Libby Indicted, Resigns

[RobinMarie]

Joe Lieberman has supported the war in Iraq and the president on more issues than not. He is too conservative to win the nomination from the Dems as you may have already noticed. He didn't even carry our own state.

I suppose you continue to vote for him then. There are a lot of reasons to not like Lieberman but he is a Democrat.

 

[MizBlu]

I was paying attention, and the relative silence was pretty deafening.

You do realize that Joe Wilson DID lie, right? Or if you would rather use his own words, he "misspoke".

Your selective outrage is rapidly becoming a sideshow.

The problem for those on your side of the aisle isn't that Joe Wilson "lied"

The problem for those on your side of the aisle is that Joe Wilson didn't lie enough.

Bottom line:

The WH goes on a tare trying to smear Joe Wilson which results in 5 indictments for Libby, Bush's support tanks even more, and those on your side of the political aisle are so far out of the political mainstream, you couldn't find it if it bit you in the ***.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1264205

Oh, but I forgot, Bush doesn't follow polls and doesn't do what's popular.

Two words: Harriet Miers. Miers got "bushwacked" because Bush couldn't bring himself to fight for his longtime friend over the objections of the only people who still support him.

Take away Sponge Dob(son) and Bush has nothing left.

And many Republicans, myself included, are not saying "poor Scooter" at all. I think lying to the Grand Jury and the investigators is seriously wrong. If he is indeed guilty of that, he should pay the price.

Whoa, this is refreshing. Most of what we hear from your side is "no underlying crime", "it's technicality", and the smoke screen "Joe Wilson lied".

Rolling eyes, indeed.

 

[sodaseller]

I know why he waited until July, and I suspect you do to. Why don't you take a stab at it?

The timeline of his op-ed has nothing to do with the indictment.

Kristof's piece ran May 6. Break habit - learn the facts

 

[sodaseller]

Logic suggests? That could just as easily read "Democrat fantasy suggests". And Libby is not charged with outing her. The indictment never says outing her was a crime.

Lying to the grand jury certainly is.

And could just as easily read that way, but it wouldn't make sense if it did. Libby did out her, but that likely was not a crime. The question is, wher do supporters stand on that morally, or do Bush supporters have any ethics higher than loyalty? Apparently not

 

[Teejay32]

The Mobile Register actually had an editorial yesterday with the headline "Libby's Plight Began with Joe Wilson's Lies".

That's actually true. It began with Chris Matthews on TV suggesting Libby was the one who ignored Wilson's report to the Vice President's office (who leaks what to whom?) and as we know now, there was no such report. I found that out yesterday and lost any respect I had for this media freak show. When someone wants to investigate CIA leakage I'll know people have begun to take this seriously.

 

[bsnyder]

Kristof's piece ran May 6. Break habit - learn the facts

and the SOTU speech was in January. If he was so concerned, why didn't he start talking to reporters then?

 

[bsnyder]

And could just as easily read that way, but it wouldn't make sense if it did. Libby did out her, but that likely was not a crime. The question is, wher do supporters stand on that morally, or do Bush supporters have any ethics higher than loyalty? Apparently not

Again, spare me your pious outrage. It doesn't fool me or anyone else. Do liberals have any ethics or is it all about their desparate need to regain power and that end justifies the means to get there?

 

[MizBlu]

That's actually true. It began with Chris Matthews on TV suggesting Libby was the one who ignored Wilson's report to the Vice President's office (who leaks what to whom?) and as we know now, there was no such report. I found that out yesterday and lost any respect I had for this media freak show. When someone wants to investigate CIA leakage I'll know people have begun to take this seriously.

On the subject of Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and the rest of the media who can't seem to find their *** with their own hands and a mirror, they also reported that Joe Wilson said Cheney had sent him.

WRONG!

Libby's FIVE indictments have nothing to do with any report from Joe Wison. LIbby's indictments are about perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. As Fitzgerald said, on Friday, he could not determine whether or not laws had been broken regarding the outting of Valerie Plame because people like Libby, through their actions, prevented him from getting to the truth. Hence, FIVE indictment.

And if you think people in this country aren't taking this seriously, you better check some of the latest opinion polls.

 

[MizBlu]

and the SOTU speech was in January. If he was so concerned, why didn't he start talking to reporters then?

Why the hell didn't Bush leave the "uranium from Niger" bull**** out of his SOTU speech as was advised by the CIA instead of just changing it to "British intelligence"?

Yanno, the phony outrage over Joe Wilson seems to be that he didn't prevent the Bush administration from shooting itself in the foot.

 

[MizBlu]

Again, spare me your pious outrage. It doesn't fool me or anyone else. Do liberals have any ethics or is it all about their desparate need to regain power and that end justifies the means to get there?

Fooling you ........spoken by the few, the proud, the 29% who still believe the Bush bull**** about the war and the way it's been conducted.

 

[Teejay32]

It's always best to make federal prosecutors prove their case before accepting accolades MizBlu, and he might yet. But he hasn't yet. Wilson ever screwed over your own candidate for President with his www.restorehonesty.com thing, and still you refuse to see anything wrong with the guy and what he's wrought here. That's too bad, but it's not my problem. The CIA-Wilson project needs investigating.

 

[bsnyder]

Teejay, as I said on another thread - can't you just picture the OUTRAGE over the nepotism involved if Wilson had been a Bush supporter, instead of a Kerry campaign operative, and the WH had sought to protect a CIA agent's covert status by keeping that fact out of the media.

 

[Teejay32]

yes. yes I can.

But the suspicion that the CIA is, or is becoming, a political organization that conducts media campaigns is frightening. It's a non-partisan thing - investigate the whole lot, asap.

 

[MizBlu]

It's always best to make federal prosecutors prove their case before accepting accolades MizBlu, and he might yet. But he hasn't yet. Wilson ever screwed over your own candidate for President with his www.restorehonesty.com thing, and still you refuse to see anything wrong with the guy and what he's wrought here. That's too bad, but it's not my problem. The CIA-Wilson project needs investigating.

I don't give a crap about Joe Wilson. I do, however, give a crap about the outting of a CIA agent whether that agent's name was Plame, Wilson, or Yokenflosum.

This isn't about Joe Wilson no matter how hard those on your side of the aisle try to make it so.

It's about outting a CIA agent that has resulted in FIVE indictments for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Nothing is going to change that no matter how many times you mention Joe Wilson.

And you're damned right the CIA needs to be investigated. The problem with that is the Republican Congress will not do it and Bush already gave a medal to George Tenet.

 

[bsnyder]

I don't give a crap about Joe Wilson. I do, however, give a crap about the outting of a CIA agent whether that agent's name was Plame, Wilson, or Yokenflosum.

Only because he was an Administration critic. If the situation had been the reverse, you'd have supported her outting so fast it would make our heads spin and you'd have been outraged by the nepotism and more importantly, THE COVER UP of that fact.

 

[MizBlu]

Teejay, as I said on another thread - can't you just picture the OUTRAGE over the nepotism involved if Wilson had been a Bush supporter, instead of a Kerry campaign operative, and the WH had sought to protect a CIA agent's covert status by keeping that fact out of the media.

No great surprise the connect-the-dots cronyism in the Bush administration doesn't outrage those on your side of the aisle.

Let me see if I can picture that OUTRAGE..................

 

[MizBlu]

Only because he was an Administration critic. If the situation had been the reverse, you'd have supported her outting so fast it would make our heads spin and you'd have been outraged by the nepotism and more importantly, THE COVER UP of that fact.

This is just more meaningless rhetoric and a lame attempt to justify the fact that a key player in the Bush administration got hit with FIVE indictments.

Which, btw, is the subject of this thread, NOT Joe Wison.

 

[bsnyder]

A question: Did you get any spittle on your monitor writing this?

No. I'm not the one suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, remember?

 

[bsnyder]

yes. yes I can.

But the suspicion that the CIA is, or is becoming, a political organization that conducts media campaigns is frightening. It's a non-partisan thing - investigate the whole lot, asap.

Agreed, but who's going to investigate the media. They're up to their eyeballs in this case.

 

[Teejay32]

I don't give a crap about Joe Wilson. I do, however, give a crap about the outting of a CIA agent whether that agent's name was Plame, Wilson, or Yokenflosum.

This isn't about Joe Wilson no matter how hard those on your side of the aisle try to make it so.

For this side of the aisle, it is and has been all about the CIA and Joe Wilson. Check anything I've said about it; check any threads, anywhere, concerning "Wilson", Plame", "Fitzgerald", leaks", and you'll find this is fact. I think it was you yourself saying you thought the administration "backed into" this one inadvertently, and how does one inadvertently "back into" outing someone: when the other party is on the offensive. How else?

After two years of this kind of scrutiny we should have a definitive answer: was she a covert operative, was protecting her identity a matter of national security? We don't even have that. Why not?