Could it be that the Republicans appointed a special prosecuter that might actually charge someone in the White House with a crime in the CIA outing afffair? Hard to believe it could actually happen. So far this administration has proven it can do anything to the country and its values with zero consequences.
And will Bush actually VETO the Defense bill because John McCain added an amendment that we treat prisoners humanly? The very idea that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield don't support basic human rights even for prisoners is disgusting. They shame us all.
Joe
Noose around the white house?
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
hee hee hee !
'don't normally watch chris mathews on 'hardball' but just now happened to run across it.
the lust - the out and out lust - that is being displayed regarding k rove and s libbey just has my pulse racing!
oh yes - i'm am so low...so filled with hate! disgust! bloodlust! that i am awash with glee! and hope! and self-righteousness!
a 'dna' stained dress has NO comparison - none!
somebody is going down! who knows how far it will go! and the only way i can think to have any of you neo-cons appreciate my ecstasy is bring up 'the dress'. think of the joy! the pure orgiastic exaltation you felt at that moment!
i know, that on a very private and personal level - one you barely acknowledge to yourself - that you understand...you appreciate how this feels, when something - something that one had almost forbidden oneselves to hope for - is on the verge of happening!
oh share with me - share this wonderous moment by responding with something inane...predictable...totally pointless and incomprehensible. you've done it before! be generous! do it NOW! do it ! DO IT for me this one more time! complete this moment for me. just make an ass of yourself!...BARK LIKE A DOG !
WHOA! i think i was channeling that insane MARKEM X dude again! ...must gain control...must not let others see....TOO LATE ! the bizarre has reeeeeeetttttttttuuuuuuurrrrrrnnnnned!!!!!!!!!
'don't normally watch chris mathews on 'hardball' but just now happened to run across it.
the lust - the out and out lust - that is being displayed regarding k rove and s libbey just has my pulse racing!
oh yes - i'm am so low...so filled with hate! disgust! bloodlust! that i am awash with glee! and hope! and self-righteousness!
a 'dna' stained dress has NO comparison - none!
somebody is going down! who knows how far it will go! and the only way i can think to have any of you neo-cons appreciate my ecstasy is bring up 'the dress'. think of the joy! the pure orgiastic exaltation you felt at that moment!
i know, that on a very private and personal level - one you barely acknowledge to yourself - that you understand...you appreciate how this feels, when something - something that one had almost forbidden oneselves to hope for - is on the verge of happening!
oh share with me - share this wonderous moment by responding with something inane...predictable...totally pointless and incomprehensible. you've done it before! be generous! do it NOW! do it ! DO IT for me this one more time! complete this moment for me. just make an ass of yourself!...BARK LIKE A DOG !
WHOA! i think i was channeling that insane MARKEM X dude again! ...must gain control...must not let others see....TOO LATE ! the bizarre has reeeeeeetttttttttuuuuuuurrrrrrnnnnned!!!!!!!!!
garyDevan
Don't bet the ranch on anyone from the administration being charged, much less convicted, of outting a CIA operative. She outted herself years ago when she told Joe Wilson (who had no security clearance) that she was a spy. She hasn't been a spy for more than 7 years, and so the "outting crime" does not apply to her as their is a five year limit (and a foreign assignment) requirements.
She just works for the CIA as an analyst,...she is no longer a covert agent, and has not been one for a long time.
The law/statute does not protect janitors, security guards, groundskeepers, or other employees of the CIA, including analysts.
No crime, no foul. Sorry boys, but keep trying/dreaming.
Marco
PS: Is it possible that Valerie Plame should be charged with OUTTING HERSELF since she outed a CIA spy (herself) when she told JW about her spying career. That would be a neat twist LOL.....let me get the special prosecutor on the phone and see if he'll go for it. What sweet irony that would be LOL.
She just works for the CIA as an analyst,...she is no longer a covert agent, and has not been one for a long time.
The law/statute does not protect janitors, security guards, groundskeepers, or other employees of the CIA, including analysts.
No crime, no foul. Sorry boys, but keep trying/dreaming.
Marco
PS: Is it possible that Valerie Plame should be charged with OUTTING HERSELF since she outed a CIA spy (herself) when she told JW about her spying career. That would be a neat twist LOL.....let me get the special prosecutor on the phone and see if he'll go for it. What sweet irony that would be LOL.
deveil wrote: oh share with me - share this wonderous moment by responding with something inane...predictable...totally pointless and incomprehensible. you've done it before! be generous!
Marco Zee wrote:Don't bet the ranch on anyone from the administration being charged, much less convicted, of outting a CIA operative. She outted herself years ago when she told Joe Wilson (who had no security clearance) that she was a spy. She hasn't been a spy for more than 7 years, and so the "outting crime" does not apply to her as their is a five year limit (and a foreign assignment) requirements.
She just works for the CIA as an analyst,...she is no longer a covert agent, and has not been one for a long time.
The law/statute does not protect janitors, security guards, groundskeepers, or other employees of the CIA, including analysts.
No crime, no foul. Sorry boys, but keep trying/dreaming.
Marco
PS: Is it possible that Valerie Plame should be charged with OUTTING HERSELF since she outed a CIA spy (herself) when she told JW about her spying career. That would be a neat twist LOL.....let me get the special prosecutor on the phone and see if he'll go for it. What sweet irony that would be LOL.
i wouldn't call it your best effort - it seems to lack passion and bluster - but the compassion you show by trying to help out is certainly appreciated
garyNoose around the white house?
Really convoluted jail-house lawyer reasoning, Marco. This is like
saying getting a blow job and lying about it is a high crime and
misdemeanor. Only some CIA officers are undercover. They get
rotated from the field to HQ and sometimes into analytic assignments,
but they stay under cover while here so they can have the possibility
go back to the field in an undercover role. The president said
anyone who had leaked Plame's name to the press would be fired. Two
members of the White House staff have now admitted to doing so: Karl
Rove and Scooter Libby. So....? - Hugh
saying getting a blow job and lying about it is a high crime and
misdemeanor. Only some CIA officers are undercover. They get
rotated from the field to HQ and sometimes into analytic assignments,
but they stay under cover while here so they can have the possibility
go back to the field in an undercover role. The president said
anyone who had leaked Plame's name to the press would be fired. Two
members of the White House staff have now admitted to doing so: Karl
Rove and Scooter Libby. So....? - Hugh
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Nice to be able to joke about it, but let's play a little game of connect the dots and then erase them.Marco Zee wrote:Don't bet the ranch on anyone from the administration being charged, much less convicted, of outting a CIA operative. She outted herself years ago when she told Joe Wilson (who had no security clearance) that she was a spy. She hasn't been a spy for more than 7 years, and so the "outting crime" does not apply to her as their is a five year limit (and a foreign assignment) requirements.
She just works for the CIA as an analyst,...she is no longer a covert agent, and has not been one for a long time.
The law/statute does not protect janitors, security guards, groundskeepers, or other employees of the CIA, including analysts.
No crime, no foul. Sorry boys, but keep trying/dreaming.
Marco
PS: Is it possible that Valerie Plame should be charged with OUTTING HERSELF since she outed a CIA spy (herself) when she told JW about her spying career. That would be a neat twist LOL.....let me get the special prosecutor on the phone and see if he'll go for it. What sweet irony that would be LOL.
Agent is PUBLICLY outed. Its actually worse that her relevant period of activity was years ago. Why? Because foreign operatives now have a conclusive affirmation of identity. All they have to do is see where and when she met with whom--and more than just her identity is at risk. Everyone she met with is now questionable and at risk. Many agents have tangentially died this way.
But let's all hee hee ho ho over that! Almost as funny as decapitated prisoners and disemboweled Iraqis who are guilty of seeking jobs.
marcoHillaryCondieCondie
PS--did you notice the all-time high support for the president's policies? Somewhere in the mid to high30 percent range.
Great Googly-moo!
Marc and Hugh,
So if a politician or someone on his staff outted a current, or in Plame's case a former, covert agent, he should be charged with a crime....in all cases?
Be careful how you answer because one your own ( a huge Dem figure) did just that with a currently covert agent just a few months back and has yet to be charged with a crime...but I know how you guys are sticklers on the law and I'm sure you will insist that ANYONE who outs a covert agent should be charged with a crime IN ALL CASES.
Ms. Plame has been on the cover of a few national magazines,....she doesn't seem too concerned about her former contacts abroad being placed in danger.
As for the polls, they go up and down...i am glad you are feeling happier now that his poll numbers are down.....I guess he won't get re-elected in 2008.....oh well. For presidents whose entire policy is based on polls (ie Clinton) , I guess this would constitute a disaster, but for a real leader, the polls are practically irrelevant.
Bush said that if anyone broke the law by illegally outing a covert agent, that he would deal with them. The statute in question has a very high threshold.....the outing must be intentional, and with malice, of a covert, foreign-based agent within the past five years. Joe Wilson lied to the Senate when he said that his wife did not get him the assignment to Niger. Libby and Rove simply admitted that they too, like the questioning reporters, had also heard what was common knowledge, that Wilson's wife, who worked in the CIA, was primarily responsible for his assignment to Niger. Wilson brought scrutiny by the media upon himself and his wife by writing op-eds in the New York Times and thrusting himself into the political firestorm. If Wilson was so concerned about his wife's ID and all her covert contacts, why was he throwing himself into the public limelight, and lying about his wife's role in getting him the assignment? CIA notes, obtained by the Senate, reveal conclusively that Plame practically demanded that her husband get the job.
So it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Rove or Libby "broke" the law if all they said was that they too had heard what the reporters already knew,.....that Wilson's wife, a current analyst and former covert agent, had gotten him the job because she worked at the CIA.
Marco
So if a politician or someone on his staff outted a current, or in Plame's case a former, covert agent, he should be charged with a crime....in all cases?
Be careful how you answer because one your own ( a huge Dem figure) did just that with a currently covert agent just a few months back and has yet to be charged with a crime...but I know how you guys are sticklers on the law and I'm sure you will insist that ANYONE who outs a covert agent should be charged with a crime IN ALL CASES.
Ms. Plame has been on the cover of a few national magazines,....she doesn't seem too concerned about her former contacts abroad being placed in danger.
As for the polls, they go up and down...i am glad you are feeling happier now that his poll numbers are down.....I guess he won't get re-elected in 2008.....oh well. For presidents whose entire policy is based on polls (ie Clinton) , I guess this would constitute a disaster, but for a real leader, the polls are practically irrelevant.
Bush said that if anyone broke the law by illegally outing a covert agent, that he would deal with them. The statute in question has a very high threshold.....the outing must be intentional, and with malice, of a covert, foreign-based agent within the past five years. Joe Wilson lied to the Senate when he said that his wife did not get him the assignment to Niger. Libby and Rove simply admitted that they too, like the questioning reporters, had also heard what was common knowledge, that Wilson's wife, who worked in the CIA, was primarily responsible for his assignment to Niger. Wilson brought scrutiny by the media upon himself and his wife by writing op-eds in the New York Times and thrusting himself into the political firestorm. If Wilson was so concerned about his wife's ID and all her covert contacts, why was he throwing himself into the public limelight, and lying about his wife's role in getting him the assignment? CIA notes, obtained by the Senate, reveal conclusively that Plame practically demanded that her husband get the job.
So it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Rove or Libby "broke" the law if all they said was that they too had heard what the reporters already knew,.....that Wilson's wife, a current analyst and former covert agent, had gotten him the job because she worked at the CIA.
Marco
Noose around the white house?
Let's see if I can find a formulation that will appeal to the
pinched, mercenary Republican soul: it costs a lot of taxpayer money
to establish a cover name for a CIA officer. There are people whose
full time jobs are to establish such identities (sort of like
identity theft in reverse) complete with social security numbers,
birth certificates, high school diplomas, credit ratings... Now,
there is a qualitative difference between admitting you are
undercover to an individual (prospective spouse) - that person is
going to have to help maintain your cover - and betraying that fact
surreptitiously to the newspapers for narrow partisan reasons. (In
the normal course of business, Plame's true name would not have been
known to those without a need to know - in government circles, she
would be just "Valerie P." or perhaps some other last initial.)
The bottom line for public officials is that they have to follow the
laws - not just the ones they happen to agree with. Civil
disobedience is fine - but do it on your own nickel.
Hugh
pinched, mercenary Republican soul: it costs a lot of taxpayer money
to establish a cover name for a CIA officer. There are people whose
full time jobs are to establish such identities (sort of like
identity theft in reverse) complete with social security numbers,
birth certificates, high school diplomas, credit ratings... Now,
there is a qualitative difference between admitting you are
undercover to an individual (prospective spouse) - that person is
going to have to help maintain your cover - and betraying that fact
surreptitiously to the newspapers for narrow partisan reasons. (In
the normal course of business, Plame's true name would not have been
known to those without a need to know - in government circles, she
would be just "Valerie P." or perhaps some other last initial.)
The bottom line for public officials is that they have to follow the
laws - not just the ones they happen to agree with. Civil
disobedience is fine - but do it on your own nickel.
Hugh
Noose around the white house?
I think there is room for prosecutorial discretion. But there should
be some form of sanction in all such cases: Senator Leahy was booted
from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for revealing
classified information. Something should happen to Senator Orrin
Hatch (loss of committee membership, censure) for running at the
mouth about the fact that we were monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell
phone (guess what? Osama threw his phone away after that one). Rove
and Libby should be fired. No excuses, no splitting hairs about
"what the meaning of 'is' is" - go get richer as lobbyists or something.
The majority of unauthorized disclosures of intelligence sources and
methods are leaks by political appointees. It's really hard to catch
and convict them without going after the reporters they talk to, with
all the constitutional concerns that raises, so I believe there
should be a lot more pulling of security clearances and summary
firings (with less rigorous rules of evidence for these
administrative actions than for criminal prosecution). I am in favor
of prosecution (or a contract "kneecapping"), however, of Bill Gertz
of the Washington Times, who publishes classified documents in their
entirety, gloating over the classification markings. He is no patriot.
Hugh
P.S. Please get it straight, Marco: an officer is under cover or
she is not. Cover persists during analytic assignments to preserve
the possibility of going back into the field. The true name AND FACT
OF ASSOCIATION WITH THE CIA are classified facts that everyone has a
duty to protect.
be some form of sanction in all such cases: Senator Leahy was booted
from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for revealing
classified information. Something should happen to Senator Orrin
Hatch (loss of committee membership, censure) for running at the
mouth about the fact that we were monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell
phone (guess what? Osama threw his phone away after that one). Rove
and Libby should be fired. No excuses, no splitting hairs about
"what the meaning of 'is' is" - go get richer as lobbyists or something.
The majority of unauthorized disclosures of intelligence sources and
methods are leaks by political appointees. It's really hard to catch
and convict them without going after the reporters they talk to, with
all the constitutional concerns that raises, so I believe there
should be a lot more pulling of security clearances and summary
firings (with less rigorous rules of evidence for these
administrative actions than for criminal prosecution). I am in favor
of prosecution (or a contract "kneecapping"), however, of Bill Gertz
of the Washington Times, who publishes classified documents in their
entirety, gloating over the classification markings. He is no patriot.
Hugh
P.S. Please get it straight, Marco: an officer is under cover or
she is not. Cover persists during analytic assignments to preserve
the possibility of going back into the field. The true name AND FACT
OF ASSOCIATION WITH THE CIA are classified facts that everyone has a
duty to protect.
Hugh said: <<P.S. Please get it straight, Marco: an officer is under cover or
she is not. Cover persists during analytic assignments to preserve
the possibility of going back into the field. The true name AND FACT
OF ASSOCIATION WITH THE CIA are classified facts that everyone has a
duty to protect.>>
Hey Hugh, I've got it straight. This lady has not been a foreign covert agent for more than 7 years. She has a political bias, as does her Clinton-appointed husband, and she sent her husband to Niger to "not find" evidence of yellowcake sales to Saddam. And she further encouraged and assisted her husband to write the op-ed piece in the New York Times, thereby thrusting him AND her into the red hot political limelight. Is this what covert CIA agents do routinely?????????
She outted herself with her policy making desires, nepotistic field assignments, and her editorial anti-war commentary with her husband as proxy.
I agree that agents, or even associates of the CIA should not be outted, but this hardly represents a "lone, solitary, hard-working analyst" who was minding her own business when suddenly these political types outted her "for no good reason". These are not the actions of covert agents. If she wants to make policy, let her join the State Department, DOD, a congressional staff, or a lobbying group, but get her out of the CIA, that's NOT their role. And didn't she look lovely on the cover of Vanity Fair?
And the Dem who most recently outted a "true covert agent" last Spring was John Kerry. Do any of you want him "charged" with a crime? He deserves it more than Rove or Libby.
Thanks for all the posts, always enjoyable and thought provoking,
Marco
she is not. Cover persists during analytic assignments to preserve
the possibility of going back into the field. The true name AND FACT
OF ASSOCIATION WITH THE CIA are classified facts that everyone has a
duty to protect.>>
Hey Hugh, I've got it straight. This lady has not been a foreign covert agent for more than 7 years. She has a political bias, as does her Clinton-appointed husband, and she sent her husband to Niger to "not find" evidence of yellowcake sales to Saddam. And she further encouraged and assisted her husband to write the op-ed piece in the New York Times, thereby thrusting him AND her into the red hot political limelight. Is this what covert CIA agents do routinely?????????
She outted herself with her policy making desires, nepotistic field assignments, and her editorial anti-war commentary with her husband as proxy.
I agree that agents, or even associates of the CIA should not be outted, but this hardly represents a "lone, solitary, hard-working analyst" who was minding her own business when suddenly these political types outted her "for no good reason". These are not the actions of covert agents. If she wants to make policy, let her join the State Department, DOD, a congressional staff, or a lobbying group, but get her out of the CIA, that's NOT their role. And didn't she look lovely on the cover of Vanity Fair?
And the Dem who most recently outted a "true covert agent" last Spring was John Kerry. Do any of you want him "charged" with a crime? He deserves it more than Rove or Libby.
Thanks for all the posts, always enjoyable and thought provoking,
Marco
Noose around the white house?
(Ignoring the fact that there is no statute of limitations on cover
status) so you believe whistle-blowers deserve anything they get?
That there is moral equivalence between cooking the intelligence and
standing up for the truth? The Niger/yellowcake story was bogus.
Rove and Libby over-reached and now they are in trouble. Good. - Hugh
status) so you believe whistle-blowers deserve anything they get?
That there is moral equivalence between cooking the intelligence and
standing up for the truth? The Niger/yellowcake story was bogus.
Rove and Libby over-reached and now they are in trouble. Good. - Hugh
noose,ropes...don't be twisting,twisting alone in the wind
from robert d. novak in today's post:
"(for bush) to nominate (harriet meirs) goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect."
AND
"(bush) a president on the ropes"
(that's right! that robert novak!:shock: )
marco,
'hope things are well in your personal part of the world (haven't noticed you around lately).
but dude... you've got to be feeling darn lonely out there on that ledge all by yourself!
hey, any time is a good time for an epiphany! the dems are the inclusive party. come on over...
"(for bush) to nominate (harriet meirs) goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect."
AND
"(bush) a president on the ropes"
(that's right! that robert novak!:shock: )
marco,
'hope things are well in your personal part of the world (haven't noticed you around lately).
but dude... you've got to be feeling darn lonely out there on that ledge all by yourself!
hey, any time is a good time for an epiphany! the dems are the inclusive party. come on over...
garyDevan
Noose around the white house?
"The President would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward for the
most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit
than that of coming from the same state to which he particulary belonged, or
of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the
necessary insignificance or pliancy to render them the obsequious
instruments of his pleasure."
-Alexander Hamilton
in the Federalist Papers.
-Mike
most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit
than that of coming from the same state to which he particulary belonged, or
of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the
necessary insignificance or pliancy to render them the obsequious
instruments of his pleasure."
-Alexander Hamilton
in the Federalist Papers.
-Mike
Noose around the white house?
Thanks, Mike, for the Federalist quote - I've forwarded it to several
people. - Hugh
people. - Hugh
Here's my prediction: No indictments on "outing of a covert agent".
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
Marco
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
Marco
Noose around the white house?
JEB was the one who was supposed to run for President, not his
blacksheep brother.
Democrats should vote en mass for Miers - we won't like whoever gets
nominated instead. (Gee, notice he didn't put up his personal
accountant for Fed chief...)
Make the Republicans whip their troops to defeat her...
It's "naive". - Hugh
blacksheep brother.
Democrats should vote en mass for Miers - we won't like whoever gets
nominated instead. (Gee, notice he didn't put up his personal
accountant for Fed chief...)
Make the Republicans whip their troops to defeat her...
It's "naive". - Hugh
Marco said:
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Joe reply: Lets see process infraction?? Such as lying to the grand jury or federal prosecuter, or purjury or coverup?
This is a joke Marco right? You don't really believe the laws of the land only apply to liberals or non republicans do you?
And Do you honestly believe that anyone indicted should be immediately pardoned? I know Bush's dad pardoned the five people who could have put him in jail for his role in the Iran Contra affair. Maybe you believe that LIE FATHER LIE SON.
You deserve this corrupt administration if you actually believe the things you state in your message. Unfortunately the country and the rest of us do not.
Joe
Here's my prediction: No indictments on "outing of a covert agent".
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
Here's my prediction: No indictments on "outing of a covert agent".
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Joe reply: Lets see process infraction?? Such as lying to the grand jury or federal prosecuter, or purjury or coverup?
This is a joke Marco right? You don't really believe the laws of the land only apply to liberals or non republicans do you?
And Do you honestly believe that anyone indicted should be immediately pardoned? I know Bush's dad pardoned the five people who could have put him in jail for his role in the Iran Contra affair. Maybe you believe that LIE FATHER LIE SON.
You deserve this corrupt administration if you actually believe the things you state in your message. Unfortunately the country and the rest of us do not.
Joe
Here's my prediction: No indictments on "outing of a covert agent".
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
Here's my prediction: No indictments on "outing of a covert agent".
And if there is any indictment of a process infraction, Bush should immediately pardon whoever is indicted, since there was no original crime, ie "outing".
Now what would be very interesting would be if Cheney has to step down. Whoever is chosen to replace him would be the presumptive "favorite" in the 2008 election....just think of the possibilities....Condi, Jeb, Rudy, John McCain, George Allen.....of course my pick would be Jeb. I would love to hear the libs whining endlessly about nepotism and cronyism then.
As for Miers, I think she is just too old....60 years old. Look at Ginsburg, she was 60 when Clinton nominated her, now she is ready to retire after only 12 years. I would much prefer a younger 45-50 year old "proven" staunch conservative like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, or someone along those lines who would be making conservative rulings for the next 20-30 years. I'm available if Bush needs me. Instead, Bush could nominate Miers for a lower court appointment, perhaps taking Roberts' place on the DC Circuit.
As for anyone who believes that Joe Wilson proved or disproved anything substantive from his one week "vacation" in Niger is truly nieve. He didn'
t even write a report of his "findings". And British Intelligence continues to stand by its findings that Saddam was attemping to buy yellowcake in Africa (not just in Niger). But if you think Wilson is the bellweather of "the truth" , be ready for a reality check shortly. Wilson is not a whistle blower. He is simply blowing his own horn, and pushing his (and his wife's) liberal agenda. They should both be fired. Some liberal think tank or the State Department will hire them. By the way, isn't John Edwards working on Wall Street now ( in the "other" America) ?
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Marco--you continue to make rediculous predictions which simply never come to pass. You continue to call "insurgents" the same as "Al-Queda" terrorists.
Let's change the subject a bit.
I believe that most conservative neo-con types generally favor policies which favor the unrestricted accumulation of personal wealth regardless of the costs (a la Aye Rand). Republicans supposedly favor fiscal responsibility and traditionally oppose the growth of public welfare programs.
Now, my personal opinion is that conservative agendas will always necessarily result in institutionalized racism. Conservatives are always trying to legislate religous, sexual and educational behavior. It is for this reason they are always a threat to our personal freedoms, in my opinion.
Now Marco, you are in the medical profession, yes? You are a doctor that specializes in what?
I can't help but think that in the course of your work at area hospitals you must be aware of the entitlement programs which bring poor patients to the hospitals. What is your opinion about these patients, often using welfare funds and adding to the workload of hospitals without the assurance of large, easy paid fees?
marc
Let's change the subject a bit.
I believe that most conservative neo-con types generally favor policies which favor the unrestricted accumulation of personal wealth regardless of the costs (a la Aye Rand). Republicans supposedly favor fiscal responsibility and traditionally oppose the growth of public welfare programs.
Now, my personal opinion is that conservative agendas will always necessarily result in institutionalized racism. Conservatives are always trying to legislate religous, sexual and educational behavior. It is for this reason they are always a threat to our personal freedoms, in my opinion.
Now Marco, you are in the medical profession, yes? You are a doctor that specializes in what?
I can't help but think that in the course of your work at area hospitals you must be aware of the entitlement programs which bring poor patients to the hospitals. What is your opinion about these patients, often using welfare funds and adding to the workload of hospitals without the assurance of large, easy paid fees?
marc
Great Googly-moo!
A Pardon???
A pardon for an allegation???? Despite all of your other views that are harmful to America, this one is really wierd. You see we have a thing in the US called innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is just a charge. If you condone pardoning someone who has merely been indicted then you are arguing against the American Judicial System and the American Way of being innocent until proven guilty. Why do you keep esposuing so many anti-american sentiments Marco? Why do you hate the American Way so much? It's bad enough that you support the killing of our troops in a fools errand. But jeesh Marco, you could believe in at least one American principle as you do live in this country.
Matthew
Matthew
The President has the Constitutional Power of Pardoning whomever he wants.
If Clinton can pardon Mark Rich ( a white collar criminal who fled to Europe to escape prosecution here in the USA) surely Prez Bush has the power to pardon Scooter Libby (who apparently won't be charged with outing a CIA agent (as I ridiculously and correctly predicted Marc) as the Special Prosecutor is supposed to be investigating.)
If Libby is charged with perjury where there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME ( ie "outing"), then lying is not pertinent to any crime, therefore, it should NOT be charged against him. Perjury has the legal requirement to be pertinent to a crime......no crime, no perjury.
It is my opinion that if a Special Prosecutor doesn't find evidence of the "original crime", then he should close up shop and go home. This guy has had two years, and still no "outing" charges on anyone. Go home already. And the President has the power to "reign in" an overzealous prosecutor or Grand Jury, by using the Pardon.
So, IF I were President (what a lovely thought) , I would Pardon Libby, and take the political heat for doing so. Like Matt said he is innocent until proven guilty. Pardoning him maintains his innocence and does not make him guilty.
Likewise, if Bush really wanted Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice, he could have refused to accept her resignation and he could "Recess Appoint" her if the Senate does not want to support her nomination. I would recommend that he nominate Mike Luttig to replace Sandra D. O., but there are other very qualified candidates as well. Miers was a bad choice period, but Bush has the opportunity to "get it right" now with a do-over.
Some will probably ignorantly and cluelessly complain that these are hateful unAmerican actions or recommendations, but if you paid attention in Government 101 and have an IQ above a turnip, it is irrefutable that these are clearly delineated Constitutional powers of the Presidency. Whether it is wise or prudent to use these powers under these particular circumstances is a matter of opinion and debate. So feel free to debate it.
Marco
PS: If I were running the Congress, I would start a Congressional investigation into the political acts of the CIA, who is NOT supposed to make policy or argue policymaking with the Executive Branch.
If Clinton can pardon Mark Rich ( a white collar criminal who fled to Europe to escape prosecution here in the USA) surely Prez Bush has the power to pardon Scooter Libby (who apparently won't be charged with outing a CIA agent (as I ridiculously and correctly predicted Marc) as the Special Prosecutor is supposed to be investigating.)
If Libby is charged with perjury where there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME ( ie "outing"), then lying is not pertinent to any crime, therefore, it should NOT be charged against him. Perjury has the legal requirement to be pertinent to a crime......no crime, no perjury.
It is my opinion that if a Special Prosecutor doesn't find evidence of the "original crime", then he should close up shop and go home. This guy has had two years, and still no "outing" charges on anyone. Go home already. And the President has the power to "reign in" an overzealous prosecutor or Grand Jury, by using the Pardon.
So, IF I were President (what a lovely thought) , I would Pardon Libby, and take the political heat for doing so. Like Matt said he is innocent until proven guilty. Pardoning him maintains his innocence and does not make him guilty.
Likewise, if Bush really wanted Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice, he could have refused to accept her resignation and he could "Recess Appoint" her if the Senate does not want to support her nomination. I would recommend that he nominate Mike Luttig to replace Sandra D. O., but there are other very qualified candidates as well. Miers was a bad choice period, but Bush has the opportunity to "get it right" now with a do-over.
Some will probably ignorantly and cluelessly complain that these are hateful unAmerican actions or recommendations, but if you paid attention in Government 101 and have an IQ above a turnip, it is irrefutable that these are clearly delineated Constitutional powers of the Presidency. Whether it is wise or prudent to use these powers under these particular circumstances is a matter of opinion and debate. So feel free to debate it.
Marco
PS: If I were running the Congress, I would start a Congressional investigation into the political acts of the CIA, who is NOT supposed to make policy or argue policymaking with the Executive Branch.
Marco said:
If Libby is charged with perjury where there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME ( ie "outing"), then lying is not pertinent to any crime, therefore, it should NOT be charged against him. Perjury has the legal requirement to be pertinent to a crime......no crime, no perjury.
It is my opinion that if a Special Prosecutor doesn't find evidence of the "original crime", then he should close up shop and go home. This guy has had two years, and still no "outing" charges on anyone. Go home already. And the President has the power to "reign in" an overzealous prosecutor or Grand Jury, by using the Pardon.
OK, I have to ask...did you say the same think about Clinton denying getting a hummer in the White House? If so, my hat's off to ya'
If Libby is charged with perjury where there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME ( ie "outing"), then lying is not pertinent to any crime, therefore, it should NOT be charged against him. Perjury has the legal requirement to be pertinent to a crime......no crime, no perjury.
It is my opinion that if a Special Prosecutor doesn't find evidence of the "original crime", then he should close up shop and go home. This guy has had two years, and still no "outing" charges on anyone. Go home already. And the President has the power to "reign in" an overzealous prosecutor or Grand Jury, by using the Pardon.
OK, I have to ask...did you say the same think about Clinton denying getting a hummer in the White House? If so, my hat's off to ya'David Bodner