- This topic has 19 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
sdrebear.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 23, 2007 at 8:58 AM #8258January 23, 2007 at 9:05 AM #43973
bigtrouble
ParticipantSpecial prosecutor Fitzgerald just laid out in opening statements that Libby lied to cover up Cheney’s involvement.
Libby’s defense team just started opening statements saying that Libby was asked to be scapegoat for Karl Rove!
January 23, 2007 at 9:15 AM #43975ParticipantMSNBC has its article up:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/
“Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “destroyed” a Cheney note just before Libby’s first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president. ”
January 23, 2007 at 9:26 AM #43976blahblahblah
ParticipantThere was a great PBS Frontline about Dick Cheney a few months back. In the first Gulf War, he was Sec. Def. for Bush I and the CIA was totally wrong about Hussein’s WMD programs. Hussein was much closer to getting the bomb than the CIA had suspected. Since that time, Cheney has been highly suspicious of intelligence from the CIA. That’s why he was so gung-ho to set up the OSP to end run around the CIA during the runup to the second Iraq war. He simply doesn’t trust the CIA. A better course of action probably would have been to work with the CIA to improve their intelligence gathering in the middle east, but of course I’m sure that’s easier said that done (these are all government employees we’re talking about here, Cheney included).
The bottom line is that Cheney let his ideology cloud his judgement and negatively affect his job performance; he may have also done something illegal in the process. Sad.
January 23, 2007 at 9:29 AM #43979ParticipantLibby’s defense makes Bush a liar, to the whole world.
He said he would fire any involved in the leak. If libby is saying that the WH wanted to scapegoat him to protect Rove, that means the President of the United States, the Decider, lied to the American people when he said he would fire those involved.
No spin involved. Just the facts.
January 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM #43981Diego Mamani
ParticipantCheney and Rumsfeld are entitled to their own ideological position. But not to blatantly deceive public opinion to bring the country into the quagmire that is the Iraq invasion and occupation. Worse than the lies and the cover ups, is the enormous cost in human lives. A hundred thousand people may have died as a result of this most misguided misadventure in Iraq. These two deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity.
How about their boss? Nixon was impeached for a far lesser offense.
January 23, 2007 at 1:02 PM #44000sdnativeson
ParticipantPeople see and hear only what they want all too often.
go here;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/then here;
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241744137262638CIA motivation? Just consider these;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005686http://www.rcpblog.com/articles/2006/08/cia_versus_white_house.html
Wells is trying to defend his client as is his job. At this point he is going to come up with anything he can, which is what he is doing. From what I’ve read his claims are still based on heresay, Truth be damned. But he is in a bad position as the only thing Fitzgerald can hold on to is the possible conviction of Libby
This is typical partisan politics. And, as usual, the majority of those here follow right along.
January 23, 2007 at 5:17 PM #44027Anonymous
GuestDM, you must have gotten a government education (i.e., public school): only two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Slick Willie. Nixon did the honorable thing, unlike Slick Willie, and stepped down before he was impeached.
January 23, 2007 at 11:02 PM #44046dontfollowtheherd
ParticipantAnd now we have another sex scandal with dubya who has been in bed with big oil. Only he hasn’t been getting screwed – we have. lol
January 23, 2007 at 11:24 PM #44049ParticipantJG, you are right. Nixon’s impeachment was imminent, which is why he resigned. This doesn’t change the essence of the argument: that there are grounds to start impeachment proceedings today, as there were in 1974.
January 25, 2007 at 8:32 AM #44154ParticipantDM, the biggest difference would be that Bush broke no laws.
If he had, the proceedings would have started, the Dems would be or would’ve been all over it. Why would they wait? For the good of the nation? LOL.Consider a reason (one reason) behind the huge increase in MSM reporting lambasting everything Bush and when that falls short, everything they would like to blame on him. Again, the media knows no laws were broken, so do the next best thing to indicting him legally, indict him in the minds of americans, of which a significant number are under utilized.
True to their nature the Democrats are forming a group to try to find something to try Bush for (breaking another one of their election pledges), in what is complete disregard (I’m putting that mildly) for our legal system. I guess to blindly prejudiced people, that is completely justified.
So, it does change “the essence of the argument” your argument is based upon fallacious logic.
January 25, 2007 at 10:37 AM #44168ParticipantSDnative, back in 1973 and 1974 there was a “silver bullet” tape recording that proved that the president was directly involved in cover ups and the funding of illegal activities like wiretapping, harassment of political adversaries, etc. The fact that the current Libby investigation on the Valerie Plame scandal appears to implicate Rove, is moving us closer and closer to the oval office.
The consequences of the presidential actions this time are far more serious than in the early 70s: possibly over 100,000 dead in Iraq, and a whole generation coming of age with a profound hate that will haunt us for several decades. That’s not fallacious logic, it’s measurable fact.
January 25, 2007 at 11:37 AM #44178FutureSDguy
ParticipantIts better to lose on any American issue, whether in war or with domestic policy, so long as the ability to govern of ones political opponent is compromised. It’s the pursuit of power out of selfish ego. Its sad that the threat against America from our own politicians are greater than any foreign entity. Very… very sad.
Iraq is a mess, and we’re there partially due to one person’s ego. But that’s water underneath the bridge. Believing (in good conscience for some, anti-Bushism for others) that a pullout is in the best interests of this nation is wishful myopic thinking.
As for the handful of democrats clapping a the State of the Union address (as someone asked about in another thread). That is partially done to honor the president as should be done. But I bet if you went back and reviewed all the televised State of the Union adddesses, and measured how much “partisan clapping” (where clearly only one side of the aisle is clapping), I’m willing to bet it’s the democrats who are more guilty. It’s more in their nature, where party loyalty outweighs individual conscience–which is what you expect in a minority party, and a party whose constituent base is made of a large range of subgroups rather than the mainstream. Futhermore, half of the claps were on fodder issues like global warming and health care. Nobody is serious about any solutions, just enough talk to get them through to the next election cycle. They were thrown out just to make Democrats smile, who want their consituents to smile. Smiling is what it is all about with these guys, not taking the hard road–taking on issues that are not popular–and doing whats in the health of this country.
The other half of the claps were about troop morale, because no one wants to get caught appearing not to support the troups.
Oh, and the solution for global warming is to put ice cubes on the sun or put up a visor between the earth and the sun. Sorry to break it you fellas.
January 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM #44179ParticipantAs you base your logic on false premises it is indeed fallacious. Regardless, blathering on about Nixon
isn’t pertinent to the issue you address, give it a rest. So, The Plame Affair is the cause of 100,00 Iraqi deaths? And, a whole generation coming of age with a profound hate? Read the links on my earlier post, or don’t, it won’t matter in your mind.The Libby investigation will do what? Nothing, the man who ADMITTED to leaking Plames “identity” hasn’t been indicted. If you can’t see the blatant partisian action on Fitzgeralds part…. well exercise your brain by investigating sources you don’t like or want to go to.
The true measurable fact is that you are lost in your prejudices, period.
January 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM #44181GuestAnyone with half a brain can criticise Bush and his (mis)handling of Iraq, it has nothing to do with Party politics, just common sense.
The Iraq invasion was a terrible idea, and most Republicans knew it a long time ago. They are finally coming out to criticise the adminstration in mass because of upcoming elections. However, it is pure partisanship that kept them from expressing their criticisms in the past.
This so called democracy we live in is a F-ing joke. The checks and balances written into the constitution are outweighed by party politics. F*%k the parties!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.