MarinerRhodes

Thats a good point. I have a heard other sources via radio that said similar things. There is also the question of the unnamed star in the CIA Wall of Honor (Agents killed in line of Duty) that dates from just after the Plame affair. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Since I cannot prove contrary (for the moment, though I will look) I will retract my earlier statement and say there *might* have been agents killed as a result of this. Again this is the sort of thing that probably remains undisclosed as part of the Libby Indictment. I guess we will find out the truth in due time...

But in all in all its a good catch, thank you for the correction.

In other News...

Bush had just admitted HE was responsible for the leak.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...eak/index.html

I was going to ask Phoenix to explain this but it look like he got banned while I was in the subway. Oh well.

PJ24

I assume you didnt see the news yet, but Bush just confessed. So we now know Bush was involved. Thats going to make his promise "to fire anyone involved" rather interesting...

As for me being bias. Your're right I am, but that doesnt mean I'm wrong. I have had listened to the lies, excuses, nastieness, and complete incompetance from this president for so long it has rendered me incapable of being fair and objective to this president. But thats the presidents fault, not mine. Sooner or later comes a time when you can no longer take a person at his word when he consistantly lies to you. In all honesty, Satan would do a better job as president because at least Satan is competant at what he does.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Bush had just admitted HE was responsible for the leak.

No he didn't. Read the article again.

The court documents do not suggest Bush approved the leaking of the agent's identity.

Nor did Bush admit that he did.

Damn that selective reading! It's weird what blind bias can do.

Originally Posted by PJ24

No he didn't. Read the article again.

Nor did Bush admit that he did.

Damn that selective reading! It's weird what blind bias can do.

No its called reading deeper into something rather that taking things at face value. Don't worry, its an ability not commonly found amongst narrow-minded people.

But essentially you are trying to coinvice me that Bush declassified data with no intention of releasing it? Thats one hell of a coincidence! Please, Thats like saying that if a Bank Manager left the safe open and the front door unlocked, he would not necessary know before hand that the bank would get robbed that night. Even Scooter Libby Says Bush told him to leak the data.

see?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Are you telling me that Bush declassified data with no intention of releasing it? Please!!! Even Scooter Libby says the order to release came directly from Bush. Bush (and mostly likely Cheney) is up to his neck in this.

Show me the proof, that's all I'm saying and have said what? Four times now?

Stop, read, re-read, comprehend what you are reading. Re-read it again without a bias. You will see that at the most it implies is that the POTUS

Court papers released last week said that a former aide to Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified before a grand jury that the vice president told him in 2003 Bush had authorized the release of portions in the National Intelligence Estimate.

Hmm. . I agree with PJ24. Selective reading and comprehension. I guess it depends on what kind of spin you wish to put on it.

I will be home around 1930 EST give or take. Got a racquet ball game or two to play. Give 'er heck boys!!!

MarinerRhodes

Everybody is bias my friend, the difference is unlike some, I can admit it. Anyone who says they are unbias in politics is full of s***.

Exactly, and one of those portions just happened to include the name of a NOC. Otherwise, how else did Novak get Plame name unless somebody told him? Again, I find it very dubious to claim that Bush released the NIE without telling Libby to release Plame's name. Its a little too much of a coincidence for my taste. Thats why Sen Spector is demanding that Bush explain himself, because right now it looks like the POTUS declassified data used solely to discredit a political rival. Bush says it was to explain Iraq situation to the American people, but I think thats baloney. And as Rabs said, if true he should be hung (politically, of course).

PJ24

As for evidence, how about a witness? The fact that Libby is squealing on Bush is pretty damning evidence. This guy was a member of the inner circle, and he is tesitfying against Bush. Thats pretty damning to me. I guess the Administration thought he would be their Ollie North. If you want physical evidence, how about the recently 'discovered' emails (thought deleted) that tie a connection from Cheney to Libby provided by Karl Rove, who is also cooperating with Fitzgerald.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ro...uiry_0327.html

and

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Ro...x_of_1216.html


This is really interesting, you have Rove covering Bush (his Boss) by blaming Cheney, and you have Scooter Libby attacking Bush while deflecting criticism against Cheney (Libbys boss). My Conclusion, they are all in it together. Proof again that this administration is terrible, they cannot even get there own stories streight, its pathetic.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

As for evidence, how about a witness? The fact that Libby is squealing on Bush is pretty damning evidence. This guy was a member of the inner circle, and he is tesitfying against Bush. Thats pretty damning to me. I guess the Administration thought he would be their Ollie North.

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

I could make claims that you killed my dog, doesn't mean you did.

If you want physical evidence, how about the recently 'discovered' emails (thought deleted) that tie a connection from Cheney to Libby provided by Karl Rove, who is also cooperating with Fitzgerald.

And this has what to do with the POTUS?

This is really interesting, you have Rove covering Bush (his Boss) by blaming Cheney, and you have Scooter Libby attacking Bush while deflecting criticism against Cheney (Libbys boss). My Conclusion, they are all in it together. Proof again that this administration is terrible, they cannot even get there own stories streight, its pathetic.

So, this is your conclusion based on your bias opinion of the current admin, you dislike it, therefore, anything is good enough. However, you still have no proof. It is impossible to logically argue this as a settled matter without proof. Sharing your opinion on how you believe things played out is one thing, but trying to spin it is fact just ain't gonna work.

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

Than I guess its a matter of who you trust. My opinion is that the POTUS has an enormous credibilty problem on a whole range of issues, making his word on this issue rather worthless. I'm sure Scooter is a pretty slimey guy too, but right now I take his word over Bush's, until its proven hes a liar.

Here's a question to you, if Scooter did act alone (or without orders) what could he possible hope to gain from it? Wilson didnt name him, and I don't think Scoot would have taken such a risk without some sort of benefit to himself.

I could make claims that you killed my dog, doesn't mean you did.
Doesnt mean I didn't either (BWHAAHAHAHA ).

As for the emails, for what we know they seem to point at Cheney rather than Bush. Again, it all depends on what you believe. Do you think its possible the VP acted without consent of the POTUS? IMHO, Possible, but not very likely. Again the timing is too much of a coincidence, Bush declassifies the data and a short time later Plame's name is in the newspaper. IMHO, Bush had to have known, I dont believe in coincidences like that, espically not in Washington DC.

I'm not spinning that facts, like any police detective I am interpreting them and drawing a conclusion. Perhaps this conclusion is wrong, but thats not spinning. If you got any evidence that might exornate either the POTUS or VP by all means show it, but right now the evidence seems to be against the WH, the question is whether there enough of it to get another indictment.

Continue tommorow, bedtime.

Doesnt mean I didn't either

Careful, I travel heavy with much fire support.

I'm not spinning that facts, like any police detective I am interpreting them and drawing a conclusion. Perhaps this conclusion is wrong, but thats not spinning. If you got any evidence that might exornate either the POTUS or VP by all means show it, but right now the evidence seems to be against the WH, the question is whether there enough of it to get another indictment.

You kinda are. You're trying to make your opinion out to be a factual conclusion. The burden of proof is not on me, nor is it on the POTUS. It's on those accusing him.

Your opinion is that the POTUS authorized it. That's fine, but at this time, there's no proof to say he did, so, we'll just have to wait and see for the real outcome.

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

Than I guess its a matter of who you trust. My opinion is that the POTUS has an enormous credibilty problem on a whole range of issues, making his word on this issue rather worthless. I'm sure Scooter is a pretty slimey guy too, but right now I take his word over Bush's, until its proven hes a liar.

So we now convict and presume guilt based upon allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to due process? Before you start spouting off saying this happened and that happened, based upon other people's guesswork and suppositions, how about waiting to find out exactly what happened when the investigation comes to a close.

I will again point out some of the dubious sources of your claims. One of which (Unconfirmed Source) clearly states (in the subject line when you google it and within the site itself) that it is:

Unconfirmed Sources Online Edition: Political Satire and Humorous News parodies

As for your other source rawstory.com:

The Raw Story is a liberal alternative to the Drudge report, culling news, arts and business reporting from around the world.

My question is what sorts of news are they culling? Just the stuff that agree with their views? How can you take any news source serious if they only put up what they want you to see or what they agree with?

Show me something from a reputable (if there are any left) news source such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN or any other major news network. I may give the "facts" a bit more credibility.

In your LAtimes link did you see this?

The court filing makes no allegation that Bush — who has vowed to fire anyone in his administration who was involved in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame — encouraged or authorized the disclosure of her identity.

Or this?

According to the new court filing, Libby testified to a grand jury that Cheney told him Bush had approved the release of information from the CIA's classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Twice removed? He did it on hearsay without seeking permission or the go ahead from any other source? This is like Marinerhodes getting on the stand and saying mmarsh told him that PJ24 said to kill his dog. See what I am getting at?

On to the other point in that quote, it does not say, nor does it say in any other article I have read, that the POTUS or anyone else told him to leak any information regarding CIA operatives in any shape way or form. I guess he took that upon himself. Which is what his butt is in a sling for now. he is playing who flung the poo to see how far it will go before it hits something it will stick to.


I could sit here and poke more holes in your "reading into things" theory but I am tired and I want my snuggly and my warm bed.

I will say this though:
*whispers*
Sometimes. . . if you look too deep. . . you won't be able to see the forest 'cause all the trees are standing in your way.



Until then I will just think a warm front is moving in from all the hotair blowing around and get out my sunblock and head to the beach.

Note: The above comment is not directed at any members, it is directed at the news media and other outlets that don't know crap from shinola.
Unless they feel it applies, if that is the case you are reading too deep into things.