^ Despite what the special prosecutor said, Plame's status is still a source of contention for many. And a lot of people, particularly reporters, around Washington knew what Plame did. If she was supposed to be covert, she apparently did a shitty job of it.

And "outmaneuvered" the law? That's what lawyers do every day.

11/26/2007 11:57:44 AM

Quote :

"Despite what the special prosecutor said, Plame's status is still a source of contention for many."

Does many include the CIA? No, it doesn't. They were fairly clear with her status.

Quote :

"After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak. The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status.""

Quote :

"And "outmaneuvered" the law? That's what lawyers do every day."

Sorry, but I think that people should be held responsible for their crimes, especially when it has to deal with national security.

You may be soft on terror, but I'm not.

11/26/2007 12:02:58 PM

Quote :

"Prove that the order came from Cheney. Frankly, I don't believe it."

I think the fact that Libby's sentence got commuted means that something fishy was going on. If it wasn't Cheney, then it was Rove. Either way, Bush pretty much put the whole thing to rest when he kept his buddy from going to jail so now we'll never know the truth.

Zero accountability...

11/26/2007 1:26:23 PM

420, also look for Bush it pardon some big donors before he leaves office, just like every other president.

11/26/2007 1:42:56 PM

I don't really care about that shit, because it's to be expected. But when Bush went on record as saying that he will help find and bring to justice anyone who was involved with the leak, then Libby obstructs the investigation, then Bush commutes his sentence... yeah, I have a problem with that.

11/26/2007 1:45:26 PM

^ok, so what you going to do about it?

11/26/2007 2:02:29 PM

Quote :

"^ok, so what you going to do about it?"

Do you really take no issue with the American president so blatantly spitting in the face of trial by jury? He could have as easily commuted the trial before it ever started, except he waited for it to go to trial and basically told the jury 'fuck you.'

11/26/2007 2:13:59 PM

^I guess im numb to it. It really happens alot for political reasons. Outing Plame, in my opinion, was a mistake and snowballed into a huge political issue.

Please dont pretend to act like this is the first time this has happened. You are just pissed its Bush and up in arms about it now and turning a blind eye to the past.

11/26/2007 2:38:14 PM

Quote :

"Please dont pretend to act like this is the first time this has happened."

Please reference something from the past that was as bad as this.

11/26/2007 2:41:00 PM

The ole, "someone did it in the past, so we might as well ignore it now" argument that the righties fall back on when they have no reasonable argument against ANYONE (right or left) being upset that a politician is above the law.

11/26/2007 2:42:18 PM

^^^ I don't think anyone is turning a blind eye to the past. In the past, if a president screwed up, people bitched. The clearest example is Clinton, who screwed up. But his major screwup wasn't the blow job, it was cooperating with the investigation, testifying under oath. The Whitehouse hasn't testified under oath about a single thing they've been investigated for. They're known for thwarting investigations.

The infuriating aspect about this (and the snow job that was the run-up to the Iraq war) is that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that they are scumbags, but because of them refusing to testify under oath, allowing them to lie freely to the people who supposedly can hold them accountable, they're getting away with it.

There's no other office or citizen in the entire country who can go before a judge and lawyers, not testify under oath, manufacture their own version of reality, and not held accountable for it. Even among presidents, this rarely happens (Bush is the only one I know of, but that's due primarily to my age).

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 2:44:11 PM

Quote :

"Please dont pretend to act like this is the first time this has happened. You are just pissed its Bush and up in arms about it now and turning a blind eye to the past."

Jesus Christ, learn to debate or stay the hell out of threads like this if you're going to use that stupid argument so frequently.

11/26/2007 2:52:20 PM

Quote :

"Please reference something from the past that was as bad as this. "

Hendrick was among 59 people pardoned by Clinton on Friday, including four from North Carolina and three from South Carolina. The others are:


Robert Owen Wilson of Mooresville, convicted in July 1980 of mail fraud.

Thomas Edward Nash Jr. of Asheville, convicted in 1988 for conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce.

James Lawrence Swisher of Greensboro, convicted in July 1977 of obstruction of a criminal investigation.

Charles Yonce Jr. of Edgefield, S.C., convicted in 1988 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting.

Michael Lynn Weatherford of Laurens, S.C., convicted in 1986 of aiding and abetting interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

James William Rogers of Moncks Corner, S.C., convicted in 1982 of conspiracy to commit racketeering.

There are a couple examples 420.

Moron, "snow job leading to Iraqi invasion" jesus are you serious? The snow job that started all the way back in the clinton admin? Look it was a mistake, not a lie, not a ploy to eat babies. We ALL thought they had them, including the past admin.

Now, back to plame. Honestly what is the big deal here? I really dont like defending the bush admin, but you guys holding on to this bullshit is about as bad as the repubs going after clinton for a BJ, except ONE broke the law. IMHO

11/26/2007 3:12:00 PM

Quote :

"Moron, "snow job leading to Iraqi invasion" jesus are you serious? The snow job that started all the way back in the clinton admin? Look it was a mistake, not a lie, not a ploy to eat babies. We ALL thought they had them, including the past admin. "

Do you remember all that went on before the Iraq invasion? All the criticisms against the Bush admin for "secret evidence" the apparently couldn't even show congress? The reports from weapons inspectors that they couldn't find anything? And Powell's blatantly ridiculous presentation to the UN?

I distinctly remember my position at the time was "if Bush is telling the truth, then we should invade" but the reason I had the position was because the Bush admin at the time was saying "we have definite evidence it exists, but we can't reveal it because it would compromise security." Well, that evidence never actually existed, and at the MINIMUM, was far, far less definite than they made it out to be.

Not to mention all the issues with the nebulous ties to terrorism, than the right was on board for, that also turned out to be false or greatly exaggerated. You're delusional if you don't see it as a ploy and a lie. As you mentioned earlier, this is part of politics.

Why is there so much cognitive dissonance on this issue? Politics in the US will never move forward until people are able to get past things like that.

Quote :

"Now, back to plame. Honestly what is the big deal here? I really dont like defending the bush admin, but you guys holding on to this bullshit is about as bad as the repubs going after clinton for a BJ, except ONE broke the law. IMHO "

Do you not see the circular reasoning here? Clinton broke the law, because he testified under oath. Bush and no one in Bush's staff of consequence EVER testified under oath. By the very set up of the situation, it would have been impossible for the whitehouse to have broken the law, because they never actually faced the law. The legal system is not perfect, and the Bush admin, on this issue, somehow was able to exploit it. This doesn't mean he should be ignored or forgiven.

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 3:18:20 PM

Quote :

"Politics in the US will never move forward"

11/26/2007 3:19:08 PM

Moron to be honest I dont remember the "secret evidence" idea being thrown around. I do remember powell's address at the UN, which was based on faulty intel we had apparently. I still dont believe we just went to war for the hell of it. I think it was a mistake. Why do you think we went?

Back to your clinton and lying under oath arguement. Who are you mad at? You expect there to be a judge with a bible every time someone asks a question? Do you think clinton wanted to testify under oath? Shit no. Get mad at the dems for not forcing them to testify, or just accept the fact that thier isnt enough evidence to do just that. Thats my point. Get mad about something relevant. Clinton's BJ wasnt relevant until he lied under oath.

Please, please, PLEASE dont assume Im a bush fanatic. I think he has done a horrible job. Attack on some of those issues im in your corner, but not this BS.

11/26/2007 3:55:09 PM

Quote :

"You expect there to be a judge with a bible every time someone asks a question?"

i brought this up in another tread (or maybe back on page 1, i don't remember), but it would make sense to me that if the President, or his Press Secretary speaking on his behalf, are speaking to the public or to reporters, they should be held accountable to the same level as if they were under oath.

I realize this is not legally true and never will be - i'm just saying I wish this was the way it was.

11/26/2007 4:21:35 PM

eyedrb, did you even read my previous posts? First of all, I don't care about when a president pardons all his friends. That's just something that happens. Reagan did it, Bush Sr. did it, Clinton did it, and Bush Jr. will do it. I don't care about that. It's one of the perks of the job.

What I did say, however, is that Libby's sentence was directly connected to the investigation of the Plame case. Prior to the conviction, Bush said that he would find out who leaked the name and deal with it accordingly. Well, the American public never got to find out who was behind this whole plot because Libby obstructed the investigation. He then got sentenced and Bush commuted his sentence, thereby removing any possible shred of accountability the administration has come close to actually taking blame for during Bush's entire time in office. Libby was supposed to take the fall for all of them and they ended up catching him before anything ever happened. This was supposed to be much, much bigger than all the people Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan pardoned put together to me, and they weaseled out of it the same way they've weaseled out of anything that places blame on them. If there was true transparency on what really goes on behind the closed doors of the White House, I can guarantee that Bush would be impeached in a day but because they bend the law and manipulate the American people like they do, they've gotten away with it thus far.

11/26/2007 5:33:06 PM

^420, how in the world can you say that "outing" a CIA operative, which could have just been a mistake, is worse than the combination of the criminals pardoned before? Did you see some of the list I gave you?

You have a great point with the "find who did this and take care of them" statement bush said, then pardons the guy covering it up. Great point, but then you spout out that crap.

11/26/2007 6:28:51 PM

Quote :

"how in the world can you say that "outing" a CIA operative, which could have just been a mistake, is worse than the combination of the criminals pardoned before?"

How can you possibly make the assertion that this was a mistake?

Quote :

"You have a great point with the "find who did this and take care of them" statement bush said, then pardons the guy covering it up. Great point, but then you spout out that crap."

If you would answer my point the first time I bring it up instead of changing the subject, maybe I wouldn't have to spew all that crap to get you to listen.

11/26/2007 6:34:47 PM

Quote :

"Moron to be honest I dont remember the "secret evidence" idea being thrown around. I do remember powell's address at the UN, which was based on faulty intel we had apparently. "

Thanks to the Internet, it's all set in stone: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=iraq+evidence&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2002&as_hdate=2002&lnav=d3&ldrange=1990,1999&hdrange=2003,2006 news archives from 2002

Quote :

"Do you think clinton wanted to testify under oath? Shit no."

Absolutely he didn't want to testify under oath. But he was made to somehow (I honestly don't remember how). Just the same way someone who robs a liquor store doesn't want to go to jail, or somehow who lies to an entire country continually doesn't want to be found out.

11/26/2007 6:46:34 PM

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview broadcast Sunday that he did not realize Plame was a covert agent when he discussed her with syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

"There was no ill intent on my part, and I had never seen, ever in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo," he said.

Oh, about the courts: A federal judge in Washington recently dismissed a lawsuit by the couple against Rove, Armitage, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

MOVE ON!!!! There was NO crime committed

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 6:48:19 PM

Quote :

"Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview broadcast Sunday that he did not realize Plame was a covert agent when he discussed her with syndicated columnist Robert Novak."

Oh, you mean kinda like how the President told the American people he would do everything he could to find the leaker and bring them to justice? Honestly, I don't believe one word that comes from this administration anymore.

11/26/2007 6:51:25 PM

^jesus. Well there was my reason for thinking it could have just been a mistake, just like you asked. Whether you choose to believe it or not, is entirely up to you.

11/26/2007 7:00:21 PM