the person who I have moderating the room on my forum is a Bush supporter.

Show me where the smoking gun actually attributes the conclusion "Bush Personally Authorized Plame Leak" to itself, and i'll give an apology for wasting several posts. You wasted several posts because you pointed out something completely immaterial to the argument. The title of the thread did not change the basic facts that were agreed upon by all who participated, namely that it was Libby who made the claim that he was authorized by the president to leak Plame's name. Had the title actually led people in this thread to believe that it was the Smoking Gun that was making the claim and the ensuing debate had subsequently relied upon that perception your point would have been valid. It wasn't in this case.

Oh, and Libby was not, is not, nor has he ever been an aide to the president. He was an aide, and chief of staff to the vice president.
I know that and noticed my error after I reread my post but needed to get to my tax man and figured it was immaterial anyway so I didn't take the time to change it.

So, can we get back to talking about the actual contents of the documents now?

That's it. Is it wrong to make a thread on betting when the president will be assassinated? Is that against forum rules?

Seriously.

I thought about making up such a betting pool when he was first elected, cuz I figured it would be sooner, rather than later. Apparently my gut instinct was wrong... but seriously... if he makes it through to the end of his term without even being shot at, I will be absolutely stunned. Even if only half of the things that are put against Bush are true, he's still a horrific leader, and his administration needs to be removed.
So what did you think of Tblisi?

Senate Republicans wouldn't vote for a President Pelosi if they personally witnessed Cheney in the Oval Office fucking Bush while wearing a Che tee-shirt and screaming "Viva La Revolucion."
My, doesn't THIS sound familiar? ;)

Do you know how many time I have had dream? And yeah, no Pres. Pesoli
Approximately as many times, give or take, as you have that little ditty about Cheney's nipples.

Of course it's only impeachable if a publically sworn oath or fellatio is involved....and that's where The UN abassadorship can truly retain the integrity of the fractuous republican party!! :D
C'mon, take one for the team!
YES, i have a link to substantiate that.

I don't know if thats fair, though. I mean, the anti-Bush crowd can basically just make something up like the Pro-Bush crowd. Except that after we make it up, we can do a little investigating and find out that its true.

Like, lets say I make up, "Bush had a woman get an abortion."

Now, all I have to do is investigate a little...
I actually know about what you're alluding to. It was on here a summer or two ago, IIRC.

I am still waiting for impeachment...oh wait that happens after all the republicans are replaced in this coming midterm election.