Libby Indicted, Resigns

[Alicnwondrln]

If someone from the Bush White House was indicted once a month, they still wouldn't be able to catch up with the 61 indictments from the Clinton Administration.

at least when clinton lied and im not condoning lying over 2000 people didnt die
its funny most dems admit clinton messed up and you repubs spent 60 million on an invertigation about it
bushs team lied and has been indicted but it sok cuz clinton was worse
fitzgerald has spent 750,000 on his investigation nothing near the 60 million starr spent
everytime bush teams messes up guys bring up clinton
its time to get over it

 

[bsnyder]

Well since everyone except Dawn has chimed in about my so called hatchet job (which believe me, was not meant maliciously, and certainly won't go down in the pages of Dis behavior history) I will apologize to the poster if I offended you. To the rest of you, your predictable faux shock ire doesn't affect me one bit. I've heard it all before. I still fail to see where I changed the posts viewpoint unless I missed the part where they were disgusted with the administration. Thanks for actually stating Libby should be punished if guilty (of course the "insert Democrat/Liberal insult of the day" had to follow). No shock . Finally, no, we are not rattled because the investigation is far from over, as the look on Bush's face this morning told us all.

It didn't offend me. ??? And no, it won't go down in DIS history. But you did substantially change the meaning of my post, and it must have been done intentially, because it would have been much easier to leave the entire post instead of cutting parts of the quote out. It's not like the original was a multi-paragraph epic. I can find no other explaination for doing that, other than you wanted to mislead the debate from that point....

I'm not disgusted with the Adminstration - from everything I've read in the indictment, with the exception of one individual (Libby), they all cooperated fully and completely with the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Rats! 3 minutes too late! Enjoy your dinner! I'll be here tomorrow (I'm sure you're thrilled )

Thanks! I did. It's stone crab season here and they were delicous!

 

[MizBlu]

Does anyone else think scooter will work out a plea and sing like a canary?

I do and that's the reason why I think there were 5 indictments.

 

[MizBlu]

Stop the presses! Another Bush "lie":



Don't see anyone on this thread who's saddened, so his use of the word "all" is obviously a lie. Impeach him!

What the hell is this babble about?

 

[MizBlu]

A question for you, that I've never seen asked. Why do you think Joe Wilson waited until July to publish his NYT Op-Ed? If he was so concerned that the White House was "manipulating" the Niger intelligence, in the President's January SOTU speech, why didn't he speak out then and there?

Who cares?

This is over-the-top rhetorical drivel even for you..........and that's saying something.

 

[MizBlu]

If someone from the Bush White House was indicted once a month, they still wouldn't be able to catch up with the 61 indictments from the Clinton Administration.

Too late, Dawn. Someone beat you trying to piggyback 5 indictments for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statement in the process of investigating the outting of a CIA agent with Clinton's "lewinski" in the Oval Office.

So sad, always an also ran.

 

[eclectics]

It didn't offend me. ??? And no, it won't go down in DIS history. But you did substantially change the meaning of my post, and it must have been done intentially, because it would have been much easier to leave the entire post instead of cutting parts of the quote out. It's not like the original was a multi-paragraph epic. I can find no other explaination for doing that, other than you wanted to mislead the debate from that point....

I'm not disgusted with the Adminstration - from everything I've read in the indictment, with the exception of one individual (Libby), they all cooperated fully and completely with the investigation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?



Thanks! I did. It's stone crab season here and they were delicous!

Actually, my only intention was to highlight the two sentences I specifically wanted to reply to. Being not up to snuff in the computer savy area, I suppose I could have underlined or italicized, if I knew how to do it! I had no intention of doing what you suggest. It's quite unnecessary to deliberately alter someones post just to make a point. It was not my plan nor my intention. Believe me, I have a big enough mouth to make my point heard, without resorting to tricks.

No, I have no evidence. The prosecuter might though. It's been hinted that he did have some sort of debateable evidence against Rove and allowed him, unlike Ken Starr, to attempt to refute it. Rove gave him some documents but the prosecuter has not, to this date, made up his mind if it clears him of all wrong doing. We shall see, I suppose. This is far from over, I think.

 

[yeartolate]

Libby will agree to a plea agreement in short order. It is not like he wants to walk onto his new cellblock and say " Hi, my name is Scooter"

 

[bsnyder]

Actually, my only intention was to highlight the two sentences I specifically wanted to reply to. Being not up to snuff in the computer savy area, I suppose I could have underlined or italicized, if I knew how to do it! I had no intention of doing what you suggest. It's quite unnecessary to deliberately alter someones post just to make a point. It was not my plan nor my intention. Believe me, I have a big enough mouth to make my point heard, without resorting to tricks.

No, I have no evidence. The prosecutor might though. It's been hinted that he did have some sort of debateable evidence against Rove and allowed him, unlike Ken Starr, to attempt to refute it. Rove gave him some documents but the prosecuter has not, to this date, made up his mind if it clears him of all wrong doing. We shall see, I suppose. This is far from over, I think.

No problem - I fully accept that your intentions weren't how they appeared to me.

It's been hinted at? By whom? Not by Fitzgerald. He never mentioned debatable evidence againt Rove, not in the indictment or the press conference. That's more gossip reported in the MSM today, and if you haven't noticed, their track record of accuracy on this case has been pathetic.

And if you read the indictment, it sounds like the most damning evidence against Libby is the statements made by numerous Administration officials as to their conversations (and when they took place) with him about Plame. And Fitzgerald pointed out in the press conference that there was nothing illegal or improper about those discussions. If it were only the reporters' testimony that was at odds with Libby's, Fitzgerald would be left with a "he said, she said" case, impossible to prove. The corroberating testimony came from the Administration. Where's the coverup or conspiracy?

 

[bsnyder]

Who cares?

This is over-the-top rhetorical drivel even for you..........and that's saying something.

I know you don't care. You don't care about anything other than nailing Republicans. You proved that with your statements about Ronnie Earle and the Tom Delay indictment.

 

[marybet]

Does anyone else think scooter will work out a plea and sing like a canary?

I don't think he will. I think he lied to protect Cheney because if he told the truth it would all lead back to Cheney, this is JMHO. Bush almost gave Libby a pat on the back today. I think his lies are the reason there were no other indictments, it's a cover up to protect the top dogs.

 

[eclectics]

No problem - I fully accept that your intentions weren't how they appeared to me.

It's been hinted at? By whom? Not by Fitzgerald. He never mentioned debatable evidence againt Rove, not in the indictment or the press conference. That's more gossip reported in the MSM today, and if you haven't noticed, their track record of accuracy on this case has been pathetic.

And if you read the indictment, it sounds like the most damning evidence against Libby is the statements made by numerous Administration officials as to their conversations (and when they took place) with him about Plame. And Fitzgerald pointed out in the press conference that there was nothing illegal or improper about those discussions. If it were only the reporters' testimony that was at odds with Libby's, Fitzgerald would be left with a "he said, she said" case, impossible to prove. The corroberating testimony came from the Administration. Where's the coverup or conspiracy?

Well, your MSM is probably Fox and mine is CNN, so what MSM are you referring? Actually I believe the comments I heard came from Bob Woodward who certainly has his share of credible sources. Let's face it, unless someone leaks some credible tid bit, we just have to wait. I still say looks and actions speak volumes. Bush, who even on his toughest days of criticism, always had a smirk or two on his face. Today we looked at a face of stone. If it were just Libby, he wouldn't look like he saw a ghost. I believe he knows something.

 

[bsnyder]

Well, your MSM is probably Fox and mine is CNN, so what MSM are you referring? Actually I believe the comments I heard came from Bob Woodward who certainly has his share of credible sources. Let's face it, unless someone leaks some credible tid bit, we just have to wait. I still say looks and actions speak volumes. Bush, who even on his toughest days of criticism, always had a smirk or two on his face. Today we looked at a face of stone. If it were just Libby, he wouldn't look like he saw a ghost. I believe he knows something.

I don't think he will. I think he lied to protect Cheney because if he told the truth it would all lead back to Cheney, this is JMHO. Bush almost gave Libby a pat on the back today. I think his lies are the reason there were no other indictments, it's a cover up to protect the top dogs.

Knows what? Protects what?

Fitzgerald already has evidence that Administration officials discussed Plame among themselves, but that there was no crime in them doing that. He was also inequivocal in his statements that his case wasn't in any way, shape or form going to tie into the bigger questions about Iraq and the rationale for the invasion. (the political angle I mentioned earlier, that is really at the heart of the matter, for the Democrats, however much they may piously moan about national security leaks).

What is it you're waiting (hoping) that he could prove?

 

[bsnyder]

I don't think he will. I think he lied to protect Cheney because if he told the truth it would all lead back to Cheney, this is JMHO. Bush almost gave Libby a pat on the back today. I think his lies are the reason there were no other indictments, it's a cover up to protect the top dogs.

More specifically, we already know (from the indictment) that Cheney told Libby about Plame. Where's the cover up? What's the crime?

 

[DawnCt1]

. Finally, no, we are not rattled because the investigation is far from over, as the look on Bush's face this morning told us all.

The investigation of a non crime. The only one who should be investigated is Joe Wilson, who has repeatedly been proven to be a liar.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Are you so rattled and defenseless about todays news that this is what you are spending your time doing? Instead of complaining about someones editing (which by the way, is done with frequency by a lot of people ) maybe we can actually try debating. If you have something to add about the thread topic, I'll be happy to answer you (with your entire post intact)!

Gee, "e", why get so rattled about getting called on practicing your creative editing skills and then try to rationalize it by saying "everyone does it" ). Sort of a sad response.

But you are correct, I do have better things to do today. Taking the kiddos to the zoo, so TTFN!

 

[shortbun]

More specifically, we already know (from the indictment) that Cheney told Libby about Plame. Where's the cover up? What's the crime?

So you think this talk amongst them was for what reason? The real conversation will never be divulged because it was not recorded and...Libby is real glad his notes didn't say more! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they were discussing some way to damage Wilson. Criminal? That's my guess. You think they were talking about who's wife wore better jewelry? Doubt it.

 

[sodaseller]

If someone from the Bush White House was indicted once a month, they still wouldn't be able to catch up with the 61 indictments from the Clinton Administration.

And if Dems had Congress and abused the OIC statute like the idiots did in the late 1990s, there would be far over 61. Have some clue for context before you try to make a point

 

[sodaseller]

More specifically, we already know (from the indictment) that Cheney told Libby about Plame. Where's the cover up? What's the crime?

Logic suggest that the outing was at Cheney's behest. Anyone that followed the war between the OVP and the CIA in that timeframe knows that to be true. Even after all this time, few have understanding of the basic facts

 

[sodaseller]

Knows what? Protects what?

Fitzgerald already has evidence that Administration officials discussed Plame among themselves, but that there was no crime in them doing that. He was also inequivocal in his statements that his case wasn't in any way, shape or form going to tie into the bigger questions about Iraq and the rationale for the invasion. (the political angle I mentioned earlier, that is really at the heart of the matter, for the Democrats, however much they may piously moan about national security leaks).

What is it you're waiting (hoping) that he could prove?

Amazing to see a professional prosecutor with integrity after Starr, isn't it? But that doen't mean the political point is irrelevant, just that it shoudl not be resolved legally. The unmistakable facts remain. Top Adminsitration officials consciously and delibertaely misled the American public as to the state of intelligence to justify war. The CIA resisted those efforts, and Adminsitration officials knowingly outed an agent whose status was classified as part of that war. Those are the fact that beg for a moral judgment