ksdb, what is your argument? That you are still sour about Clinton? That Delay et al should be let off the hook? Or just stirring the pot?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| BTW, who died in connection with Joe Wilson?? |
Who died because Cheney and his cohorts decided the information Wilson found (not backing up thre administration’s claims) was not valid and thus Cheney and all continued to lied about it to all the world to start a war? No one died because Plame was outed. It’s way deeper than that. It’s why she was outed.
| Quote (Bubbagump @ Oct. 24 2005,17:46) |
| ksdb, what is your argument? That you are still sour about Clinton? That Delay et al should be let off the hook? Or just stirring the pot? |
Delay?? Where do you see Delay being discussed?? The OP tried to compare the Plame investigation with Clinton. It's not even close to the same. Clinton harassed women, lied about it and was protected by a lockstep, Democrat Senate vote to avoid removal from office.
Joe Wilson's wife helped him get a job for the CIA, which Wilson himself lied about. Now why would an agent whose identity needs protection volunteer her husband for a high-profile job?? Why would he write about this job in the press if she was involved in getting him the job and needed to have her identity protected?? Why would the CIA hire the husband of an agent whose identity needed to be protected?? Nobody would have paid any attention to this matter until Wilson speculated to David Corn that his wife MIGHT HAVE BEEN covert. How responsible is that??
| Quote (clark_griswold @ Oct. 24 2005,15:06) |
| I disagree with Mr Allen. If either Rove or Libby are indicted, they should not resign, they should be terminated for cause. Tom, is that legal? |
Of course. They are at will.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Joe Wilson’s wife helped him get a job for the CIA, which Wilson himself lied about. |
I am soooo tempted to say: “ah, republican spin machine” - wasn’t that disproven, ksdb? Or do you have a link for me?
Look, it is a federal crime to expose a CIA agent, irregardless. It is a crime to commit perjury. There is no such thing as a “small” or “insignificant” or “technical” perjury. Perjury is perjury and all cases are equally significant, for all cases undercut the legal system, undercut the rule of law. Clinton perjured himself. He was punished for it. Someone in the Plame case is not telling the truth, and if it is anyone but the president they have committed perjury (Bush would not testify under oath, he never does), So that’s two crimes - outing a CIA agent and perjury. Clinton’s case is the past.
| Quote (TomS @ Oct. 24 2005,18:17) |
| Clinton's case is the past. |
But there could be a Clinton in our future
TG
Paula Jones? Civil Rights Violations?
You mean this Paula Jones?:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/28/0328feat_9.html
As for the virgin Monica L., did they ever find the gun Bill held to her head while she was giving head? No gun, no crime. Can you say consensual?
Evidently Bill’s explanation that ORAL is not SEX is correct. It has been confirmed by a significant number of kids who signed the abstinence only contracts.
Your spin.
KingFish
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Let’s just ignore the sexual harassment lawsuit and civil rights violations … evidently that’s not important |
The Paula Jones case was thrown out by the Arkansas judge & the Congress did not vote for Article 1 of impeachment (about Jones), so what’s your point ksdb? Once again, you’re way out on thin ice.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Joe Wilson’s wife helped him get a job for the CIA, which Wilson himself lied about. Now why would an agent whose identity needs protection volunteer her husband for a high-profile job?? Why would he write about this job in the press if she was involved in getting him the job and needed to have her identity protected?? Why would the CIA hire the husband of an agent whose identity needed to be protected?? Nobody would have paid any attention to this matter until Wilson speculated to David Corn that his wife MIGHT HAVE BEEN covert. How responsible is that?? |
This is pretty much all idle speculation, or not relevant to this discussion ksdb. And if you think that it is relevant then you better state exactly why it is. Tom is correct on this - it was disproven. Most of what ksdb says are right-wing talking points that Wilson himself addressed & Media Matter’s has debunked.
Wilson did not lie about his wife, and he maintains that his wife did not get him the trip to Niger, and neither did the Senate Report prove that. Wilson responded to the Senate Report and asked them to change the record in a Salon article that he wrote. In fact, he responded to & answered every questionable thing that the Senate report brought up. Read Wilson’s rebutal before you going spewing right-wing talking points. Also read the Senate Report & see if you can notice a bias against Wilson - I noticed it right off.
The facts are that Plame did NOT get Wilson the job to go to Niger, and it’s not even clear from the Senate Report, that she “offered him name up”. But in any event, she did NOT decide whether he went to Niger or not, because she had no authority to do so.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. Wilson went to Niger & came back with useful information which was given a rating of “good” by the CIA. What don’t you understand about that???
Wilson wrote his original article to refute the Niger claim in the State of the Union address. The White House admits that the 16 words should not have been there, so WILSON WAS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF ALL THIS OTHER CRAP!!!
Franken was joking of course about the execution. I hope everyone releases that.
| Quote (TomS @ Oct. 24 2005,18:17) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
I am soooo tempted to say: “ah, republican spin machine” - wasn’t that disproven, ksdb? Or do you have a link for me? Look, it is a federal crime to expose a CIA agent, irregardless. It is a crime to commit perjury. There is no such thing as a “small” or “insignificant” or “technical” perjury. Perjury is perjury and all cases are equally significant, for all cases undercut the legal system, undercut the rule of law. Clinton perjured himself. He was punished for it. Someone in the Plame case is not telling the truth, and if it is anyone but the president they have committed perjury (Bush would not testify under oath, he never does), So that’s two crimes - outing a CIA agent and perjury. Clinton’s case is the past. |
Tom … “irregardless??” … I’m very disappointed, unless this is some of your subtle humor through the use nonstandard English.
CNN is making it sound like it’s not a federal crime to expose an agent unless it is done so knowingly.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame’s identity, the lawyers said he appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information. |
If this is true, then what Hutchison means is that the primary goal of the prosecutor to find the leak has shifted to merely finding whomever might have lied during the investigation.
I agree, perjury is perjury and should be fairly punished. If you think Clinton’s punishment was sufficient, then I would suggest the same punishment for whomever is found guilty of perjury in this case. I agree too that Clinton’s case is in the past. You can thank Tim Russert for bringing it up and Mr. Soul for posting it as well as originally commenting on it.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
|
The Paula Jones case was thrown out by the Arkansas judge & the Congress did not vote for Article 1 of impeachment (about Jones), so what’s your point ksdb? Once again, you’re way out on thin ice. |
Your memory or research is a little selective. The Jones case was going to be appealed, so Clinton chose to settle out of court with Jones for $850,000. Why would he do that if he was home-free on the perjury charges?? Any guesses as to why Clinton was subsequently disbarred??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
|
This is pretty much all idle speculation, or not relevant to this discussion ksdb. And if you think that it is relevant then you better state exactly why it is. Tom is correct on this - it was disproven. |
Maybe you think it was disproven at the DU Web site, but not in the real world.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| Most of what ksdb says are right-wing talking points that Wilson himself addressed & Media Matter’s has debunked. Wilson did not lie about his wife, and he maintains that his wife did not get him the trip to Niger, and neither did the Senate Report prove that. |
Nonsense. I do original source research. Media Matters is no more authoritative than any other punditry. Did you read Wilson’s so-called rebuttal?? He talks only about being in a CIA meeting but says nothing about how he came to be invited to the meeting. Who invited him?? It’s obvious who suggested his name and his mysterious omission of this detail is extremely dishonest.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| Wilson responded to the Senate Report and asked them to change the record in a Salon article that he wrote. In fact, he responded to & answered every questionable thing that the Senate report brought up. Read Wilson’s rebutal before you going spewing right-wing talking points. Also read the Senate Report & see if you can notice a bias against Wilson - I noticed it right off. |
I’ve read both and your characterization about spin and bias is in reverse. Wilson’s ego obscured his own sense of importance. His report was not enough to disprove the Niger claims. He assumed that what he reported went straight to the WH, but he did absolutely nothing to confirm this, which is why he was caught off guard by the SOTU address.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| The facts are that Plame did NOT get Wilson the job to go to Niger, and it’s not even clear from the Senate Report, that she “offered him name up”. |
Who did offer his name up?? Did he just fall out of the air into the middle of a CIA meeting?? If his wife suggested his name and he’s later offered the job, is that NOT the same thing as helping him get the job??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| But in any event, she did NOT decide whether he went to Niger or not, because she had no authority to do so. |
Irrelevant. This isn’t a point that is being disputed.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| Stop trying to confuse the issue. Wilson went to Niger & came back with useful information which was given a rating of “good” by the CIA. What don’t you understand about that??? |
If you read the senate report they said that Wilson’s findings were initially thought by the CIA and/or state department to back up the British reports quoted in the SOTU.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| Wilson wrote his original article to refute the Niger claim in the State of the Union address. The White House admits that the 16 words should not have been there, so WILSON WAS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF ALL THIS OTHER CRAP!!! |
Funny, but the British still stand by the 16 words. Bush only recanted as a gesture to irrational critics who want to make the 16 words more important than they really were. Besides, if it were so important, why didn’t Wilson immediately refute the SOTU address in February instead of waiting until nearly FOUR MONTHS after the war had started??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,22:47) |
| Franken was joking of course about the execution. I hope everyone releases that. |
Franken is a classless clown.
| Quote (KingFish @ Oct. 24 2005,19:40) |
| Paula Jones? Civil Rights Violations? You mean this Paula Jones?: http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/28/0328feat_9.html |
Hey thanks for the link. It shows more of the typical “blame the victim” mentality that the left uses to rationalize the behavior of a sexual predator (what Mr. Soul likes to refer to as “smear”). The left originally tried to discredit Jones and attack her credibility. The famous blue dress demonstrated who it was that had the real integrity problem.
| Quote (KingFish @ Oct. 24 2005,19:40) |
| As for the virgin Monica L., did they ever find the gun Bill held to her head while she was giving head? No gun, no crime. Can you say consensual? Evidently Bill’s explanation that ORAL is not SEX is correct. It has been confirmed by a significant number of kids who signed the abstinence only contracts. Your spin. KingFish |
If you want a good working definition of Oral Sex, tell your wife (if you have one), that you want one of your coworkers to perform it on you, since it isn’t really sex. After you get out of the hospital, tell us what your wife said.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Evidently Bill’s explanation that ORAL is not SEX is correct. It has been confirmed by a significant number of kids who signed the abstinence only contracts. |
Sorry man, it was sex. Dude screwed up. I don’t think we can count on 16 year olds to give us the definition of much of anything other than perhaps “shizzle”.
ksdb, I still don’t get your point. Are you a crusader for the law? Fairness?
“Irregardless” is a perfectly good word. From www.m-w.com:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. |
It doesn’t mean the same thing as “regardless” or “irrespective” - it’s 1/2 way between the two. Hence it is a useful expansion of the language, justly used by actual living speakers of English, regardless of the judgment of the arbiters of prose, irrespective of their opinions.
I have to take back something I claimed - Clinton lost his law license as a result of the Jones case; for some reason this was connected to the perjury in my mind.
Tom, Tom, I’m still ashamed. Very sloppy reading. From your very own source:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. |
Oh, I know, I know, ksdb, the prose police are the same folks that get down on split infinitives and the use of multiple negations as intensifiers. I boldly go with the commons in this case, and not, not, most definitely not with the elites.
You all are finally realizing what I found out early on. ksdb is a professional flamer that enjoys changing subject when he is found wrong and just plain flames on all other occasions. I would love to say that it is still fun to read his replies, but alas, that is not the case. It is a bit like watching an ostrich yell his viewpoint with his head in the ground; completely uninformed and unwilling to learn. 
| Quote (TomS @ Oct. 25 2005,09:34) |
| Oh, I know, I know, ksdb, the prose police are the same folks that get down on split infinitives and the use of multiple negations as intensifiers. I boldly go with the commons in this case, and not, not, most definitely not with the elites.
|
That's out of character, but I won't hold you in irregard for it.
And you have selective memory my friend. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case before it could come to trial. It’s true that Clinton settled but so what, lots of cases like this get settled? In 1997, Clinton offered to settle with her before by giving a $700,000 settlement payment to charity but she refused.
I was incorrect - it was Article II (The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition) that did not pass in the House.
I have Wilson’s rebutal of the Senate Report so yes I have read it. Is there something that you would like to know about it?
Here’s a good article today summarizing the whole thing -
Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.” Wilson had to admit he had misspoken. That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson’s claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely “a conduit,” telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me." But the Senate committee found that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip.” The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson “has good relations” with Niger officials who “could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame “had the idea to dispatch him” to Niger. The CIA has always said, however, that Plame’s superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision. |
They tried to smear Wilson at every step by finding any inconsistency in what he said. That’s what the right does ksdb - if you can’t see that, it’s too bad.
The right-wing also tried to say Wilson lied about Cheney sending him to Niger, but they got caught on that lie so now you don’t hear that claim anymore by the right-wing spinmeisters.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,10:36) |
| And you have selective memory my friend. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case before it could come to trial. It’s true that Clinton settled but so what, lots of cases like this get settled? In 1997, Clinton offered to settle with her before by giving a $700,000 settlement payment to charity but she refused. I was incorrect - it was Article II (The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition) that did not pass in the House. |
After the impeachment trials, Clinton was cited for contempt of court for being a liar. Had Webber’s decision come up a few months earlier, the house would have had to vote Yes on article II.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) – U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. |
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,10:36) |
| I have Wilson’s rebutal of the Senate Report so yes I have read it. Is there something that you would like to know about it? Here’s a good article today summarizing the whole thing - Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case. |
Again you don’t even read your own source to see that it proves my point. Read the end of the first paragraph.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.” Wilson had to admit he had misspoken. That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson’s claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely “a conduit,” telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me." But the Senate committee found that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip.” The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson “has good relations” with Niger officials who “could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame “had the idea to dispatch him” to Niger. The CIA has always said, however, that Plame’s superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision. |
And again, they avoid pointing out what motivated Plame’s superiors to contact Wilson. Did his name fall out of the air?? Wilson says his wife was a “conduit.” Talk about parsing the truth. Did Plame suggest Wilson for the mission?? This has not been refuted but merely sidestepped.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,10:36) |
| They tried to smear Wilson at every step by finding any inconsistency in what he said. That’s what the right does ksdb - if you can’t see that, it’s too bad. The right-wing also tried to say Wilson lied about Cheney sending him to Niger, but they got caught on that lie so now you don’t hear that claim anymore by the right-wing spinmeisters. |
Wilson did say his trip was arranged so that he could gather information for the VP. “The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” Yet the CIA did not inform Cheney of this trip nor did they provide Cheney with a direct report from Wilson. So why did Wilson say the trip was for Cheney when he didn’t know this to be true??
Of course, I read the WP article. It was also critical of Wilson. I thought it was a fair, truthful article which is why I posted it.
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t claim or praise Wilson because he’s some kind of Saint or even a whistle-blower. I praise him because he came forward & stuck his career on the line by criticizing the administration & correcting Bush’s misstatement in the State of the Union address. And look where it got him - his wife got outed AND THAT’S THE REAL ISSUE HERE NOT WILSON!!!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson did say his trip was arranged so that he could gather information for the VP. |
That’s correct (indirectly), but he never said that Cheney asked him to do it, that’s what the right-wing tried to claim & it was a lie and they were caught in their lie. That was the first smear they tried to pin on Wilson.
If you read Wilson’s rebutal, he explains all the stuff about him misspeaking.