Jump to content

Fin Fang Foom Rubs Karl Rove's NON-Indictment In Everyone's Face


FinFangFoom
This topic is 5990 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

The following statement was issued by Kark Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin:

 

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

 

Kinda starts your day off in a really sucky way, doesn't it?

 

Gleefully yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>Kinda starts your day off in a really sucky way, doesn't it?

>

>Gleefully yours,

>

>FFF

 

OK, I eat it on this one 3F.

But consider what else Turd Blossom and W are doing:

 

* Gas prices are through the roof.

* They've botched an entire war.

* Driven the country into bankrupcy.

* Lost an entire American city.

* Stock market in a tailspin

* And when they pulled out the gay-bashing card, it didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

I have arch conservative friends who dislike Karl Rove. You really have to be out there to be happy about Karl Rove escaping justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You

>really have to be out there to be happy about Karl Rove

>escaping justice.

 

 

You are right about escaping justice. It seems clear that he divulged the name of a CIA operative. He got off on a technicality because it could not be proven that he knew she was under cover.

 

So FFF is rubbing our noses in another right wingers manipulation of justice. Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

> * Gas prices are through the roof.

 

Adjusted for inflation, the prices are lower than during the Carter years.

 

 

> * They've botched an entire war.

 

Puh-leez Louise. The "entire" war? Last time I checked, Saddam was on trial, his psycho sons were dead, Zarqawi is now rotting in hell, there have been two democratic elections, a parliament seated, cabinet officers installed and no one is trying to gas the Kurds.

 

Oh yeah, and the "Arab street" never erupted.

 

 

> * Driven the country into bankrupcy.

 

When exactly did the government default on any of its loans?

 

 

> * Lost an entire American city.

 

I guess you're talking about New Orleans - the Democratically controlled city in the Democratically controlled state that just held city elections - and reelected its incompetent Democrat mayor. Also, if the city were "lost" then there wouldn't have been five teenage savages to shoot the other day. I'd venture to say that if we were going to lose a US city, NO would probably be at the top of the list to say bye bye to.

 

 

> * Stock market in a tailspin

 

A "tailspin"? It was up 48.82 points today - just under 11,000 and up 256 pts from a year ago today. In case you didn't know, and obviously don't know (or just want to lie about it) but for things to be in a "tailspin" they need to be going down - not UP.

 

 

> * And when they pulled out the gay-bashing card, it didn't work.

 

I missed anyting having to do with bashing in the news. But maybe you're merely lying about that too.

 

 

Topically yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You are right about escaping justice. It seems clear that he

>divulged the name of a CIA operative. He got off on a

>technicality because it could not be proven that he knew she

>was under cover.

 

 

Actually, it doesn't and if you have any proof of such you might want to give Fitzgerald's office a call - he'd be interested in what FACTS you have to back that up.

 

And while we're on the "technicality" issue........

 

Fitzgerald has known since essentially Day 1 who leaked Plame's name because Robert Novak TOLD him who his source was. Fitzgerald has never indicted someone for revealing Valerie Plame's identity because she WASN'T undercover and we know that because if she were he would have indicted someone. There's no "technicality" involved. No crime was committed - period.

 

it's really quite simple.

 

So, instead of being upset about someone telling the press that some buffoon's wife sent him to Niger to get him out of the house (and then LIE about her involvement and what he "found" there) how about getting upset about who is leaking national security secrets to the press. Secrets that CAN put Americans' lives in jeopardy - American's who don't appear in double-spreads in Vanity Fair.

 

Publically yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

RE: Debunked falsehoods on CIA leak investigation

 

Gingrich recycled old falsehoods regarding Wilson's trip to Africa

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140005

Link to article with supporting hot links

 

Summary: On Hannity & Colmes, Newt Gingrich falsely claimed that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent on a fact-finding trip to the African country of Niger "because his wife got him the job," that Wilson "implied that [Vice President Dick] Cheney had gotten him the job," and that Wilson "lied about his own report" on the findings of his trip. Media Matters for America has previously debunked each of these falsehoods.

 

On the April 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, former House Speaker and Fox News political contributor Newt Gingrich (R-GA) recycled a series of false claims regarding former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the author of a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed criticizing the Bush administration's use of intelligence information to justify the invasion of Iraq. Gingrich falsely claimed that Wilson was sent on a fact-finding trip to the African country of Niger "because his wife got him the job," that Wilson "implied that [Vice President Dick] Cheney had gotten him the job," which Gingrich said "was a lie," and that Wilson "lied about his own report" on the findings of his trip. Media Matters for America has previously debunked each of these falsehoods.

 

Falsehood: Wilson's wife "got him the job"

 

During a discussion with co-host Alan Colmes, Gingrich asserted that Wilson "got the job to go to Africa because his wife" - then-CIA agent Valerie Plame -- "got him the job." But as Media Matters previously noted, various intelligence officials dispute this allegation. An October 25, 2005, Washington Post article reported that "[t]he CIA has always said ... that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision." As Media Matters also noted, unnamed intelligence officials quoted in the media assert that the CIA -- not Plame -- selected Wilson for the mission to Niger. Further, CIA officials have disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence memo that reportedly indicates that Plame "suggested" Wilson's name for the trip.

 

Falsehood: Wilson "implied" that Cheney sent him to Niger

 

Also during his discussion with Colmes, Gingrich claimed that Wilson "implied that Cheney had gotten him the job" to go to Niger, "which was a lie." But as Media Matters previously noted, Wilson never said that Cheney sent him to Niger. This allegation was first advanced by the Republican National Committee (RNC), which misrepresented Wilson's Times op-ed and distorted a remark he made in an August 3, 2003, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In fact, Wilson clearly stated in the op-ed that "agency officials" had requested he travel to Niger, and during his CNN appearance, he stated it was "absolutely true" that Cheney was unaware he went on the trip.

 

Falsehood: Wilson "lied about his own report"

 

Gingrich also claimed that Wilson "lied about his own report" on the findings of his trip -- a fact-finding mission to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime had purchased uranium from Niger. Gingrich's remarks echo claims made by other conservatives, who have asserted that Wilson misrepresented the findings of his trip in his Times op-ed. But as Media Matters noted, while the CIA report on Wilson's findings is still classified, the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed much of its contents in its 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Pre-War Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." The descriptions contained in the committee's report indicate that the findings and version of events Wilson disclosed to the CIA did not contradict those detailed in his op-ed.

 

From the April 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

 

COLMES: You know, I want to talk about "Scooter" Libby for a second. There's some talk here that the prosecutor is backtracking. That's what some conservatives are saying.

 

And yet, the same story points out that this essential charge is not being undercut here, mainly that Libby told a grand jury that Cheney said he sought Mr. Bush's approval for disclosure of information from the intelligence estimate to Judith Miller.

 

Do you have any doubt that this administration attempted to smear Joe Wilson because of what he was saying?

 

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I don't think telling the truth about Joe Wilson is smearing him. Joe Wilson got the job to go to Africa because his wife got him the job. Joe Wilson lied about it. He implied that Cheney had gotten him the job, which was a lie, and Wilson knew it. Joe Wilson then lied about his own report.

 

And if you look, Alan, at the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis, they said Joe Wilson was not honest and not truthful. So, let's not talk about smearing.

 

COLMES: Now, they did not lie about Joe Wilson. As a matter of fact, Joe -- they lied -- they lied about Joe Wilson, rather. Joe Wilson did not lie about them. They didn't like what he was saying. But you didn't answer my question. Did you have any doubt that there was an attempt to smear him?

 

GINGRICH: But -- they -- how -- wait a second. How is smearing somebody telling the truth? The truth was -- the truth was --

 

COLMES: For outing his wife, letting -- letting them know she was a CIA agent.

 

GINGRICH: No.

 

COLMES: She had a -- she lost her job.

 

GINGRICH: The truth was that Joe Wilson got that assignment because of his wife.

 

COLMES: That's not the truth, Mr. Speaker.

 

GINGRICH: Now, he didn't -- he didn't say --

 

COLMES: With all due respect, she -- they -- she --

 

GINGRICH: She didn't recommend him?

 

COLMES: -- may have mentioned his name, but she couldn't make that decision. She couldn't sign off on it. She couldn't pull the trigger to get him the job.

 

GINGRICH: She -- she wrote a memo -- Alan, she didn't mention it. She wrote a memo recommending him. And Wilson was going around town saying that Cheney was the reason he went there. It was not true.

 

Now, but let's go a step further. I want -- 'cause I do think the president at some point should make a calm, methodical, historic speech outlining what the administration was trying to accomplish, why they were trying to do it, why he thought what he was doing was legal. And I think that the country needs to hear from the president at some point a clear-cut chronology of that period because I do think it's now so confusing, it is so murky, it is so wrapped up in this prosecutor, that it's hard even for people like you and me, who pay a lot of attention to truly follow, day-to-day, what's the real information.

 

COLMES: Joe Wilson said --

 

GINGRICH: And I think the president should tell the country.

 

COLMES: He said the vice president's office. He didn't specifically say Cheney. Is there any doubt that people like Libby in the vice president's office were out to get him and that they got information from Bush and Cheney about him and his wife to try to discredit the things he was saying about the Bush administration?

 

GINGRICH: There's no question that the Bush administration was trying to communicate accurately the background of Joe Wilson, which was different than what Joe Wilson was claiming. Where you and I differ is, I don't think telling the truth about somebody is a smear. And I think when you tell the truth about Joe Wilson, he looks pretty bad.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------

On Fox News, Gibson and WSJ's Pollock served up debunked falsehoods on CIA leak investigation

 

Friday, June 16

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606160007

Link to article with supporting hot links

 

Summary: On Fox News' The Big Story, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Robert Pollock and host John Gibson falsely claimed that "we know" that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald "concluded very early on in his investigation ... that there wasn't a crime committed when somebody revealed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame." As Media Matters for America has noted, Fitzgerald in fact said the opposite -- that he could reach no conclusion about whether the alleged leak was a violation of law because of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's testimony.

 

Discussing recent reports that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has informed White House senior adviser Karl Rove that he does not anticipate pursuing charges against Rove, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Robert Pollock baselessly claimed on the June 14 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson that "we know" that Fitzgerald "concluded very early on in his investigation ... that there wasn't a crime committed when somebody revealed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, when Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of perjury and obstructing the grand jury's efforts to investigate the alleged leak of Plame's identity, Fitzgerald stated that he was unable to determine whether the alleged leak itself constituted a violation of the law. During the program, Pollock and host John Gibson served up various other debunked falsehoods regarding the leaking of Plame's identity.

 

Contrary to Pollock's assertion that "we know" that Fitzgerald "concluded very early on in his investigation ... that there wasn't a crime committed when somebody revealed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame," in an October 28 press release summarizing the indictment, Fitzgerald explained that Libby's testimony had impeded the grand jury's efforts to get to the bottom of the leak:

 

Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson [Plame].

 

In a press conference that same day, a reporter specifically asked Fitzgerald whether the investigation was over and whether the probe would fail to "lead to a charge of leaking." In response to the first question, the special counsel confirmed that the investigation had not concluded. In response to second question, Fitzgerald compared himself to an umpire who, while attempting to determine whether a pitcher intentionally hit a batter, had sand thrown in his eyes:

 

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation, but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

 

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

 

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that.

 

[...]

 

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie [Plame] Wilson. It was done to all of us.

 

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. [Matthew] Cooper [of Time magazine]? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

 

Or did they intend to do something else, and where are the shades of gray?

 

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened, and somebody blocked their view.

 

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

 

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

 

In neither the press release nor the press conference did Fitzgerald assert or suggest that he had concluded that no crimes had been committed in the act of leaking itself.

 

Pollock also falsely claimed that Fitzgerald "asked for his mandate to be expanded so he could look at things like perjury and obstruction," to back up his claim that Fitzgerald did not believe an underlying crime had been committed. In fact, when Fitzgerald was appointed, the Justice Department gave him broad authority to investigate the leaks, and the department never broadened that mandate. The official who appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, stated in a December 30, 2003, press conference that "Mr. Fitzgerald alone will decide ... what prosecutive [sic] decisions to make" and that "he can pursue it [the leak investigation] wherever he wants to pursue it." And in a February 6, 2004, letter to Fitzgerald, Comey further clarified that his delegation included the "authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses."

 

Later in the same edition of The Big Story, Gibson falsely claimed that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV had said that "it was the vice president's office which sent him" to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchased yellowcake uranium from that country. He asserted that Wilson's "secret-agent wife," Plame, "had to be revealed" because "we're entitled to know how Wilson got that mission to Niger." He added that Vice President Dick Cheney was "entitled to say, 'I didn't send that guy to Niger. It was his wife.' "

 

 

As Media Matters has noted, Wilson did not claim that Cheney sent him to Niger. In his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, Wilson stated that "agency officials" had requested that he travel to Niger. Further, during an August 3, 2003, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, he stated it was "absolutely true" that Cheney was unaware he went on the trip. Also, unnamed intelligence officials have been quoted in the media claiming that the CIA -- not Plame -- selected Wilson for the mission. Additionally, CIA officials have disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence memo that reportedly indicates that Plame "suggested" Wilson's name for the trip.

 

From the June 14 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with Gibson:

 

GIBSON: Critics once predicted that Karl Rove would be frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. But now we know that he will not face charges in connection with the investigation into who revealed the name of that CIA agent Valerie Plame. Right now, only Lewis Libby faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Is there any more to this case? Here now, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Robert Pollock. So, is that the end of the frog-marching Karl Rove story or can Joe Wilson and Terry McAuliffe and the rest of them get a little more mileage out of this?

 

POLLOCK: Well, clearly, Karl Rove was the guy they wanted. I mean, he is Bush's political guru, this was the way to do damage to him. It's the end of the story for Karl Rove. But it's not the end of the story for poor Libby, who is facing jail time on very flimsy charges.

 

GIBSON: Well what does it mean, though? I mean, Lewis Libby is facing this trial and it will proceed, but what does it mean that Rove is off the hook? Does it mean that there was nothing to this at all?

 

POLLOCK: Well, that's pretty much precisely what it means. I mean, what we know is that Fitzgerald concluded very early on in his investigation, more than two years ago, that there wasn't a crime committed when somebody revealed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame. He concluded that early on, and he asked for his mandate to be expanded so he could look at things like perjury and obstruction. And he's been having Karl Rove twist in the wind for two and a half years on those kind of, you know, very minor things.

 

[...]

 

GIBSON: Karl Rove, as you have just heard, won't be frog-marched across the White House lawn. Much to the disappointment of Ambassador Joe Wilson. One supposes his wife, former secret agent Valerie Plame, might have something to say about this in her forthcoming book, for which she was to receive a $2.5 million advance. Oops, that deal with Crown Publishers evidently has fell apart. Well, somebody will buy the book, one supposes, especially if she is to renew her husband's demand for Rove to be frog-marched or his head on a stick, or whatever chest-thumping overstatement he's made in the last couple of years of this drama.

 

But it begs the original question. When Joe Wilson went public that he'd been sent to clear up the matter of Niger possibly selling yellowcake to Saddam, and it was the vice president's office which sent him, was the vice president entitled to say, "I didn't send that guy to Niger. It was his wife. And she's in the group of CIA people who are opposed to the president's policy in Iraq"? I think the vice president was entitled to do precisely that. I think we, the public, were entitled to know how Wilson got that mission to Niger, and whatever his secret-agent wife had to do with sending him ought to have been out in the open. If that required revealing that Wilson had a secret-agent wife, well, then so be it, she had to be revealed. But that notion incensed the ambassador. He raged that his wife, mother of his children, had been targeted, political retribution, and Rove is at the bottom of it. So Rove had to be marched off to jail.

 

Joe Wilson was against regime change on Saddam, had been since '91. Once his wife maneuvered to have him sent him off to investigate a key reason for the war, the public certainly had a right to know who sent him and why.

 

She had become a political operator by helping to arrange her anti-war husband for that mission. Would I be wrong to suspect the people who hate Bush and Rove won't let this die? The idea of jailing anybody so close to Bush is just too precious to let it just go away. That is "My Word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I would have more respect for your take on politics, if instead of spouting the party line, you would just be candid and admit what everyone knows; that Rove cannot be indicted because access to the evidence has been blocked by obstructionists, not because he isn't guilty.

Then you could take pleasure from his narrow escape and I wouldn't mind you rubbing it in our faces, but no, you choose to stand behind untruths labeled as truths, and call that justification. Brother, how transparent.

 

Enjoy your pyrrhic victory.

 

Honestly yours.

 

JH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Debunked falsehoods on CIA leak investigation

 

blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

I'm impressed by your cut and paste skills but why don't you choose to cut and paste the parts where the 911 Commission found IN FACT that Wilson's wife DID recommend him for the job and contrary to what he squealed to the NYT, that there IS evidence that Saddam was looking to buy uranium from Niger.

 

The fact is, Wilson is a big fat liar and we know that because (in addition to the fact that he was caught lying) you don't see him joined at the hip with anyone running for office.

 

By the way, just a little update about the economy being in a "tailspin" - the Dow is currently up over 200pts.

 

Would our little friend like to take back the "tailspin" bullshit?

 

 

 

(waiting patiently)

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't think so.

 

Smugly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

RE: Debunked falsehoods on CIA leak investigation

 

I have a better idea, "why don't you...cut and paste" the section or page number of the 9/11 Commission Report which support your unsubstantiated claims that the Commission:

 

>found IN FACT that Wilson's wife DID recommend him for the job

>and contrary to what he squealed to the NYT, that there IS

>evidence that Saddam was looking to buy uranium from Niger.

 

This is yet another Republican/Conservative talking points myth.

 

First of all, you're referring to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, not the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

Second, the the criticism of Joe Wilson in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report was an addendum (signed by Sen. Roberts and 2 other Republicans) which was based upon 2 sentences in a 3-page State Dept. INR memo on why the State Department disagreed with the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa and was considered to be pure speculation and not factually based.

 

----------------------------------------------

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The 9/11 Commission Report

http://politus.blogspot.com/2004/11/911-commission-report.html

 

I finally got around to reading the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the things I was interested in finding was the part that debunked Joe Wilson. After all, I had heard over and over from wingnuts that the 9/11 Commission had "discredited" and "disgraced" Wilson. I know I am coming a bit late to the game, but I wanted to see what the fuss was all about.

 

But, as usual, our friends on the rabid right are not among the reality-based community. The 9/11 Commission Report [ 7.4 MB PDF] never mentions Wilson or the Niger/yellowcake fiasco.

 

Evidently the wingers are confusing the 9/11 Commission report with the Senate Intelligence Committee report about 9/11, two completely different documents. But, the Senate 9/11 Report also did not debunk Wilson. The only criticism of Wilson came from a partisan addendum to the report tacked on by Pat Roberts, Chris Bond, and Orrin Hatch. The political hatchet job addendum took issue with only minor points, such as whether Wilson’s wife had arranged for him to be sent on the mission, and whether he could offer opinions to a reporter about the Niger/yellowcake document since he had never seen it.

 

The addendum never even attempted to dispute Wilson’s main message that 1) The CIA had sent him to check it out, 2) He investigated in Niger, and informed the CIA that it was highly unlikely that Niger had sold yellowcake to Iraq, and 3) He was alarmed that the whole thing ended up in Bush’s laundry list of phony pretenses for war in his State of the Union address. How has Joe Wilson been discredited in the least?

-----------------------

 

Mon, Apr 10, 2006 7:13pm EST

 

Ignoring its own paper and echoing GOP faithful, Wash. Post editorial furthered numerous CIA leak falsehoods

 

Summary: Media Matters for America presents a side-by-side comparison of the claims put forth by an April 9 Washington Post editorial that repeated numerous falsehoods in defense of President Bush's reported authorization of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the corresponding falsehoods forwarded by conservatives and Republicans in the media, and the Post's own reporting -- some of it appearing in the same edition of the paper as the editorial -- that debunks these falsehoods.

 

For the full story: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604100008

 

-----------------------

 

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Setting the spin cycle to full-tilt bug fuck

http://scriptoids.blogspot.com/2005/07/setting-spin-cycle-to-full-tilt-bug.html

 

 

Some of the first-tier wingnuts are really outdoing themselves on the Plame leak. We're going to have to establish another tier, one with bars on the windows and triple barrel-bolt locks on the doors. Maybe some soft padding on the walls and floor.

 

This is the full-tilt bug fuck set-up:

 

If the Special Prosecutor (Fitzgerald) in the Plame leak investigation indicts anybody in the Bush Administration, the fix is in.

 

If Fitzgerald indicts anybody in the media friendly to the Bush Administration, the fix is in.

 

If Fitzgerald indicts nobody, the fix is in.

 

If Fitzgerald indicts Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson for perjury, espionage, treason, spitting on the blessed image of the virgin Bush, and appearing in a Vanity Fair photo spread, then he's done his job right.

 

Just take a quick look at David Horowitz's column: Prosecute Plame: More Treachery in the War at Home.

 

I would say pay attention to the first three or four paragraphs, but it would be more accurate to say pay attention to the first clumps of random letter sequences and punctuation marks that define the white spaces because there is no logic -- and no fact-checking -- in this cyber-vomitus.

 

In Horowitz's writing, both time and space cease to exist. His use of past and present verb tenses makes no sense in relation to the facts (yes, God, actual facts) of who went where and when, who asked what and why, and who said what and where and when and to whom. At times you can't even tell which war he's referring to. Is it the war on terror? The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? Or is it just the grand and glorious Perpetual War That Always Was and Always Will Be.

 

>>>So now we know a lot of the facts. In the midst of a war, a rogue CIA employee named Valerie Plame set out to sabotage the President's war policy -- a policy ratified by both political parties and both houses of Congress. To do this she sent her husband on a mission to Niger to discredit the President's statement that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium there -- in other words to discredit a justification for the war in which Americans were continuing to die.

 

Forget for a moment the treasonous nature of an action designed to undermine a duly arrived at war policy and to destroy the credibility of the commander-in-chief while this nation's soldiers were in harm's way. The mere act of sending a relative on a mission like this was illegal under existing statutes for someone in Plame's position.<<<

 

That's kind of funny: forget the treason, it's the nepotism that really hurts.

 

>>>Her husband, Joseph Wilson, went off to Niger, did no investigation and came back and lied about what he had allegedly discovered. The bi-partisan 9/11 commission concluded that Wilson's claims were false -- a year and half after the damage the Plame-Wilson team intended was already done. [emph added]

 

The Plame-Wilson lie was designed to make the President look like a liar and the nation's democratically and legally arrived at war policy a fraud. This came right at the climax of anti-war primary campaign of Howard Dean in July 2003, just three months after the fall of Baghdad and when the terrorist counter-attack had already begun…. The Plame-Wilson lies … undermine[d] the authority of the commander-in-chief in the eyes of the American people and before the entire world. No psychological warfare campaign ever conducted by an enemy against the United States has been as effetive [sic] as this one.<<<

 

Holy shit! Now, I'm not even going to try to untangle this mess, including Plame's treasonous bitch-succubus time-traveling ability to discredit a president's utterances before he even utters. But surely Horowitz doesn't mean The 9/11 Commission Report: The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

 

I have to assume he means either the White House-appointed Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction [the Robb-Silberman commission], which had nothing nasty to say about Wilson; or the Senate's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Pre-War Intelligence Assessment on Iraq [the Roberts-Rockefeller commission], which also had nothing nasty to say about Wilson.

 

Now, there was a partisan addendum to the Roberts-Rockefeller report, written by Republicans Roberts, Hatch, and Bond. That addendum had to do with, yes, the wifey issue, and also Wilson's consideration of public information in his Niger assessment. Maybe that's what Horowitz is referring to.

 

But, hey, I'm just the reader of his crap -- why should I have to work so hard to try to figure this out?

 

Somehow, though, I doubt the wingnuts put much faith in these reports anyway since they don't accuse Plame and Wilson of perjury, espionage, treason, spitting on the blessed image of the virgin Bush, and appearing in a Vanity Fair photo spread. Nor, of course, do they call for their summary execution.

 

I know, I know. Silly of me to quibble over verb tenses and commission report citations when clearly it's full-tilt bug fucking season. I just have to wait it out until all the bugs have been squashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> * Gas prices are through the roof.

>

>Adjusted for inflation, the prices are lower than during the

>Carter years.

 

On the low point 1977 the average gas price was $1.50(adjusted for inflation, 2006) On the high point 1981 during the Iran-Iraq War the average gas price was $2.50(adjusted for inflation, 2006) April 17th 2006 - TODAY the Average gas price passed the peak price set in 1981 by $.30 Adjusted for inflation, the prices ARE NOT lower than during the Carter years. Sorry.

 

 

>> * They've botched an entire war.

>

>Puh-leez Louise. The "entire" war? Last time I checked, Saddam

>was on trial, his psycho sons were dead, Zarqawi is now

>rotting in hell, there have been two democratic elections, a

>parliament seated, cabinet officers installed and no one is

>trying to gas the Kurds.

>

>Oh yeah, and the "Arab street" never erupted.

 

In order to accurately measure success one needs a meter, there is none set amongst the American people so you usually see people disagreeing on two different debates.

 

 

>> * Lost an entire American city.

>

>I guess you're talking about New Orleans - the Democratically

>controlled city in the Democratically controlled state that

>just held city elections - and reelected its incompetent

>Democrat mayor. Also, if the city were "lost" then there

>wouldn't have been five teenage savages to shoot the other

>day. I'd venture to say that if we were going to lose a US

>city, NO would probably be at the top of the list to say bye

>bye to.

 

I'm sorry, what exactly makes anyone living in any other city better than anyone living in New Orleans? There were some wealthy white republicans there also.

 

>> * Stock market in a tailspin

>

>A "tailspin"? It was up 48.82 points today - just under 11,000

>and up 256 pts from a year ago today. In case you didn't know,

>and obviously don't know (or just want to lie about it) but

>for things to be in a "tailspin" they need to be going down -

>not UP.

 

In order to accurately represent the value of the stock market one must take a sample at least of 3 months if not 52 weeks. Positive or negative an opinion made on a 24 hour are foolish. There are MANY MANY short term factors, basic macro econ.

 

>> * And when they pulled out the gay-bashing card, it

>didn't work.

>

>I missed anything having to do with bashing in the news. But

>maybe you're merely lying about that too.

 

You see I have proven your argument false above and I have yet to call you a liar. Calling your opponent a liar doesn't solidify transparent logic. I can not say for fact but I am sure the gay-bashing card is referring to the gay marriage amendment, which comes up only during the times of elections. Stephen Jones the current president of the Bob Jones University even expressed his concern on how this issue comes up and politicians only make note of the religious conservatives when the time comes for votes.

 

The above is an expression of political views just an expression. I for one could careless about politics. I just like to see valid debates, which for some reason is very hard for democrats and republicans to do. They both always end up acting like 3 year olds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...