georgesbluegirl Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 4, 2007 People seriously want the Abu Ghraib offendors pardoned? Is that where we are? Who brought that up???? I don't remember seeing it any where in this discussion? Sorry, it was slightly out of context, but I noticed it in an earlier post and jumped on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Do you read what you're posting against? Yes. Though your pattern is pretty typical of those with views based on partisanship, half truths, opinion, bias and one side viewpoints instead of the whole truth looked at from all points of view. Why did you not comment on the quote by D. Eisenhower? Afraid your RightWing position might be at risk? I'm not right wing. I just don't like Democrats. I don't like most Republicans, either, but we'll discuss your mis-characterization of my views, and why you are not supposed to do that in your own words in a few minutes... No need to respond, I already know what you will say before you do. Ahh, there it is. Didn't you just scold me in a post earlier about putting words in your mouth, or something like that? Now, you say that you know what I will say. Quite the double standard you push. Luckily for me, you're not very good at hiding it. I'm assuming that you "know" what I will say based on your false assumption that I am a "Rightwinger"? Simply put, NO solution to anything will ever come from polarization which is all this name calling and misdirection ever does. Agreed. Please show me where I was name calling....either that, or withdraw this unneeded comment. The solutions come from people who walk the middle and look at all sides, not from those who's eyes are closed to anything but ONE particular view that fits their egocentric worldview Right Wing OR Left Wing YOU people ARE the biggest problem of all Which people? t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofthegreat_i_am Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 63 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/19/1978 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The fact of the matter is that Bush doesn't care. He's not up for re-election anyway, so if he can help out a buddy before he goes... then he will. Too bad we can't all be on his friends list... we could act as we please with no consequences. As for Libby being punished... a man with as much money as he has - this is an insignificant fine and the 2 years probation is like shaking your finger at a child saying .... "Don't do it again.. I'll be watching you". I think Libby's punishment is as effective as a parent grounding their child and letting them go to a party with their friends that night! But, then again, he's a friend of the president! So, he can do what he wants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 The fact of the matter is that Bush doesn't care. He's not up for re-election anyway, so if he can help out a buddy before he goes... then he will. Too bad we can't all be on his friends list... we could act as we please with no consequences. As for Libby being punished... a man with as much money as he has - this is an insignificant fine and the 2 years probation is like shaking your finger at a child saying .... "Don't do it again.. I'll be watching you". I think Libby's punishment is as effective as a parent grounding their child and letting them go to a party with their friends that night! But, then again, he's a friend of the president! So, he can do what he wants! Scooter is not rich. He isn't poor, but he's not a multi millionaire. And two years probation is a significant punishment which will be with him for the rest of his life. Once again, another uninformed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 I believe the real reason Libby was convicted was because he perjured himself and obstructed the investigation that could have lead to someone being busted for leaking the covert identity of a CIA agent. Ummm...that can't be true because EVERYONE knows who did it. How can Libby be 'obstructing' something that isn't even hidden??? Everyone knows that this trial came down to Libby's inability to recall certain dates and conversations. None of those dates or conversations mattered AT ALL to the investigation of an 'alleged' leaking of a CIA agents name because the Prosecutor already knew...as did everyone else...that Richard Armitage is the one who talked to reporters about Valerie Plame. To make matters worse...every single person who took the stand told a different story. None of the reporters who were involved...who also couldn't remember details...were charged with ANY crimes because they were given immunity. How thoroughly convenient. Lets give everyone immunity except for this ONE guy who we can use to try and damage the reputation of the President and his Cabinet. Anyone with two 'honest' eyes can see that this entire thing was a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 Scooter's net worth in 2006 is listed at 1.5 million dollars. He is hardly a wealthy man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 5, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2007 Frankly, I look at this case as one of entrapment and a purposeful attempt to find anybody to imprison regardless. The prosecutor pursued Libby even though he knew who "leaked" the name and even though he had not proven that a crime had been committed. The Special Prosecutors need to go. They are not accountable to anyone and have definitely not proven their worth. Nothing positive and everything negative came out of this witch hunt. The President said that he would wait and see how justice took its course. He did that. The sentence has been judged as too harsh by all but those who are vindictive and wish to hang anyone associated with Bush. You can think your way......but I would much rather have a President who let justice take its course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 5, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I kinda see it as even-steven. The case was a sham, but Libby was convicted of perjury. They went ahead with a sham case, but still caught some people. Bush did what he did because it makes things even, simple as that. There are more important matters out there. This one should have died long ago, much like the Clinton/ Lewinski thing. That one should have never gone as far as it did, either, imo. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 5, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think it's great that you guys can all band together and repeat the same misinformation as if it were fact, regardless of how many times you're told the truth. Maybe this is something that goes on in the heads of conservatives, I don't know, but it seems odd that you would ignore the facts in favor of your own desires. Maybe you just can't bring yourself to admit that there was wrong doing. In any case here is a couple of sites with the facts: It won't take you long to read the articles and thereafter you will have no excuse for continuing to spread misinformation. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703070002 http://uspolitics.about.com/od/theplamegam...libby_facts.htm First...I want you to know that I read both. Now... Its only fair to point out that Media Matters is almost as reliable as Wikipedia when it comes to presenting facts. Then, the fact that they present David Corn (who is a partisan hack) as a source...completely ruined ANY CHANCE that I would take their article serious. Anyway, most of the article was some kind of an anti-foxnews diatribe that didn't really seriously address the Libby issue. About.com. Thats a place where bloggers and wanna-be reporters go to die. However...I was more intrigued by the article since she bothered to cite her sources. Unfortunately, she misused her sources. Right off the bat, her first point that Plame was 'covert' is supposed to be proven because she posts a pdf. file that is supposed to look like an official gov't document of some kind. Thing is, its just a ruse. Its a basic 'summary' of Valerie Plames career...very basic. Being a bit of a nerd...I read the whole document. The summary basically states that Plame was 'covert' based on her job at the CIA and that because of the 'leaks' she was declassified. However, I couldn't help but notice at the VERY END of the whole thing it was noted that Plame was given the SAME JOB at the CIA after she was declassified. Also, no one is disputing that Plame travelled overseas under cover 10-15 years ago...however that was NOT her status when she sent her hubby to Niger. She uses this information in a false light...and it undermines her credibility. Both articles rest their laurels on the idea that "we'll never know if a crime was committed because Libby lied." Seems to me that WE KNEW from the beginning that no crime had been committed because Armitage admitted early on that he gave Plame's name...so did Rove...and they were BOTH never charged with a crime. I'd say thats a pretty BIG indicator from the prosecutor that telling reporters about Plame is NOT a crime. We knew that before Libby's name became a focal point. Libby was indicted for ONE REASON...and only one reason. To justify the enormous waste of time and resources by the Prosecutor. Again...answer the question. If the 'leak' was a crime, then why were Armitage and Rove let off the hook? Certainly they are much bigger fish than Libby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 5, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 5, 2007 The whole argument over whether or not Plame was covert is moot based upon the fact that the CIA asked for the investigation on the premise that she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts