Noose around the white house?

[Flying Lobster]

Well, here's a case where it's OBVIOUS Clinton is responsible for what is going on!

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton practised a little S&M on the side--or at least in the closet--and thereby set a precedent for the neo-conks (just made that up, sounds like Jeb Bush, don't it?). The principal difference is that Rummie and Wolfie have learned how to institutionalize it, though they have a distinct preferrence for swarthy men with foreign accents and dogs. Go figure.

I have this reliable information based on unimpeachable sources that I found Googling the Internet.

marc

PS--How bout that Abramhoff guy?

[mcelrah]

Marc,
Not sure what your last post is about (Clinton and S&M). Just goes
to show, there's some advantage to including the reference with the
reply...

New subject: one thing that's bothering me is that Bush has given
pre-emption a bad name. North Korea is looking scarier and scarier,
but we've shot our wad. Maybe China will have to be the policeman...

Hugh

[Flying Lobster]

[quote="mcelrah"]Marc,
Not sure what your last post is about (Clinton and S&M). Just goes
to show, there's some advantage to including the reference with the
reply...

New subject: one thing that's bothering me is that Bush has given
pre-emption a bad name. North Korea is looking scarier and scarier,
but we've shot our wad. Maybe China will have to be the policeman...

Hugh[/quote]

"I want Bush and Cheney to whip all the Republican legislators "

[Marco Zee]

Bob Woodward, a liberal superhero if ever there was one, just blew a huge, gaping hole in the Special Prosecutors case against Scooter Libby, according to his press release today.

The unanwered question is "who is his source"?

And when is Joe Wilson ever going to be called to testify? If anyone has been lying in this affair, it's Wilson.

Marco

[deveil]

Bob Woodward, a liberal superhero if ever there was one, just blew a huge, gaping hole in the Special Prosecutors case against Scooter Libby, according to his press release today.

The unanwered question is "who is his source"?

And when is Joe Wilson ever going to be called to testify? If anyone has been lying in this affair, it's Wilson.

Marco

Ummm? well... yeah.
who are the sources?
them thar high 'ministration sources?
it's been two years.
ya know...if they'da come clean from the outset,
well it'd bin all dun with(!)
all we want is a 'straight up and down vote'...dowunchano?

'bout that thar fitzgerald guy...he jes a bush hater, in't he.

[mcelrah]

How so? If a high government official was telling Woodward the same
thing early on, it just shows it was a concerted administration
effort to discredit Wilson. Now Woodward blathered in standard
slimebucket journalistic fashion about Plame not being really
undercover - but that's not his call to make. If I write an e-mail
at work and hit the button to mark it SECRET, then that's what it is
and it's a crime to reveal it. Put 'em all in the pokey!

And what untruth do you imagine Wilson has uttered? Ya think there
really was a yellowcake deal in Niger? - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

Hugh,
This article spells it out nicely: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051116 ... -8066r.htm

Excerpt: <<Truth, as they say, is the daughter of time. It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
Moreover, perjury is not just lying under oath; it is lying under oath about something material. The other counts against Mr. Libby similarly depend upon a material misrepresentation of fact. In this case, the critical fact was that Mr. Libby heard of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment from media, as well as from government, sources. The precise media source is irrelevant.
Mr. Fitzgerald could, of course, insist on proceeding with a criminal trial. However, in the interests of justice, and especially since the identity of a covert agent was not revealed in this case, he should simply drop the prosecution now. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, it is increasingly evident that there is just no there there. >>

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Hugh,
This article spells it out nicely: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051116 ... -8066r.htm

Excerpt: <<Truth, as they say, is the daughter of time. It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
Moreover, perjury is not just lying under oath; it is lying under oath about something material. The other counts against Mr. Libby similarly depend upon a material misrepresentation of fact. In this case, the critical fact was that Mr. Libby heard of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment from media, as well as from government, sources. The precise media source is irrelevant.
Mr. Fitzgerald could, of course, insist on proceeding with a criminal trial. However, in the interests of justice, and especially since the identity of a covert agent was not revealed in this case, he should simply drop the prosecution now. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, it is increasingly evident that there is just no there there. >>

Marco

Not an article, which implies responsible research. An op-ed, as in opinion-editorial. As in firm employed by special interest. As in law firm that works for the republicans. As in Baker & ? What are the odds that this is Howard Baker??

marc

[Flying Lobster]

Found their Website. Not Howard, but definitely big business.

marc

[mcelrah]

Good luck with the lawyers - hope it costs Scooter a megabuck. - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Might be James (the former SECSTATE)... - Hugh

[Flying Lobster]

Might be James (the former SECSTATE)... - Hugh

You're right--that's what I meant. I'm terrible with names.

John

[Marco Zee]

Let's see how many more people are going to come forward and reveal that Wilson was spouting off about his "agency wife" all over town before Fitzpatrick finally realizes that she was no longer covert, not even close, .....outed by her own husband and herself.

So far we have Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, Gen Vallely, and Matt Cooper.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Let's see how many more people are going to come forward and reveal that Wilson was spouting off about his "agency wife" all over town before Fitzpatrick finally realizes that she was no longer covert, not even close, .....outed by her own husband and herself.

So far we have Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, Gen Vallely, and Matt Cooper.

Marco

You forgot Tim Russert.

But there's one itsy teency little bitty thing that you're overlooking.

Libby still perjured himself. he still has to get out of that one. Then we can look into who REALLY started the leak (I'm pretty sure Clinton's behind it). Unless, of course, the precedent has been set to spread all covert agent's identities as long as "somebody" started it--which is certainly a good thing for the nation's security according to your view.

marcoShaken,NotStirred