The hypocrisy and irony is mind-boggling.
Hollywood couldn't write this shit.
Posted by God Of War at December 30, 2005 10:01 AMThe guys and gals representing us on cable tv tonight need to be clued into this very obvious point. Is there any way to get word to them? It would be expecting way too much for us to think they could figure it out on their own.
Posted by Susan S at December 30, 2005 10:31 AMThis was a certain development, telegraphed by Nero Jr. on the day the story erupted.
Intimidation of whistleblowers? Certainly.
Cynical supression ("Under investigation; No comment.")? Absolutely.
This will also intimidate the already pathetically weak "press", who will likely find the various Miller rulings on protecting anonymous sources now used to silence reports of actual government wrongdoing. Which was not the Miller case, but so what.
And it will also serve as a way to demonize truly courageous people who are trying to tell the truth about the horrendous wrongdoing of the Nero administration.
This demonization will be a new trough of shit for the Reactionary Right to gobble down, further increasing their rage and fear and further enfeebling their already infantile judgement. Our disgusting, vile trolls have already been burping this heady shit-aroma around here.
In short, a DOJ investigation is a win for Rove every way you slice it.
2006 will be the year that the turn toward American authoritarian rule became crystal clear to everyone, including our beloved "independents". And they will approve of it (once again) in the 2006 mid terms. There will be no help for America coming from the Legislative branch.
As a result of the complete degradation of the citizenry, the only institution which can now oppose Nero Jr. and defend the republic is the Republican federal judiciary. They are our last hope.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 10:39 AM
Random thoughts in no particular order on this...
-I think as with the Plame outing....it's all about Intimidation (as euzious notes). And they were caught flat footed by Plame too,even though they were digging up dirt on Wilson for several months. It's about intimidating others who might be thinking about coming forward as whistleblowers.
-Yes,and since they were able to keep this secret for over a year...why couldn't they use those same secret spying techniques, you know the ones they are using now, to find out who the original whistleblowers/leakers were when they were first made aware of it? Not that I condone it, but since it is the president's argument/defense that it is legal to spy in cases dealing with National Security and because of War Powers given to him by Congress...then he could use the same justification and powers to find out the leakers who he feels compromised national security. Why didn't they just secretly spy monitor/detect (due to national security concerns he claims give him that power)-the leakers (aka terrorist lovers by Bushco apologists), who Bushie's now feel have violated national security?
-Gonzales role in this is interesting as usual, no conflict of interest here at all....NOT. Wasn't he Junior's lawyer at the time who must have had some legal role in advising the President on the spying? Now, he is in a new role as the People's Lawyer. As the People's Lawyer, he is ordering an investigation into a leak matter that revealed the secret decision to spy. A decision Gonzales must have had an advisory role and greenlighted as Bushie's lawyer.
-Harriet Miers role in this...bestest pResident ever?
-I agree with all your other points... bring on the investigation, find out who the whistleblower were. I can't wait to hear the defense teams arguments and witness list....but I won't hold my breath here.
Dana Priest has another interersting article in WaPo today about the CIA and a program called GSA. From reading it sounds as if Junior and the Bushies became obsessed with "spying", torture, renditions...sounds so...Sovietesque.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 10:55 AMSteve, you're right of course that to go after the whistleblower last year would have exposed the NSA scam, warrantlessly. But as emal points out from the Dana Priest article, they had so much more to hide ... The most alarming quote to me in the Priest article was the quote from A. John Radsan, assis. gen. counsel at CIA '02-'04 "But this president, WHO IS BREAKING DOWN THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN COVERT ACTION AND CONVENTIONAL WAR, SEEMS TO RELISH THE SECRET FINDINGS AND THE DIRTY DETAILS OF OPERATIONS." There's the key folks.
Posted by mainsailset at December 30, 2005 11:03 AMAnd one last random thought...
One wonders if this "best defense is an offense" strategery is the "fight or flight" response of an adminstration/person(s) in trouble....perhaps other indictments coming down regarding leaks... Rove frogmarching ????? Okay,I can dream can't I.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 11:05 AMITS ILLEGAL to disclose legal types of surveillence (sic) to the public. This jeopardizes the ability for our intelligence communities to do their job.
You are the ones being inconsistent. You wanted Karl Rove "frog-jumped" out of the whitehouse in chains for something that wasn't a crime.
Yes, I know you want to believe it, but the STATUTE of laws that you liberals scream so much in about clearly said that Valerie Plane was not a "secret agent" per the statute. There was nothing to "OUT" ergo, why no indictment for that offense.
Try just a little bit to be consistent. . . no wait, thats impossible. You are consistent. If its BUSH he's wrong if he is a Liberal then its completely okay
carp, i realize this question has been asked by the likes of me and ignored by the likes of you many times (e.g., this post and most of its comments), but why is it, carp, that the administration knew about this leak a year ago, and only now that they're feeling the heat for breaking the law, they want an investigation? i guess i answered my own question, didn't i?
what's latin for "sheep"?
Posted by benjoya at December 30, 2005 11:26 AMITS ILLEGAL to disclose legal types of surveillence (sic) to the public. This jeopardizes the ability for our intelligence communities to do their job.Posted by carpediem at December 30, 2005 11:11 AM
Crappy, you dumb ass. Even regular street thugs know to use throw-away phones when conspiring their crimes. Do you not think that terrorists ALREADY KNOW that they are listened to?
The leak that Bu$hCo was using ILLEGAL, WARRANTLESS wiretaps on people in the US - DID NOT harm National Security - it harmed the Bush Administration.
This is the ONLY reason that this administration is upset.
carpediem,
Perhaps you should try to seize a brain instead of a day.
Posted by michaelw at December 30, 2005 11:27 AMThis makes perfect sense...in Stalinist Russia.
Posted by Jeff Gannon's Pimp at December 30, 2005 11:33 AMcarpediem,
I won't bother to explain how the two cases are different. Others can do it so much better than I.
I'll just say this: Bush is a liar and he is incompetent. If there is justice in the world, he will be taken to the Hague, prosecuted for war crimes, and be made to pay for the death and destruction he has wrought.
I know it must be difficult for you to see your little fantasy world come crashing down as the realities of his policies are forced upon you.
Posted by Susan S at December 30, 2005 11:35 AMCrappy, this is how well (NOT) that your king is protecting you.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 11:38 AMcarpeKOOLAID, which person here said they didn't want the investigation to proceed?
And talk about consistency...project much! You're the one saying that what the WH did was legal with regards to Plame...yet saying this leaking action is illegal and should be investigated. You should want both investigated fully. Most people here are just pointing out the mother of all ironies and the hypocrisy/inconsistencies of this action as opposed to actions of previous leaks by this administration. You know how bout those same leaks about classified intelligence information regarding Hussein's weapons that Ms. Miller and other willing dupes printed...but that's right according to you those types of leaks dealing with erroneous/half the story/cherrypicked and at the time "classified" information regarding national security were okay because they supported your opinion and made your case. Oops never mind, you don't possess critical thinking skills to analyze any of that.
No to you, it's always black and white...primitive instinct thinking. Yes when people point out such details, your answer is too attack the messenger and to whine that it is all about partisanship and hate...same ole same ole from you...it's getting old.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 11:41 AMAnd for those inclined/interested in reading the Dana Priest WaPo CIA story if you haven't already. The program is GST and not GSA as I mentioned above.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 11:56 AMThanks to Thom Hartmann's quote of the day. Remember what Tom Delay had to say:
No one is above the law.
Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
". . . I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.
Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.
The president has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law. . . ."
Oh, how quickly they forget. Hypocrites.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 12:08 PMAgain, releasing Plame's name, even though it was common knowledge, WAS NOT ILLEGAL. The espionage statute specifically had a definition for a covert agent and SHE DIDN'T FIT THE DEFINITION. Get over it. SHE WASN'T a Covert Agent pursuant to the statute.
The release of confidential information about our secretive terrorists investigation MAY BE ILLEGAL. I believe there is many statutes on the book which makes release of this confidential information as illegal.
Why didn't Bush scream about it a year ago? I suspect because the New York Times agreed not to disclose it, so that for all intents and purposes, the information was to some degree confidential and if they made an investigation about it, then it would have been NEWS about something they didn't want out there.
You liberals honestly think Bush was hiding something he did because he knew it was illegal. Yeah like going to the attorney general, to his fbi, to the cia and having it reviewed by his legal staff is his way of breaking the law without getting caught.
In fact, he OPENLY ADMITS TO DOING IT NOW. And OPENLY ADMITS HE WILL CONTINUE.
You booger eating bedwetters don't even have ONE DEMOCRAT standing up to tell him to stop. They just want to cast aspirations and sound indignant and talk about the illegality, but Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton all refuse to tell him to stop.
IF ITS ILLEGAL TO DO IT, then why do they hold their tongue.
IT WAS ILLEGAL TO DISCLOSE THIS INVESTIGATION TO THE PRESS.
IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL TO DISCLOSE PLAME's NAME.
Get over it. You guys refuse to admit even the most basic of premises.
How do you sleep at night? Do you Lie Yourself don't to sleep?
Me thinks that thou doth protesteth too much!
Carp,
The days of being a Bush apologist are waning...find a new avenue for your somewhat ill-informed righteous indignation...
Oh, and Happy New Year! ;)
Posted by Roy Batty at December 30, 2005 12:26 PMAgain, releasing Plame's name, even though it was common knowledge, WAS NOT ILLEGAL. The espionage statute specifically had a definition for a covert agent and SHE DIDN'T FIT THE DEFINITION. Get over it. SHE WASN'T a Covert Agent pursuant to the statute.
If it was not illegal, why did the CIA ask for the investigation? If the statute didn't apply, there would have been no reason to refer it to the Justice Department.
Posted by Susan S at December 30, 2005 12:34 PMOne more 'scandal' like the NSA intercepts and Bush's approval will be at 60%. You guys must be allergic to winning elections, or something.
Posted by hesmybushandimkeepinghim at December 30, 2005 12:35 PMCarpe Diem:
Given your own track record around here and the whoppers you just dumped on us in that post, you are the last person in the world to say that someone else is lying.
You liberals honestly think Bush was hiding something he did because he knew it was illegal. Yeah like going to the attorney general, to his fbi, to the cia and having it reviewed by his legal staff is his way of breaking the law without getting caught.
Uh, yeah, you dupe, I honestly think that.
You poor, stupid, Kool-Aid drinking fool. Show me something that states his FBI and his CIA were asked for a legal opinion on, and gave their approval of this operation. Of course, his own attorney and legal staff in the Counsel's office would build any rationale they could to allow him to do what he wants; they did with Abu Ghraib, they did with everything since 9/11. And tell me one time this Department of Justice under both Ashcroft and now Abu Gonzales has told this White House "no".
Why was the rule of law and the threat of a too-powerful executive a big concern to folks like you in the 1990's, yet now you act as if everything Bush does must be legal?
Because he is a Republican, and you are a dim-witted hypocritical doofus, that's why.
Posted by Steve Soto at December 30, 2005 12:41 PMCan someone please explain how whistleblowing an ILLEGAL, secret governmental activity is illegal?
Posted by Brian Boru at December 30, 2005 01:19 PMO.K. Crappy, disclosing the name of a CIA agent that Fitzgerald himself took pains to note on live, nationwide TV was covert is legal. I guess that why Liddy was indicted.
Posted by rlp at December 30, 2005 01:22 PMFOR THE BLIND ONE FOLLOWING BUSH OFF A CLIFF!
Bush and those around him ARE NOT REPUBLICANS! No Republican would act like Bush! Not even a BAD Republican.
Shame on any Republican who allies theirself with these criminals! They are destroying this country like no liberal ever could!
The Republican party has been taken over by these neoconservitives, and until we grow back some balls and take back the party, we don't deserve to win anymore elections!
Those people insisting on standing with Bush, stop claiming to be Republicans! Admit your true party: COMMUNIST
Bush and his Communist cronies need to GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!
Posted by Diana Williams at December 30, 2005 01:30 PMsee, here's the thing you stupid troll, the minds at this site have better things to do, places to go, so step aside fool, we're coming through and this time THE LIES WILL NOT PROTECT.
Go away.
On crappy's planet, everything is legal! But it's hard to get anything done there, because everyone's busy killing and torturing and stealing from everyone else. Good thing it's all in crappy's mind, or we'd all be inconvenienced. Sadly, however, crappy feels the need to share his dementia with others.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 01:56 PMHow many times are you guys going to castigate me, the messenger. So far, I'm a nut case, lying non-lawyer who has been "outed" and "punked" whatever that means. (how did Snarkyshark figure this out as fact? oh yeah, he's a liberal and he needs no proof, just accusations...say snarkysnark, do you want my bar number?)
This goes to prove again, that liberals idea of tolerance only applies to who they say should be tolerated. You are so filled with hate, you can't even stand to have me comment on issues. It hurts when the facts get in your warped belief structure.
Now to attend to your comments.
Susan S ask naively (sic) why the Cia would ask for an investigation if it weren't illegal? Its called politics. The lifelong democrats like Valerie Plame still have much control there, so they made a big deal over a Political issue.
(Remember she recommended that her husband, a democrat and ambassador with no skills in investigation or in WMD be sent to Niger to do that which he did not know what to do. Then he returns and denies that he was sent by his wife. He was the only researcher hired by the CIA NOT to have to sign a confidentiallity agreement, who DID NOT HAVE to prepare a final report. Instead, he just rights an article for the wonderful last bastian of hope, the New York Times. So tell me that this wasn't entirely a political move. Hell he even admitted to being an adviser to Kerry.)
The special prosecutor CHARGED NO ONE WITH HER OUTING. He charged Libby with lying to the grand jury because he admitted to talking to several people about Plame but apparently denied telling another journalist about it when he is accused of doing it.
re: Steve Sobo's diatribe.... nothing to respond to, except as to Ashcroft. You fling your comments out like about of chimps playing with their poop. Think about the evil that Ashcroft never commited, but was PREDICTED BY YOU LIBS. NOTHING came to pass, as you liberals predicted.
re: rlp- Fitzgerald may have used the word covert, I don't recall for certain, but I seem to remember him using that term of art. However, he NEVER charged anyone with the OUTING, just the lying. He was going to close the investigation down, except for discovering the "inconsistencies" with Libby's comments. The term "covert" specifically has a legal definition, and even Wilson admits in his book that his wife hadn't been overseas in over five years, which, coincidently was one of the requirements for an agent to be deemed to be "covert".
As to the rest of the other comments, keep it up.
As I said, you are "poop slingers" and sometimes when the poop is fresh, it sticks, but this old poop just falls off the wall and people don't smell it anymore.
So try and find some more new, fresh poop, because your silly mindnumb comments are juvenille.
I"M STILL ASKING. BUSH SAYS HE WILL CONTINUE THESE "ILLEGAL" SEARCHS, AND YOU GUYS WON'T TELL ME ABOUT ANY DEMOCRATS CALLING HIM ON THE CARPET ABOUT IT.
EITHER THAT MEANS YOU GUYS ARE FULL OF IT AND YOU KNOW IT, OR THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE WEASELS AND ARE TOO CHICKEN
or BOTH.
There is my challenge, which one of you are going to be man enough or liberal enough to take my challenge without replying with ignorant diatribes and calling me silly names.
As to kicking me off this board, boy that sure sounds like some good liberal tolerance going there!
I've answered all of your charges, answer just one of mine.
Anything I've not answered, just ask again, and I'll give it my best reply.
The gauntlet is cast, who will pick it up?
Posted by Carpediem at December 30, 2005 02:04 PMI challenge anyone to find one true statement in that entire rant by crappy. It might be easier than refuting each statement one by one. (Disclosure - I only read as far as Plame being a dem, before I couldn't see straight from laughing so hard)
Better yet, I challenge everyone to ignore the poor guy. Best not to feed the delusional - it just makes them crazier!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 02:23 PMCarp,
How hard is it to ignore the fucking facts?
Hard, hard work isn't it?
Posted by Vinnie at December 30, 2005 02:30 PMI'm with you all the way iamcoyote, there is no rationalizing with the irrational.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 02:32 PMGOOD RETORT I AM COYOTE
Don't attempt to answer, just scoff at it. Don't disprove my assertions with any type of search on Google, and thereby prove my total ignorance, instead, demand that I prove each comment with a specific foot note, which I would be happy to do, but you'd ignore that too.
Instead of challengeing anyone to prove me WRONG, you challenge them to ignore me.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE LIBERAL-NON TRUTH SEEKER.
sleep well tonight, your belief structure is intact.
Posted by carpediem at December 30, 2005 02:32 PMCrappy, you are such a dumb ass. Your rant really shows your desperation.
Feinstein, Hagel, Levin, Snowe, Wyden
oops, some of those are Republicans.
Everyone is outraged, dumb ass.
That was only a quick search. I can find more.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 02:41 PMcarpe,
I'm only playing with you because all my other friends are busy, so here goes:
why the Cia would ask for an investigation if it weren't illegal? Its called politics. The lifelong democrats like Valerie Plame still have much control there, so they made a big deal over a Political issue.
George "Medal of Freedom" Tennant and Porter Goss (Republican) have headed the CIA for the past few years. Are you saying their politics favor the Democrats? To my knowledge, Valerie Plame has never declared her political affiliation. If you honestly believe she had the power to refer a case to the Justice Department then you are worse off than I thought.
(Remember she recommended that her husband, a democrat and ambassador with no skills in investigation or in WMD be sent to Niger to do that which he did not know what to do.
The CIA sent Wilson to Niger to look into the claims that Iraq was seeking uranium at the Vice President's request. Wilson was asked to go because he had a working knowledge of the country and its players, not because he was an expert in WMD. Once again, his wife suggested that he could help out, but she did not have the authority to send him.
Then he returns and denies that he was sent by his wife.
You must think she was the most powerful person working at the CIA to believe all of these things. Jeez!
He was the only researcher hired by the CIA NOT to have to sign a confidentiallity agreement, who DID NOT HAVE to prepare a final report.
Wilson was not "hired" for the job. They might have paid his expenses, but he was not paid to go there. If he wasn't asked to write a report or sign a confidentiality agreement, he is hardly to blame. Why don't you ask Tennant or Goss why those weren't required? (Don't remember who was in charge at the time)
Instead, he just rights an article for the wonderful last bastian of hope, the New York Times. So tell me that this wasn't entirely a political move.
He wrote the article because he realized they were falsely using the Niger claims as one of their justifications for war. I know you don't understand how anyone could try to stop an unjust war from happening, but that would be the difference between you and us. We think fighting unnecessary wars and killing innocent people is wrong and you obviously don't. There's really no way to argue with you on that one.
Hell he even admitted to being an adviser to Kerry.)
That would be evidence of nothing.
The special prosecutor CHARGED NO ONE WITH HER OUTING. He charged Libby with lying to the grand jury because he admitted to talking to several people about Plame but apparently denied telling another journalist about it when he is accused of doing it.
Fitzgerald isn't finished. He may very well indict someone on those charges. What he said in his press conference was that he was unable to fully investigate that charge because of the lies and obstruction of justice by Libby and others.
Anjha, good on you!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 02:52 PMDumb Ass,
More, more, more:
Maloney & Civil Liberties Board
If you did your own research instead of just throwing tantrums you would live a much more peaceful existence.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 02:52 PMCarp: (Remember she recommended that her husband, a democrat and ambassador with no skills in investigation or in WMD be sent to Niger to do that which he did not know what to do. Then he returns and denies that he was sent by his wife.
MSM:
The report notes that the CIA people in charge of investigating the Niger allegation deliberated over what to do and then reached the decision to ask Wilson to perform a pro bono act of public service. And he said yes. He had the experience for the job. His trip was not a boondoggle arranged by his wife for his or their benefit.
Now go pound sand, you faux-news guzzling, right-wing patsy...
Oh, and Happy New Year!
Posted by Roy Batty at December 30, 2005 02:54 PMI especially LOVE Senator Byrd's statement. He is a true PATRIOT:
"I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.
These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.
I am reminded of Thomas Paine’s famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”
These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of “national security” are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of “executive privilege” in order to avoid further embarrassment."
###
Since I think he actually knew Thomas Paine, it makes it even more convincing and chilling.
Since I think he actually knew Thomas Paine
Now that was funny!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 03:14 PM"I especially LOVE Senator Byrd's statement. He is a true PATRIOT:
"I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.
These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.
I am reminded of Thomas Paine’s famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”
----------------------------
Hmmmm....I wonder if he believed the same thing when he was filibustering the civil rights act of 1964. When he was denying blacks the right to sit at the same lunch counter or to drink out of the same fountain as whites.
A PATRIOT?? Please. If that is your idea of a patriot, then I feel sorry for you.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 03:31 PM"Some would say that they haven’t started the investigation because to do so would reveal the program itself. Fair enough,"
What's with that statement. They couldn't have conducted a secret investigation and used administrative sanctions against them? They could have investigated, and kept it very secret unless they went to legal sanctions.
Nothing will fly for them in this story. You need to strike that out.
Posted by anon at December 30, 2005 03:33 PMMy response:
Let me first say, thanks for at least trying and attempting to take my challenge.
1. Per Anjha- The link says the Democrats are "concerned" NOT that they demand Bush stop.
Again, I may be a dumbass, you'll have to ask my wife and kids, along with the many clients that I don't have
as a non-lawyer wannabee that I am, but my challenge was not whether any Democrats were grandstanding, thats what
they do, but whether if they thought it was illegal, why haven't they demanded he STOP.
So I consider this to be a D-. You got that for at least trying to google it. That shows you at least try to show your
interest in the truth, or you just hate to read my posts and wanted to embarrass me.
2. Susan S.
a.) Do you really believe that Goss/Tennant are non-political, or that they have full control over an agency that numbers in the thousands?
The CIA is filled with Career beureaucrats and many are LIBERALS.
b.) Plame did not have the authority to send him, I agree, but how coincidental that he was sent visa via her written memo. Gees, I thought Tennant/Goss made
all of those decisions? Its a good ole boy network, then sent an amatuer to discredit the theory, that to this day, MI-6 and I believe even French Intelligence says was true.
c.) he denied she sent him...your response? just a dig?
d.) Wilson was not hired? Are we playing word games now? Did they put him on payroll or send him a 1099?
Are you that juvenille to play word games now?
e.) You don't deny the failure of the Cia to require a written and confidential report do you. But why would Tennant agree to that, since he told Bush that it was a slam-dunk
that Sadamm had weapons of mass destruction? Why would Tennant allow this to happen, unless again, you realize that Department Heads don't make every decision in Washington.
f.) He wrote the article because of his conscience? yeah right. You aren't that stupid. He had a political agenda and he wanted to embarrass Bush, plan and simple.
Lets see if I get this right, an AMBASSADOR flies to Niger, interviews a dozen people, while sipping mint juleps out at the hotel pool, and you consider that INVESTIGATING.
Yeah, MI-6 and the CIA are all idiots, but a vacationing political operative isn't biased.
g.) Fitzgerald WAS finished...until Woodward came back into the picture, which actually might help LIBBY's arguments of who knew what, when, and where.
As to the lies and obstruction-How can you obstruct and investigation into something that is NOT ILLEGAL.
Yes, lying to a grand jury is illegal, but the entire investigation was political smoke and mirrors.
Re: IAMCOYOTE
Again, you silence is deafening. You only can egg on others to defend your positions. Sad, very sad.
Anjha
Again, Googling Democrats' requests for political investigations is a "given" they always will do that.
They are slinging poop and hoping that it sticks.
NEVER DOES IT SAY FOR BUSH TO STOP his use of the wiretaps.
Still waiting on an answer.
Oh, and my wife said that I can be a dumbass on occaision, so you are right on that point.
Re: Roy Batty
Good try. But quoting CBS (a good liberal news organization with terrific credentials for biased reporting, which
quotes a liberal online website's LIBERAL journalist, is NOT FACT. Thats his spin. NOT FACT.) I can give you Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's quotes
and you would rightly consider them biased opinions. I'm just asking you find consistent facts that defeats my arguments.
Anjah.
Byrd is being quoted again... "it is time to ask hard questions" is not the same as BUSH MUST STOP THIS NOW!
(oh, isn't it sad that a senile old Grand Dragon of the KKK is who you use to "support" your position that Democrats are united in telling Bush to stop.... you should read the links first.)
IAMCOYOTE
Great attaboys. You are really good at that. Not substance, but great ATTABOYS
To you all, Thanks for trying and keep up the good work. But PLEASE just answer the questions with facts. Please read the links first, before you post them.
Words do have meaning.
Now its time for me to take the wife to dinner and a movie. Its late on the RIGHT COAST.
Posted by carpediem at December 30, 2005 03:34 PMYou guys can attck us "trolls" all day long but it won't change the fact that you will get no traction out of either the Plame case or the NSA story.
In fact, both will have a huge backlash against Democrats and will further put them in the minority. But you guys can't see that because your anger and hatred against Bush has caused you to become completely oblivious to the fact that more and more Americans are either repulsed by what they see as an effort to undermine the security of the country just to bring down someone you hate or they no longer take the Democratic party seriously. I imagine it's some of both.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 03:40 PMdavid, we'll definitely keep your fabulous advice on administration lawbreaking in mind, because we know you're very concerned about avoiding a backlash against Democrats.
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 03:56 PMFunny thing, the only people I ever hear talking about all of our anger and hate is the trolls.
Crappy, they cannot establish the PROOF that they need that this IS illegal, which everyone knows that it is, UNTIL they hold investigations. Even some Republicans are demanding investigations.
There will be hearings and there will be answers and the Dems will not look bad.
Just because GW has a note from his lawyer saying that he can do whatever he wants, does not make it so. Just as the 'war on terir' does not allow him Supreme Powers and to be above the law or not have to abide by the law.
Also, I do not know what Senator Byrd did 50 years ago. And, no, I am not going to research it now. However, I did not find a link to the KKK on his website. Nor did I use Google to find the answers. I actually go to the House and the Senate sites quite often to determine what people are actually doing and fighting for - since I cannot rely on talking points to figure that out. So, I read, endlessly.
AND, the only people who sling shit around here are you trolls when you come telling us HOW WE THINK AND WHAT WE ARE.
I know who I am, what I think, how I feel, and am quite confident. You do not sway me.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 03:57 PMCarpe,
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. No wonder you're a Bush follower. You buy every piece of shit he and Fox News have to sell.
I give up. I have better things to do now.
Happy New Year All!
Posted by Susan S at December 30, 2005 04:04 PMThis has got to be the worst. If it is such a catastrophe that this information was leaked why didn't the adminstration launch an investigation a year ago when they first found out about it. If this isn't the most hypocritical use of the justice department I don't know what is. And what about the f---ing NYTimes sitting on this for a year. Maybe Bush wouldn't have gotten re-elected if this was out.
God, what a crock-o-shit!
…he was filibustering the civil rights act of 1964. When he was denying blacks the right to sit at the same lunch counter...as whites….DavidI think you are mistaking someone for Strum Thrumond, Jessie Helms, and Trent Lott, all anti-integrationists and staunch Republicans.
You guys can attck us "trolls" all day long but it won't change the fact that you will get no traction out of either the Plame case or the NSA story. … Posted by DavidStrange, both those and the Tom DeLay / Jack Abramoff corruption scandals seem to have legs despite you're fanatical disregard for the rule of law and the American Constitution. Corruption, abuse of power, and contempt for the law are Republican's guiding principles these days. I remember when Republicans stood against deficit spending, increasing the size of government, and nation-building. When the party line does a 180, all the good little Bush sycophants do the same. Posted by Mike at December 30, 2005 04:17 PM
"However, I did not find a link to the KKK on his website."
Imagine that!!!! Robert Byrd doesn't proudly display his past association with the KKK.
Here's a gem:
Byrd vowed never to fight:
"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
He also called Martin Luther King a "boy" who was stirring up trouble before fighting the civil rights act tooth and nail.
Yeah, he's a real patriot.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 04:23 PMThe pathetic trolls are interesting today, not (of course) for their "arguments", but for the rendition of "facts" contained therein.
"Facts" like Plame not being a covert agent, and being a Democrat, and the CIA being filled with "liberals", and Wilson not having signed a confidentiality agreement" with the CIA, and not actually doing anything on his trip to Niger.
As has been observed numerous times, Americans are now not just entitled to their own (usually uninformed) opinion, they are now entitled to their own facts. Especially the Right Wing.
Where did the trolls come up with these "facts"? As though Fitzgerald's investigation would have gone on one week if he had determined that Plame was not covert and hence not covered by the applicable statute. Or as if the "fact" about a confidentiality agreement has anything to do with Bush making admitted misrepresentations about Niger uranium his State of the Union.
Clearly, there are a great many troughs somewhere filled with shit for the Right Wingers to gorge themselves on. Certainly they can't make these stories or "facts" up on the own. Someone is doing it for them.
Having no judgement of their own, and no ability to analyze the truth of these Right Wing "facts", they smear this shit all over their faces, literally filling their eyes, ears and mouth with shit.
Then, completely unaware that they are smeared with shit, they go out in public and take unbrage when their fellow citizens try to tell them "Hey, pal, you stink like smeared shit."
We have no basis to have a dialogue with Right Wing citizens anymore. A "debate"? Impossible.
I question if the country will survive this era. And it was intentionally brought on by the Republican Party and its corporate masters. These web-soldiering trolls are just the shit-smeared dupes.
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 04:29 PMIn fact, both will have a huge backlash against Democrats and will further put them in the minority
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 03:40 PM
******
Sorry, Dave, the polls simply don't support your political fantasy. Wishing it so doesn't make it so. As far as Valery Plame not being covert, I've seen some whoppers from you folks, but boy, that's rich.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 04:37 PMI would also like to point out that started your statement "In fact".
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 04:41 PMIt appears that David was right and I was wrong about Senator Byrd. Yes, I did my research and found that he has a history of being a biggot. And no, I do not find that patriotic, I do, however find the statement that he released regarding domestic spying patriotic. In fact, if you were to come out and stand up against domestic spying, I would even have to say that you were being patriotic.
So, I withdraw the phrase 'he is a true patriot' and replace it with 'his statement is patriotic.'
Now, I really must do some work and stop this reading.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 04:56 PMGeez, is crappy still bellowing? What a putz.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 04:59 PMSo far, I'm a nut case, lying non-lawyer who has been "outed" and "punked" whatever that means.
Yep...DJ Moonbat nailed you on that. To my everlasting shame, I really did think you were a lawyer, alibiet the crappiest one ever.
What I did was bust you trying to crosspost as bagly on another thread. You just weren't able to keep up the fiction. So how delicious it is everytime you try to accuse one of us of dishonesty. Thats why you are a joke.
The hilarious thing is, you go on and on about how scared we are about an investigation. Like Bush's investigation into who leaked Plames name, it will go no where in the justice department that Bush controls.
But unlike the criminals who leaked Plame for political gain, this leak was by patriots who care about America. If their names are revealed, they will be considered heroes.
Sucks for you, but there it is.
PS...Yes, post your bar number. I call your bluff.
Posted by at December 30, 2005 04:59 PMDavid, Byrd came clean with this shame quite awhile ago.
I don't recall the same can be said for the repukes that impeached Clinton. Those hypocritical bastards condemning him when they had dipped their wicks as well.
This shit is a vicious circle with you. What Democrats did, what they didn't do.
Nothing compares to what the repukes have done. Clinton did not kill his own people for filling his friends pockets.
As a liberal, I want to work for changing things for the better of the country. I can think of nothing higher than impeaching bu$h and his cabal. If you haven't noticed they are not uniting the country, they are dividing it.
Better yet, bu$h should just resign in shame! Or maybe saying he's sorry is good enough for you?
Posted by bbtb at December 30, 2005 05:01 PM"Sorry, Dave, the polls simply don't support your political fantasy. Wishing it so doesn't make it so. As far as Valery Plame not being covert, I've seen some whoppers from you folks, but boy, that's rich."
As I've said before, the only polls that matter to me are the ones right before elections. But since you are contending that I live in a fantasy world, I suggest you bop on over to Rasmussen and see that 64% of Americans say that NSA spying is ok (including 50% of Democrats). And before you start arguing that rasmussen is a right wing nut, also check out his final poll from before the election last year that was almost exactly matched the actual outcome. So you are just simply wrong.
AS far as Plame goes, she was NOT covert at the time she was outed. She had a desk job stateside.
Nice try but as usual the facts are on my side.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 05:08 PMmore and more Americans are either repulsed by what they see as an effort to undermine the security of the country just to bring down someone you hate
This is exactly correct, if you were talking about the Clinton witch-hunt.
But the delicious irony is, the electorate remembers that all to well and that means we get a mulligan.
Plus we get to throw all that bombastic rhetoric right back into your rat-like faces.
The very essence of you reap what you sow
Something you would understand if you ever really did read the bible instead of just regurgitating your false prophets latest talking points.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 05:08 PMApparently he has also changed his tune, receiving a score card of 100% from the NAACP.
Reading more on his positions, they are quite conservative and I do not agree with most of them. I do like his floor speeches and his extreme knowledge of the Rules of the Senate and the history of the US.
Enough on the past now David, let's not deflect anymore from the issue at hand. I think that we were, at one time, discussing the illegality of Bu$hCo's spying and how many people are CURRENTLY seeking investigations.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 05:08 PMDavid's using that Rasmussen poll still? God, what a comedian! Ahahahaha, thanks for the laugh, twit.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 05:12 PMNote the architecture of the thread: crape demands that we identify a Democrat who publically condemns Nero Jr's illegal wiretapping actions.
We cite Byrd, and several others.
Then david responds that Byrd is not a moral paragon, as though this was unknown information.
and so on, ad infinitum.
What a waste of energy.
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 05:14 PM
I suggest you bop on over to Rasmussen and see that 64% of Americans say that NSA spying is ok (including 50% of Democrats).
Dude, I think NSA spying is OK. When it is done legally and with oversight. Rassuman asked the question framed that this was the case.
But that is not the current situation. I wonder what the poll result would be if the question was " Should Bush be able to spy on who-ever he want when-ever he wants?"
Which is closer to, if not in actual fact the current scenario.
Nice try but as usual the facts are on my side.
Karl Rove bought and paid for propaganda does not constitute facts.
But thanks for playing traitor.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 05:15 PMAS far as Plame goes, she was NOT covert at the time she was outed.
Once again for the dense, Fitzgerald took pains on live , nationwide T.V. to stress that Plame was a covert agent.
Not only was she covert - she was a NOC, meaning that if caught overseas the US would deny she ever existed and she would be murdered.
Outing her did not only affect her, it affected EVERYONE working for her front company. No one yet knows the kind of damage that it caused.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 05:24 PMAnjha and rlp,
Why do you bother with this "david" guy? He's repeating the exact same thing Toby said and ujest said weeks and months ago. These idiots truly believed that Valerie Plame was going to be indicted. Their statements came to mind when Fitz was having his press conference and I started laughing my butt off when I thought of them. Remember when these idiots also said that it was going to be a Dem who was indicted for outing Plame? LOL. These people are wrong so much it makes very good comedy. They are to be laughed at, not taken seriously. Remember Sadaam hid his weapons in Syria! LOL! And the hits keep on going......
Sorry, Dave, try to keep up. The Rasmussen poll was all about framing. And keep on insisting Plame wasn't covert. Just when I thought you couldn't be more dense, you trump me again.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 05:36 PM"This is exactly correct, if you were talking about the Clinton witch-hunt.
But the delicious irony is, the electorate remembers that all to well and that means we get a mulligan.
Plus we get to throw all that bombastic rhetoric right back into your rat-like faces.
The very essence of you reap what you sow
Something you would understand if you ever really did read the bible instead of just regurgitating your false prophets latest talking points."
---------------------------------
SnarkyShark, when exactly are we going to "reap what we sow". We won 2 Presidential elections and a mid-term election in 2002. I don't think your theory is going to pan out.
Thanks for calling me a traitor. Whenever that happens I know you have lost the debate.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 05:45 PMAnd before you start arguing that rasmussen is a right wing nut, also check out his final poll from before the election last year that was almost exactly matched the actual outcome.
Easily done when you and the folks a Diebold are both at the 9:00 election fraud planning session and catered dinner.
One neccessary ingredient to election fraud is that the fraudelent poll numbers, and the acutal fraudelent results be pretty close.
+/- 1% sounds about right.
Posted by at December 30, 2005 05:48 PMWhenever that happens I know you have lost the debate.
I haven't lost the debate. You are not the arbitartor of me.
What I did was define your essence.
You are the very essence of an enemy of the constitution of the domestic varity.
Ergo a traitor
Are you taking it personally yet?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 05:53 PMSince no one appears to be willing to actually verify that Fitzgerald said Plame was covert I did and guess what? He didn't:
From the transcript:
QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?
FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.
I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.
Then:
And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.
=========================
Funny thing this internet. You can actually find transripts instead of relying on heresay.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 06:01 PMSnarkyShark - NO!!!!
I just consider the source.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 06:03 PMDave, since you like the internet, you might want to read the July 21st, 2005 Washington Post article about Plames file marked as secret and her indentity classified i.e. covert. I would link it, but you enjoy the internet so much.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 06:10 PMSf, maybe you should have read a little further down in that article:
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and DID NOT DESCRIBE HER STATUS AS COVERT, the sources said.
==================================
Nice try sf.
Wow, go out for a little while and come back and as soon as that fool CarpeKoolaid goes off his rocker,his shift ends and miraculously the next post is from another Koolaid Club member and buddy David.....How conveeeenient.
Euzious' post at 4:29 Nails it perfectly. Carpe and his Koolaid drinking brethren claim everyone that disagrees with Bush is a liberal, commie pinko. What does he do to refute any of it, presents rnc or Faux news antedotal information to make the claims...Ie, Valerie Plame is liberal and so isn't her hubby Wilson because he spoke ill of and dared to disagree with Dear Leader. Yes he worked for John Kerry!....Never mind a fact about Mr. Wilson he's conveniently forgotten to mention is that Joe Wilson served honorably under Bush Senior (a republican I might add) as US ambassador to Iraq during Gulf I and I think recieved some honor for doing so. Plus a minor fact is that I personally know of many registered independent/unenrolled and republican voters that voted and worked for Kerry. Just as I know a couple democratic voters who voted for Bush.
But see that nuance and ability to think for oneself stuff doesn't matter to these very simple minded people. You're either with Junior and the party (always 100% and nothing less) or you're against him and therefore considered a political enemy of the state or a traitor. Black or white...no grey allowed and it's that cult-like thinking of the RNC locksteppers that is some scary, scary, type of shit.
Posted by emal at December 30, 2005 06:32 PMAnyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information
*****
I see, you want to nitpick now, idiot.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 06:34 PMSf, I wasn't nit-picking. YOU made the point that she was covert and backed it up by saying that the Washington Post article said so. It didn't.
Now you want to bait and switch and talk about the "secret information". Well, let's just look at that part:
"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained SECRET information, though that designation was NOT SPECIFICALLY attached to PLAME'S name and DID NOT DESCRIBE HER STATUS AS COVERT, the sources said.
It not only didn't say she was covert it also said the secret information may not have applied to her.
Like I said before, nice try.
Any other articles you'd like me to read?
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 06:43 PMFunny thing this internet. You can actually find transripts instead of relying on heresay.
Except when you read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking it, you understand that it intentionally doesn't go further than Scooter being a lying prick. Or maybe you forgot about the whole baseball-sand-eye thing.
Just cause Fitz doesn't say specifically she was doesn't mean she wasn't.
But of course FAUX news veiwing idiots can't be expected to posess reasoning skills.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 06:43 PMSorry, back for the debate...or lack thereof.
As to SnarkyShark-great name I might add, I don't know who outed me as a non-lawyer. I am of course a lawyer, my bar number is 358220. Unfortunatley, I won't tell you the State for fear my email will be deluged with emails.
Of course, I don't necessarily agree that laywers are inherently bright. I know too many that are morons. And yes, I am in the minority of Trial Lawyers. I run a website with over 400 of them and they are mostly Democrats and yes, we or I, don't allow political discussion at ALL.
Having said that, I wil go back to my original premise.
No one has called me on my points as of yet.
Anijha (sic) has made an attempt of note worthiness, but Iamcoyote, another great name, had failed miserably.
Alas, I am home from having dinner with family and friends and while I am busy burning 25 year old home movies to my new DVD burner, I am not able to continue this debate...or whatever you liberals call it. I call it denial, any further.
But as Scarlet O'hara said, (from my home state)
Tomorrow is another day)
BTW: David---thanks for the back up. Trolling can be sort of fun.
What a fucking waste of energy and time.
Posted by Robin F at December 30, 2005 06:44 PMSnarkyShark, that was the weakest argument I've ever heard.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 06:46 PM"BTW: David---thanks for the back up. Trolling can be sort of fun."
Especially when they hand you gifts like that Wash post article.
David, Who got indicted, Liddy or Plame/Wilson?
Now...shut the fuck up!
Dave, I've seen some wormy arguments before, but brother, you are over the top.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 06:54 PM"BTW: David---thanks for the back up. Trolling can be sort of fun."
Especially when they hand you gifts like that Wash post article.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 06:49 PM
*****
You're actually patting yourself on the back for that lame argument?
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 06:58 PMIt was said here before, no matter what this evil, Nazi Bu$hCo does, it cannot be enough for these blind followers to dare to stand up to his unchecked power.
Whatever happened to dissent? It is healthy to disagree with this idiot. I cannot believe that there is NOTHING that he can do that won't upset you guys.
Crappy, I met all of your challenges, and I met them well.
Now I challenge you: name three things that this president has done that you don't like. And they have to be real things, not slipped on pronounciation (everyone already knows that he cannot speak.) You too, David. Give me some reason to take anything that you say seriously. I cannot take seriously someone who has no original thought.
Will Rogers (I believe it was him) said that if there are two people who agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary. You two are proving quite well that neither of you are necessary.
To quote a forwarded email:
Will someone please just give this guy a blowjob so that we can impeach him already?
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:01 PMoh, btw WhiteHouse says it is OK to keep gathering data on who checks their website I never saw a privacy policy on it; hmmm.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:03 PMsf, take your defeat like a man.
I love you liberals. You're totally refuted by facts (which you asked me to read) and you call my argument wormy. LOL.
bbtb, we weren't talking about who got indicted. I was totally blowing away sf's contention that Fitzgerald (and then the Wash Post article he brought up) said she was covert. Try to keep up here.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:07 PMThe paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said
*****
You see, Dave, the article is clear in it's implication. The last portion of the article is merely to state that it wasn't in black and white, but it was clear to anyone with an IQ higher than a walnut.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 07:15 PMSpeaking of facts David, why did someone at your IP address previously post as "The Real Truth?"
At least Carpe Diem hasn't resorted to changing his identity, not that it has assisted him in understanding the facts...
Posted by Steve Soto at December 30, 2005 07:19 PM"I cannot take seriously someone who has no original thought."
So you don't take yourself seriously?
If I had no original thought I wouldn't come here. I'd be perfectly content to stay on the right wing blogs and agree with everybody (like you guys do here).
BTW, comparing Bush to Nazi's not only is not original thought, it's not even an intelligent thought. Quite frankly it's shameful to compare ANY US President to a regime that killed 6 million people. You are really showing how devoid of rational thought you are (which proves my point made earlier about how the liberals hate is destroying them).
So you want 3 things I disagree with Bush on (although I could care less if you take me seriously or not):
1 - Government spending
2 - No plan to deal with illegal immigrants (although there are signs that is beginning to change).
3 - Wasting time going to the absolutely corrupt UN for ANYTHING.
4 - Not calling out the Democrats and exposing them for who they are (that's beginning to change to).
5 - Not replacing Arlene Spector as the head of the Senate Judicary Committee
That enough for you?
Anihja
You have made a valiant and distinguished attempt at thwarting my opinions, albeit, I disagree with your assessment that you succeeded. (And yes, SnarkyShark-Albeit is one of those idiot legalize terms us wannabee lawyers use.)
I still say you haven't completed your task, but I really appreciate your attempts.
As to your challenge. . . . there are many differences that I have with Bush. Many true conservatives disagree with him. I'll name just three since that is all you asked.
1. Campaign finance- He took McCain's version instead of Scalia-who as us lawyers agreed, was an affront to freedom of speech. Now child pornographers have more rights than those who wish to express their opinions on politics.
2. Medicare Prescription-This Bush stole from Clinton- Clinton took welfare reform from the Republicans and Bush tood Prescriptions from the Democrats. Both were wrong to cross over to something that was an anthipathy to their "core" values. (This got Clinton and Bush re-elected.)
3. Federal Spending-Bush showed that he would not jump down on spending. I don't think he has vetoed one bill. That ticks me off. The Alaskan bridge to nowhere was removed, and then put back in a broad giveaway to Alaska.
There are many other areas that I disagree with him.
But I do respect him on Foreign affairs. (screw the French, and on the Economy-Us Rich people move the economy forward by hiring more employees and spending our money on yachts etc.)
So there you have it.
I look forward to your response, and not that of the attaboys and hate mongers on the list.
Just cause Fitz doesn't say specifically she was doesn't mean she wasn't.
In what way is that a lame argument? Tell me what part of the statemant isn't true.
I watched that news confrence, and the impression I got was that Fitz wasn't willing to state what Plame was or wasn't beyond the confines of the Libby indictment.
Bear in mind Plame still worked at the CIA at the time, and Fitz would be accutly aware of his responsibility not to comment on her status.
So the CIA spends all its time and resources trying to make sure a NOC will never be known as such, and we're suppossed to shit up absolute proof that she was at your command.
And if we did come up with a granite tablet chiseled by the almighty himself and handed down on primetime live, you would just ignore it.
I am starting to get a handle on which one of the discredited name changing former trolls you are.
Keep talking, it will come to me.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 07:25 PMI changed it because it appeared that people on this site were reacting very negatively to that name so I decided to go with something a little less provocative (I really ticked off ol' pessimist a little over a month ago).
I actually wasn't going to come here anymore but I got to missing the God Of War and his daily string of obscenities shouted at me.
Besides, it's fun.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:26 PMAt least Carpe Diem hasn't resorted to changing his identity
Sorry Steve...Carp as much as admited he was bagley.
He was mad and confussed and got busted.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 07:27 PMDavid, You see, I already know she was a NOC! I have connections. Former CIA don't need to lie.
She was really outed because she was getting too close to the real truth in Iraq about WMD. So they blew the whole Brewster-Jennings deal out of the water.
Do I have to do your thinking for you? Try keeping up.
Posted by bbtb at December 30, 2005 07:28 PMPlease don't tell God Of War I said I missed him. It would ruin my image.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:28 PMbbtb, then tell sf. He's not getting the message.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:30 PMSomeone who knows quite a bit about Nazis.
You know the justification from many of the Nazi generals? They had to kill all of those people before they killed them. It was self-defense they claimed. Sound familiar? Any action this president does is because of the 'war on terror.'
This president broke the law of Supreme Act of Aggression.
The UN was set up to ensure that nothing like Nazi Germany ever happened again. This administration spitting in the face of the UN proves their arrogance and their ignorance and that they are just like the Nazis.
The fear bullshit that they continue to spew all over us is just like what Hitler did.
Be afraid, be very afraid. The fear and any other means to chip away at our Democracy become justified in order to fight the 'enemy'.
My thoughts are original enough to see the parallel, that you do not is proof positive of your brainwashing.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:32 PMAnd yes I am making many spelling errors, comes from trying to multi-task.
Sue me
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 07:32 PMout of curiosity...
how does one go about figuring out if David has a different or same address as "the Truth"?
And more curious than that.... who cares....
And even more curious than that....
who would go out of their way to check instead of looking up on Google or CBS to contradict our arguments...
Tell me how to check my IP. You will see its from the grand ole state of . . .
Georgia....
Cross reference it to whatever you want....
But the truth is out there.
"Mulder, Fox"
You can't handle the truth"
(Col. Jesup, visa via Jack Nicholson)
Damn it, I think the conservative posts are so much more interesting....
Maybe too many teenagers are online. I say lets ban anyone under the age or IQ of 30....
Then again, no liberals would apply.
Posted by carpediem at December 30, 2005 07:32 PMAnijha
Please don't fail me now. (Little Feat, 1978)
The UN is impotent.
They are not the police of this world.
Go ahead and Google one little tidbit of truth. . . or two.
Look at the invasion of South Korea and why and how America and England was able to fight that off with the UN's cooperation....look at who didn't veto it and why....
Then look at Rwanda and see how the UN refused to act.
The UN needs a triple dose of Viagra. They are run by socialist-anti-americans.
Look this up...Its GOOGLE-able (sic)
I suggest you read the Ben Ferencz statement and I am proud of the both of you for sharing something original and from yourselves rather that just talking points. That was the most impressive thing I have ever seen either of you post.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:38 PM"The UN was set up to ensure that nothing like Nazi Germany ever happened again"
Well they have a sterling record don't they? Kosovo, Rwanda, the Balkans. Ring a bell?
Iraq: 300,000 in mass graves while the big whigs got fat off the UN food for Oil scandal.
Now the Sudan.
If you really believe Bush is Hilter then nothing that I could possibly say would make a dent.
I really do feel sorry for you. Hatred has ruined your life.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:40 PMNothing uglier than crappy drunk. Bleh.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 07:42 PMThey are run by socialist-anti-americans.
Posted by Carpediem at December 30, 2005 07:36 PM
******
The whole world is becoming anti-American thanks to the actions of this administration.
Look it up, it's Google-able.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:42 PMThen david walks in...get a room, guys.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 07:43 PMAnd more curious than that.... who cares....
Some people realize that taking on an identity and sticking to it is the only form of integrety there is in this format. What you say stays out there in cyberspace and can be recalled. That identity can than become known for its charectaristics...such as truthteller, integrety, politeness etc. Or conversly a liar, fanatic, schitzo.
Since you come here suppossedly to defend your worldview in the court of public opinion, your reputation will give your opinion or statements weight, or possibly the oppisite.
Now there are some who have no integrety and change identites at will. They probably are the same in real life because the really have no depth or substance.
Then there are the truly dishonest who pose as several diferent identities to make it seem like there are more of them than there really are.
Like you do.
As for me, I have owned this identity since my legacy poster days at KOS, and I will stand by everything I ever said, and that includes some particularily stupid shit I have said in the past when I was mad.
Grow and learn, you ought to try it some time.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 07:47 PMbbtb, we weren't talking about who got indicted. I was totally blowing away sf's contention that Fitzgerald (and then the Wash Post article he brought up) said she was covert. Try to keep up here.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 07:07 PM
*****
Sorry again, Dave, you're not blowing away anyone away. First of all, I never brought up Fitzerald. Check my posts. Secondly, you cherry-picked the article and fleshed out some technicalities that MIGHT support your argument, but really didn't. You obviously have a very self-convuluted image, not shared by others.
David, do not feel anything for me. It creeps me out and makes me feel like I need to shower.
I actually only truly HATE no one. Hatred is a very extreme emotion. Even people who, by all logic, I should hate, I do not.
I HATE what Bu$hCo has done to my beloved country. I do not know him personally so I cannot say that I hate him.
Yes I am angry. I believe that anger is fear- based. I have (and so do you) a lot to be fearful of.
I hope that he gets stopped. I hope that the Congress does their job. If they do not, then you will see what happens and you will regret every statement of support that you have made for this monster. That is exactly what he is.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 07:50 PMIraq: 300,000 in mass graves while the big whigs got fat off the UN food for Oil scandal.
And of course you realize that the Texas oil cabal was in that up to their eyeballs.
Why do you think there are no official complaints about it.
They just let you toadies carry that water.
Kosovo, Rwanda, the Balkans. Ring a bell?
Wasn't that where the UN stopped genocide.
I mean I sure remember a bunch of right-wing fucktards screaming about we shouldnt be putting our troops under UN command.
Or was I just dreaming all that?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 07:53 PMCarpe, That's "Feats Don't Fail Me Now", "Waiting for Columbus", live double album, awesome tunes. Lowell George was great. Duane Allman was a better slide player though.
Posted by bbtb at December 30, 2005 07:54 PMDave, never answered my 7:15 post, other than useless swaggering.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 07:57 PM"Secondly, you cherry-picked the article and fleshed out some technicalities that MIGHT support your argument, but really didn't. You obviously have a very self-convuluted image, not shared by others."
By cherry picking, I assume you mean I read the WHOLE article and refuted your point.
If I cherry picked it then it should be no problem for you to go out there and pull other quotes from the article and prove me wrong.
Still didn't answer my other post, Dave.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 08:02 PMStill didn't answer my other post, Dave
Because he can't. The walnut shell has it all over his traitorous lacky ass.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 08:07 PMSf, I've refuted you 2 times already.
Here's the third (from your own post):
"You see, Dave, the article is clear in it's IMPLICATION. The last portion of the article is merely to state that it wasn't in BLACK AND WHITE, but it was clear to anyone with an IQ higher than a walnut." (or a liberal who continues in their denial).
Sf, implication is not fact. I'll give you this: you're a classic nuanced liberal.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 08:12 PM"Kosovo, Rwanda, the Balkans. Ring a bell?
Wasn't that where the UN stopped genocide.
====================================
No they sure as hell did not.
The US did. And may I remind you that Bill Clinton did this unilaterally and not one Democrat called for him to go to the UN and get permission.
Nor should he have. Nor should have Bush.
Even Clinton knew what a waste of time that would have been. And he was right.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 08:15 PMSorry, Dave, the FACTS are the her profile was marked secret and that anyone in high government should have recognized that. The second portion of the article in no way refutes the first portion other than to state it wasn't in BIG BOLD LETTERS FOR STUPID ASSES, VALERY PLAME IS COVERT.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 08:23 PMNo they sure as hell did not.
Uh...they sure as hell did, although I would pull Rwanda out of that list. Remind me again how many troops we have in Rwanda?
Oh and all those Russian and Danes and Netherlanders with the blue helments who were their then and are there still?
I had a problem with europes reaction, they were way to slow. But in the end, they were there.
If the UN is so uniportant, then why did Bush go there?
And why did the League of Nations fail?
(hint...it was people like you)
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 08:24 PM"That was the most impressive thing I have ever seen either of you post."
Anjha, if you would come out of your bubble you would discover that most conservatives are not happy with Bush on the same issues we listed. We are not sheep as you believe. And if you'd bother to listen to some of the talk radio liberals love to hate, you'd hear people like Rush raking Bush over the coals for his lack of an immigration policy and his spending.
The Harriet Myers nomination was an example of his base abandoning him (and I took quite a bit of flak from right wing bloggers in my support of her). I no longer listen to Laura Ingraham after her obviously elitist rant against Myers (I never said liberals had a monopoly on arrogance). When Bush' numbers dropped into the 30's it was mainly due to the Myers nomination and his refusal to answer his critics over the war in Iraq. That's why I tried to tell people here that they would re-bound by the first of the year.
So your assessment of conservatives is incorrect. As is most Democrat politicians. That's why they keep getting beat.
"VALERY PLAME IS COVERT."
Then why does everything I've seen on her refute that?
You're getting hysterical Sf.
Maybe you should follow Judith's advice and stop feeding the trolls.
Hey, Dave, how about providing me with a fact that Valery Plame wasn't covert. Not Powerline, not Newsmax, not Hindrocket, but a reputable news organization. Not nuance, not dancing, not parsing, just cold hard fact.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 08:37 PMYour evidence that I am in a bubble, is?
I have been more polite than I should be this entire thread. Then You sling insults at me. Shame, shame.
I do listen to talk radio, however, I would NEVER listen to Rush Limbdick even if he was the only thing on the radio.
The reason that Bu$hCo dropped in the polls is because he let people die in New Orleans and the whole world was watching.
I can't believe that fuck-up was not on your list.
Posted by Anjha at December 30, 2005 08:40 PMYes, the mayor of New Orleans (who let the buses sit idly by while people were dying) and the governor of New Orleans had nothing to do with it. You are so out of touch with reality.
My evidence is that you stereotype conservatives as following in lock-step with the Bush. Anyone who didn't see what happened a couple of months ago must live in a bubble. Sorry.
I can't believe that fuck-up was not on your list.
That was not on his list because that is exactly what Gooperism is all about.
Bad luck comes your way? God hates you.
Hungry people? Starvation will solve the problem.
I always ask my Dad the Arch-conservitatve this question-When you have gotten rid of social security, and Grandpa's pension has been stolen by some friend of Bush, what do you prepose to do with all the suddenly displaced persons?
Death camps? Ice floes? Solyant Green?
They never have an answer.
I see Carpy doesnt want to play with me anymore.
I guess eventually one gets tired of getting ones ass kicked.
And here I thought he was such a glutton for punishment.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 08:53 PMSf, (yawn) I already did. The actual transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, the Washington Post story that you brought up, your own post (wait, I can't use your post. You're not a credible news organazation. Sorry). I didn't use any of the news organizations you mentioned.
Sf, I can't do any more for you. I can't make you face reality if you continue to refuse to do so.
You're throwing hail mary's here to see if it'll work. It may have worked once for Roger Staubach but it's not working for you.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 08:54 PMMy evidence is that you stereotype conservatives as following in lock-step with the Bush.
But you guys pretty much live the stereo-type.
Ya'll could have put Kerry into office and then hung him with all the results of Bush's fuck-ups.
But in the end you couldn't overcome your programing.
So sad.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 08:57 PMDavid, bu$h has already taken full resposibility for Katrina! In fact, at this time, he is still investigating the causes of FEMA's failure today! The Mayor and Governor asked for help that did not come.
You sir, are a complete and utter moron!
"bu$h doesn't like black people"! - Kayne West
Got to admit, bu$h is "King of the Crackers"!
Posted by bbtb at December 30, 2005 09:00 PM" always ask my Dad the Arch-conservitatve this question-When you have gotten rid of social security, and Grandpa's pension has been stolen by some friend of Bush, what do you prepose to do with all the suddenly displaced persons?
Death camps? Ice floes? Solyant Green?
They never have an answer."
Probably because they are laughing so hard at such a idiotic question they can't.
==================================
"Hungry people? Starvation will solve the problem."
Why are you opposed to that? you're beloved NYT ran an article when Terry Shiavo was dying about how death by starvation was a "euphoric" experience. If you apply that logic then we should all be happy when people starve to death. They're in "euphoria".
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 09:02 PMOnce again, Dave, no facts on the table other than your specious argument. Bring some better next time. I'll see ya.
Posted by sf at December 30, 2005 09:03 PM"David, bu$h has already taken full resposibility for Katrina! In fact, at this time, he is still investigating the causes of FEMA's failure today! The Mayor and Governor asked for help that did not come.
You sir, are a complete and utter moron!
"bu$h doesn't like black people"! - Kayne West
====================================
Bush did what leaders do and took responsibility. Someone had to - the mayor ran off to Texas and the governor disappeared.
You call me a moron and then quote Kayne West. LOL.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 09:05 PMTerry Shiavo was dying
My mom died a horrible lingering death from cancer.
I am an advocate for assisted suicide.
Guess who opposes us at every turn?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 09:06 PMSf, You lost. You can spin it if you want but the bottom line is that my FACTS were too much for you to handle.
Next time give me a challenge.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 09:07 PMBush did what leaders do and took responsibility.
No he didn't. He muttered some words that they thought would help their PR campaign.
Everything is a PR campaign to them.
Why is Brownie still working as a consultant?
Actions speak louder than words.
I'm truly sorry to hear that. Sorry if I hit a raw nerve.
I do not think that any kind of death is euphoric and the NYT probably doesn't either so they shouldn't print stuff like that.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 09:10 PMSf, You lost.
Uh SF kicked your ass. All you did was bob and weave.
Get off the crack pipe dude.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 09:11 PMSo "david" is our old friend Real Kool-Aid. "david" seemed a more rational persona than R K-A. Interesting.
These comment boards are like a soap opera.
On this "covert agent" thing, I think the MSM (Wa Post, etc.) has pretty regularly identified Plame as covert or undercover. And obviously Fitzgerald thought disclosure of her name violated SOME applicable federal statute, or we wouldn't have had any testimony before a grand jury.
David himself pulls up the crucial Fitz quote at 6:01. There, Fitz says that "if" Plame's affiliation/association with the CIA was "classified", then it was "national defense information" protected by the Espionage Act.
I bet it was. That's all I need to know.
Big Picture: High Level White House officials have been indicted for violations of federal law---anyone care to dispute that "fact"?
The Reactionary Right never can see the forest for the trees.
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 09:13 PMI'm truly sorry to hear that. Sorry if I hit a raw nerve.
I appreaciate you saying that. However it was 20 years ago, so dont worry about it.
I have a thick skin....I just remember all the Schiavo repubs screaming about how poor Terry starved to death, when the reason that that happened is because all the same people block assisted suicide at every turn.
Can you see how that might piss me off?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 09:14 PMFor David,
I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
-The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003.
It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.
-And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
-I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected.
And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees.
-Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.
-I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.
With Love, Mr. Fitzgerald.
----------------------------
Yes, Mr. Fitzgerald telling us all a little context is what is needed during his press conference on the 5 count indictment against Libby. All above words are his. Yes a little context for the reading impaired and willfully blind would help Mr. Fitzgerald...not that idiots like David who can't understand the grey area and nuance of Mr. Fitzgerald's comments...stating that obstuction of jutice caused the prosecutor to have difficulty in finding the truth about which gov't official with access to this classified information gave this information to a reporter who then proceeded to blow this classified CIA officers cover.
Stfu David...you're boring us with you're everyone knew she wasn't undercover bs. Yes seems everyone knew it except for the Prosecutor Mr. Fitzgerald who only mentioned it throughout the press conference that she was undercover and that her cover was blown which was a serious national security issue. And quit your parsing of this covert bs...what part of her cover was blown, her identity was classified don't you understand moron. According to Mr. Fitzgerald her cover and classified identity were blown and it was a crime. Just because he hasn't indicted or prosecuted anyone (yet) doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. You'd be great on all those unsolved murder mysteries...just because they haven't caught the killer means no crime occurred right.
Yawn....It's late and you're still ignorant and willfully so....some thing will never change.
Posted by at December 30, 2005 09:17 PMI do not think that any kind of death is euphoric
Actually, freezing is suppossed to be. I would rather not find out however. If I'm ever terminal, Im gonna OD on some real pure smack.
Just float on out.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 09:18 PMOooopps, Fitz himself, in the same quote, confirms that her association with the CIA was "classified", hence "national security information" under the Espionage Act.
And anon poster does a much better job than I did---thanks, anon!
I think that explains at least one reason why the grand jury went forward.
Now, why again does the Right Wing not care that WH officials leaked national security information?
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 09:30 PMSf, (yawn) I already did. The actual transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, the Washington Post story that you brought up, your own post (wait, I can't use your post. You're not a credible news organazation. Sorry). I didn't use any of the news organizations you mentioned.osted by David at December 30, 2005 08:54 PM
Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
". . . I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law."
Anjha, to bad DeLay doesn't believe in his own words. He had to choke on those words.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 03:18 AM"Why didn't Bush scream about it a year ago? I suspect because the New York Times agreed not to disclose it, so that for all intents and purposes, the information was to some degree confidential and if they made an investigation about it, then it would have been NEWS about something they didn't want out there."
Did you get that folks? LOL What an idiot! He/she still doesn't get it.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 03:22 AMDana Williams, well said. You are so right. True Republicans must stand up, as they have as much to lose as the rest of us.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 03:36 AMDon't attempt to answer, just scoff at it. Don't disprove my assertions with any type of search on Google, and thereby prove my total ignorance, instead, demand that I prove each comment with a specific foot note, which I would be happy to do, but you'd ignore that too.
Carp, we are not answering any of your questions because of one very simple reason. WE HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW AND YOU STILL KEEP ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS! It has been proven that answering your questions is for naught. You my dear Carp, have turned into a big bore.
"Now, why again does the Right Wing not care that WH officials leaked national security information?
Posted by euzoius at December 30, 2005 09:30 PM"
==================================
Exactly where in Fitzgerald's press conference did he indict someone for leaking national security information? He charged Libby with pergury, not outing Plame.
Honestly folks, try actually reading your "evidence" before making your points.
================================
"And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth."
Somehow I doubt you'll apply the same principle to the NSA leak, which is 100 times more damaging than Plame. But we will find out the truth in that matter and I have a feeling several reporters (and maybe some politicians) are going to be in jail before that investigation is over).
Posted by David at December 31, 2005 06:13 AMDear David,
Here......for you, or try something from this page.
But before you do any of those you most definitely need to try something you might find here.
----------------
Just because the prosecutor didn't indict/prosecute someone for that crime doesn't mean that that serious crime did not occur. There are millions of unsolved homicides (crimes)across the nation, but using your (il)logic, those deaths resulting from those crimes did not occur because no one has been prosecuted for them.
And while you're at it, maybe you can find someone at this site that can help you remove your head from your arse. Since your head was not only clearly handed to you by several commenters on a silver platter here, but now you've seemed to have gotten it permanently lodged up your butt.
Love, Mr. Fitzgerald.
The evidence of your posts here speak volumes about the enjoyment you get from repeatedly exposing yourself for the brainless, cult-like, fool that you really are.
David, I tried to get stupid silly on you and your still at it.
One thing that is still true: You twist and spin every bit of information to suit your feeble little neoconservative attitude. Remember, bu$h is the problem. He is the one who is wrong with abusing NSA powers and the civil liberties of American citizens. bu$h has no right to question who leaked a story about the NSA. Additionally, this would not have happened if his hand was not caught in the proverbial cookie jar. Basically he fucked up, just like he has fucked every American policy he has touched since taking office.
End of discussion with your inept ass!
Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak says that no laws were broken in the case.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.
In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."
Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."
Gees, I guess facts speak louder than words.
I know, I know, you libs won't consider this as true, but hey, when you live your life only listening to KOS and the other left wing nut cases, what are you supposed to know otherwise.
Posted by carpediem at December 31, 2005 10:02 AMCrape, the only legal interpretation of the relevant statutes that really matters is Fitzgerald's.
His investigation clearly was examining whether numerous statutes had been violated by the intentional leak of classified information by the White House.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was just one of those statutes. Another appears to be the Espionage Act. If you could read the thread, you'd see that the Espionage Act is likely the statute that Fitz concluded was violated when he BEGAN his investigation. But he may have concluded the Intelligence Identities Act was violated as well.
But then all the White House crooks had to go and repeatedly lie to the grand jury, violating many more federal statutes and making the actual facts of the leak apparently impossible to sort out.
So they got charged with lying to the grand jury.
That's what Fitzgerald said.
It's not that hard to understand, and not some great abuse of the system.
Why are we still debating the Plame case? Frankly, I am nauseous going over the same thing again and again. Their "facts" are not facts, and nothing you write here is going to change the need to believe in lies. The "talking points" are never going to change. End of story.
Let us just see what happens in '06 and what indictments Fitzgerald hands down.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 10:29 AMI was writing to try to explain the Plame case to others who might read the thread, not, most assuredly, to persuade Crape.
He's unpersuadable.
Posted by euzoius at December 31, 2005 10:45 AMI think you're right, Judith, these people are intractable in their talking points and it's just a waste of time arguing with them.
Posted by sf at December 31, 2005 10:55 AMYou guys really are a riot. Your answers to the facts are to cut me down and say that we should wait..
Get this. . . Fitzgerald knows and has proof that numerous people from the Bush White house had told numerous reporters that Plame was married to Wilson and that she worked with WMD at the CIA.
Thats a Fact. There is no issue with that.
The point that you superior intellect refuse to acknowledge is that devulging this information wasn't ILLEGAL. Lying to the grand jury investigating the facts is ILLEGAL, but not telling on Plame.
I know its depressing when you can't respond to the truth with and facts. It hurts to have to just fall back on your screaming, hollaring and crying like babies.
The TRUTH HURTS. Your liberal leaders-including the libs in the MSM, hoped and prayed that they finally got Rove/Bush, but what they did WASN'T AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get over it. . . .
but you won't, instead you will keep spinning these blogs with your lies hoping that your propaganda will continue to assauge your injured feelings.
Sad, so very sad.
Euzoius, I see your method of madness now. I'm just tired of going over and over again that Plame was not covert, that she sent Wilson to Niger, that no law was broken, etc. If people don't have the information by now to make a judgement, they never will.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 11:14 AMCarp, yada yada yada. Whatever.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 11:18 AMActually Crappy, I am of the belief that a single person can find enough 'information' to be able to argue either side of a debate. I know many who play devil's advoctate just to debate, taking positions that they do not really believe in.
So many of your 'core beliefs' as you yourself have presented them, seem to contradict your support of this administration.
You can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Some things aren't contraindicated.
What is contraindicated is cherry picking information to prove a point when it goes against laws of nature. Laws of nature, not laws of man, are of Supreme importance here.
It goes against laws of nature to use one's power and access for selfish and self-serving means. It goes against laws of nature to risk the lives of many to serve a vendetta. It goes against laws of nature to destroy everything good that this country was founded on (freedom, liberty, rights...) Remember what they fought for and why they fought.
America use to be the land of opportunity, a new frontier, a sovereign nation governed BY THE PEOPLE. Remember, OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
Not anymore. It is for the wealthy and the elite. Civil rights and liberties are eroded. Human rights are trampled.
Everything that this administration has done is contra goodness and kindness. Nothing allows for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Whether or not one of man's laws were broken will be revealed. Anyone with any kind of compassionate bone in their body can see that Nature's Law has been broken time and time again.
Posted by Anjha at December 31, 2005 11:30 AMAnjha-
Spoken like a true liberal.
The laws of nature are broken? Sort of like homo-sexuality?....sorry just a little dig.
Yes, as you say arguments can be made on both sides of the Plame/Wilson fiasco. But just because an argument is made, doesn't mean it is right.
You see exactly the points that I, and several others have made with real facts. Plame wasn't covert, ergo revealing her name was not illegal.
Case closed. The liberals don't want to believe that because of the insane hatred that clouds their judgment and ability to see.
Again, the best response so far, other than iamcoyote giving everybody and attaboy, is Judith's Yada Yada Yada.
Which means, if my memory of Seinfield days haven't left me, is that you neither care nor hear what is being said to you...
However, on the flip side, in that same episode, those that cherished the yada, yada, yada premise did so at the risk of not knowing the full truth.
So thank you Judith. Yada, Yada, Yada is the quintessential Liberal retort for this, and many other blogs.
---not that there is anything wrong with that.
(Back to my son's graduation from kindergarten in 1990.)
Posted by Carpediem at December 31, 2005 11:52 AMCrappy, please give me your definition of LIBERAL. You seem to have tremendous fear of Liberalism. You throw it around as though those who are liberal are tainted or ill. I wonder where such a perversed view came from.
Also, for the record, homosexuality no more goes against Laws of Nature than heterosexuality. Sex is natural in all of its forms.
Posted by Anjha at December 31, 2005 12:07 PMCarpediem -- I'm thinking you are not bagley as others have stated. Otherwise, you probably would have been outted in the same way others have been with regard to you IP address. I read a little above about your confusion concerning IP addresses. Tell me how to check my IP. You will see its from the grand ole state of . . .
Georgia....
Cross reference it to whatever you want.... It's not so sinister as you may think. Trust me, Steve won't be knocking at your door or anything.
This discussion has covered a great deal of territory. I'm not sure how much of it has been helpful or entertaining. There seems to me to be a distinct difference between the two leaks of information -- based mostly upon the motivation for each. I have my own ideas about that, but would like to hear yours first, if you don't mind (and perhaps have the time while recording). If you are too busy, that's ok, too.
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 12:19 PMAnjha, there you go again "Sex is natural in all of its forms"
Why not legalize Incest? Especially if the parties are sterile?
I represented years ago, a brother who was angry at his sibling for going out on a date with this girl, he beat him half to death with a baseball bat. The judge/prosecutor thought it was jealosy, but in fact it was, but not the way they thought it was.
He was having homosexual/incest with his own brother.
Why not beastiality?
Why not man/boy love, I know, the age of consent, but in Canada, the age of consent is 14 and they are so much more enligthened that us.
So how does your natural love fair with a 14 year old boy or girl having sex with say, 10 old men in their 40's or 50's. As long as its consentual I guess.
Homosexuality might be "normal" for some individuals, but it doesn't make it natural. I'm not suggesting that we go out and hang them from the nearest tree, but that we can't deny that it is unnatural.
I've represented Child Molesters in years past too. I found this to be the most difficult, harder to do that murder. But hey, for many of these men, yes, I'm sexists, men are more prone to sexual child molestation than women, but these men could not help themselves. They were born for this and some were messed up as children, but for them it was "natural".
This is an example of liberalism. You decide your laws and rules by how you "feel" about something at any given time. 50 years ago, even liberals would not align themselves with homosexuallity, but as societal mores change so too do our values, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better, but they do change.
Maybe in 50 years, beastiality will be mainstream, and the American man boy love association will sit next to Michael Moore's grand children in the arena where the Democrats are again trying to elect a left wing socialists to be thier presidential candidate.
"not that there isn't anything wrong with that!"
Dear Dorita,
The motivation for the outings are relevant and then they are not. Allow me to explain.
Clearly Rove and Libby et. al were ticked that the CIA bueracrats would send an idiot to go to Niger come back and write an expose in the NYtimes without any confidentiality requirements or any documentation to support his views.
Can any of you agree that that sounds fishy?
Well it sounded fishy to the journalist who called their contacts as a point of interest and BIAS, the contacts told Novak and others that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and may have recommended him for the job.
Was it designed to discredit Wilson, hell yeah. Was it illegal, well if the statute I've cited to you all is legitimate, which I believe it is, then NO it wasn't ILLEGAL.
Wilson's retort to grandstand this issue as some sort of martyr was also political. It all is political. But it wasn't illegal. (Although Wilson may have lied to Congress in his testimony that contradicts his own book, but thats another story)
Now as to the NSA leak, I assume that national security methods and means is deemed to be confidential. Perhaps this information was accidently leaked, in which case, it might not be illegal, but mere incompetence. However, I suspect, another career buearcrat leaked it to embarrass Bush.
Again, what the media doesn't recognize or for which I have not seen, is the basics of constitutional law.
I know, I know, I'm just pretending to be a lawyer, since Sharkyshark and Imacoyote and God of War Outed me, or Punked me out sometime ago, but in my ficticious life, when I represented defendants....illegal searches and seizures were done day in and day out.
I was able to get many "guilty" men and women off, by bringing up constitutional challenges to the searches. The result....is what we call the EXCLUSIONARY RULE. In other words, the evidence illegally obtained was deemed inadmissible.
What didn't happen, was that the police officer who pulled my client over for no valid/probable cause reason, was excused to go back out and do it again. He wasn't arrested, he was just told to go back to work.
I'm not a scholar on Federal Statutory or FISA law by no means, but our POLICE have a very broad RIGHT to do these things without fear of prosecution. These acts are deemd to be okay, as long as the officer/agency had a "good faith basis" for believeing they were following the law.
If not, the jails would be filled with officers who violated someone's rights. and/or we would have no police force, because no one would ever take the job for fear that they might make a mistake.
Mind you, if the law in this area is so crystal clear, then where is the Democrats DEMAND for Bush to Stop....
So Dorita, I hope I explained in some detail. I'm still just wanting someone on the list to admit a few basic principles of facts and truth rather than lambasting the messenger.
Posted by Carpediem at December 31, 2005 12:41 PMCarpediem, do you know how many conservatives have answered your question "Why not beastiality?" in the affirmative?
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 12:45 PMI am of course a lawyer, my bar number is 358220.
My bar number is 8675309......
And any lawyer (heh) that totally disregards and refuses to take the prosecutor's exact words and verbatim statements(see post @ 9:17) over some article he copied and pasted (without sourcing or dating I might add) filled with partisan Bush loyalists telling us their interpretations of what the prosecutor said, must not be a very good one...but hey facts are funny like that. With that one action and fact alone, you don't deserve to be taken seriously..what a hack.
Carpediem, I have no problem with the messenger. I just want to have a descent discussion. A thicker skin than you seem to have helps in this arena. Let go of the insults that you take as personal and simply put across your points. Even if others attempt to insult you, ignore it. It's difficult but rewarding at the same time.
Thank you for answering my question. The reason I think the two cases are different, as I said, concern motivation. Let's just say that you are right and that the first (of the two) leak was designed to discredit Wilson. In my mind it begs the question. Why "leak" the information -- whether accurate or not -- instead of confronting it head on? Why resort to the press? Or at the very least, why play Wilson's game? Why not just say that it was a mistake to send Wilson? If the adminstration was certain that the information about Plame was common knowledge or that her status was not classified (the administration would be in a position to know this, wouldn't you think), why not address the subject and be done with it. Did Ashcroft screw up? Did the CIA?
As for the second leak, it seems to be more of a situation where someone thought that something illegal was being done and that it should stop. Right or wrong, federal employees can and should be able to alert some authority that there may be problems with a particular policy or how it is being carried out.
Lastly, your reference to criminal law doesn't seem to me to meet the same standard as what is in play in this situation. It is one thing for a police officer to search a single individual. It is entirely different for an entire agency of the federal government to secretly search an entire population. (I don't think there is much to dispute in that, but you are free to do so, if you wish.)
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 01:07 PMDear At, or Bar number guy.
Who are you?
And if I'm such a hack, tell me what were the prosecutor's words that you believe supports your position over the exact statute? Since you are a lawyer then I imagin you can read.
We know who talked to the journalist, we know what they told the journalist, (otherwise Miller would still be in jail.) In fact, Libby and Rove released them from their confidences. So we know that Plame was "outed" as working at the CIA.
So tell me Mr. Lawyer, what exact indictment are you referring to? Because I only read about an OOJ and perjury. I didn't hear anything about violating a NOC agent. Did you?
He closed down the investigation, . . . or was about to, when Woodward got back in town.
Hell the special prosectutor from 10 years ago on Espy I think is just now finalizing his investigation.
If you think an investigation makes you feel better so be it. But Try to be honest with the debate.
Then again, as I've said online before, I'm a shyster lawyer, no biggie. We take ourselves too seriously. And since I run a website for over 400 other lawyers, I can assure you being a lawyer does not make us any smarter or better than others. So I challenge you Mr. Lawyer without a name. Tell me what proof you have that a NOC agent was outed PER THE STATUTE.
LOOK IT UP and then come back and PROVE ME WRONG.
Then I'll leave in disgrace to the cheers and accolades of most of the betwetters on this list.
oh, and as a point of order. I highly recommend that you trolls try out some good conservative blogs. I rarely post there, because its like preaching to the choir. I recommend LGF and PowerlineBlog, andrewsullivan, although he's turned pretty liberal with the gay issue.
I find it keeps your brain sharper when you are honing your skills with others. It challenges your beliefs and encourages thought provoking discussions. And believe it or not, some of you on this list have made several very intellectually strong arguments, and some are just slinging their poop around....
So Mr. Lawyer, tell me how the law was broken using the statute...or just continue to slam me.
Anybody with any brains is not intimidated by you and I being attorneys, as well they shouldn't be, so take my challenge or crawl back into your lazy boy and type up smart aleck comments to me.
(This is why I dont have or allow political debates on my website, too many idiots and their passions get in the way of the truth, we only discuss legal issues.)
Posted by Carpediem at December 31, 2005 01:20 PMCarpediem, I think that there should be a limit on how many times one touts his authority on one thread. What do you think? Do you have any such policy on the web site you run? It gets a little boring to hear about how one runs a web site but doesn't understand some very basics of internet workings. Perhaps it is easier in an issulated environment to control contributions and accuracy.
I find your advice to other trolls a little silly. Ace and Protien are a little more "cutting edge" than the largely pointless LFG and rocket.
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 01:39 PM"One thing that is still true: You twist and spin every bit of information to suit your feeble little neoconservative attitude"
====================
Shame on me for rebutting you guys with FACTS. I should know better.
bbtb, the new year starts at midnight. Why don't you start by actually dealing with facts and not your "interpetation" of events.
Posted by David at December 31, 2005 01:48 PM"Let us just see what happens in '06 and what indictments Fitzgerald hands down."
===============================
Yes let's. And when the Dem's fail again and again I guess you'll continue to blame the stupidity of us "trolls".
I'm wondering if reality will EVER seep thru to you liberals.
Carpe, really, victimization and homosexuality are two completely seperate issues. To merge the two shows complete ignorance of both. Proof that I can discuss neither with you in any productive fashion.
Posted by Anjha at December 31, 2005 01:52 PMDavid I see that you too have trouble with not only facts, but also IP addresses. If you will allow me to give you an edge on the "typical" troll: take the time and effort to use the linked text feature available to you. In this one way you can set yourself apart from all of the vanilla trolls who tread here. Try it! It could change your "life" here at TLC and other progressive blogs you visit.
I know you are asking yourself -- "why would one of them help me?" -- well the answer is simple. It is far easier to mouse over a link and click. In addition, it would give you a bit more credibility (which you seem to need) in your debates.
Take it or leave it.
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 01:58 PMSomeone asked about the definition of a liberal. While Carpediem answered it pretty well, when I think of a liberal I think immediately of 2 things:
1 - anti-war - ANY war (unless a Democrat is in office).
2 - Everything is sectioned by groups (blacks, homosexuals, the rich, the poor etc). There is no individuality allowed in liberalism. That explains why they are always in lockstep and why all these groups work together (look at any anti-war rally - you see feminists, animal rights, pro-abortion, socialists there). It also explains why it "appears" they are the mainstream because they join together to go to these rallies.
Conservatives on the other hand have a mindset of individuality. You rarely see big rallies by conservatives because we don't engage in group think (despite what you liberals think).
With one possible exception - on election day. That is why you liberals are continually stunned when you get losing elections. You really don't see that people in fly-over country are mad as hell at your constant undermining of the war on terror, national security, tax relief for the middle class, respect for all Amercians (including the unborn - specifically we see liberals in Hollywood defend Tookie Williams yet push for abortion rights and that sickens us). Us average Joe Blows may be under the radar screen most of the time but we know what would happen if power was ever handed to liberals and we vote accordingly.
Keep it up. You'll continue to be at a loss on why you are losing.
Posted by David at December 31, 2005 02:11 PMDorita,
I did that 2 times last night and proved Sf wrong both times and he still maintains he was right.
So why would I waste my time with it? You'd just switch to something else when I prove you wrong.
Posted by David at December 31, 2005 02:14 PMConservatives on the other hand have a mindset of individuality. You rarely see big rallies by conservatives because we don't engage in group think
No, you all coincendentally come up with the same talking points advanced by Rush et.al. on radio and then "refined" a bit by Fox news everyday. Will miricles ever cease? LOL
Posted by RLP at December 31, 2005 02:26 PMDavid, you can easily correct me if I am wrong (by using the linked text option) but you did not link to anything in this thread.
My advice still stands.
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 02:29 PMDear Dorita,
My apologizes for missing your posts, I'm confused as to which link I am posting to which board.
As to your comments. You said I was offending you by not being Civil to you. I wonder where or how, but my apologizes nonetheless. You have been pretty civil for the most part, other than chiding me for posting too often.
As to running websites and knowing how to get an IP from this format, well, guilty as charged.
I use a Dot net nuke on my lawyers website, and my designer keeps it up to date.
My other two sites use boring Frontpage. ergo, I may tinker around on the web, I am by no means a professional. Just getting too old to do this.
So as to your recommendations. How many posts should I be allowed in this liberal world of free speech?
Could or should we count posts by those that chide me with hate talk, or merely give attaboys away to any comment made?
What if my posts are very long, or very short? How would you count those.
I've not heard from judith's any more, but does her yada yada yada comment as one as well.
Your suggestion sounds oh so much like how liberals believe government should run. Act as if you are open and honest, then condemn as irrelevant those that disagree, then ban them for being racist, sexists, or in my case a "typist".
Nonetheless, I'm gonna give it a rest since I'm about to entertain friends.
My advise to you all....
transfer those old VHS before its too late. They degrade with time and I'm finding lots of problems with copying them.
Don't lose those treasures, do it before its too late.
I'd wish you a Happy New Year, but that would be politically incorrect since The Chinese and Muslim New Years are not the same and I'd be discriminating against them....
Posted by Carpediem at December 31, 2005 03:17 PMcarpeChump,
bar number 8-6-7-5-3-0-9..say each number outloud as you read them.
Remind someone of your "intellect" of anything...even my 10 year old got it.
Cheers and Happy New Year!
Posted by at December 31, 2005 03:30 PMSf, (yawn) I already did. The actual transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, the Washington Post story that you brought up, your own post (wait, I can't use your post. You're not a credible news organazation. Sorry). I didn't use any of the news organizations you mentioned.
Posted by David at December 30, 2005 08:54 PM
******
So, Dave, this is how you "proved" me wrong. First of all, Dave, Fitzerald never said she was nor ever said wasn't covert. But to you that makes it a fact she wasn't covert. Secondly, the WaPo article makes it abundantly clear to even the most obtuse that she was covert. But you parse a few words in the article and to you that makes it a fact she wasn't covert. And you wonder why people question your credibility.
Carpediem, it might help you to keep track if you read what was written a little more closely. It was my ability to remain civil which I was questioning. I refrained from judging whether or not you had been civil or not.
I don't care how often you post, but I do find it boring to hear you or anyone else tout their prowess ad nauseam. My point was to see if you had a similar intolerance for such repetitiveness. I didn't refer to other commenters since my point was to ask you. I have no power to ban anyone on this site. I don't think anyone should be banned. BTW, I haven't been banned from any site. How about you?
It appears from your comments that you don't so much "run" your web site as you perhaps supervise those who do. That makes your previous statements clearer.
Lastly, since I don't worry about what others may think of me or the labels they may apply to me, I will wish you a happy and safe New Year.
Oh, and good luck with those tapes. If you need some help, don't be afraid to ask!
Posted by dorita at December 31, 2005 05:28 PMSf I see you refuse to admit defeat. Oh well. You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I made an error on my earlier post today (gasp!). I said that liberals were against any war. I was wrong. Liberals (as evidenced time and time again on this site) are FOR civil war in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunni's because it would make Bush look bad. Rlp specifically has been breathlessly warning us (almost wishing?) that this was going to happen for the last 6 months.
Isn't it ironic that the one war you're for is the one you won't get?
"Irony can be a pretty ironic thing" - William Shatner (Buck Murdock), Airplane 2.
Posted by David at December 31, 2005 06:49 PMSf I see you refuse to admit defeat. Oh well. You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
*****
Actually, Dave, you made a complete fool of yourself. Again. You're just too thick to see it.
You rarely see big rallies by conservatives because we don't engage in group think
Worse case of projection I have ever seen.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 31, 2005 10:51 PMLiberals (as evidenced time and time again on this site) are FOR civil war in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunni's because it would make Bush look bad. Rlp specifically has been breathlessly warning us (almost wishing?)
Well, I suppose that using your line of thinking, I can look at a weather map in September, see a hurricane bearing down on the coast and be "pro hurricane." As far as me, I am not breathless about anything and I don't wish for bad news, but if I did, I wouldn't have to wish hard.
Posted by rlp at December 31, 2005 11:18 PMYou rarely see big rallies by conservatives because we don't engage in group think
Worse case of projection I have ever seen.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 31, 2005 10:51 PM
*****
Exactly right, snarky snark. Ask them why people have to sign a loyalty oath at a Bush rally. I think that's called group-think.
Lying to the grand jury investigating the facts is ILLEGAL, but not telling on Plame.
Then why did Libby lie? Hint...it goes to motive.
But of course you as a big time lawyer knew that.
Dorita- he was bagley......
I could easily have as many IDs with different IPs.
Little thing called proxies.
Although in that case I dont think he even did that. He was just juggeling 2 identities while he was drunk, and forgot which thread he was on. And his projecting was out of control that night. His accusations about what I was suppossedly doing tipped me off, I laid a trap, and he walked right in.
I dont really care, but it seemed duplicitous.
Posted by at January 1, 2006 02:11 AMAnd whats with this pro-war crap. War is death and rotting stinking flesh and dead kids. There is no glory in it.
War is the last resort when there are no other options. That's what we should have learned from vietnam. But there seems to be a subset who seems incapable of learning anything.
Anybody who considers themeselves remotely civilized should be oppossed to war, end of story.
And yes there were plenty of other options in Iraq.
Lying to the grand jury investigating the facts is ILLEGAL, but not telling on Plame.
Then why did Libby lie? Hint...it goes to motive.
But of course you as a big time lawyer knew that.
Dorita- he was bagley......
I could easily have as many IDs with different IPs.
Little thing called proxies.
Although in that case I dont think he even did that. He was just juggeling 2 identities while he was drunk, and forgot which thread he was on. And his projecting was out of control that night. His accusations about what I was suppossedly doing tipped me off, I laid a trap, and he walked right in.
I dont really care, but it seemed duplicitous.
What are you talking about? "his accusations as to what I was supposedly doing tipped me of, I laid a trap". . . what in the world does this mean>?
Who are you? Why not leave a name? What trap? What did I step in that proved you right or wrong?
As to getting lost on this thing, I'm admitting it, I forget which thread I'm on and I've had to re-read comments. Sometimes, my comments are posted just as other comments are being posted and they overlap, so that I never read them.
Isn't this sort of silly? Try to make accusations about changing IP addresses and Proxies?
Apparently you all believe that I need to have someone, namely me, giving myself anonymus attaboys... Thats the only explanation I can come up with.
The truth is, I'm in "hostile" terrority on the blog, I knew that coming in. I can't expect others to come out of the woodwork to support my positions, so coming in under another name doesn't help, nor hurt me. So why do it?
But if it makes you feel better, my other name I use is God of War. Its my evil twin.
Oops, I forgot my name above.
Posted by carpediem at January 1, 2006 02:32 PMcarpediem -- I don't know who that anonymous commenter is whom you sort of quoted. I also don't know what sort of trap s/he is referring to. I actually am fairly friendly with Bagley, so I was wondering as I read the discussion if the accusation was true (evidently I missed reading those particular comment threads). I tend to think it is not, or at least I hope it's not. I would hate to lose touch with him.
I am not so enamored of you, for what should be obvious reasons -- one specifically is your repetitiveness. I mean you ended at least two (that I read) of you posts with the same nonsense about wishing (or not) people here a happy New Year. Either do it sincerely or don't do it at all. If you were trying to be funny, you didn't succeed -- that's not to say you should quit trying, though.
I hope your New Year was pleasant and safe for you and yours.
Posted by dorita at January 1, 2006 08:40 PMPROBLEM OF ELECTION RIGGING NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH
Imagine this: A Trojan Horse unleashes thousands of illegitimate votes and disappears without a trace, election commissioners bypass laws, uninvestigated computer glitches and easily picked locks in voting systems, no federal oversight holding e-voting vendors accountable—yes folks, elections can be stolen.
Since the 2000 Presidential election, problems stemming from the use of electronic voting machines have called into question the foundation of American democracy—the US voting system. At the forefront of concerns are security issues surrounding the use of Direct Recording Electronics [DREs], better known as touch screen computer voting machines, and their lack of a paper trail in the form of an auditable paper ballot. Widely reported irregularities from voting districts around the US have alarmed many and opened claims of stolen elections. Some even doubt the legitimacy of the outcome of recent US elections. A team of top computer scientists has been working diligently to resolve the many underlying design problems in the e-voting system that leave it open to cheating. Stalled by the federal government, and with doubts about e-voting continuing to spread, these scientists have instead turned to state governments and the National Science Foundation for help.
"Maryland, where I live, uses Diebold DREs, which are an ideal opportunity for cheating," said Dr. Avi Rubin, Technical Director, Information Security Institute, Johns Hopkins University. "In fact, you couldn't come up with a better opportunity for cheating. There's no ability to audit or recount, and the entire process takes place inside the computer, which is not transparent."
In May 2004, Rubin co-authored an analysis of electronic voting systems, raising concerns about lack of security, for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the world's largest professional organization for technical standards. He also served in 2004 as a poll worker and election judge in Baltimore County, Maryland, where he lives. These and other experiences have only served to raise his concerns about the possibility for cheating via the use of electronic voting machines.
Efforts to Secure E-voting Stalled
Apprehension about the lack of security in Diebold's DREs and other touch screen computer voting machines spurred David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor, to establish the Verified Voting Foundation in November 2004. According to Dill, when federal legislators tried to create a law that would address e-voting security problems, it was "blocked by a committee chairman, so we focused on state legislation."
Since then, the group has been advising states on e-voting security problems and the need, at a bare minimum, for a verified voting paper audit trail.
Earlier this year, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) submitted a bill, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005 (HR 550), to the House Administration Committee. The bill requires a paper audit trail at the federal level. But Holt has not been able to get the chairman of the committee, Congressman Robert Ney (R-OH), to schedule a hearing on it all year long.
"Congressman Ney will not schedule a hearing on the bill, so it remains in limbo," confirmed Pat Eddington, Holt's press secretary.
Even the bi-partisan federal Carter-Baker Commission Report could not nudge Ney. Set up to review the entire electoral process and co-chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, the report strongly endorses the need for a paper audit trail. (Congressman Ney's office did not return repeated calls.)
In lieu of the refusal of some at the federal level of government to address the issues surrounding the legitimacy of electronic voting procedures and work toward safeguarding American elections, Verified Voting turned to state governments. Since its founding, Verified Voting has helped 26 states establish state legislation that requires a paper audit trail in e-voting machines, and 14 states have requirements pending, according to verifiedvoting.org.
However, paper receipts only begin to address the complexity of electronic voting problems. The most serious concern among computer scientists studying the problems is the "Trojan Horse," a computer code that can be programmed to hide inside voting software, emerge in less than one second to change an election, then destroy itself immediately afterwards, going undetected.
"Anyone who has access to the software—an insider—could easily insert a Trojan Horse into the software," said Barbara Simons, a past president of the Association for Computing Machinery and a retired IBM researcher who is co-authoring a book on the risks of computerized voting. The problem is that the Trojan Horse cannot be detected unless the software is inspected continuously—as in every second—for its presence.
No Oversight of E-voting Legitimacy
Three-voting vendors—Diebold, Election Systems and Software (ESS), and Sequoia—dominate the market. Since e-voting is unprecedented in the history of elections and law tends to lag behind technology development, there is no federal oversight body holding these companies accountable for the security and reliability of their electronic voting systems. Their machines are supposedly tested by independent testing authorities. "But it turns out that the vendors pay the independent testing authorities and the vendors keep the results confidential," said Simons. "So you have a huge conflict of interest right there."
In addition, said Simons, "There is no requirement to make any problems public or even to reveal them to election officials because this information is proprietary for the vendors. Also, the testers are only required to test for things on a list and aren't required to test for things that aren't on the list. If you are going to subvert software, you are not going to do something that will be found by a checklist. So it's easy to insert a Trojan Horse into the software because the testing won't find it. And even if they did find it, there are no requirements to report it." Vendors are the ones who decide what goes on the list and what doesn't.
The privatization of the US voting process means the public lacks access to, or the ability to inspect, election software, as well as information about or even the names of the computer programmers who created it. Private companies and e-voting vendors flatly state that their election systems must be kept confidential as exclusive property right products, and therefore refuse to release their software source code for inspection by independent third parties. They claim that to do so would violate their right to copyright secrecy and would open the door to rivals who could steal their products. But some wonder what else vendors might be trying to hide. For instance, according to information reported on www.blackboxvoting.org, a non-partisan, nonprofit consumer protection group that is conducting fraud audits on the 2004 elections, Diebold, one of the e-voting vendors, hired ex-felons, who were convicted in Canada of computer fraud, to program election systems software.
"I don't want to malign ex-felons," said Simons, "but you want to know the names of the people who are programming the machines that will be recording and counting our votes." On the other hand, it is not uncommon for major companies to hire, as programmers, former hackers who have proven themselves to be advanced enough to hack into even the most sophisticated and safeguarded systems. In some cases, to successfully gain entry into an ultra-secured system can guarantee a hacker a job.
E-voting machine companies like Diebold are, in essence, funded to the tune of $3.9 billion by a 2002 federal law, entitled the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which appropriates these funds as only an initial amount to the states to purchase e-voting for all national elections. States are required to phase out punch-card ballots and other systems that seemingly were problematic in the 2002 presidential election in Florida and to standardize on electronic voting systems for national elections by January 1, 2006. The problem is that this does not give the states enough time to deal with the complexity of electronic voting systems. And HAVA does not require e-voting companies to provide the kind of good security in those systems that would prevent chances of cheating.
Concerns about the many anomalies in the November 2004 election and about the gross lack of security in touch screen computer voting machines, spurred Dr. Rubin to apply for funding from the National Science Foundation to research solutions to the problems. In August 2005, the NSF's Cyber Trust program responded by awarding Rubin and his team of computer science researchers $7.5 million to investigate ways to build trustworthy e-voting systems. Rubin is now the director of the NSF project ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections). ACCURATE involves six institutions that will collaborate to investigate how public policy and technology can safeguard e-voting nationwide.
"The NSF recognized that this is a problem of tremendous significance to the country," said Rubin. "It's a deep-rooted, scientific problem."
The funded researchers are Prof. Avi Rubin, Drs. Drew Dean and Peter Neumann of SRI International; Prof. Doug Jones of the University of Iowa; Profs. Dan Wallach and Michael Byrne of Rice University; Profs. Deirdre Mulligan and David Wagner of the University of California at Berkeley; and Profs. Dan Boneh and David Dill at Stanford University, along with numerous affiliates.
However, scientists and academics can only partly address the complexity of e-voting problems, leaving many of the battles to be fought at the state legislative level.
Bypassing the Law
One especially salient example (as recorded on www.verifiedvoting.org), shows that in response to numerous and varied voting system malfunctions that occurred in the November 2004 elections, North Carolina passed tougher requirements for election systems in its Public Confidence in Elections Act in early 2005. Under the new law, manufacturers must place in escrow the source code, the blueprint that runs the software, and "all software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system" as well as a list of all computer programmers responsible for creating the software.
However, implementation of this law has been stymied by an interesting turn of events fueling the belief of some e-voting critics that Board of Election officials are too partisan for a job that requires objectivity, or who feel that election commissioners have relationships with e-voting vendors that seem far too cozy. The events in North Carolina involve Diebold—the e-voting vendor whose bid was selected by North Carolina's Board of Elections—and the very same Board of Elections.
Diebold responded to the new requirements by asking to be exempt from them, but a North Carolina Superior Court judge refused to grant the exemption. After losing in court, Diebold withdrew from their bid to provide elections systems in November 2005. However, in a surprising turnaround in December 2005, the North Carolina Board of Elections certified Diebold Elections Systems to sell electronic voting equipment in the state, despite Diebold's admissions that it could not comply with the state's election law.
The Board was able to do so because its election commissioners—not judges or computer science experts—are the ones who have the ultimate authority to certify election systems in the state. Instead of rejecting the vendor's applications and issuing a new call for bids that complied with the law, the Board of Elections certified all of the vendors' systems. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF), a nonprofit consumer advocacy group of technologists and lawyers formed in 1990 to protect digital rights in our increasingly networked world, took issue with the North Carolina Board of Elections, which certified the three elections systems companies: Diebold, Election Systems and Software, and Sequoia Voting Systems. Citing the Board's action as an example of election commissioners having too much authority, Keith Long, EFF advisor to the Board, who was formerly employed by both Diebold and Sequoia, stated that none of the vendors meet the statutory requirement to place their system code in escrow.
"The Board of Elections has simply flouted the law," said EFF staff attorney Matt Zimmerman in a release he issued on December 2, 2005. "In August, the state passed new rules that were designed to ensure transparency in the election process and the Board simply decided to take it upon itself to overrule the legislature. The Board's job is to protect voters, not corporations who want to obtain multi-million dollar contracts with the state."
An ESS spokeswoman stated that ESS computer systems are secure, owing to a back-up system. However, as Simons pointed out, that does not address the problem. "If the machine doesn't record the votes correctly to begin with, it does not matter how many copies of that original incorrect recording you have." ESS' spokeswoman countered by assuring that the company's systems are accurate.
How New York Measures Up
New York State amended its Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 to include a provision for escrow requirements, which all election systems vendors must comply with in order to have an e-voting system certified in the state. The provision requires programming, source code, and voting machine software to be placed in escrow with the state Board of Elections, and requires the election systems vendors to waive all rights to assert intellectual property or trade secret rights. The amendment also requires that elections systems be tested by independent experts under court supervision.
Putting software source code in escrow provides an opportunity to inspect the code when there are anomalies in the election. It is already difficult to track down malicious code like a Trojan Horse; however, as researcher Simons pointed out, "there's no chance you will find it if you can't look at it."
New York also passed a series of bills, including a voter verified paper trail requirement that is an addition to HAVA, since the federal law does not require it.
But New York's election law omits the requirement to turn over the names of all computer programmers who are responsible for creating the software code. Since programmers are the ones who would be able to create and insert a Trojan Horse code, they are the ones who could ultimately rig a national election. If you don't know who the programmers are, you can't find out who created the problem, or who asked them to do it. Not to mention that a Trojan Horse program is set up to erase evidence of itself once it has done its job.
"Having the software source code doesn't guarantee that you will detect critical software bugs or malicious code," said Simons. "Anyone with access to the election software of a major voting machine vendor can change the outcome of a national election and determine which party will control Congress. Election fraud can now be committed on a national, not just a local, basis."
Yes Folks, the Election Can Be Stolen
With the old lever machine method of voting, election fraud could only be committed on a local, or possibly a regional basis without high risk of getting caught. But now it would take only one well-placed programmer creating malicious code to rig a national election. "How do you know what software is running on Election Day?" asked Simons. "You could easily add a last-minute software patch to do something on Election Day, [and that would] then immediately erase itself."
Software bugs can also be programmed undetected. "Buggy software is an important problem in computer security," said Stanford University's Dill. "A huge number of problems we have are due to computer software buffer overflows, which overwrite computer functions to get control of the machine." Computer buffer overflows are a standard way for Trojan Horses to take control of a computer and make changes to it, while leaving no evidence behind.
The GAO report concluded that national initiatives to improve voting systems lack plans for implementation or are not expected to be completed until after the 2006 election, stating: "Until these efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions will rely on voting systems that were not developed, operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability standards."
Reiterating the reality that there is no such thing as software without bugs, Dill explains, "Eliminating bugs from programs has been an unsolved problem since computers were invented. The problem grows harder every year, as the systems get more complicated. Anyone who says they can generate large software without bugs is not telling the truth. We don't know yet how to make computer programs perfectly secure. That is why you always have to have independent reliable ways to check the results. The election can be stolen, nobody can tell, and it's easy to do."
Another opportunity for election fraud is in software patches, which are the routine fixes to software bugs that work the same way a repair patch is put on a flat tire. A programmer can deliver a patch to a bug that is an election rig instead of a fix and, again, it would not be detected unless it was inspected.
"There's a tendency for people to regard computers as the epitome of accuracy," said Dill, highlighting the fact that the lack of security in the source code is fundamentally a human problem. "This is why computer scientists have gotten involved—because they understand the limitations of technology."
Dill and other computer science professionals have been trying to educate people about the current, serious limitations of using computers for voting. "People just don't believe it when we say computer voting machines are insecure since they don't understand how deeply complicated software can be. Because these are computers, you need much more security with them than you do with old-fashioned paper-based systems," he explained.
"The hardest people to convince are those who have signed multi-million dollar contracts to buy e-voting machines before they were made secure," added Dill, alluding to election officials who thought they were buying the latest, greatest technology in the DRE or touch screen machines and therefore later become defensive when computer scientists inform them that their purchase is unreliable and insecure. "They are understandably reluctant to admit that they made a mistake."
And some complain that the January 1, 2006 HAVA standardization requirement, and the vagaries within the law that omit major areas of concern, has set unrealistic goals for election officials and backed them into a corner. Given the complexity of these machines, it can be argued that officials need more time for discovery and resolution to the problems.
"If we find out after the purchase of these machines that they are not secure and Congress is given evidence that they are not secure, will they make a new set of regulations, which will cost X millions of dollars?" asked Lee Daghlian, public information officer of the NYS Board of Elections.
Cozy Relationships and Huge Profits
However, zooming in on the election commission business also reveals a close-knit community. As in the example mentioned earlier in which North Carolina's Board of Elections went ahead and certified Diebold systems despite the Superior Court judge's ruling, many see the close relationships between election commissioners and election systems vendors as overstepping certain ethical boundary lines. Huge profits are to be made by election-system vendors and they court election officials accordingly. "They wine them and dine them," said Dill. "Election officials have known the election systems vendors longer than they've known the computer scientists. And there's a revolving door. A good career path for an election official is to go work for a vendor."
In October 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the nonpartisan independent investigative arm of the federal government, issued an illuminating report that raised a multitude of concerns about electronic voting security and reliability. The report found that cast ballots, ballot definition files in the voting software, memory cards, and computer audit files all could be modified. Election systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected.
The GAO report showed that voting-machine vendors have weak security practices, including the failure to conduct background checks on programmers and system developers and a failure to establish clear chain-of-custody procedures for handling voting software. It also found that voting system failures have already occurred during elections, identifying a number of cases in California, for instance, where a county presented voters with an incorrect electronic ballot, which meant they could not vote in certain races. And in Pennsylvania, where a county made a ballot error on an electronic voting system that resulted in the county's undervote percentage—that is when a candidate is given fewer votes that he or she actually won—reaching 80 percent in some precincts. And in North Carolina, where electronic voting machines continued to accept votes after their memories were full, causing more than 4,000 votes to be lost.
And these are only a few examples out of thousands that were reported but not investigated.
In addition, the GAO discovered that standards for electronic voting adopted in 2002 by the Federal Election Commission contain vague and incomplete security provisions for commercial products and inadequate documentation requirements; and that tests currently performed by independent testing authorities and state and local election officials do not adequately assess electronic voting system security and reliability.
The GAO report concluded that national initiatives to improve voting systems lack plans for implementation or are not expected to be completed until after the 2006 election, stating: "Until these efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions will rely on voting systems that were not developed, operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability standards—potentially affecting the reliability of future elections and voter confidence in the accuracy of the vote count."
In response to the release of the GAO report, members of the House Committee on Government Reform issued a statement that highlighted a long list of voting system vulnerabilities, also reported by Dill's Verified Voting Foundation. But the reality behind the GAO laundry list is that electronic election systems are grossly inadequate and that vendors are not being held accountable by election commissioners to provide security in their election systems or, as in the case of the North Carolina Board of Elections, even to comply with the law.
Not to mention, "They have none of the security levels that computer scientists have been asking for," added Simons.
If election systems vendors are not required both by law and by state election commissioners to place their software source code in escrow, then voters will have no way of knowing whether the software contains malicious, election-rigging code or not.
But as the technical director of Johns Hopkins' Information Security Institute, Dr. Avi Rubin believes it is only a matter of time before the vendors are forced by legislators to give it up. "I think they will be forced by law to share their source code. But they will do it kicking and screaming."
Despite the steadfast work of the leading computer science experts and grassroots activists, it seems the problem of election rigging is still not taken seriously enough. That means it is still easy to rig an election via e-voting in the United States, and it will continue to be easy until election fraud is considered a priority.
Posted by Arlene Montemarano at January 5, 2006 04:49 AM