NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think the result will be now that the Democrats have the power to bring people in to testify legally? Oh, and Plame answers once and for all that she WAS COVERT when outed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003558908

Every scrap of evidence points straight to Prick Cheney. The only reason criminal charges weren't filed was due to 'scooter's' skillful job at obstruction of justice.

Impeachments please?

Impeachments please?

Sel Appa calling for impeachments, BRAVO!

Rove: "What the hell do they want?!? We gave them Scooter! We're gonna need another scapegoat."

Cheney: "You're right. By the way Karl, I volunteered you to head over to congress and testify under oath."

Rove: :eek: "Ah! Son of a bitch!"

Cheney: "Sorry Karl."

The important question was answered--that dumbass Georgia Congressman who Colbert humiliated on his show over his request to post the ten commandments in schools and then couldn't name them managed to pry the following explosive information out of Valerie Plame.

She's a Democrat.

I guess that means she was asking for it.

When the hearing ended at noon today, protestors in the back of room chanted loudly, "Impeach Now!"

If only this was the kind of ending in all articles involving Bush and his lackeys...

Pfft. Like Plame would know. What is she, a CIA agent?

seriously, c'mon, why should we believe her? Karl Rove says her job wasn't covert, should we believe that this woman knew what her own job was just because it was her job?

Come on people!

If only this was the kind of ending in all articles involving Bush and his lackeys...

Ah, the Cato the Elder ploy. He ended every speech in the Roman Senate with, "That is my opinion, Conscript Fathers. And it is my further opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!" We should have people going, "And that's why I think we need a National NationStates General Day. And I also think that Bush should be impeached now!"

What do you think the result will be now that the Democrats have the power to bring people in to testify legally? Oh, and Plame answers once and for all that she WAS COVERT when outed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003558908

Pfft. Like Plame would know. What is she, a CIA agent?

Ah, the Cato the Elder ploy. He ended every speech in the Roman Senate with, "That is my opinion, Conscript Fathers. And it is my further opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!" We should have people going, "And that's why I think we need a National NationStates General Day. And I also think that Bush should be impeached now!"

What an excellent idea! Perhaps if we all keep doing it, Congress will impeach him just to shut us up. :D

So, where are the apologies? Anybody want to step up and say, "I thought that she wasn't covert but now I realize she was. Sorry."


I'll watch the nail on my big toe grow while I'm waiting.

So, where are the apologies? Anybody want to step up and say, "I thought that she wasn't covert but now I realize she was. Sorry."


I'll watch the nail on my big toe grow while I'm waiting.
I'll watch mine along with you--want to race and see whose will grow faster?

What do you think the result will be now that the Democrats have the power to bring people in to testify legally? Oh, and Plame answers once and for all that she WAS COVERT when outed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003558908

"I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert," she said, disputing claims to the contrary.

Now where's that special prosecutor when you need him? Oh right, he got his pound of flesh from the Bush Administration and has retired to the book signing circuit.

Just so there's no missing the bottom of the article, here it is. There is a difference of opinion, that will also be given under oath.

Former prosecutor Victoria Toensing, who has long claimed that Plame was not "covert," will testify later today.

And for the bulk of you that haven't heard, Richard Armitage, of the State Department, has admitted to telling Robert Novak about Valerie Plame. Was he indicted? Of course not, there was no crime. Everyone but you fools knows that. Even Fitzgerald knows that, otherwise he wouldn't have settled for the consolation prize of the Libby indictment.

I'll watch mine along with you--want to race and see whose will grow faster?

I'm not the competitive type but my big toe has never met a challenge that it wouldn't undertake. We race for our honor as men. Mush, toe! Mush!

"I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert," she said, disputing claims to the contrary.
I've typed this so often that my fingers are starting to hurt. If she wasn't covert, then there was no crime for Fitzgerald to investigate, and no justice for Libby to obstruct. End of argument.

Now where's that special prosecutor when you need him? Oh right, he got his pound of flesh from the Bush Administration and has retired to the book signing circuit.
Wrong--he's still doing his job as a US attorney prosecuting bad guys of all parties. Is it so hard to believe that maybe this wasn't a partisan job? Fuck, man, he was appointed by a guy appointed by Ashcroft of all people. Are you going to claim that Ashcroft was out to get the administration? And besides, Fitzgerald has been a Republican for a long time--just not a hack. He's a professional attorney, and one who deserves respect.

Just so there's no missing the bottom of the article, here it is. There is a difference of opinion, that will also be given under oath.

Former prosecutor Victoria Toensing, who has long claimed that Plame was not "covert," will testify later today.

And for the bulk of you that haven't heard, Richard Armitage, of the State Department, has admitted to telling Robert Novak about Valerie Plame. Was he indicted? Of course not, there was no crime. Everyone but you fools knows that. Even Fitzgerald knows that, otherwise he wouldn't have settled for the consolation prize of the Libby indictment.
I expect this level of bullshit from Corny, but from you?

I'm really glad we are dealing with the really important stuff.

This needs very major attention,hearing and investigation.

I've typed this so often that my fingers are starting to hurt. If she wasn't covert, then there was no crime for Fitzgerald to investigate, and no justice for Libby to obstruct. End of argument.

Let's be clear about what Libby was convicted of...Not remembering correctly where he first heard Plame's name. A few more, "I have no recollection..." type answers and he would not have been indicted. I doubt very much that his faulty memory had any bearing on Fitzgerald's inability to find a source of the leak. That's assuming that Plame was still covert. She hadn't been out of the country in the five years preceeding 2003, so that puts some doubt on the idea that she was more that an analyst.



I expect this level of bullshit from Corny, but from you?

No reason that Toensing isn't a reliable witness, is there?

No reason that Toensing isn't a reliable witness, is there?

Because as per Elijah Cummings (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/) and his source:


CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Mr. Waxman told me that Gen. Hayden said clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.” There was no doubt about it. By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, “Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA.” “Ms. Wilson was undercover.” The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn’t any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?

Let's be clear about what Libby was convicted of...Not remembering correctly where he first heard Plame's name. A few more, "I have no recollection..." type answers and he would not have been indicted. I doubt very much that his faulty memory had any bearing on Fitzgerald's inability to find a source of the leak. That's assuming that Plame was still covert. She hadn't been out of the country in the five years preceeding 2003, so that puts some doubt on the idea that she was more that an analyst. Wrong--she was out of the country the year before she was outed. No less than Bush appointee and current CIA head General Hayden said she was covert to Waxman yesterday. If that won't convince you, what will?


No reason that Toensing isn't a reliable witness, is there?
Pick your poison--believe Toensing, who has been wrong about this from the beginning, contradicted by people who are closer to the story than she is, or believe, oh, the head of the CIA.

Because as per Elijah Cummings (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/) and his source:
If I were her and I'd caused all this ruckus, I'd lie, too. That's a fundamental rule of business -- When people screw up, they lie about it.

If I were her and I'd caused all this ruckus, I'd lie, too. That's a fundamental rule of business -- When people screw up, they lie about it.

It's not her--it's Hayden. Get that straight. Now if you're going to argue that Bush's own pick to head CIA is lying about this...

Wrong--she was out of the country the year before she was outed. No less than Bush appointee and current CIA head General Hayden said she was covert to Waxman yesterday. If that won't convince you, what will?
Probably not much that has already been discussed. I'm going to watch how this plays out, then decide.

If I were her and I'd caused all this ruckus, I'd lie, too. That's a fundamental rule of business -- When people screw up, they lie about it.

Um... no... it was General Hayden, the head of the CIA who told both Waxman and Reyes that she was covert.

It's not her--it's Hayden. Get that straight. Now if you're going to argue that Bush's own pick to head CIA is lying about this...
Bush hasn't shown any real ability to run the government. I wish you'd quit hiding behind that. He's done exactly two things right since he was elected. Cut taxes and took the war against the Jihadists to their homes.


Besides, Nazz, you're so much fun when you're all spun up over something.

Bush hasn't shown any real ability to run the government. I wish you'd quit hiding behind that. He's done exactly two things right since he was elected. Cut taxes and took the war against the Jihadists to their homes.


Besides, Nazz, you're so much fun when you're all spun up over something.
Nice dodge, but the point is this: Bush values loyalty above all. That's been the constant in all his choices for positions in the cabinet. So when one of his loyal soldiers says something that harms the administration...

Nice dodge, but the point is this: Bush values loyalty above all. That's been the constant in all his choices for positions in the cabinet. So when one of his loyal soldiers says something that harms the administration...
But he hasn't been getting competent and loyal. The AG is screwing up left and right. He fired the Treasury Secretary way back...He may value loyalty, but I'm not convinced he can pick enough loyal soldiers for a government of this size. And just maybe the responsibility that he has given to some of his picks has overwhelmed their sense of loyalty to him with a sense of duty to the country. That's why I'm going to reserve further judgment on this until some more facts come out.

But he hasn't been getting competent and loyal. The AG is screwing up left and right. He fired the Treasury Secretary way back...He may value loyalty, but I'm not convinced he can pick enough loyal soldiers for a government of this size. And just maybe the responsibility that he has given to some of his picks has overwhelmed their sense of loyalty to him with a sense of duty to the country. That's why I'm going to reserve further judgment on this until some more facts come out.

So ... the CIA Director is either incompetent (his staff told him Plame was not covert but he screwed up and said she was) or disloyal to the president who put him in office (he's really a closet liberal who has plotted and maneuvered for years to get into a position from which he could make George W. Bush look bad)?

EDIT: Okay, I reread your post and it's bad that the CIA Director chose not to lie to protect the administration? Because to me, "overwhelmed their sense of loyalty to him with a sense of duty to the country" sounds like a good thing and implies the Director was correct in saying Plame was covert. I'm confused, but I will admit I haven't seen dancing like this since Baryshnikov left the Bolshoi.

If she wasn't covert, then there was no crime for Fitzgerald to investigate, and no justice for Libby to obstruct.
You think that'll stop the federal government? Clinton didn't commit any crime yet was still investigated. When they couldn't get him for any real crime they went after him for lying about something that isn't a crime. Why? Political gain. Using the courts for smear attacks.

Impeachments please?

Yeah, terrible fucking idea.

So ... the CIA Director is either incompetent (his staff told him Plame was not covert but he screwed up and said she was) or disloyal to the president who put him in office (he's really a closet liberal who has plotted and maneuvered for years to get into a position from which he could make George W. Bush look bad)?

EDIT: Okay, I reread your post and it's bad that the CIA Director chose not to lie to protect the administration? Because to me, "overwhelmed their sense of loyalty to him with a sense of duty to the country" sounds like a good thing and implies the Director was correct in saying Plame was covert. I'm confused, but I will admit I haven't seen dancing like this since Baryshnikov left the Bolshoi.
It's simple. Bush hasn't been able to control his administration. He picks people that he thinks are going to support him. They find out that their real duty is to support the country. I checked that and it's about grade 6 level material. I'm not sure if the CIA guy is telling the truth, what he thinks is the truth, or what, so I'm going to watch, read, and then judge. But...I think that far worse crimes have been committed than the potential crime that we are talking about here.

this case makes me dizzy. i dont understand so many things about it.


why do they keep insisting that plame wasnt covert when if she hadnt been covert it would have been the shortest criminal investigation in history? "hello, cia? was plame still a covert agent of yours on this date? no? ok thanks". DONE. the republican congress isnt in the business of calling for investigations into something that cant possibly be illegal


part of scooter libby's defense was that he was the sacrificial lamb for someone higher up than him. i dont know that he named names but it was supposed to be rove or cheney. THEN it comes out that armitage is the one who leaked her name... huh? why would libby be called on to sacrifice himself for armitage? and if armitage was so vulnerable why isnt he indicted?

what can the congress now learn that the special prosecutor didnt? did he do a sucky job and there are truly guilty people out there to be brought to justice?

id appreciate some explanations.

Let's be clear about what Libby was convicted of...Not remembering correctly where he first heard Plame's name. A few more, "I have no recollection..." type answers and he would not have been indicted. I doubt very much that his faulty memory had any bearing on Fitzgerald's inability to find a source of the leak. That's assuming that Plame was still covert. She hadn't been out of the country in the five years preceeding 2003, so that puts some doubt on the idea that she was more that an analyst.



No reason that Toensing isn't a reliable witness, is there?

He wasn't convicted of not remembering, he was convicted of perjury. LYING to a grand jury. Why did he lie? Was he trying to cover something up? Oopsie. Your arguments are jsut a joke. She wan't covert? Then why launch an investigation anyway? You can't be found guilty of having a bad memory, you get found guilty of lying. Ah yes, Toensing, from the "impeach bill" witchunts. Face it, scooter is guilty and soon the people who let him take the fall for their actions will be snuffed out as well. NO COVERT, NO INVESTIGATION you myopic troll. God, could you at least just say, "I'm a Bush apologist hack" so we could ignore the rest of the crap that comes out of your mouth? I can find everything you spout on talking points from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Malkin. If we wanted to hear their rehashed shit we'd just listen to their shows.

He wasn't convicted of not remembering, he was convicted of perjury. LYING to a grand jury. Why did he lie? Was he trying to cover something up? Oopsie. Your arguments are jsut a joke. She wan't covert? Then why launch an investigation anyway? You can't be found guilty of having a bad memory, you get found guilty of lying. Ah yes, Toensing, from the "impeach bill" witchunts. Face it, scooter is guilty and soon the people who let him take the fall for their actions will be snuffed out as well. NO COVERT, NO INVESTIGATION you myopic troll. God, could you at least just say, "I'm a Bush apologist hack" so we could ignore the rest of the crap that comes out of your mouth? I can find everything you spout on talking points from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Malkin. If we wanted to hear their rehashed shit we'd just listen to their shows.

Just come out and say what you mean, Liuzzo, enough beating around the bush (so to speak).

Read what Myrmi said, that Bush has been betrayed by the less than competent people he has put in office. The Right Wing always feels that it's been stabbed in the back by someone. Everything would be okay if we hadn't been betrayed by ... fill in the enemy du jour. It comes down to the fundemental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that our best days and best deeds are behind us, that we must preserve the past at all costs, save it from the enemies who would destroy it. Liberals look to the future and try to work towards making the world to come better than the world that was. If you're trying to preserve the way things were (cue sentimental song), you're trying to preserve them against the attacks of someone, and so you get sucked into the culture of victimhood. Conservatives like to decry that but they are themselves among the biggest victims we have.

Except the investigations against Clinton were launched by the Republican majority. The Democrats lacked a majority, which means that Republicans were on this too.

Well, it's no coincidence that congressional investigations into the Bush administration didn't start until Democrats had a majority in at least one house of Congress.

Just come out and say what you mean, Liuzzo, enough beating around the bush (so to speak).

Read what Myrmi said, that Bush has been betrayed by the less than competent people he has put in office. The Right Wing always feels that it's been stabbed in the back by someone. Everything would be okay if we hadn't been betrayed by ... fill in the enemy du jour. It comes down to the fundemental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that our best days and best deeds are behind us, that we must preserve the past at all costs, save it from the enemies who would destroy it. Liberals look to the future and try to work towards making the world to come better than the world that was. If you're trying to preserve the way things were (cue sentimental song), you're trying to preserve them against the attacks of someone, and so you get sucked into the culture of victimhood. Conservatives like to decry that but they are themselves among the biggest victims we have.


I'm deeply impressed with this statement. And, though I'd never actually considered it before, this is a perfect analysis. My own, self identified, conservative relatives act in exactly this manner, to the letter.

You think that'll stop the federal government? Clinton didn't commit any crime yet was still investigated. When they couldn't get him for any real crime they went after him for lying about something that isn't a crime. Why? Political gain. Using the courts for smear attacks.

Except the investigations against Clinton were launched by the Republican majority. The Democrats lacked a majority, which means that Republicans were on this too.

I'm deeply impressed with this statement. And, though I'd never actually considered it before, this is a perfect analysis. My own, self identified, conservative relatives act in exactly this manner, to the letter.

Okay, I can't take credit, it's the gist of an article George McGovern wrote in Harper's a year or 18 months ago, combined with another Harper's piece on vicitmhood on the Right. But it is amazingly on point.

Cut taxes and took the war against the Jihadists to their homes.


...so why isnt there troops in Saudi? Why are there less than 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan? Why are you so transparently a troll without a jot of imagination? This, and other questions....

...I think that far worse crimes have been committed than the potential crime that we are talking about here.

O yes. The "black sites", the war in Iraq, giving a congressional medal of honour to Tenent,

But he hasn't been getting competent and loyal. The AG is screwing up left and right. He fired the Treasury Secretary way back...He may value loyalty, but I'm not convinced he can pick enough loyal soldiers for a government of this size. And just maybe the responsibility that he has given to some of his picks has overwhelmed their sense of loyalty to him with a sense of duty to the country. That's why I'm going to reserve further judgment on this until some more facts come out.

No on claimed he wanted competent but you. He cares not for competence, only loyalty. No, you're making judgment already in every post and then claiming "no judgment, waiting for more facts to come out." You're claiming Valerie Plame wasn't covert, which she clearly was. You're also claiming that Scooter isn't guilty, even though he was found guilty on four of five counts. Many of the facts have already come out, you're just doing your best to deny their existence. You're employing the "nuh uh" defense. 999,999 people out of a million say black is black, but you want to believe the one person who says black is white. Have you always been this paranoid? Libby has been found guilty, a republican prosecutor appointed by a republican is not out to get the republicans, and Valerie Plame was covert. Deny it all you want, but it won't change FACTS.

...so why isnt there troops in Saudi? Why are there less than 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan? Why are you so transparently a troll without a jot of imagination? This, and other questions....


O yes. The "black sites", the war in Iraq, giving a congressional medal of honour to Tenent,

To clarify, he was given the congessional medal of freedom which the highest award given to a civilian. The MOH is reserved for heroes, not desk jockey cowards or priveleged sons hising out flying decommissioned auircraft hunting armadillos. But to your others point, bravo. Bush's war on terror is a joke that was abandoned years ago. The memories of those who dies on 9-11-01 (2 friends of mine) have been forever tarnished by this war of conveniece we call Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq because he could. It's like stelaing candy from a store because you know the old guy's in the back and there sure as hell aren't any security cameras. Only now he's learning that not everyone will allow him to get away with it, including those who work(ed) for him. Thank God for people who still have some shred of honor.