Another Bush crony another scandal - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 11-02-2005, 11:33 PM

Will it ever end with this administration? And will those who crucified Clinton finally start admitting Bush is just as bad if not worse in his dealings?

Quote:

Former top official denies Abramoff influence on Indian casinos
11/2/2005, 6:45 p.m. CT
By SUZANNE GAMBOA
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Interior Department's former No. 2 official denied on Wednesday that he gave preferential treatment to a lobbyist under investigation for his work on behalf of Indian tribes and their casino interests.

Steven Griles' assertion was challenged by a one-time colleague and by senators who cited e-mails by the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

To the Senate committee investigating Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, Griles said it was "outrageous" and "untrue" that they had special access to him, as they claim.

But Michael Rossetti, a former legal counselor to Interior Secretary Gail Norton, told senators he was "alarmed" when Griles "all of a sudden had an inexplicable desire to be involved" in meetings with Norton dealing with the Jena Band of Choctaw tribe's effort to open a casino near the Texas-Louisiana border.

"Repeatedly on at least half a dozen occasions, he insisted on being in on meetings" affecting the Jena Band, Rossetti said.

Griles resigned in December as the department's deputy secretary.

Rossetti described an exchange in front of at least two witnesses in which he challenged Griles on "whose water he was carrying on this issue."

Abramoff and Scanlon were hired as lobbyists by the Louisiana Coushatta tribe to work against efforts by the rival Jena Band of Choctaws to open a casino that could compete with the Coushatta's gambling operation near Lake Charles, La.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee is investigating Abramoff and Scanlon and the more than $80 million they were paid between 2001 and 2004 by six Indian tribes with casinos, including the Coushattas.

Abramoff's lobbying work also is under investigation by the Justice Department. Abramoff has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida on charges of fraud and conspiracy stemming from his role in the 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats.

Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff, said that because of the various investigations, the lobbyists "is put into the impossible position of not being able to defend himself in the public arena until the proper authorities have had a chance to review all accusations."

Blum also said the fees related to Abramoff's work "were more than justified given the cost savings and economic benefit realized by his clients."

Griles testified that his relationship with Abramoff was the same as with other lobbyists, senators or interest groups. "Nothing more, nothing less," he said.

But the committee chairman, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the top Democrat, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, read e-mails in which Abramoff suggested a closer relationship with Griles.

"There are e-mails, e-mails, e-mails about Abramoff saying he's meeting with you," Dorgan said.

In a Feb. 22, 2002, e-mail released by the committee, Abramoff tells of a call he received from Griles "all upset that Ralph Reed and I are bashing Norton!"

Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition, used money raised by Abramoff to mobilize conservative groups against the Jena Band's casino gaming plans. "He seemed to be distinguishing how Norton would handle Jena. (I hope!)," Abramoff said of Griles in the e-mail.

Griles suggested Abramoff could have made up information in the e-mails.

"I can't reconcile what Mr. Abramoff put in e-mails and today, based on what I heard, I don't believe anyone can," Griles said.

The Associated Press reported last spring that Abramoff had extensive access to Bush administration officials, including Griles, while Abramoff was with the lobbying firm of Greenberg Traurig.

McCain also questioned Griles about his relationship with Italia Federici, president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. The senator said Abramoff directed at least four of his tribal clients to give $250,000 to the group.

The council was founded by Norton and conservative activist Grover Norquist to promote Republicans' environmental agenda. Federici took over as president when Norton was named Interior secretary.

"Documents obtained in the course of the investigation suggest that Mr. Abramoff might have had his tribal clients pay so much because he perceived that CREA's president, Italia Federici, would help him get inside information about, and possibly influence, tribal issues pending at the Department of Interior," McCain said.

Federici did not appear at the hearing despite a subpoena. Her lawyer gave reporters a copy of a letter sent to the committee saying she planned to be at the hearing when it originally was set for Oct. 26, but could not attend the rescheduled one on Wednesday because it was the anniversary of her father's death.

In earlier testimony, two Coushatta tribal leaders said Abramoff and Scanlon exaggerated the threat of competing casinos opening in Texas and Louisiana to siphon millions from the tribe.

"They preyed on our political insecurities, economic insecurities and insecurities about each other," said Kevin Sickey, the Coushatta tribal chairman.

host · 11-03-2005, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Will it ever end with this administration? And will those who crucified Clinton finally start admitting Bush is just as bad if not worse in his dealings?

This is my favorite part...............
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...27&postcount=3

One of the most intriguing Bush appointees is Susan Ralston:<br />

Here is a link to the "map" of "west wing" offices at the white house, and a description of Susan Ralston's job title. What <br />

follows are links and excerpts about her background and "duties". Susan Ralston was Abramoff's long time assistant, before <br />

coming to work at the white house in 2001. Her duties include screening Karl Rove's calls, and apparently submitting names of <br />

callers to Grover Norquist, who reportedly decides who then is cleared to speak with Rove. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald <br />

subpoenaed Ralston, and she testified before his grand jury in July, 2005:
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5060601310.html</a><br />
.....9. Susan Ralston, Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor (Karl Rove)<br />
Steve Atkiss, Special Assistant to the President for Operations

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">

<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133/site/newsweek/?page=2&#note" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133...k/?page=2&#note</a><br />
<br />
STATE OF THE NATION | APRIL 21, 2005<br />

<br />
............But the lobbyist’s ties to the White House extended well beyond money. When top Bush adviser Karl Rove was looking for an assistant in early 2001, Abramoff suggested his own top aide, Susan Ralston. She remains one of Rove’s top deputies. At the same time, Bush tapped Abramoff as member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues. That level of close access to Bush, DeLay and other GOP leaders has been cited by many of the Indian tribes who hired Abramoff with hopes of gaining greater influence with the administration and Congress on gaming issues. Whether the tribes got their money’s worth is a question still being investigated by Congress, but there’s no question some doors were opened. In 2001, Bush met personally with a group of Indian leaders—including at least one tribe represented by Abramoff—to talk about his tax cut plan. The meeting was reportedly arranged by Grover Norquist, a prominent GOP activist with close ties to the administration and Abramoff.<br />
<br />
While many GOP lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from Abramoff, the White House has remained largely quiet on Bush’s ties to the controversial lobbyist. Last fall, when Congress opened hearings into Abramoff’s lobbying and fund-raising, the Bush-Cheney campaign pointedly refused to return a $2,000 contribution check from the lobbyist and said there was no reason to question any other checks Abramoff brought in as a top fund-raiser for the campaign.<br />
<br />
Editor's Note: On April 21, a White House spokesman told NEWSWEEK that Abramoff had played no role in Rove's hiring of Ralston.<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">

<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/24/armey/index1.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...mey/index1.html</a><br />
House divided<br />
GOP enforcer Tom DeLay and his former partner Dick Armey are locked in a nasty dispute over the future of the Republican <br />
<br />

Party.<br />
<br />
By Mary Jacoby<br />
<br />
May 24, 2004 | WASHINGTON <br />
<br />
.....Although he is out of Congress and the GOP leadership, Armey makes his comments at some personal risk; he is now a <br />
<br />
lobbyist on Washington's fabled K Street, which is ruthlessly patrolled by DeLay and his key ally, Americans for Tax Reform <br />
<br />
president Grover Norquist. For years, Norquist and DeLay have worked to purge the nation's corporate lobby shops of <br />

<br />
Democrats, and companies that fill GOP campaign coffers with money are rewarded with access to lawmakers. Enemies don't get <br />
<br />
their calls returned, and without access, they lose clients. Access is coordinated by the White House, often through the <br />
<br />
office of another powerful Texan, political strategist Karl Rove.<br />
<br />
For two years, the assistant who answered Rove's phone was a woman who had previously worked for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a <br />
<br />
close friend of Norquist's and a top DeLay fundraiser. One Republican lobbyist, who asked not to be named because DeLay and <br />
<br />
Rove have the power to ruin his livelihood, said the way Rove's office worked was this: "Susan took a message for Rove, and <br />

<br />
then called Grover to ask if she should put the caller through to Rove. If Grover didn't approve, your call didn't go <br />
<br />
through." ........<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>

<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0406.whoswho.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...06.whoswho.html</a><br />
........How did Norquist attain such influence over Ralston? Flowers every Friday? Redskins tickets? The answer, actually, is <br />
<br />
what the White House ethics lawyers call a "preexisting relationship." Ralston had formerly worked for lobbyist Jack <br />
<br />
Abramoff, a close friend of Norquist's and a top fundraiser for House majority whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).<br />

<br />
Ralston has since left the pressure cooker White House job for possibly the most isolated island in Washington. She is now <br />
<br />
executive assistant to Eddy R. Badrina, the senior advisor of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and <br />
<br />
Pacific Islanders. ............<br />

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">

powerclown · 11-03-2005, 04:49 AM

So this is the Great New Democratic Strategy of the 21st century?
It appears the Dems have finally found a successful political strategy: Shooting Politicians in a Barrel.

Leadership.

shakran · 11-03-2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

So this is the Great New Democratic Strategy of the 21st century?
It appears the Dems have finally found a successful political strategy: Shooting Politicians in a Barrel.

Leadership.

Oh please. You're telling me you're forgetting all the witchhunts republicans went on when Clinton was in office? I'm sorry you don't like your comeuppance, but you've more than earned it. At least in this case the democrats have legitimate gripes - being lied to in justification of a war that's killed over 2000 americans and countless Iraqis, having the economy flushed down the toilet, and much more - You republicans had a bullshit whitewater investigation that went nowhere because nothing actually happened, and then you had a sex scandal that was nobody's business and had no reflection on how he conducted his presidency.

If you don't want to be attacked for every little thing, maybe you should change your strategy when the other guy's in office. Of course, if you don't want to be attacked on a daily basis, maybe your party should consider not being corrupt, hardline, hawk criminals who make no attempt to disguise their contempt for anyone not filthy rich. I know it's fun to try and blame the democrats for the fact that your feet are being held to the fire, but your party built the fire, and your party deserves to be held accountable for it.

host · 11-03-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

So this is the Great New Democratic Strategy of the 21st century?
It appears the Dems have finally found a successful political strategy: Shooting Politicians in a Barrel.

Leadership.

I will put the accuracy of the content of my posts here at TFP Politics, side by side with yours, powerclown. Why don't you select five or ten of my posts, and I'll select five or ten of yours, and we'll hold them up to the light...

You post your "political majority as victim" <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1927490&postcount=8">message</a>, here, and I post a research rich, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1927497&postcount=8">rebuttal</a>, that you ignore, and then, before long, here you come again, repeating the same message.

President Bush now has an approval rating that is more than 30 points lower than Clinton's was, <b>after the house drew up articles of impeachment against Clinton.</b> This polling result, just as the Dec. 1998 approval number was, is largely due to what republican's have done to themselves, and the American people's reaction to it.

The content of my posts is compatible with 11/05 polling, and my perception of recent political history is in line with 11/98 polling.

And....yours is.....?

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...-SearchStories
Poll: Approval Ratings Compared
(Page 1 of 2)

NEW YORK, Nov. 2, 2005

Both Reagan and Clinton endured scandals during their second terms. In January 1998, when facing questions about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton's job approval ratings actually rose, reaching the low 70s, and remained at least in the 60s throughout the rest of that year. President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal. During 1987 Reagan's approval rating hovered around 50 percent, but began to rise again in 1988. President Richard Nixon's approval rating fell as the Watergate scandal became public in the first half of 1973, and was at about 25 percent during 1974.

President Bush's approval rating has been experiencing a slow but steady decline since 2004.

BUSH VS. OTHER PRESIDENTS: APPROVAL RATINGS DURING SCANDALS

<b>Bush,
Now</b>
Approve 35%
Disapprove 57%

<b>Clinton</b>
1/1998
Approve 58%
Disapprove 29%

2/1998
Approve 72%
Disapprove 22%

7/1998
Approve 64%
Disapprove 29%

10/1998
Approve 65%
Disapprove 30%

12/1998
Approve 66%
Disapprove 30%

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in262484.shtml
A Clinton Timeline

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2001

1998

Dec. 28, 1998 - House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston resigns from Congress amidst revelations of marital infidelity.

Dec. 19, 1998 - House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against the president.

Dec. 18, 1998 - As U.S. warplanes drop bombs over Baghdad, the House begins debating articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

Dec. 12, 1998 - While in Jerusalem on a Middle East peace mission, President Clinton says he will not resign from office and again denies lying under oath. The House Judiciary Committee approves the fourth and final article of impeachment and dismisses censure as an option for punishment.

Dec. 11, 1998 - House Judiciary Committee approves the first three articles of impeachment.

Dec. 9, 1998 - House Judiciary Committee unveils articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Two articles allege that he lied in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and in his testimony before Starr's grand jury. The others allege that he abused the powers of his office and obstructed justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Dec. 6, 1998 - The president's legal team appears before the House Judiciary Committee, arguing that the president should not be impeached.

Nov. 19, 1998 - Independent counsel Kenneth Starr testifies before the House Judiciary Committee during its first day of impeachment hearings.

Nov. 13, 1998 - President Clinton settles the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, agreeing to pay Jones $850,000 while admitting nothing. The independent counsel sends Congress information relating to former White House aide Kathleen Willey's allegations that the president made unwanted sexual advances.

Nov. 3, 1998 - Democrats score upset victories in the midterm elections.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Oh please. You're telling me you're forgetting all the witchhunts republicans went on when Clinton was in office? I'm sorry you don't like your comeuppance, but you've more than earned it. At least in this case the democrats have legitimate gripes - being lied to in justification of a war that's killed over 2000 americans and countless Iraqis, having the economy flushed down the toilet, and much more - You republicans had a bullshit whitewater investigation that went nowhere because nothing actually happened, and then you had a sex scandal that was nobody's business and had no reflection on how he conducted his presidency.

If you don't want to be attacked for every little thing, maybe you should change your strategy when the other guy's in office. Of course, if you don't want to be attacked on a daily basis, maybe your party should consider not being corrupt, hardline, hawk criminals who make no attempt to disguise their contempt for anyone not filthy rich. I know it's fun to try and blame the democrats for the fact that your feet are being held to the fire, but your party built the fire, and your party deserves to be held accountable for it.

If the dems want to keep this as their party-line, keep at it.

pan6467 · 11-03-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If the dems want to keep this as their party-line, keep at it.

I just find it pathetic that the same GOP that were so eager to burn Clinton for lieing about cheating on his wife (and that is all they had) are so defensive and seemingly don't give a damn about all the corruption and scandal that Bush seems to be surrounding himself with.

Laugh if you want the polls are showing the people aren't drinking your Kool Aid anymore.

Does it help the Dems? Depends if the Dems find their voice and make names for themselves by offering definitive changes, if not and they just assume these scandals will put them into office they are sadly mistaken.

But none of that changes how corrupt and scandalous this administration is and how hypocritical, partisan and ignorant those that blindly support Bush are.

host · 11-03-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If the dems want to keep this as their party-line, keep at it.

I read your post, quoted above, and it brought to my mind, only this:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...40#post1791640
Well guess what. If you guys don't shape up, you're not going to be able to do so any more.

THE POLITICS BOARD IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU TO POST SHORT, ANGSTY QUIPS ABOUT YOUR STUPID, REDUNDANT POINTS THAT HAVE BECOME CLICHES AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF REPETITION!

ALSO, THE POLITICS BOARD IS NOT *YOUR* BOARD - IT IS *MY* BOARD. THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT GET TO BE OFFENDED BY SOMEONE ELSE'S WELL-SPOKEN POLITICAL VIEWS AND RESPOND WITH NOTHING BUT VITRIOL AND A SMUG, IMMATURE DISGUISED INSULT.

Listen up, people. The TFP has come this far on a few principles... respect your fellow member's opinions and contribute to a discussion with an intelligent response. It can do nothing but good if you do this. If you are NOT willing to do this - if you are NOT willing to come to the politics board with an OPEN MIND - if you are NOT willing to DISCUSS politics rather than PREACH them - GET THE FUCK OUT!.........

Some of us work too hard to post coherent, researched arguments here, to just let posts like your last one, pass without comment.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 10:38 AM

And all that is posted by the left, over and over, is the same ol' stuff. And I can't laugh at it?

2 years of investigations and all the left has is Libby lying. That really means nothing. If he lied, he should go to jail, but that is the crux of the liberal crusade against bush. 1 guy alledgedly lied to investigators. Hardly does that make bush surrounded by corruption and scandle. Keep making up stuff and eventually something will happen, like getting someone to do something stupid, like lie to investigators, then you've got an indictment and a real life scandle then the public will more easliy be able to swallow the accusations.

But what was it that upset you? Was it the part where I pointed out what the democratic party line is? or the part where I thought it was funny?

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 11:00 AM

stevo where is your proof that shows "that is all they have"? I don't think it is safe to assume Fitzgeralds investegation is over or the investegation into the reasons for war is over yet.

Not to mention in the buisness world if someone below you messes up big time they will fry for it but you can bet you will catch a lot of heat too.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

stevo where is your proof that shows "that is all they have"? I don't think it is safe to assume Fitzgeralds investegation is over or the investegation into the reasons for war is over yet.

Not to mention in the buisness world if someone below you messes up big time they will fry for it but you can bet you will catch a lot of heat too.

Where is your proof that there is more? Of course his investigation isn't over yet, bush hasn't resigned and rove isn't in jail. If they had more, after 2 years there would be more indictments on actual matters actually referring to the actual war in iraq, not small potatoes. Keep digging, eventually you'll hit something.

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 11:23 AM

i'm not a prosecuter but i know in the research field you don't jump out and say you found something everytime you think you found something. Instead you verify the information, research it, and get lots of proof to back up your claim that way you are ready for questions when you announce it. I'm sure earl new months ago that libby lied but he didn't announce it until recently. Why is that? Instead there is more investigating going on. If they didn't have anything at all the investegation would be over but it is still going. There are a lot of things that are surfacing because of this investigation and I have a feeling we have only seen the tip of the iceburg.

host · 11-03-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Where is your proof that there is more? Of course his investigation isn't over yet, bush hasn't resigned and rove isn't in jail. If they had more, after 2 years there would be more indictments on actual matters actually referring to the actual war in iraq, not small potatoes. Keep digging, eventually you'll hit something.

1.)Rove was not indicted for perjury because Fitzgerald cannot present him at Libby's trial, as an indicted liar, testifying against Libby.
2.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime is similar to a player throwing sand in the umpire's eyes, making it impossible for him to see and then rule on the play...
3.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime delayed results of his investigation by at least a year.

It is ludicrous for you to attempt to downplay the seriousness of this still ongoing investigation, with an argument that <b>"If this is all you got, after two years of digging, then....."</b>, when the prosecutor in the case charges the accused with obstructing his investigation for an additional year!

The accusation that Libby's obstruction enabled the knowledge of the actual crime to be kept from American voters in the November 2004 presidential election, is undsiputed, if Fitzgerald's statements are considered.

You have to ignore most of what Fitzgerald himself said, to post what you do here, stevo. I don't recall reading arguments intended to question his credibility.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102802234.html
The Case Against Libby
His Word vs. That of Reporters and Officials

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A10

If this were a theater of war, the obstruction-of-justice case against I. Lewis Libby could be described as a pincer movement......

....Taking reporters' questions, Fitzgerald declined to discuss his findings on the broader questions. He noted the complexity of federal laws prohibiting the outing of covert officers and said Libby prevented a full assessment because of his allegedly misleading statements. He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.
.......Taking reporters' questions, Fitzgerald declined to discuss his findings on the broader questions. He noted the complexity of federal laws prohibiting the outing of covert officers and <h3>said Libby prevented a full assessment because of his allegedly misleading statements. He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.......</h3>

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true
November 1, 2005 latimes.com :
Robert Scheer:
<b>What Judy forgot: Your right to know</b>
THE MOST intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, <b>"we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."</b>

Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.

Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff — a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq — "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."

It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.

How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech...........

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...overup_worked/
<b>The coverup worked</b>

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | November 1, 2005

WASHINGTON
NO ONE really noticed, but Patrick Fitzgerald made an unassailable point last week about the timing of the indictment that his CIA leak investigation has produced so far.

''I would have wanted nothing better," he said, ''that when the subpoenas were issued in August of 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October of 2004 instead of October of 2005."

Give or take a nuance and some garbled syntax, the prosecutor was in effect showing that the quixotic pursuit of a nonexistent right or privilege by some news organizations is one reason President Bush was reelected last year.

John Kerry is still easy to lampoon, as if his narrow loss were in fact a 20-point landslide. But imagine last week's astonishing developments unfolding in the fall of 2004. Imagine not only the large book of perjury that Fitzgerald threw at I. Lewis Libby, but also the still-tangled web of the infamous Official A in the grand jury's indictment and imagine President Bush trying to explain in the midst of a presidential campaign what that official is still doing on the public payroll.

Karl Rove's management of a campaign based on government-inspired fears of imminent terrorist attacks and of a cartoon portrait of Kerry as Osama bin Laden's soul brother, Rove's friends' assaults on a distinguished military record during the Vietnam War, and his allies' efforts to make the entire nation fearful that gay people who love each other might get married, not to mention Kerry's own mistakes as a candidate, might have been seen in a very different context...

......I would add that <b>the obstruction of justice alleged in this case kept us from knowing material things about our leaders at the moment we were deciding whether to keep them in office.</b> In more common speech, obstruction of justice is a coverup, and the coverup worked -- just as the Watergate coverup in 1972 kept facts from the public that would have guaranteed Richard Nixon's defeat.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101386.html
What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A25

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. <h3>Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.</h3>

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.

Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.

You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the Supreme Court..........

stevo · 11-03-2005, 11:33 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, host, but that is not proof. Because no one can uncover anything, the coverup worked. Sounds like a pretty sweet idea: make up some charges and then when you can't prove them, its because of a great right-wing conspiracy cover-up that worked! The only thing is the left's tactics don't.

host · 11-03-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Sorry to burst your bubble, host, but that is not proof. Because no one can uncover anything, the coverup worked. Sounds like a pretty sweet idea: make up some charges and then when you can't prove them, its because of a great right-wing conspiracy cover-up that worked! The only thing is the left's tactics don't.

So...special counsel Fitzgerald, "made up some charges". Were his statements about Libby in his 10/28/05 press conference, baseless, as well? If so, he sure fooled the main stream press, and much of the rest of the country.

Compare this investigation to Ken Starr's. There were so many intentional leaks to the press from Starr's office, that the presiding federal judge in the case agreed to having his office investigated. President Bush himself, recently called Fitzgerald's investigation, "dignified".

What is behind this contempt for the law and for the judicial process that you and your brethren exhibit so frequently?

Please make credible, documented assertions here from sources that are respected and in line with the ones that those of us here who exhibit a sincere intention to post reliably and accurately, regularly do, or stop what you have been doing. Politically, these are exceptionally "interesting times"; there are a lot of eyes on you here, stevo, and on me. You do your own reputation no favor by posting in the manner quoted above.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 12:05 PM

This issue has been driven into the ground and its baseless. It is nothing but an attempt by the left to bring down the bush administration. Do I have to find a writer in the NYT to write this first before I can post it?

Wilson had no experience in WMD's, his wife did. After bush mentioned iraq "trying" to buy yellowcake in niger the CIA sends wilson to investigate. he comes back to the CIA, gives an oral report (he was not required to put it in writing), and he tells the CIA that, yeah, its possible that saddam was looking around, possibly trying to buy uranium.

Then wilson writes an Op-ed piece, that is 180 degrees from his statements at the CIA. The whitehouse reads it and wants to know what is up. Who is this guy, why was he sent to niger, what are his intentions and the intentions of the CIA? No one wants to talk about Joe Wilson and how he lied. The left puts this guy up as a poster child, him and his wife, perfect angels before the big bad evil republicans ruined her career because they were mad at wilson for telling the truth about saddam and niger.

Through the course of the whitehouse's own investigation into the Wilson op-ed piece they figure out that his wife works at the CIA as an analyst on WMD intel. Novak mentions this in his piece because it is relevant information and he was not forbid to mention it (he may have been asked not to mention Plame's name and relationship, but he was not forbid). A couple months later all hell breaks loose because the democrats, bitter about losing at the polls think they might have a way to hurt bush. And, as we all can see, nothing substantial has come from the investigation but one guy allegedly lying to investigators. Because Libby may have lied, does not mean anyone else did anything illegal.

The CIA never raised much concern over Novaks piece, Justice looked into it for a weekend and then dismissed it. yet the left feels it is there mission to figure out who leaked this "covert" agents identity. Too bad the CIA and Justice Dept didn't think it was necessary to figure out.

That is the reason this is a non-story. It is a partisan attempt to bring down an administration. The media feels as if it is reliving watergate, while the left is desparate for power because they cant win at the polls. We've been through this time and time again and nothing has changed, so why should I try and refute every little article you post? Because its all a bunch of horse-poopie. So first I ignored you, then I laughed at you. If you think I'm going to fight you over this you probably think you're going to win, as well.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-03-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

This issue has been driven into the ground and its baseless. It is nothing but an attempt by the left to bring down the bush administration. Do I have to find a writer in the NYT to write this first before I can post it?

Wilson had no experience in WMD's, his wife did. After bush mentioned iraq "trying" to buy yellowcake in niger the CIA sends wilson to investigate. he comes back to the CIA, gives an oral report (he was not required to put it in writing), and he tells the CIA that, yeah, its possible that saddam was looking around, possibly trying to buy uranium.

Then wilson writes an Op-ed piece, that is 180 degrees from his statements at the CIA. The whitehouse reads it and wants to know what is up. Who is this guy, why was he sent to niger, what are his intentions and the intentions of the CIA? No one wants to talk about Joe Wilson and how he lied. The left puts this guy up as a poster child, him and his wife, perfect angels before the big bad evil republicans ruined her career because they were mad at wilson for telling the truth about saddam and niger.

Through the course of the whitehouse's own investigation into the Wilson op-ed piece they figure out that his wife works at the CIA as an analyst on WMD intel. Novak mentions this in his piece because it is relevant information and he was not forbid to mention it (he may have been asked not to mention Plame's name and relationship, but he was not forbid). A couple months later all hell breaks loose because the democrats, bitter about losing at the polls think they might have a way to hurt bush. And, as we all can see, nothing substantial has come from the investigation but one guy allegedly lying to investigators. Because Libby may have lied, does not mean anyone else did anything illegal.

The CIA never raised much concern over Novaks piece, Justice looked into it for a weekend and then dismissed it. yet the left feels it is there mission to figure out who leaked this "covert" agents identity. Too bad the CIA and Justice Dept didn't think it was necessary to figure out.

That is the reason this is a non-story. It is a partisan attempt to bring down an administration. The media feels as if it is reliving watergate, while the left is desparate for power because they cant win at the polls. We've been through this time and time again and nothing has changed, so why should I try and refute every little article you post? Because its all a bunch of horse-poopie. So first I ignored you, then I laughed at you. If you think I'm going to fight you over this you probably think you're going to win, as well.

Well put Stevo. Read an a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that pointed out the samethings, shed light on the situation for me.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well put Stevo. Read an a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that pointed out the samethings, shed light on the situation for me.

I should pick up todays journal...but I can say I haven't read that piece yet.

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 12:14 PM

do you have proof of his oral report being different than his op ed?

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-03-2005, 12:36 PM

Found it

Quote:

The Clare Luce Democrats
How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:

• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.

Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.

He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.

Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?

Some truly interesting points, I especially like the 500 page Bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report that didn't put any blame on Bush for the failure of intelligence. Furthermore those statements quoted by democrats about the danger Saddam possessed, hell even Al Gore, a 50 pound heavier beard totting out of work Gore who lost to Bush. Just goes to show this is a pathetic partisan attempt to go after Shrub, although maybe not entirely baseless, at best unfounded nor supported by reality.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

do you have proof of his oral report being different than his op ed?

There is a real good article here http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html it is quite lengthy, so I will not post it all here, but I will post the part that talks about wilson's report to the CIA and how the CIA interpreted his findings. I do recommend to anyone that really wants to know the facts about this case and not just partisan dribble read the article. I hope factcheck.org is non-partisan enough for everyone.

Quote:

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

Paq · 11-03-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Sorry to burst your bubble, host, but that is not proof. Because no one can uncover anything, the coverup worked. Sounds like a pretty sweet idea: make up some charges and then when you can't prove them, its because of a great right-wing conspiracy cover-up that worked! The only thing is the left's tactics don't.

sorry to threadjack a bit, but wasn't that exactly what the supporters of bush said when no WMDs were found?

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 12:49 PM

that doesn't seem to me like he said two different things. it says there that iraq did not purchase and thing and probably wouldn't ever then stated they wanted to expand commericial relations. I'm sorry but you can't just assume that means buy uranium. Bush asserted that Iraq tried to buy uranium which is definatly not what Wilson asserted. Your post earlier sounded like he said "yes iraq did try to buy uranium" followed by his piece claiming otherwise. Please don't throw out distortions as fact.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

that doesn't seem to me like he said two different things. it says there that iraq did not purchase and thing and probably wouldn't ever then stated they wanted to expand commericial relations. I'm sorry but you can't just assume that means buy uranium. Bush asserted that Iraq tried to buy uranium which is definatly not what Wilson asserted. Your post earlier sounded like he said "yes iraq did try to buy uranium" followed by his piece claiming otherwise. Please don't throw out distortions as fact.

Maybe you didn't follow the link and read the whole article. so here's some more

Quote:

In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:

"Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting."

At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."

So Wilson gets back from Niger, gives a report to the CIA and this is how they interpret his findings. Then Wilson writes an op-ed piece that can not in any way be close to what he told the CIA, for if it was, the CIA would not have come to these conclusions. These are not distortions. This is actually the intel the CIA received after Wilson spoke with them about his trip to Niger.

Yet, bush lied...That line didn't win the presidency in 2004 and it isn't going to work now.

host · 11-03-2005, 01:06 PM

Senator Pat Roberts' select intel committee, according to Roberts himself, has not even yet investigated the Bush administrations's pre-invasion role of "fixing the facts, yet your "Calre Booth Luce" articel, falsely reports that the "Phae I" report somehow vindicates the Bush administration.

Here is what Roberts himself said when the "500 page report" was released in July, 2004...

Quote:

QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have <b>a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?</b>

ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, <b>this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities.</B> It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.

So much has to be denied to make any of these TP's from the right, "stick".
Much bluster, no credible references.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm sorry but you can't just assume that means buy uranium. Bush asserted that Iraq tried to buy uranium which is definatly not what Wilson asserted.

To address this point particularly:

Quote:

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

Imagine you are an analyst at the CIA and you know that uranium almost constitues 3/4 of niger's exports. Then you here how Saddam sent people to Niger to find out about "expanding commercial relations." How would you interpret this? Buy saying "oh, well you just can't make assumptions like that" you really aren't doing your job now, are you?

stevo · 11-03-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Senator Pat Roberts' select intel committee, according to Roberts himself, has not even yet investigated the Bush administrations's pre-invasion role of "fixing the facts, yet your "Calre Booth Luce" articel, falsely reports that the "Phae I" report somehow vindicates the Bush administration.

Here is what Roberts himself said when the "500 page report" was released in July, 2004...

So much has to be denied to make any of these TP's from the right, "stick".
Much bluster, no credible references.

You only see what you want to, host.

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 02:02 PM

stevo this is also from that same article
[Quote]
The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.
[\Quote]

Wilson did not tell them that they were seeking, he told them that the nigerian representive though that may have been why they came but that the issue never came up in their meeting. If they were there to buy uranium then they would have brought it up....

I fail to see where Wilson lied.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I fail to see where Wilson lied.

yet it is clear to you that bush lied?

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 02:10 PM

no it isn't clear to me that bush lied, but it is clear that he may have lied and there was a campaign of disinformation amoung at least one of his subordinates in an attempt to cover something up. Now whenever I see a coverup I ask myself what are they covering up? You don't coverup nothing. You coverup something. I'm just asking that we continue to investigate this until we know the truth of what happend.

stevo · 11-03-2005, 02:13 PM

And when do you admit to yourself that nothing happened? 2 years, 3 years, or once bush is out of office?

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 02:18 PM

when the investigation produces a report saying there is no credible evidice to suggest that something happend

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-03-2005, 02:31 PM

Are people asserting that Libby lied to cover something up? Way I gather it the dude is a moron because he probably wouldn't have had a reason to lie seeing he had clearance to the info, only a goon would double back on testimony.

Locobot · 11-03-2005, 02:32 PM

Okay let's all take a deep breath and have a good laugh at the name "Jack Abramoff." What an unfortunate sap to have parents that didn't know what "jack off" means. Every time I hear his name in the news I think 'who's Abram and why jack him off?'

Anyone else seen the clip from the Bill O'Reily show where he reads a letter from "Jack Mehoff"?

Rekna · 11-03-2005, 03:22 PM

I'm curious if some of your are advocating the idea of not investigating potential crimes unless we already have all the evidence needed to prove a crime occured and who the perp is. If this were the case nothing would ever get prosecuted..... we have investagtions to investigate if something happend. if nothing happend then the investigation says so. The way I see it there are only 2 valid reasons to fear an investigation 1) you are guilty 2) you have no faith in our judicial system. So if you fear the investigation which of these two is it?

tecoyah · 11-03-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And when do you admit to yourself that nothing happened? 2 years, 3 years, or once bush is out of office?

When the investigation has been completed.

I have hesitated to say anything in this thread, simply because I felt I may need to make a Mod Note to settle things down....but what the hell.

This is an ongoing investigation into what happened, and what did not. To resort to eventual name calling, when the facts are not yet clear seems a bit silly.

Sure....Bush may have had a hand in the deception that is coming to light, or he may have simply not been party to what may be a non-issue in the first place. I ask only one thing:

Do Not Get Nasty With Each Other......please continue.

pan6467 · 11-03-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And all that is posted by the left, over and over, is the same ol' stuff. And I can't laugh at it?

2 years of investigations and all the left has is Libby lying. That really means nothing. If he lied, he should go to jail, but that is the crux of the liberal crusade against bush. 1 guy alledgedly lied to investigators. Hardly does that make bush surrounded by corruption and scandle. Keep making up stuff and eventually something will happen, like getting someone to do something stupid, like lie to investigators, then you've got an indictment and a real life scandle then the public will more easliy be able to swallow the accusations.

But what was it that upset you? Was it the part where I pointed out what the democratic party line is? or the part where I thought it was funny?

Well, if all of it just gets posted over and over, why not just ignore it and the thread will die?

There truly is no reason to get sarcastic and vicious. IF you choose not to add any debate because you are tired of the subject then here's a simple thought: IGnore the thread and move on to something you want to debate.

MoonDog · 11-03-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

If you don't want to be attacked for every little thing, maybe you should change your strategy when the other guy's in office. Of course, if you don't want to be attacked on a daily basis, maybe your party should consider not being corrupt, hardline, hawk criminals who make no attempt to disguise their contempt for anyone not filthy rich. I know it's fun to try and blame the democrats for the fact that your feet are being held to the fire, but your party built the fire, and your party deserves to be held accountable for it.

Ok, am I wrong for taking offense here? Apparently my Republican party is criminal in nature, a war-mongering group of "filthy rich" people who are class elitists. Since I am a Republican, I have to assume that this applies to me, as well as the countless Republican politicians that I have known personally on a local, state, and national level.

Guess what - I call "FOUL".

I come here only intermittently, and that is because I have a difficult time wallowing through the sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, and efforts to use an overload of information as a club with which to beat the poster's message into the brains of President Bush's "co-conspirators".

Guess what? I'm a Republican, and I believe that:
1) Abortion is the woman's choice;
2) Government has no business mucking around in religion;
3) Big Oil is bad, and alternative fuels presents real economic opportunities for our country's future;
4) We need less taxes, but corporations should bear a slightly larger tax burden;
5) If you commit perjury as President, and get caught, maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
6) If you lead a nation to war using intelligence that you KNOW is wrong, then maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
7) If advisors close to the President are convicted of a crime, then they should lose their jobs;
8) We created the mess that was Saddam Hussein, and we needed to step up to the plate and fix things;
9) Most of our foreign policy goals in the Middle East, Korean Peninsula, and other areas, should continue to be addressed through diplomacy
10) Even though I make less than $50,000/year, I can still vote Republican

shakran · 11-03-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

This issue has been driven into the ground and its baseless. It is nothing but an attempt by the left to bring down the bush administration. Do I have to find a writer in the NYT to write this first before I can post it?

No but it might help if you tried to find SOME credible source to back your posts up. Because otherwise it SOUNDS like you're just spouting the same old bullshit party line pat answer to everything, i.e. "we're wonderful, anyone who says otherwise is lying/a traitor/unpatriotic/just out to get us."

I know it pains you to realize this, but you are backing a group of criminals. You don't have to be convicted to be a criminal - the guy that robs the bank and gets away with it still isn't innocent even if he doesn't get caught by the authorities.

And then you whine that after two years of digging all we've come up with is an indictment of Scooter Libby. Hell, you guys dug for EIGHT YEARS and didn't get JACK on Clinton - but you sure burned through a helluvalot of taxpayer dollars on your witch hunt.

Even if we HAD nothing to find (laughable) and were just on a witch hunt, it would still be absurdly foolish of you to whine about it considering that then we would only be doing the exact same thing you did to Clinton.

Of course, since the reality is that your guy actually IS guilty of, at the VERY least being a complete idiot and doing anything his advisors tell him to do whether it's a good idea or not, it's even more asinine that you take this whining "the whole WORLD is out to get me!" attitude.

You know, frankly that line of BS reminds me of little kids when they're caught misbehaving. It's always something along the lines of "well HE MADE me do it" or "you're just after me because you hate me" or some other childish bullshit like that. Frankly I'd expect the party that claims to be the best choice for America to be a little more adult than that. Shame that so far, at least in this thread, the Republicans are not living up to that expectation.

Elphaba · 11-03-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Ok, am I wrong for taking offense here? Apparently my Republican party is criminal in nature, a war-mongering group of "filthy rich" people who are class elitists. Since I am a Republican, I have to assume that this applies to me, as well as the countless Republican politicians that I have known personally on a local, state, and national level.

Guess what - I call "FOUL".

I come here only intermittently, and that is because I have a difficult time wallowing through the sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, and efforts to use an overload of information as a club with which to beat the poster's message into the brains of President Bush's "co-conspirators".

Guess what? I'm a Republican, and I believe that:
1) Abortion is the woman's choice;
2) Government has no business mucking around in religion;
3) Big Oil is bad, and alternative fuels presents real economic opportunities for our country's future;
4) We need less taxes, but corporations should bear a slightly larger tax burden;
5) If you commit perjury as President, and get caught, maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
6) If you lead a nation to war using intelligence that you KNOW is wrong, then maybe you shouldn't be President anymore;
7) If advisors close to the President are convicted of a crime, then they should lose their jobs;
8) We created the mess that was Saddam Hussein, and we needed to step up to the plate and fix things;
9) Most of our foreign policy goals in the Middle East, Korean Peninsula, and other areas, should continue to be addressed through diplomacy
10) Even though I make less than $50,000/year, I can still vote Republican

Moondog, from one moderate to another, thanks for posting that. I'm equally affronted when I am labeled something I am not simply because it doesn't fit someone's narrow ideology of "right" or "left." Please come here more often, as centrist views need a larger voice.

11-03-2005, 10:38 AM	#9 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	And all that is posted by the left, over and over, is the same ol' stuff. And I can't laugh at it? 2 years of investigations and all the left has is Libby lying. That really means nothing. If he lied, he should go to jail, but that is the crux of the liberal crusade against bush. 1 guy alledgedly lied to investigators. Hardly does that make bush surrounded by corruption and scandle. Keep making up stuff and eventually something will happen, like getting someone to do something stupid, like lie to investigators, then you've got an indictment and a real life scandle then the public will more easliy be able to swallow the accusations. But what was it that upset you? Was it the part where I pointed out what the democratic party line is? or the part where I thought it was funny? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-03-2005, 11:33 AM	#14 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Sorry to burst your bubble, host, but that is not proof. Because no one can uncover anything, the coverup worked. Sounds like a pretty sweet idea: make up some charges and then when you can't prove them, its because of a great right-wing conspiracy cover-up that worked! The only thing is the left's tactics don't. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-03-2005, 12:05 PM	#16 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	This issue has been driven into the ground and its baseless. It is nothing but an attempt by the left to bring down the bush administration. Do I have to find a writer in the NYT to write this first before I can post it? Wilson had no experience in WMD's, his wife did. After bush mentioned iraq "trying" to buy yellowcake in niger the CIA sends wilson to investigate. he comes back to the CIA, gives an oral report (he was not required to put it in writing), and he tells the CIA that, yeah, its possible that saddam was looking around, possibly trying to buy uranium. Then wilson writes an Op-ed piece, that is 180 degrees from his statements at the CIA. The whitehouse reads it and wants to know what is up. Who is this guy, why was he sent to niger, what are his intentions and the intentions of the CIA? No one wants to talk about Joe Wilson and how he lied. The left puts this guy up as a poster child, him and his wife, perfect angels before the big bad evil republicans ruined her career because they were mad at wilson for telling the truth about saddam and niger. Through the course of the whitehouse's own investigation into the Wilson op-ed piece they figure out that his wife works at the CIA as an analyst on WMD intel. Novak mentions this in his piece because it is relevant information and he was not forbid to mention it (he may have been asked not to mention Plame's name and relationship, but he was not forbid). A couple months later all hell breaks loose because the democrats, bitter about losing at the polls think they might have a way to hurt bush. And, as we all can see, nothing substantial has come from the investigation but one guy allegedly lying to investigators. Because Libby may have lied, does not mean anyone else did anything illegal. The CIA never raised much concern over Novaks piece, Justice looked into it for a weekend and then dismissed it. yet the left feels it is there mission to figure out who leaked this "covert" agents identity. Too bad the CIA and Justice Dept didn't think it was necessary to figure out. That is the reason this is a non-story. It is a partisan attempt to bring down an administration. The media feels as if it is reliving watergate, while the left is desparate for power because they cant win at the polls. We've been through this time and time again and nothing has changed, so why should I try and refute every little article you post? Because its all a bunch of horse-poopie. So first I ignored you, then I laughed at you. If you think I'm going to fight you over this you probably think you're going to win, as well. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-03-2005, 02:13 PM	#31 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	And when do you admit to yourself that nothing happened? 2 years, 3 years, or once bush is out of office? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-03-2005, 02:31 PM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Are people asserting that Libby lied to cover something up? Way I gather it the dude is a moron because he probably wouldn't have had a reason to lie seeing he had clearance to the info, only a goon would double back on testimony. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-03-2005, 04:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	So this is the Great New Democratic Strategy of the 21st century? It appears the Dems have finally found a successful political strategy: Shooting Politicians in a Barrel. Leadership.

11-03-2005, 11:00 AM	#10 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	stevo where is your proof that shows "that is all they have"? I don't think it is safe to assume Fitzgeralds investegation is over or the investegation into the reasons for war is over yet. Not to mention in the buisness world if someone below you messes up big time they will fry for it but you can bet you will catch a lot of heat too.

11-03-2005, 11:23 AM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	i'm not a prosecuter but i know in the research field you don't jump out and say you found something everytime you think you found something. Instead you verify the information, research it, and get lots of proof to back up your claim that way you are ready for questions when you announce it. I'm sure earl new months ago that libby lied but he didn't announce it until recently. Why is that? Instead there is more investigating going on. If they didn't have anything at all the investegation would be over but it is still going. There are a lot of things that are surfacing because of this investigation and I have a feeling we have only seen the tip of the iceburg.

11-03-2005, 12:14 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	do you have proof of his oral report being different than his op ed?

11-03-2005, 12:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	that doesn't seem to me like he said two different things. it says there that iraq did not purchase and thing and probably wouldn't ever then stated they wanted to expand commericial relations. I'm sorry but you can't just assume that means buy uranium. Bush asserted that Iraq tried to buy uranium which is definatly not what Wilson asserted. Your post earlier sounded like he said "yes iraq did try to buy uranium" followed by his piece claiming otherwise. Please don't throw out distortions as fact.

11-03-2005, 02:02 PM	#28 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	stevo this is also from that same article [Quote] The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade. [\Quote] Wilson did not tell them that they were seeking, he told them that the nigerian representive though that may have been why they came but that the issue never came up in their meeting. If they were there to buy uranium then they would have brought it up.... I fail to see where Wilson lied.

11-03-2005, 02:10 PM	#30 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	no it isn't clear to me that bush lied, but it is clear that he may have lied and there was a campaign of disinformation amoung at least one of his subordinates in an attempt to cover something up. Now whenever I see a coverup I ask myself what are they covering up? You don't coverup nothing. You coverup something. I'm just asking that we continue to investigate this until we know the truth of what happend.

11-03-2005, 02:18 PM	#32 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	when the investigation produces a report saying there is no credible evidice to suggest that something happend

11-03-2005, 02:32 PM	#34 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Okay let's all take a deep breath and have a good laugh at the name "Jack Abramoff." What an unfortunate sap to have parents that didn't know what "jack off" means. Every time I hear his name in the news I think 'who's Abram and why jack him off?' Anyone else seen the clip from the Bill O'Reily show where he reads a letter from "Jack Mehoff"?

11-03-2005, 03:22 PM	#35 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm curious if some of your are advocating the idea of not investigating potential crimes unless we already have all the evidence needed to prove a crime occured and who the perp is. If this were the case nothing would ever get prosecuted..... we have investagtions to investigate if something happend. if nothing happend then the investigation says so. The way I see it there are only 2 valid reasons to fear an investigation 1) you are guilty 2) you have no faith in our judicial system. So if you fear the investigation which of these two is it?