No.
Posted by John B. at October 19, 2005 12:12 PMNo.
Posted by euzoius at October 19, 2005 12:19 PMNo.
Posted by benjoya at October 19, 2005 12:24 PMCheney was running an operation out of the EOB about which Bush knew little, and wanted to know less.
It's called The United States of America.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at October 19, 2005 12:31 PMthe only people that will believe are those who want a 'faith-based' Presidency, ie, they don't care what the facts are, they just want to believe...
which is yet another reason why Religion and Politics should not mix.
Posted by David W at October 19, 2005 12:33 PMI believe anything they pay me to believe.
Posted by trollsareus at October 19, 2005 12:52 PMThe Media has noticed a pronounced distancing between Cheney and Bush lately. Normally Cheney would have already been dispatched to the Russert-type gab-fests to prop up the nose-diving Bush ratings. But Dirty Mouth Dick has been absent. This could simply be a falling out amongst thieves, a fit of pique by Bush, or a purposefull move away from a dirty, dirty scandal. I don't think that Bush can move far enough away from his *vice-president* to escape the clear connection in this outrage. There are no two more hateful men in government that Cheney and Bush, and concocting a plan to smash Wilson is totally in their character. The reports that Bush was mad at Rove, not because of the deed, but because of the sloppy nature of it, leads me to believe that the plan started with Bush and Cheney and went down to their immediate underlings, then down the branches from there. I'm thinking the evidence shows that as well. The question, as I posted recently, is does Fitz have the balls and the case to bring down the White House?
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2005 12:57 PMI think this is where Bush's well-known stupidity has its advantages. Everyone figures Cheney was the puppet master anyhow, so the true believers will have no trouble believing Bush is oblivious. The mystery is how they think that translates into George as the intrepid leader.
There is no logic to human beings...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 12:57 PMi'm waiting for the logical next step--Bush to come out and announce that he's been leading the investigation all along, and it was *his* plan to out the conspirators!
Posted by David W at October 19, 2005 01:06 PManother tidbit coming out of the RawStory well is the indication that Judy Miller was purely operating as a mouthpiece for the WHIGS,even a participant. Now we see the picture: New York Times reporter gains access (don't ask) to inner circle of White House Iraq war scam, brings in Chalabi, writes all the lies and b.s. down in a story and then, courtesty of the Editor of the NYTimes, feeds it to the nation.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2005 01:11 PM"The question is does Fitz have the balls and the case to bring down the White House?" T2
Bring it down. We can't afford 3 more years.
"We'll have no way of knowing how solid Raw Story's reporting here really is, until we see what Fitzgerald comes out with." That about says it. Raw Story mentions a person or persons that are "familiar with the case” gosh Wally that could be any LLL blogger or “recognized expert” floating around here on tera firma. At least the story is at the right site, it is definitely raw. iamcoyote, how many "well known stupid" people do you know have MBAs or have flown in fighter jets? Yes he only got C's but he did that when a C still meant something. Also I could not envision the Air Force letting a Moron, Rube, Idiot, Dimwit at the controls of a fighter aircraft. Say what you want but I respect anybody that could fly those early super-sonic aircraft. But then I guess Bush (like me) doesn't have your advanced education or military training that allows you to sit in judgement. You know I forgot but where did you go to college?
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 19, 2005 01:24 PMI'm wondering if Bush/Rove is not a little unhappy about the Iraqi's delaying Saddam's trial until Thanksgiving Day? Seems to me a big Saddam Show Trial would be just the thing to keep the Media/Press occupied while Fitz hands down indictments.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2005 01:26 PMcyber smuck you and the other chimp apologists are full of shit,...
Posted by headxray at October 19, 2005 01:30 PMhow many "well known stupid" people do you know have MBAs or have flown in fighter jets?
It's amazing what they'll let you do when your daddy is GHW Bush.
Posted by ann at October 19, 2005 01:31 PMWell, I see that no one has done a Pujols on this, so,
What will happen to the garden now that the Wurmser has turned!!!!????
Posted by Duckman GR at October 19, 2005 01:34 PMCyber Sarge, Bush got DQ'd from flying after several years for failing his physical requirements on a plane that was being phased out, and yet you want to respect a guy because he can fly? Bush is no Chuck Yeager.
As for MBAs, a legacy admission to an MBA school means squat, and several of his professors said he mailed it in while he was there.
Bush isn't stupid; he's intellectually lazy. There is a big difference.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 19, 2005 01:39 PMIt's amazing what they'll let you do when your daddy is GHW Bush.
to be fair, at the time dubya got into yale, HW was just a congressman, IIRC. Granddad (US Senator Prescott Bush) was a yale trustee, though. that probably didn't hurt.
Posted by benjoya at October 19, 2005 01:44 PMJosh Marshall has an excellent read on this subject today. He considers it the "scoop of the day." He says the reporter who gave this latest tidbit is in an especially strategic position to know what he's writing about. Check it out.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006782.php
Posted by onhoth2o at October 19, 2005 01:45 PMHow many fighter pilots are downed because they're too drugged up to fly? Or they just don't bother to show up for training? Or are only allowed to fly in the back seat because they were grounded because they refused the flight physical?
As for dummies who have "flown in a fighter jet," I'm sure, in the USAF, you've seen lots of them in your 20 years, right? Even Katie Couric has flown back seat. And how many of your former USAF buddies laughed their asses off when Bush pranced on the flight deck in his too-tight flight suit?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 01:45 PMIn re: expectations, I think you should expect Iran-Contra II. Libby is this round's Poindexter, Fitzgerald this version's Walsh (except without the special-prosecutor powers and hence without the final report).
As a result, those gearing up for more than a formalized hara-kiri ceremony starring Scooter are likely to be quite disappointed.
It'd be nice to see Libby flip, Cheney testify under oath and all parties involved admit the unvarnished truth about what happened, but that simply isn't going to happen.
Posted by wcw at October 19, 2005 01:48 PMThis story, along with all of the other news we have enjoyed this week, is surely the beginning of the Rapture. However, it all depends upon what Fitz decides to do with the steaming pile. It is up to one man to decide whether to hang the lying bastards, or let them walk. Just scary folks.
He is not a politician, and regardless of the shit that would hit the fan if he doesn't indicte, he is not up for election. Let's just hope his price is more than the scum at the WH can pay.
Posted by tempus at October 19, 2005 01:49 PMSarge is obviously trained to obey and respect his superior officers, which is why he's a.) a perfect wingnut and b.) willfully ignorant of the writing on the wall.
you can parse out what you want Sarge, but let's see what you have to say after Fitz makes his case--after all, shouldn't you also be about 'Law and Order?'
we will wait and see--I, for one, will admit that I was misled by my 'Liberal bias' if Fitzgerald doesn't have a case--will you do the same if the opposite occurs?
Posted by David W at October 19, 2005 01:50 PMJust incidentally, the following quote from the article really caused me a double-take:
Wurmser [...] has according to Raw Story flipped along with Cheney and Bolton staffer Jon Hannah...
Goodness. When did Cheney flip?
-fred
Posted by Fred Fnord at October 19, 2005 01:52 PMWhat will happen to the garden now that the Wurmser has turned!!!!????
I believe that would have warranted a sound gonging!
Posted by Chuck Baris at October 19, 2005 01:58 PMCyber Sarge,
A quick request if you don't mind. Please sign in with a valid email addy. I'd hate to lose touch with you after the indictments come down and you dissappear.
Posted by Simp at October 19, 2005 02:13 PMcyber sarge, just for the record: what a C meant when bush was at Yale and Harvard is that you showed up most of the time for class.
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 02:29 PMActually, Cyber Sarge sounds like a guy with a similar name on the aol message boards. He's basically a nuisiance.
As for Cheney attending the WHIG meetings, that surprises me. He's usually distances himself from operations like that while involving himself intimately from a distance. If he showed up a few times, it was his arrogance leading to a kind of recklessness that seems to permeate the Bush administration. I remember his speeches from August of 2002; he was way over the top. It's possible he was deliberately being over the top so that Bush could appear to be the more reasonable one or it's possible he was simply way out in front of the other ideologues in the administration.
I really wonder how far a Republican president has to go before Republicans in Congress are willing to impeach one of their own?
Posted by Doug at October 19, 2005 02:35 PMI really wonder how far a Republican president has to go before Republicans in Congress are willing to impeach one of their own?
I was very young when Watergate went down, but were there diehards like Cyber Sarge who supported Nixon to the end?
Posted by ann at October 19, 2005 02:38 PMann, Poppy Bush was one of the last to turn against him, I believe.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 02:50 PMIf you really want to feed your indictment frenzy check this out
Posted by Norm Jenson at October 19, 2005 02:53 PMann, absolutely there were diehards who supported nixon until the very end (pat buchanan was one).
i recommend, if you'd like to read a close to real-time account, tony lukas' "nightmare," which has terrific detail by the kind of old-fashioned reporter we don't see much of anymore.
anyhow, just to give you a feeling, what finally put nixon over was when barry goldwater came to see him (along with republican senate leader hugh scott and republican representative hugh rhoades). this conversation took place:
"I have a decision to make," (Nixon) added. "What i need to do is get your appraisal of the floor."
"Mr. President," said Goldwater, "if it comes to a trial in the Senate, i don't think you can count on more than fifteen votes."
"And no more than ten in the House, John?" Nixon asked.
"Maybe more, Mr. President, but not much more."
And ann, for your knowledge, this was after the house judiciary committee had voted to impeach, and then new recordings were released, which made it crystal clear to even the most diehard, that nixon was guilty as charge. Some of the judiciary republicans who had voted against impeachment wanted to change their vote, but Rodino told them "the train has left the station."
So even at the very, very end, yes, there were diehards, and frankly, for quite a while, Nixon's approval sat in the 30s....
Denial is a powerful force.
PS. As best as i can tell, there isn't a single senator in the republican party who has the integrity today that barry goldwater showed then.
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 02:55 PMer, sorry ann, "john" rhoades, not "hugh" rhoades. why don't i preview?
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 02:56 PMSo this is now sounding like Fitzgerald got the two
original leakers. Just how did he get these guys?
It really makes me wonder if Novak just told him
straight out.
Hey, Howard, thanks. I just checked it out on amazon and it looks like a good read!
Posted by ann at October 19, 2005 03:24 PMann, you made me go look at the amazon review myself, and it's right on the money.
btw, lukas' "common ground," about forced bussing in boston for school desegration in the '70s, is also superb.
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 03:33 PMFred Fnord: If you read it like this - "Wurmser [...] has according to Raw Story flipped along with Cheney-and-Bolton-staffer Jon Hannah..." it will make sense. At least that's how I read the phrase. So it's Hannah and Wurmser who've flipped, not Cheney (yet). (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at October 19, 2005 03:55 PMOn the issue of supporting Nixon: You bet I would support and continue to support Nixon. Had that event happened today, Nixon would not have resigned and most certainly got re-elected.
On the issue of supporting Bush: So far I have seen no reason not to support him. Seems that every other month the MSM gins up another made for News scandal that remotely touches the President or his family. Since becoming President he or his family are accused of planning 9/11, selling/using Cocaine, being AWOL from military service, letting old people die, letting black people die, blowing up levees, cutting funding for the poor, causing homelessness, lying about Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorists, weapons cache left unguarded, making shady deals with Halliburton, and stealing elections. I know I didn’t list all of the ‘scandals’ but I have yet to find ONE verifiable witness or shred of evidence that proves even one of these conspiracies. Do you think maybe Karl rove has been feeding these to keep the MSM and LLL busy? Food for thought: if the Democrats could prove just one of these conspiracies don’t you think they would be screaming about it 24/7? Imagine Cynthia McKinney or Nancy Pelosi keeping quiet after discovering solid evidence that any one of these is true? Can you imagine CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN letting one of these juicy stories die when they had solid evidence or proof?
"Yes he only got C's but he did that when a C still meant something. Also I could not envision the Air Force letting a Moron, Rube, Idiot, Dimwit at the controls of a fighter aircraft."
Perfect example of a true believer. Now a "C" qualifies you to be president. Personally, I would rather have someone with an A and a higher intelligence than a C student.
Furthermore, we have no proof that Bush ever flew any airplane (oh, I'm sorry, we do have a picture of him sitting in a fighter don't we). Probably another one of those let's pretend stories to make our fraudulent pResident look like he had actually accomplished something in his life.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:10 PMWell, Bu$h isn't called Dumbya for nothing. He's a somewhat shrewd politician when led by Turd Blossom, but he's still a fucking idiot.
Posted by Red_Neck_Repub at October 19, 2005 04:18 PM"I was very young when Watergate went down, but were there diehards like Cyber Sarge who supported Nixon to the end?"
Yes Ann, there were people just like those that snip here at TLC during the Watergate period. My own Grandmother believed until the day she died that Nixon's troubles was some huge Democratic plot to bring him down. You cannot talk sense to people who are that closed off. When the indictments come, the true believers will block out ever shred of evidence and go screaming into the night.
Posted by at October 19, 2005 04:22 PM"I was very young when Watergate went down, but were there diehards like Cyber Sarge who supported Nixon to the end?"
Yes Ann, there were people just like those that snip here at TLC during the Watergate period. My own Grandmother believed until the day she died that Nixon's troubles was some huge Democratic plot to bring him down. You cannot talk sense to people who are that closed off. When the indictments come, the true believers will block out ever shred of evidence and go screaming into the night.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:23 PM"Now a "C" qualifies you to be president." LOL if the only thing Bush accomplished was a Master program then no, but I seem to remember he had a few other jobs before becoming the President. I love your comment about not having proof that he actually piloted a plane. Maybe Bill Burkett can dig up a memo that says all of Lt Bush's flight records were forged. BTW they are a matter of public record because he (unlike Kerry) released ALL of his military records to the public. They even have an entry about how he blew a landing once.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 19, 2005 04:24 PMSorry about double post.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:24 PMMaybe Bill Burkett can dig up a memo that says all of Lt Bush's flight records were forged.
Well, why not? Fight records wouldn't be the first records that got either purged or lost or tampered with. After all the lying that has gone one, do you really believe that his flight records wouldn't have been created? You are a fool.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:28 PMI wonder if Bush has a tape recorder in the Oval Office?
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:32 PMNixon would not have resigned and most certainly got re-elected.
Hey idiot, he was re-elected.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 04:35 PMHey, thanks for reminding me of all the scandals. Yeah, nothing here is there Sarge? Has it ever crossed your mind that EVERYTHING that he has been accused of just might have some truth in it? Do you really believe that Bush is just some victim, and has done NOTHING to raise questions of his presidency?
Posted by at October 19, 2005 04:40 PMcyber sarge, of course, doesn't know shit from shinola about nixon, as demonstrated by his reference to "the event."
It wasn't "an event," cyber, ol' buddy: nixon had a secret police force operating on his behalf. watergate was merely where they got caught, and then nixon personally directed the coverup, including finding the money to keep the burglars quiet.
i admit that's not what they teach you in propaganda robot school, but still, here in this time-space continuum, that's what happened.
as for what you refer to as ginned-up, sorry pal, but the fact is, every single one on your list is an example of how the right-wing brownshirts scared off in-depth coverage of the shallow little man in the white house, but let's spend a few moments on your favorite: bush's qualifications.
yes, let's see: after business school, bush was an active alcoholic partyer. friends of his dad's funded him to become an oilman, and he ran the business into the ground, getting out under highly questonable circumstances. he was then recruited to serve as a front man for the texas rangers, in which position he used his daddy's contacts to extort so extravagant a stadium/real estate deal that his partners paid him off with a gigantic bonus.
you must know the bonus: it's what enabled him to buy the ranch in crawford so that he could pretend to be a real texan.
yup, that's some set of qualifications.
and no, he didn't release all his records.
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 04:45 PMThough Raw Story and others have reported pretty accurately in the "scoop" department as far as I can tell, isn't this practice of blind quotes and sources exactly what was being criticized less than a month ago by bloggers-against-MSM? I prefer to let Fitzgerald plod along and pray he does the right thing by the facts. I also pray it will be emotionally satisfying to me (i.e., see BushCorp go down in flames), but I am not holding my breath. It seems to me entirely too much leaking has gone on in the past week to be solid, especially from the previously airtight Fitzgerald operation. Let the facts out and indict if the facts are there.
Posted by gtash at October 19, 2005 05:28 PMI've seen the records Bushco released of his "service" and he was downed because he didn't get a flight physical. I saw the orders that he not fly without an instructor. And the little bumblebee that he did fly was not a "fighter jet." Sarge, just because one page was not properly vetted does not mean the other docs released and sanctioned by Bush don't exist. But you knew that.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 05:35 PMgtash, i'm with you about sit tight and see what happens, but i don't really think there has been much leaking going on in the past week from fitzgerald's office.
what appears to be happening is that defense lawyers are busy talking to the press....
Posted by howard at October 19, 2005 05:57 PMCyber Scourge,
You're a f'n traitor to America by your own admission.
Enjoy hell.
LOL if the only thing Bush accomplished was a Master program then no, but I seem to remember he had a few other jobs before becoming the President.
That's true, he did have a coupe of jobs. After he ran Harken Energy into the ground, he bought that baseball team and sold it for a pile of cash. Everything he's ever gotten in his life has been because of family name and connections. Has he ever had a real job? I mean, 9-5, punching a clock, sweating from something other than biking, being accountable for anything?
The man did COCAINE and a lot of it. How any Republican can consider that okay is beyond me. Of all the drugs to play around with, I can't think of a more stupid one than coke. That shows me right there that he's an idiot.
Posted by ann at October 19, 2005 06:21 PMWe have seen a lot of stories, and several good timelines, but the one thing that we lack is a who's who of what charges could apply, what we know that they know, and if whig's, etc.. knew, and worse, knew about their group dispensing same, etc... Perjury, obstruction of justice, tampering with a federal witness, these seem to apply on what is known. (a bar graph would be wonderful) Someone should start a pool, as Mr. Fitzgerald will be putting this list together for us, it would be nice to see how close this tight little group would project what is known from the information that we can read on the blog.
good luck to us all. Democracy may win out after all.
but were there diehards like Cyber Sarge who supported Nixon to the end?"
Oh, Lord, yes.
Pat Buchannan and John 'McLaughlin Group' McLaughlin were among the last to leave the bunker.
Rabbi Baruch Korff and Rev. Moon were also among the bitter-enders.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at October 19, 2005 07:06 PMthis is going to sound stupid but how does revealing the name of Wilsons wife muzzle wilson especially after he has already written his article? I think this a major crime but why do it after the article is already written I don't see how they are hurting Wilson they are only hurting the CIA
Posted by at October 19, 2005 07:13 PMThis can't just be me: doesn't it seem like our 'winger visitors used to have dramatically more plausible talking points?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 19, 2005 07:21 PMdj, No doubt they are quieter these days! They even have to resort to bad humor to amuse themselves!
I think I'll just sit back and gloat about it!! Watch their flame go out, or should I say, Plame go out!
dj, you're right, but look what they have to work with. A clever troll would segue into a parody and slowly be "revealed" as having been on our side all along. All the good pundits knew that once upon a time. It was known as "longevity."
Kids, these days.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 07:35 PMthis is going to sound stupid but how does revealing the name of Wilsons wife muzzle wilson especially after he has already written his article? I think this a major crime but why do it after the article is already written I don't see how they are hurting Wilson they are only hurting the CIA.
I believe the real targets were other CIA staffers who might have considered leaking information or publicly criticizing the Administrations' view. There appears to have been an open war going on between the CIA and the Administration with the latter trying to pin any failure in Iraq on the CIA. Which, so far, is exactly what has happened:. The CIA got Porter Goss and spankings from the Senator from Kansas and the McCain commission.
Posted by Tim at October 19, 2005 08:40 PMFolks: Can you say Presidential Pardon?
Posted by Tuli at October 19, 2005 10:45 PMTim, you've got it right. Awhile back, someone in the administration was bragging that they create reality as oppossed to the rest of us of the 'reality based' community who try to find out what the facts are first.
There are a lot of good people here who get it including eriposte, Steve Soto and so on. Let me sum it up: the underreported absurdity in all this is that the Bush Administration before the war was basically arguing that the CIA (and the State Department too) was UNDERestimating the Iraqi threat, particularly the nuclear program angle and the ability of Iraq to deliver anything it had. There isn't any doubt left that the Pentagon, Cheney and others were cherry picking flimsy evidence to justify a war that had no justification on the basis of WMDs, a realistic nuclear weapons program or an imminent threat. The job of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was to sell the war, but to do that they had to gather up all the flimsy evidence and invent a few things such as tying Saddam Hussein to al Qaida.
After the war, when no WMDs were found, Republicans, clearly led by the White House, started pushing the opposite line: that the CIA had OVERestimated the security threat from Iraq and were responsible for Bush going to war under false premises.
Now the payback by the Bush people against Wilson and the CIA was for leaking to the media the simple truth before the war: that Bush was fixing evidence around a policy that had already been decided: to invade Iraq for reasons that clearly had little to do with any specific threat.
Congress gave Bush permission to use military force but that permission was given only on the basis of the threat that Bush had supposedly established: but Bush and his advisers lied to Congress (the aluminum tubes story was falling apart weeks before the war and the Niger/Iraq yellowcake story really fell apart just before the war started; other pieces being peddled by the White House and Pentagon were also failing under close scrutiny).
And now we're finding that some members of Congress, being led these days by the kind of Republicans like Frist, DeLay and Roberts, not only looked the other way (which has been clear all along) but proceeded to help Bush facilitate his fraud.
During all this, we also had the propaganda sideshows orchestrated by Rove and others; for example, it was no accident that 70% of the American people at one point thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 (even though 9/11 was clearly the result of Osama bin Laden and clearly identified members of al Qaida); those kind of poll numbers (the 70%) were purely the result of White House public relations moves.
No White House in our history has ever lied so much to the American people as this one. We have a major Constitutional issue that too many people in Washington are deliberately avoiding. A lot more should be going on than the Fitzgerald investigation which might turn out to be too limited to deal with the scope of what has happened. We'll soon know.
Posted by Craig at October 19, 2005 10:55 PM"The man did COCAINE and a lot of it." And your proof would be? Nothing in his military records indicates drug use or being suspected of using. FYI if your commander suspects you and sends you for a "whiz-quiz" it's not in a memo. You are sent DIRECTLY to the clinic from the Commanders office, you are escorted, and you stay there until you can go pee. Trust me the LAST thing you would want is someone flying a fighter that might be using cocaine. If they suspect you your are DNIF'ed (Duties Not Involving Flight) until you are cleared.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 20, 2005 04:35 AMCraig, and throw in a little revenge and a warning to others about opening their mouths about WMD.
Posted by Judith at October 20, 2005 04:47 AMI wouldn't trust the words of a man who doesn't even know that the 22nd Amendment limited Nixon to only TWO TERMS as president. So when he says "You bet I would support and continue to support Nixon. Had that event happened today, Nixon would not have resigned and most certainly got re-elected" he can't know much of anything, especially about Air Force policies concerning rich druggie kids flying in a champagne squadron.
You know, Sarge, you can get some real military experience by joining up right now! You get an all-expense-paid trip to Baghdad just for doing so!
Posted by pessimist at October 20, 2005 05:32 AMCyber Sarge, there are numerous accounts from a number of different sources that Bush did cocaine. Of course, you choose to call them liars. Bush has not refuted using cocaine, he's refused to discuss it.
Now think, for just a tiny second, if you didn't do it, wouldn't you just say so? But the risk was that someone who knew would call him out on the lie, so he just chose not to talk about it. You seem to think this was only related to his period as an AWOL flyboy, but it went on beyond that. And I'm sure you understand that if your last name is Bush, you get quite a few passes on everything.
Posted by ann at October 20, 2005 05:44 AM
It is a given that someone like Cilly Sarge would be one of Nixon's dead-enders. Nixon subverted government, used the IRS against his "enemies", obstructed justice, ordered crimes committed and was a crook.
Cilly would also be a one of Reagan's dead-enders too. Regan had the most corrupt administration in recent American history up to now, sponsored death squads in Nicaragua , traded with Iran, and sold deadly chemical weapons to Saddam in Iraq.
Cilly loved crooks, liars, incompetent thugs, and murders as long as they are Republicans.
Nothing in his military records indicates drug use or being suspected of using. ...Posted by Cilly Sarge
Nothing except for the one simple, undeniable fact that he refused to report for a physical despite a direct order. Fortunately for well-connected guys like Bush, they gave him an unearned honorable discharge instead of what he deserved: jail.
Trust you????
And as I recall, bushie was grounded, for whatever reason given, he did not fly ever again in that obsolete F-102.
That's what the ANG got you know, obsolete planes no longer really fit or suited for front line duty, but still serviceable.
But you knew that, right?
Trust you?
WHY?
Posted by Duckman GR at October 20, 2005 06:39 AMcyber smuck it sounds like you're on drugs as well as chimpy..you are completely disconnected from reality asshole...
Posted by headxray at October 20, 2005 08:37 AMDoes Miller have to answer a question that was never asked?
It makes sense that when Miller was meeting with Libby that Cheney was also present.
It makes sense for two reasons: 1. it explains why she stayed in jail for 85 days--to protect the big cheese. 2. it explains when she wrote Valerie Flame at the meeting and denied definitely that Libby told her and couldn't recall who did tell her--again to protect the big cheese.
Posted by Tim Lennon at October 20, 2005 10:09 AM