Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Seeie that'sie whereie neoconsie don'tie understandie theie principlesie ofie AMERICANIE democracyie. Yesie, USAsie areie politicalie appointeesie, howeverie, theyie areie supposedie toie checkie theirie politicaiel activitiesie atie theie doorie whenie theyie swearie anie oathie toie protectie andie defendie theie Constitutionie. That'sie whereie theie Bushiesie getie EVERYTHINGIE WRONGIE>> ;-)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sorry, are you involved with our intelligence network in such a way that you would know whether or not "no damage" was done?> Are you? No? Then you don't know what you're talking about, do you? There's no evidence that any damage was done. None. Every major newspaper filed briefs with the court saying that no crime was committed when Mr Armitage gave Mr Novak the name of Ms Plame.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Are you? No?" I didn't make a categorical statement like you did, chief. "There's no evidence that any damage was done." Except of course for the testimony given to Congress. Anyway, I am beginning to see what the scandal might be with the US Attorneys. If some of them were investigating crimes that may have been done by political operatives, and they were fired because of that, then yeah, that's a really big crime.....
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I didn't make a categorical statement like you did, chief.> Yes, you did.
Originally Posted By jonvn I can not believe that anyone who considers themself a patriot would not be hopping made over the Plame thing. We'll see about the Attorney thing. Now that we have an opposition party in Congress, it might actually get investigated.
Originally Posted By jonvn From I think sfgate, or cnn or someplace: "With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists." 94-2. Pretty much everyone is saying that what happened was not good.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<An excellent point, often overlooked by those on the right.>> <Not overlooked. There's simply no evidence it occurred. In fact, there's a considerable amount of evidence that her shell company was compromised several years earlier.> It would be nice if you could provide some, then. #77 doesn't speak to others at the "company" being compromised, and what IS there is weak. "First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons." Hm... the CIA "suspected" - he doesn't say they knew for sure, yet then he turns around and say "so her undercover security was undermined" as though he does know for a fact. That fails logic 101 and even "don't let them see through your bias" Journalism 101. Not to mention that the Russians were not the ones we were primarily concerned with in terms of WMD in 2003, even if they were aware. And if the CIA "suspected" this company had been outed in 1994, why were they still "operating" it in 2003. That makes no sense at all. More from Kristof: "So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc""... Moving away is not "out of." Sorry, Doug, you'll have to do better than that for anything resembling "proof."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>94-2. Pretty much everyone is saying that what happened was not good.<< Is that a consensus?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It would be nice if you could provide some, then.> I did provide some, and mentioned how to find more. <Sorry, Doug, you'll have to do better than that for anything resembling "proof."> I provided more "proof" than anyone on the other side did.
Originally Posted By jonvn What you responded to was me saying you made a categorical statement. Which you did. So you just followed up with yet another lie.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What you responded to was me saying you made a categorical statement.> No, what I responded to was you saying you did not make a categorical statement. Which you did, so you lied. Again. And now you're continuing.
Originally Posted By jonvn Uh huh.... OK, anyway, in yet another outrage, Bush will let Rove and Miers testify, provided they don't have to do it under oath, and without a transcript. How convenient. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/20/national/w150413D53.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/20/national/w150413D53.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Off the record, behind closed door testimony, eh? I think this administration is actively trying to get its approval ratings down to zero to win a bet or something.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <OK, tell me which one you were talking about.> I wasn't talking about one. I was talking about several. Like this one, "There are enormous amounts of things that this adminstration has done, such as outing covert CIA operatives, that are plenty reason enough to get worked up about", and this one, "And she was treated like dirt by this Administration, which endangered our national security over internal politics", and this one, "No one is going after the traitor bob novak for publishing this information, he's just being considered low life for doing it." There's probably a couple more. .
Originally Posted By gadzuux What really galls me about the white house offer is how DEFIANT bush was in his "offer" - essentially, take it or leave it. Fortunately, the investigation is being headed up by senator schumer (one of my personal faves) and he's having none of it. I believe that he WILL issue the subpeonas and then stand back and watch as the administration vainly struggles to claim "executive privilege" - all the while being shown up as the shiftless weasels they are in the glaring light of the world's attention. They must already know that this is coming, and the way I see it they have two choices - sacrifice gonzales, replacing him with a neutral choice and an admission that this is a distraction they really don't need, or trade on their unending shamelessness and try to ride it out. Their support is so low at this point that the rock bottom remainders that are still on board will never waiver. They've already lost the support with anyone who has the ability to reason.
