| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
09 Apr 2006 05:14:44 PM |
| Object: |
A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
An Alex Butterfield Moment
The day the Stonewall crumbled
© Bryan Zepp Jamieson
4/8/06
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp
On Friday the thirteenth of June, 1973, the administrator of the FAA was
asked to appear before the Ervin Committee, which was looking into
whether President Nixon had authorized a coverup of the break-in at the
Watergate Complex a little over a year earlier. They didn't much care
about the White House flight schedule; the administrator had information
of interest to the committee from his old job.
Friday the thirteenth was an unlucky day for Nixon. The committee had
been tipped off by then-reporters Woodward and Bernstein that Hugh Sloan
had told them that Alex Butterfield had probably taped conversations in
the Oval Office on Nixon's behalf. The committee thought it might be
worth asking the FAA administrator about that, since he was the same
fellow who, six months before being promoted out of the White House, had
been doing the taping.
Alex Butterfield, looking unhappy, admitted that tapes did exist of
Nixon's conversations with Erlichman, Haldeman and Dean, and at that
moment, the stonewalling on the Watergate coverup scandal began to
unravel in earnest.
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of the
information the prosecution would have had to provide under the rules of
Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend so much time
sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to embrace them when
it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
In the course of the motion, Fitzgerald's office disclosed that Libby
had made the claim to them that Vice President ***** Cheney had told
Libby "that.President [Bush] specifically had authorized [Libby] to
disclose certain [intelligence] information" about the war in Iraq.
That would be the Plame leak. It would have to be, because that is the
matter central to Libby's pending trial for perjury. He didn't get
indicted for lying about anything else: just the matter of who leaked
Plame's name to the media.
Of course, the WH is playing weasel words with it. Surprise surprise.
They point out that leaking isn't the same as declassifying information,
and that Putsch declassified information rather than leaked. Thus, they
could say they didn't order Libby to leak Plame's name. Of course, they
refused to comment directly on whether Plame was mentioned, because they
"don't comment on ongoing investigations."
The few remaining right wingers (the 35% most brain dead of all
Americans) have jumped gleefully on this loophole, and are pumping it
out in all directions, hoping to confuse the issue.
A second, more disturbing element is that the White House is claiming
that the President has the right to declassify any and all information
as he sees fit. I bet a lot of American agents reading that are thinking
about getting out of intelligence as soon as possible, realizing that
even if this president doesn't betray them on a whim, the next one
might. And this one LIKES to betray people and nations on a whim. The
White House, with its bare face hanging out, is trying to tell the
country that it acted "in the public interest." Simultaneously, it tried
to label reporters and other outsiders who said anything not in the
administration's interests as disloyal and putting the national security
at risk.
The fact of the matter is that no politician has ever leaked anything in
the public interest. Politicians do it in their own interests, and it
usually doesn't involve destroying the careers of intelligence
operatives and the possible loss of lives of other operatives in an act
of political spite because someone had the temerity to tell the truth
during a phony campaign to start a war.
For that act alone, Putsch should spend the rest of his miserable,
worthless life rotting in jail.
The other problem with this "he had the right to leak classified
information because he's the president and the president can do anything
he likes" theory is that it means that no secret is safe for anyone
working in American intelligence. While I'm a strong advocate of
openness in government, I understand the need for secrecy, and don't
want to see it subject to a capricious and immature individual's
judgement - or lack thereof. The president is not the king. He is the
chief administrator. He cannot declassify on a whim.
The GOP koolaid drinkers are doing a remarkable job of abasing
themselves on this one. Having argued (falsely) that Plame's career was
not a secret, and maintained staunchly that the leak may have come from
one of the lower echelon hacks that infest the White House, they are now
confronted with Libby's court papers. So now they are arguing that the
papers didn't show that Putsch was involved with the Plame incident
since the papers don't mention her by name (what else would Libby be
defending himself against a charge of perjury about?), but that the
President has the right to leak her name. Oh, excuse me; it wasn't a
leak. "Declassify her role" is the term they seem to like.
Most damning of all, of course, is Putsch's statement to the media that
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified
information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to
know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." 9/30/03. It's kind of
fun watching the same individuals who spent years raving about how
Clinton WAGGED his FINGER at the American public and said he did not
have sexual relations with that woman try and parse this so it looks
like anything other than a bald, self-serving lie by a weak and foolish
man. They've even noted he didn't say he would punish the leaker,
exactly. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is, I suppose.
The media, of course, tried to downplay it. The pathetic hacks who
populate most of the once proud White House press corps didn't ask a
single question about it the day the story broke, and responded to it
only 24 hours later, when it was obvious to everyone, even the corporate
media, that the story just wasn't going to go away on its own.
But Scott McClellan, a man who could put Ari Fleischer and Ron Zeigler
to shame with his abilities to obfuscate, quibble, and flat-out lie, was
up to the task. Administration critics, he sniffed, "are simply engaging
in crass politics."
At that point, even the AP reporter, no foe to this administration,
started comparing McClellan's credibility to such objects as confetti.
It is the Alex Butterfield moment.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!) http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 04:36:49 PM |
|
|
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of the
information the prosecution would have had to provide under the rules of
Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend so much time
sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to embrace them when
it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble when
they reported it?
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so much
legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her. What
was the real reason?
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air out
your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by what
others say.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 05:19:14 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:83jl32lljb6oon910hbhuskgm935p5jgsk@4ax.com:
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of
the information the prosecution would have had to provide under the
rules of Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend
so much time sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to
embrace them when it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble when
they reported it?
That was different info.
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so much
legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her. What
was the real reason?
Plame's "outing" was yet another event.
You've got three entirely different events confused.
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air out
your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by what
others say.
The "Bushites" aren't the ones who're confused.
YOU have been misled to mix three different events together.
The news media have been playing misdirection on this, mainly to cover
up the fact that there ain't no there there. The Fitzgerald prosecution
of Libby is failing fast. The Washington Post editorial had it right.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
That stink you smell is coming from your own corrupt pals.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you are.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 04:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:83jl32lljb6oon910hbhuskgm935p5jgsk@4ax.com:
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of
the information the prosecution would have had to provide under the
rules of Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend
so much time sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to
embrace them when it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble when
they reported it?
That was different info.
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so much
legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her. What
was the real reason?
Plame's "outing" was yet another event.
You've got three entirely different events confused.
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air out
your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by what
others say.
The "Bushites" aren't the ones who're confused.
YOU have been misled to mix three different events together.
The news media have been playing misdirection on this, mainly to cover
up the fact that there ain't no there there. The Fitzgerald prosecution
of Libby is failing fast. The Washington Post editorial had it right.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
That stink you smell is coming from your own corrupt pals.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-authorized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 06:43:48 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:eb8o321i8t6lun4p30e4plc85bggupqj26@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
wrote in
news:83jl32lljb6oon910hbhuskgm935p5jgsk@4ax.com:
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic
transit gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it
was close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of
the information the prosecution would have had to provide under the
rules of Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend
so much time sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to
embrace them when it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble
when they reported it?
That was different info.
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so
much legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her.
What was the real reason?
Plame's "outing" was yet another event.
You've got three entirely different events confused.
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air
out your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by
what others say.
The "Bushites" aren't the ones who're confused.
YOU have been misled to mix three different events together.
The news media have been playing misdirection on this, mainly to cover
up the fact that there ain't no there there. The Fitzgerald
prosecution of Libby is failing fast. The Washington Post editorial
had it right.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
That stink you smell is coming from your own corrupt pals.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you
are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
How did you get to be so gullible as to cite a source that gives your
game away?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
You. Are. Such. A. LOO-Hoo-hoo-ser.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Libby didn't testify to that.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-
aut
horized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
"Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks
According to papers filed in U.S. Federal Court by Patrick J. Fitzgerald
on Wednesday, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President ***** Cheney’s
former Chief of Staff, has told investigators that he was authorized by
President Bush to divulge to reporters information from the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop
nuclear weapons.
Libby’s testimony to the federal grand jury included the statement that
he had received “approval from the President through the Vice President”
to release portions of the NIE. According to court documents, he also
stated that this type of authorization was “unique in his recollection”.
It was Libby’s understanding that Bush’s allowing the information to be
released in effect declassified the information. Although legal experts
disagree on this authority, Libby stated that it was a White House
lawyer who so counseled him.
This information has come to light due to Fitzgerald’s efforts to
collect information regarding the “outing” of former CIA operative
Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has broad authority to conduct investigations,
as the special prosecutor in the case. Although Libby’s statements
released yesterday may seem inflammatory, it is unknown what effect they
will have on either Vice President Cheney or President Bush."
SUCKER! <raspberries back atcha>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
12 Apr 2006 05:07:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:eb8o321i8t6lun4p30e4plc85bggupqj26@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:83jl32lljb6oon910hbhuskgm935p5jgsk@4ax.com:
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic
transit gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it
was close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of
the information the prosecution would have had to provide under the
rules of Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend
so much time sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to
embrace them when it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble
when they reported it?
That was different info.
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so
much legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her.
What was the real reason?
Plame's "outing" was yet another event.
You've got three entirely different events confused.
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air
out your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by
what others say.
The "Bushites" aren't the ones who're confused.
YOU have been misled to mix three different events together.
The news media have been playing misdirection on this, mainly to cover
up the fact that there ain't no there there. The Fitzgerald
prosecution of Libby is failing fast. The Washington Post editorial
had it right.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
That stink you smell is coming from your own corrupt pals.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you
are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
How did you get to be so gullible as to cite a source that gives your
game away?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
You. Are. Such. A. LOO-Hoo-hoo-ser.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Libby didn't testify to that.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-
aut
horized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
"Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks
According to papers filed in U.S. Federal Court by Patrick J. Fitzgerald
on Wednesday, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President ***** Cheney’s
former Chief of Staff, has told investigators that he was authorized by
President Bush to divulge to reporters information from the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop
nuclear weapons.
Libby’s testimony to the federal grand jury included the statement that
he had received “approval from the President through the Vice President”
to release portions of the NIE. According to court documents, he also
stated that this type of authorization was “unique in his recollection”.
It was Libby’s understanding that Bush’s allowing the information to be
released in effect declassified the information. Although legal experts
disagree on this authority, Libby stated that it was a White House
lawyer who so counseled him.
This information has come to light due to Fitzgerald’s efforts to
collect information regarding the “outing” of former CIA operative
Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has broad authority to conduct investigations,
as the special prosecutor in the case. Although Libby’s statements
released yesterday may seem inflammatory, it is unknown what effect they
will have on either Vice President Cheney or President Bush."
SUCKER! <raspberries back atcha>
GOP shill.
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
12 Apr 2006 05:56:55 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:nhuq32p9vpa1k5mgocm5ub9kp1ahkkl6rm@4ax.com:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
wrote in
news:eb8o321i8t6lun4p30e4plc85bggupqj26@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<...>
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you
are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
How did you get to be so gullible as to cite a source that gives your
game away?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
You. Are. Such. A. LOO-Hoo-hoo-ser.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Libby didn't testify to that.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-
aut
horized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
"Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks
According to papers filed in U.S. Federal Court by Patrick J.
Fitzgerald on Wednesday, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President *****
Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, has told investigators that he was
authorized by President Bush to divulge to reporters information from
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein’s efforts
to develop nuclear weapons.
Libby’s testimony to the federal grand jury included the statement
that he had received “approval from the President through the Vice
President” to release portions of the NIE. According to court
documents, he also stated that this type of authorization was “unique
in his recollection”.
It was Libby’s understanding that Bush’s allowing the information to
be released in effect declassified the information. Although legal
experts disagree on this authority, Libby stated that it was a White
House lawyer who so counseled him.
This information has come to light due to Fitzgerald’s efforts to
collect information regarding the “outing” of former CIA operative
Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has broad authority to conduct
investigations, as the special prosecutor in the case. Although
Libby’s statements released yesterday may seem inflammatory, it is
unknown what effect they will have on either Vice President Cheney or
President Bush."
SUCKER! <raspberries back atcha>
GOP shill.
Sunyata
Donk dupe. What a sucker. And you persist. What a gulliberal.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
13 Apr 2006 04:52:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:56:55 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:nhuq32p9vpa1k5mgocm5ub9kp1ahkkl6rm@4ax.com:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:eb8o321i8t6lun4p30e4plc85bggupqj26@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<...>
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you
are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
How did you get to be so gullible as to cite a source that gives your
game away?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
You. Are. Such. A. LOO-Hoo-hoo-ser.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Libby didn't testify to that.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-
aut
horized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
"Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks
According to papers filed in U.S. Federal Court by Patrick J.
Fitzgerald on Wednesday, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President *****
Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, has told investigators that he was
authorized by President Bush to divulge to reporters information from
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein’s efforts
to develop nuclear weapons.
Libby’s testimony to the federal grand jury included the statement
that he had received “approval from the President through the Vice
President” to release portions of the NIE. According to court
documents, he also stated that this type of authorization was “unique
in his recollection”.
It was Libby’s understanding that Bush’s allowing the information to
be released in effect declassified the information. Although legal
experts disagree on this authority, Libby stated that it was a White
House lawyer who so counseled him.
This information has come to light due to Fitzgerald’s efforts to
collect information regarding the “outing” of former CIA operative
Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has broad authority to conduct
investigations, as the special prosecutor in the case. Although
Libby’s statements released yesterday may seem inflammatory, it is
unknown what effect they will have on either Vice President Cheney or
President Bush."
SUCKER! <raspberries back atcha>
GOP shill.
Sunyata
Donk dupe. What a sucker. And you persist. What a gulliberal.
I hit a nerve there, didn't I? LOL
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
12 Apr 2006 05:07:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:eb8o321i8t6lun4p30e4plc85bggupqj26@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:14 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in
news:83jl32lljb6oon910hbhuskgm935p5jgsk@4ax.com:
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic
transit gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it
was close enough to unravel an administration.
The bombshell appeared in a motion filed by the Special Prosecutor,
Patrick Fitzgerald, which argued that Libby was misinterpreting the
nature of the charge against him (perjury) to that of conspiracy to
commit other crimes, which would have vastly broadened the scope of
the information the prosecution would have had to provide under the
rules of Discovery. (I'm always amazed at how Republicans, who spend
so much time sneering at "legal technicalities," are so quick to
embrace them when it's their butts in the defendant's chair).
If Bush declassified the info, why did reporters get into trouble
when they reported it?
That was different info.
Also, no matter how it was done, or said to have been done, in so
much legalese *****, outing Plame could do nothing but ruin her.
What was the real reason?
Plame's "outing" was yet another event.
You've got three entirely different events confused.
Hey Bushites: You have been listening to too many lies told by Bush
and his clique you don't know truth anymore. Go on a vacation, air
out your mind and think about it, all by yourself, uninfluenced by
what others say.
The "Bushites" aren't the ones who're confused.
YOU have been misled to mix three different events together.
The news media have been playing misdirection on this, mainly to cover
up the fact that there ain't no there there. The Fitzgerald
prosecution of Libby is failing fast. The Washington Post editorial
had it right.
Wake up and smell the stink of their corruption.
That stink you smell is coming from your own corrupt pals.
You are being used by them and you are never going to be allowed
inside.
Suckers.
You're the dupe and you accuse "bushites". What a gullible fool you
are.
How did the Plame outing become three different issues?
How did you get to be so gullible as to cite a source that gives your
game away?
What an obfuscating dolt you are. Nincompoop.
You. Are. Such. A. LOO-Hoo-hoo-ser.
I'm talking about Libby's testimony saying he was given the approval
from the president through the vice president to, among other things
I'm not referring to, expose Plame.
Libby didn't testify to that.
Either Bush ok'd it or Cheny or Libby lied.
If it was declassified, how come it's a "leak" subjecting the leaker
to Bushes "appropriate action"?
http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/index.php/2006/04/11/libby-says-bush-
aut
horized-nie-leaks/
Sucker! <raspberries>
"Libby says Bush authorized NIE leaks
According to papers filed in U.S. Federal Court by Patrick J. Fitzgerald
on Wednesday, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President ***** Cheney’s
former Chief of Staff, has told investigators that he was authorized by
President Bush to divulge to reporters information from the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop
nuclear weapons.
Libby’s testimony to the federal grand jury included the statement that
he had received “approval from the President through the Vice President”
to release portions of the NIE. According to court documents, he also
stated that this type of authorization was “unique in his recollection”.
It was Libby’s understanding that Bush’s allowing the information to be
released in effect declassified the information. Although legal experts
disagree on this authority, Libby stated that it was a White House
lawyer who so counseled him.
This information has come to light due to Fitzgerald’s efforts to
collect information regarding the “outing” of former CIA operative
Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has broad authority to conduct investigations,
as the special prosecutor in the case. Although Libby’s statements
released yesterday may seem inflammatory, it is unknown what effect they
will have on either Vice President Cheney or President Bush."
SUCKER! <raspberries back atcha>
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 12:02:26 PM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
An Alex Butterfield Moment
The day the Stonewall crumbled
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp
<snip>
Alex Butterfield, looking unhappy, admitted that tapes did exist of
Nixon's conversations with Erlichman, Haldeman and Dean, and at that
moment, the stonewalling on the Watergate coverup scandal began to
unravel in earnest.
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
Shrub's plans to nuke Iran could be the last Jack Straw for some
fed up general. For a long time the Abwehr obeyed, but....
Bob Dog
-----
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community
is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological
design. We don't have such a theory right now, and
that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very
hard to know where to direct your research focus."
- Paul Nelson, creationist
and anti-science advocate
"Maybe he needs a new version of the Ten Commandments
-- George W. Bush's Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal...votes.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...country.
Thou shalt not kill...for oil.
Thou shalt not take grammar...in vain."
- Margaret Cho
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 12:33:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
An Alex Butterfield Moment
The day the Stonewall crumbled
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp
<snip>
Alex Butterfield, looking unhappy, admitted that tapes did exist of
Nixon's conversations with Erlichman, Haldeman and Dean, and at that
moment, the stonewalling on the Watergate coverup scandal began to
unravel in earnest.
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
How about, instead of puerile dreams of assassination, you
actually try and support a candidate with some chance of
winning an election? Get off your ***** instead of just crying
because you keep backing losers?
Shrub's plans to nuke Iran could be the last Jack Straw for some
fed up general. For a long time the Abwehr obeyed, but....
You've got some evidence besides moonbat ravings that Bush
is planning to nuke Iran? I know, it makes Bush look bad so
in your world it *must* be true, but how about a little something
for the rest of us?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Moonbat is a political tactic (Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship) |
14 Apr 2006 11:57:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You've got some evidence besides moonbat ravings
http://www.bartcop.com/tt-moonbat.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Moonbat Is A State Of Mind |
16 Apr 2006 09:55:07 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1145033855.148468.269470
@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
You've got some evidence besides moonbat ravings
http://www.bartcop.com/tt-moonbat.jpg
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/04/easter-post.html
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 11:47:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
bg12...@apexmail.com wrote:
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
How about, instead of puerile dreams of assassination, you
actually try and support a candidate with some chance of
winning an election? Get off your ***** instead of just crying
because you keep backing losers?
If Shrub can talk about doing it, so can I.
How about you know what you're talking about before displaying
your ignorance? With three retired generals speaking out - the
rest in silence due to fear of reprisals - and none speaking out
to defend Shrub despite Scott "Brokeback" McLellan's claim to
the contrary.
I'm not the one with the blood of 30,000-200,000 people on my
hands, nor am I the one who lied about illegal weapons, nor am
I the one who discussed bombing Al Jazeera.
And FYI (*) since you have a 5 watt brain, I'm not an American.
How about you sign up for service in Iraq since you approve of it?
We're waiting. Tick, tock, cluck, cluck, tick, tock....
Shrub's plans to nuke Iran could be the last Jack Straw for some
fed up general. For a long time the Abwehr obeyed, but....
You've got some evidence besides moonbat ravings that Bush
is planning to nuke Iran? I know, it makes Bush look bad so
in your world it *must* be true, but how about a little something
for the rest of us?
Well, since you're too cowardly to look for it yourself, jawlock:
http://progressive.org/mag_comm0506
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
Hersh was right about Vietnam and right about Iraq. Shrub has
been wrong about everything. But doubtless you wouldn't have
the courage to call water wet - like your pants are - if Shrub
said it isn't.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
FYI = ***** yourself, imbecile.
Bob Dog
-----
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community
is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological
design. We don't have such a theory right now, and
that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very
hard to know where to direct your research focus."
- Paul Nelson, creationist
and anti-science advocate
"Maybe he needs a new version of the Ten Commandments
-- George W. Bush's Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal...votes.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...country.
Thou shalt not kill...for oil.
Thou shalt not take grammar...in vain."
- Margaret Cho
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 12:19:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
bg12...@apexmail.com wrote:
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
How about, instead of puerile dreams of assassination, you
actually try and support a candidate with some chance of
winning an election? Get off your ***** instead of just crying
because you keep backing losers?
If Shrub can talk about doing it, so can I.
bg, "Shrub" *is* the one who won the election. You're
the one talking crap, he's the one running the country.
Minor difference, no?
How about you know what you're talking about before displaying
your ignorance?
I'll leave that to you, as you seem to have mastered the
art of displaying your ignorance.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 01:29:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
wrote:
bg12...@apexmail.com wrote:
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
How about, instead of puerile dreams of assassination, you
actually try and support a candidate with some chance of
winning an election? Get off your ***** instead of just crying
because you keep backing losers?
If Shrub can talk about doing it, so can I.
bg, "Shrub" *is* the one who won the election. You're
the one talking crap, he's the one running the country.
Minor difference, no?
That doesn't mean that he can break the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 01:34:30 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> said:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
bg12...@apexmail.com wrote:
"Butterfield moment"? Heck, I'm waiting for the "Rommel moment".
July 20th isn't that far off.
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-assassination-attempt.html
How about, instead of puerile dreams of assassination, you
actually try and support a candidate with some chance of
winning an election? Get off your ***** instead of just crying
because you keep backing losers?
If Shrub can talk about doing it, so can I.
bg, "Shrub" *is* the one who won the election. You're
the one talking crap, he's the one running the country.
Minor difference, no?
That doesn't mean that he can break the law.
By definition, he can't break the law:
"FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain
situations, <...> where the president can decide that it's in the
best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not
illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves
something because of the national security, or in this case because of
a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then
the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those
who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise
they're in an impossible position."
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Orr" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 06:11:41 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
An Alex Butterfield Moment
The day the Stonewall crumbled
© Bryan Zepp Jamieson
4/8/06
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp
Three months later, Nixon was gone, resigned in disgrace. Sic transit
gloria mundane.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I love that line!
--
Craig
"Here, Mr. Socrates, drink this hemlock tea.
It's an all-natural herbal supplement."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 05:41:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 05:50:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<sb3j32dij4h3i83gq9h6pli91vhb7lp5pq@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Yes, Libby told us that the President misused the classification system
to make a political point. He told us that the President is as cynical
and manipulative as his harshest critics have said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 09:37:04 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:fr3j32p83qe33egfonloo4otvasuboddhc@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<sb3j32dij4h3i83gq9h6pli91vhb7lp5pq@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Yes, Libby told us that the President misused the classification
system to make a political point. He told us that the President is as
cynical and manipulative as his harshest critics have said.
So, let's recap...
Joe Wilson can reveal partial bits of classified information and *lie*
about it and that's OK, but when the President reveals the rest of that
classified information to set the record straight that's cynical
manipulation.
Gotcha.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 10:27:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 02:37:04 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97A0E636C9C67fstone69@81.174.50.80>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:fr3j32p83qe33egfonloo4otvasuboddhc@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<sb3j32dij4h3i83gq9h6pli91vhb7lp5pq@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Yes, Libby told us that the President misused the classification
system to make a political point. He told us that the President is as
cynical and manipulative as his harshest critics have said.
So, let's recap...
Joe Wilson can reveal partial bits of classified information and *lie*
about it and that's OK, but when the President reveals the rest of that
classified information to set the record straight that's cynical
manipulation.
Gotcha.
Your interpretation of what Joe Wilson did is not the conventional
interpretation, nor is your defense of the President. Of course, I
wouldn't expect anything else from you. Everything the President does is
okay, after all, he says he is a conservative, even if nothing he does
is conservative: big spender, big deficits, warmonger, fake Christian.
Yep. Conservatives gotta protect their own, even when they are total
frauds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 06:18:48 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:jvjj32datl0dg4d2qof2ot2n5q7vu9ffe3@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 02:37:04 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97A0E636C9C67fstone69@81.174.50.80>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:fr3j32p83qe33egfonloo4otvasuboddhc@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<sb3j32dij4h3i83gq9h6pli91vhb7lp5pq@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it
was close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Yes, Libby told us that the President misused the classification
system to make a political point. He told us that the President is
as cynical and manipulative as his harshest critics have said.
So, let's recap...
Joe Wilson can reveal partial bits of classified information and *lie*
about it and that's OK, but when the President reveals the rest of
that classified information to set the record straight that's cynical
manipulation.
Gotcha.
Your interpretation of what Joe Wilson did is not the conventional
interpretation, nor is your defense of the President. Of course, I
wouldn't expect anything else from you.
I'm not "interpreting". I'm telling the truth.
Everything the President does
is okay, after all, he says he is a conservative, even if nothing he
does is conservative: big spender, big deficits, warmonger, fake
Christian. Yep. Conservatives gotta protect their own, even when they
are total frauds.
Yep, libruls gotta protect their own, even when they gotta lie to do it.
And in case you're wondering, no I don't agree with everything the
President does. I just *disagree* with *YOU*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 05:29:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:50:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
You need to listen to Libby.
Yes, Libby told us that the President misused the classification system
to make a political point. He told us that the President is as cynical
and manipulative as his harshest critics have said.
What classification system?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
09 Apr 2006 11:55:46 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
11 Apr 2006 05:34:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:55:46 -0700, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Yep -
APRIL 6--A former top aide to Vice President ***** 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.
If you dummies ever read what you claim - As early as last week, it was leak
authorization, yes, but plame name revelation, no.
You idiots..................you are unreal the way you literally bury
yourselves.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
12 Apr 2006 05:07:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:34:11 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:55:46 -0700, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Yep -
APRIL 6--A former top aide to Vice President ***** 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.
If you dummies ever read what you claim - As early as last week, it was leak
authorization, yes, but plame name revelation, no.
You idiots..................you are unreal the way you literally bury
yourselves.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
GOP shill.
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 10:16:20 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, DanielSan in episode
<4439e3d4$0$15364$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com>...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Better still, the White House has admitted Bush declassified the report as
Libby said he did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=9590b772b9193881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H551220FC
Their defense is "but we didn't tell him to tell anybody!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
10 Apr 2006 11:02:33 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:ZMSdnR07tZdY66fZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@megapath.net:
Previously, on alt.atheism, DanielSan in episode
<4439e3d4$0$15364$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com>...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it
was close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Better still, the White House has admitted Bush declassified the
report as Libby said he did:
Admitted? As if it's something he did wrong?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?hp&ex=
11446416
00&en=9590b772b9193881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H551220FC
Their defense is "but we didn't tell him to tell anybody!"
Defense against what? The lameness of media pronouncements that Bush
"leaked" what he *announced to the world*? Oooh, he "leaked" it two
weeks early by telling Libby, who just happens to be a member of the
White House staff? Or did Libby leak it by telling Miller on background,
who didn't publish it?
What a bunch of gulliberal moonbats.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
14 Apr 2006 10:39:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:16:20 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
Previously, on alt.atheism, DanielSan in episode
<4439e3d4$0$15364$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com>...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Better still, the White House has admitted Bush declassified the report as
Libby said he did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=9590b772b9193881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H551220FC
Their defense is "but we didn't tell him to tell anybody!"
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: April 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 9 — A senior administration official confirmed for the
first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the
declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an
effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the
nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President
***** Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to
release the information to reporters.
The statement by the official came after the White House had declined to
confirm, for three days, Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony that he had
been told by Mr. Cheney that Mr. Bush had authorized the disclosure. The
official declined to be named, because of an administration policy of
not commenting on issues now in court. Confirmation that Mr. Bush
ordered the declassification was published late Saturday by The
Associated Press, which quoted "an attorney knowledgeable about the
case." Once it appeared, the administration official was willing to
confirm its details.
The official responded briefly via e-mail on Sunday to questions from
The New York Times.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the information from an October 2002
National Intelligence Estimate was used by both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney
to bolster their argument that Mr. Hussein posed a threat, and was
trying to reconstitute a nuclear program that was dismantled after the
1991 Gulf War.
The disclosure on Sunday appeared intended to bolster the White House
argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when
he ordered that key conclusions of the classified intelligence estimate
should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr.
Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.
Moreover, the disclosure seemed intended to suggest that Mr. Bush might
have played only a peripheral role in the release of the classified
material and was uninformed about the specifics — like the effort to
dispatch Mr. Libby to discuss the estimate with reporters.
The explanation offered Sunday left open several questions, including
when Mr. Bush acted and whether he did so on the advice or at the
request of Mr. Cheney. Still unclear is the nature of the communication
between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Also unknown is whether Mr. Bush fully
realized what information Mr. Cheney planned to disclose through Mr.
Libby or was aware of the precise use that Mr. Cheney intended to make
of the material.
It has been known that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were focused on the
uranium issue in June 2003, well before Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former
ambassador, wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6,
2003, saying that nothing he had seen on a mission to Niger for the
C.I.A. confirmed that Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium.
If Mr. Bush acted that early, it would suggest that the administration
was growing concerned as evidence emerged that the intelligence was
flawed. But the White House account also appears to separate Mr. Bush
from the involvement in the selective release of the information to a
few reporters, first Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, then Judith
Miller of The New York Times. Both say they met Mr. Libby; neither
authored articles about the disclosure after their meetings.
A separate effort was occurring simultaneously at the White House to
declassify a significant part of the estimate by July 18, 2003. It is
unclear why that process was necessary if Mr. Bush had already
authorized the release of the information.
The disclosure that Mr. Bush had spoken with Mr. Cheney about the
release of material from the intelligence report on Iraq was made in a
legal brief filed last Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special
counsel in the C.I.A. leak case.
Mr. Fitzgerald's brief indicates that Mr. Cheney spoke twice with Mr.
Libby about the leak of information from the intelligence estimate.
Their first conversation took place sometime at the end of June,
according to lawyers with clients in the case. The Washington Post
reported Saturday that Mr. Libby provided information from the estimate
to Mr. Woodward on June, 27, 2003.
Mr. Fitzgerald divulged the White House leak effort as part of his legal
maneuvering to restrict Mr. Libby's access to classified documents for
use in his trial on perjury and obstruction charges. Mr. Libby has
sought the material in an apparent effort to show that he was primarily
focused on the intelligence estimate and might have misspoken when he
was asked during the inquiry about his conversations with journalists
relating to the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A.
officer.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Slip of the Lip Can Sink Shrub's Ship |
14 Apr 2006 04:07:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:39:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:16:20 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
Previously, on alt.atheism, DanielSan in episode
<4439e3d4$0$15364$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com>...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:14:44 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
In the ongoing saga of the Plame Affair, we've just seen Putsch's
"Butterfield Moment." It was on a Wednesday, not a Friday, but it was
close enough to unravel an administration.
You need to listen to Libby.
Like this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
Better still, the White House has admitted Bush declassified the report as
Libby said he did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=9590b772b9193881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H551220FC
Their defense is "but we didn't tell him to tell anybody!"
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: April 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 9 — A senior administration official confirmed for the
first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the
declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an
effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the
nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President
***** Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to
release the information to reporters.
The statement by the official came after the White House had declined to
confirm, for three days, Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony that he had
been told by Mr. Cheney that Mr. Bush had authorized the disclosure. The
official declined to be named, because of an administration policy of
not commenting on issues now in court. Confirmation that Mr. Bush
ordered the declassification was published late Saturday by The
Associated Press, which quoted "an attorney knowledgeable about the
case." Once it appeared, the administration official was willing to
confirm its details.
The official responded briefly via e-mail on Sunday to questions from
The New York Times.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the information from an October 2002
National Intelligence Estimate was used by both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney
to bolster their argument that Mr. Hussein posed a threat, and was
trying to reconstitute a nuclear program that was dismantled after the
1991 Gulf War.
The disclosure on Sunday appeared intended to bolster the White House
argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when
he ordered that key conclusions of the classified intelligence estimate
should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr.
Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.
Moreover, the disclosure seemed intended to suggest that Mr. Bush might
have played only a peripheral role in the release of the classified
material and was uninformed about the specifics — like the effort to
dispatch Mr. Libby to discuss the estimate with reporters.
The explanation offered Sunday left open several questions, including
when Mr. Bush acted and whether he did so on the advice or at the
request of Mr. Cheney. Still unclear is the nature of the communication
between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Also unknown is whether Mr. Bush fully
realized what information Mr. Cheney planned to disclose through Mr.
Libby or was aware of the precise use that Mr. Cheney intended to make
of the material.
It has been known that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were focused on the
uranium issue in June 2003, well before Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former
ambassador, wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6,
2003, saying that nothing he had seen on a mission to Niger for the
C.I.A. confirmed that Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium.
If Mr. Bush acted that early, it would suggest that the administration
was growing concerned as evidence emerged that the intelligence was
flawed. But the White House account also appears to separate Mr. Bush
from the involvement in the selective release of the information to a
few reporters, first Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, then Judith
Miller of The New York Times. Both say they met Mr. Libby; neither
authored articles about the disclosure after their meetings.
A separate effort was occurring simultaneously at the White House to
declassify a significant part of the estimate by July 18, 2003. It is
unclear why that process was necessary if Mr. Bush had already
authorized the release of the information.
The disclosure that Mr. Bush had spoken with Mr. Cheney about the
release of material from the intelligence report on Iraq was made in a
legal brief filed last Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special
counsel in the C.I.A. leak case.
Mr. Fitzgerald's brief indicates that Mr. Cheney spoke twice with Mr.
Libby about the leak of information from the intelligence estimate.
Their first conversation took place sometime at the end of June,
according to lawyers with clients in the case. The Washington Post
reported Saturday that Mr. Libby provided information from the estimate
to Mr. Woodward on June, 27, 2003.
Mr. Fitzgerald divulged the White House leak effort as part of his legal
maneuvering to restrict Mr. Libby's access to classified documents for
use in his trial on perjury and obstruction charges. Mr. Libby has
sought the material in an apparent effort to show that he was primarily
focused on the intelligence estimate and might have misspoken when he
was asked during the inquiry about his conversations with journalists
rela | | | | | |
