Libby accuses Bush of leaking - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
April 10th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
If he authorized the leaking of an under-cover intelligence operative, hang him.
Why? She wasn't undercover, and hadn't been for some time. She took no effort to hide her identity. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good idea to learn all of the actual facts, before getting out the rope on hearsay.
April 10th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
Why? She wasn't undercover, and hadn't been for some time. She took no effort to hide her identity. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good idea to learn all of the actual facts, before getting out the rope on hearsay.
True. It seemed she went nuts all over the place and told every body who she was and where she worked.
April 10th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Here's some irony for you guys: George H.W. Bush (Dubya's daddy) once served as a CIA agent and later became the CIA Director.
--
Boots
April 10th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Here's some irony for you guys: George H.W. Bush (Dubya's daddy) once served as a CIA agent and later became the CIA Director.
What's even more ironic is the fact that GW knows he ain't no god and what he did when he declassified the information and directed the info to be disseminated to the media was questionable at the least and possibly illegal ... he disclosed a CIA asset during time of war (declared or not). It makes no difference that the asset wasn't in the field ... it was still in direct violation of the National Security law he signed ... that does make it an impeachment offense ... whether or not impeachment is sought or not is immaterial ... for all of his vaunted Christian principles, when the chips were down he showed his true colors .. mean spirited and politically motivated even if he has to violate the very laws he swore to defend, just to smear someone who has brought one of his statements into question.

SOOO - let's see some of that Republican concern with defense of our laws ... you were so quick to respond to 'lies' about a sexual encounter with impeachment proceedings ... let's see if you have the same resolve when it's one of your own who has violated national security by uncovering a CIA asset. I doubt very much you will have the integrity to hold GW responsible for his own actions ... you haven't so far.
April 10th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
Why? She wasn't undercover, and hadn't been for some time. She took no effort to hide her identity. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good idea to learn all of the actual facts, before getting out the rope on hearsay.
But the issue isn't that fact that she wasn't undercover, is it? The fact is that Bush made rules and regulations and when it suited him he broke these personally. That is very hard to explain, especially when you are a president, who should be an example of his own legislation. The fact that he down graded the importancy of the information, makes the difference between legal and illegal. But it is still a very akward situation.
April 10th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
*yawn* It's really too bad this little story isn't, in reality, as sensational as the media likes to make it out to be, then some of these overly dramatic replies would make sense. It is also interesting to see the hooks people will bite just because a story happens to vilify a guy they don't like. So much for not being bias, eh?

Well, back to your regularly scheduled unsupported and unproven need for a crucifixion.
April 10th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Wow PJ, we just posted on exactly the same time! That doesn't happen very often...
April 10th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Wow PJ, we just posted on exactly the same time! That doesn't happen very often...
I wanted my post to be first. Damn you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
But the issue isn't that fact that she wasn't undercover, is it? The fact is that Bush made rules and regulations and when it suited him he broke these personally. That is very hard to explain, especially when you are a president, who should be an example of his own legislation. The fact that he down graded the importancy of the information, makes the difference between legal and illegal. But it is still a very akward situation.
But there is no proof, and that's the thing. Everyone is treating this as if there's been some undeniable proof. There isn't. You're all talking about it as if he actually did it, but yet, nobody can prove that he did.

Show me some facts, instead of some guy trying to save his butt, and then we'll talk. Until then, for me, it's a moot point and none of what is being said is valid.

Let's not pretend anyone is concerned about Plame. This is all about politics. If there were concern, hackles would be raised about Fulton Armstrong.

This is another tit-for-tat game the Democrats and Republicans play every time one of their guys isn't in office, and the sheep (that would be the public) bite the hook every time, let them make a big scene and waste tax payer money. But hey, as long as they make the politician you (general you) happen to dislike look bad, it's all good. Not like we have a war or real security issues going on to worry about.
April 10th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
Show me some facts, instead of some guy trying to save his butt, and then we'll talk. Until then, for me, it's a moot point and none of what is being said is valid.
Kind of what I said in an earlier post. Maybe since you have said it they will pay a bit more attention.
April 10th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
But isn't politics the greatest show on earth? I make your guy look bad, you do mine. How many hours can we BS about nothing. Getting excited over miniscule facts... aren't they great games to play? The older I get the less I want to be president of the USA!