TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Condi, dear?

Condi, dear?

Sweetie, I sure hope for your sake you didn't do that:

quote:

Lawyer: Rice Allegedly Leaked Defense Info By MATTHEW BARAKAT The Associated Press Saturday, April 22, 2006; 12:59 AM ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday. Prosecutors disputed the claim. The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information. Defense lawyers are asking a judge to dismiss the charges because, among other things, they believe it seeks to criminalize the type of backchannel exchanges between government officials, lobbyists and the press that are part and parcel of how Washington works. During Friday's hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he is considering dismissing the government's entire case because the law used to prosecute Rosen and Weissman may be unconstitutionally vague and broad and infringe on freedom of speech. Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the testimony of Rice and others is needed to show that some of the top officials in U.S. government approved of disclosing sensitive information to the defendants and that the leaks may have been authorized. Prosecutors opposed the effort to depose Rice and the other officials. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin DiGregory also disputed Lowell's claim, saying, "She never gave national defense information to Mr. Rosen." The issuance of subpoenas does not automatically require Rice or anybody else to testify or give a deposition. A recipient can seek to quash the subpoena. Calls to the State Department seeking comment Friday evening were not immediately returned. The judge also granted subpoenas for David Satterfield, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq; William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Russia and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni. "Each of these individuals have real-life dealings with the defendants in this case. They'll explain what they told Dr. Rosen in detail," Lowell said. "On day one, Secretary of State Rice tells him certain info and on day two one of the conspirators tells him the same thing or something less volatile." The indictment against Rosen and Weissman alleges that three government officials leaked sensitive and sometimes classified national defense information to the two, who subsequently revealed what they learned to the press and to an Israeli government official. One of the three government officials is former Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin, who pleaded guilty to providing classified defense information to Rosen and Weissman and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. Franklin has said he was concerned that the United States was insufficiently concerned about the threat posed by Iran and hoped that leaking information might eventually provoke the National Security Council to take a different course of action. The indictment against Rosen, of Silver Spring, Md., and Weissman, of Bethesda, Md., alleges that they conspired to obtain classified government reports on issues relevant to U.S. policy, including the al-Qaida terror network; the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel; and U.S. policy in Iran. Lowell said it is impossible for Rosen and Weissman to determine what is sensitive national defense information when they are receiving the information from government officials who presumably understand national security law and therefore would not improperly disclose national defense information. The World War I-era law has never been used to prosecute lobbyists before. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2101648_pf.html

12 years of hard time for this crime is pretty serious. Then again, this Administration seems to be a little leaky no matter what.

so let me guess. you're out front on this for what? damage control?

quote:

Judge T.S. Ellis of the US District Court in Alexandria Virginia granted the defense's motion to subpoena Rice and three other government officials: retired general Anthony Zinni who was the administration's special envoy to the Middle East, William Burns, who was assistant Secretary of State for Near East and is now the US ambassador to Moscow and David Satterfield who was Burns' deputy and is now the Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad. The decision to allow the defense to proceed with the subpoena process does not ensure that the government officials will actually appear in court, but it does give the defense permission to contact the State Department and put in a request for the testimony. In a Friday hearing, attorney Abbe Lowell, representing former Aipac staffer Steve Rosen, told the court that Rice's testimony is needed since she had met with Rosen in the past, while serving as National Security Adviser, and conveyed to him the same information that he, and his colleague Keith Weissman, later received from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin. Rosen and Weissman were indicted for communicating national defense information which they got from Franklin to Israeli diplomats and members of the press. Franklin signed a plea agreement with the government and was sentenced for 12 years in prison. The US attorney Kevin DiGregory asked the court not to grant the defense's request to summon the government officials and denied Lowell's claim that Rice had leaked information to Rosen.

but hey. no one can stop you from the fever swamp.

the CIA (who, for some reason, you hold to high esteem for your own purposes) fired this dumb bitch >source<for trying to embarass the administration by leaking highly classified info and trying to lie about it twice.

BTW was a Sandy "Burglar" Berger appointee >source<under the Clinton administration.

it's all about the poll numbers, isnt it? "do and say whatever it takes to bring down those polls to bring back the Donkey party majority"

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so let me guess. you're out front on this for what? damage control? but hey. no one can stop you from the fever swamp.

Are you okay? My my, you really do rush to the side of your dear Leader when trouble is a brewing, the speed and swiftness to the likes I have rarely seen.

I am "out front on this" for the same reason I am "out front" on any given issue I post, my dear Bush apologist - because I feel it's worth discussing. There are a number of facets we can discuss on this aspect, one in which you bring up here:

quote:

the CIA (who, for some reason, you hold to high esteem for your own purposes) fired this dumb bitch >source

Which is an interesting case, because what she was leaking about, if I recall correctly, was on rendition and secret CIA prisons. Now if she felt it was illegal activity for our government and intelligence branches to be running these prisons and rendition activities, and if it is indeed illegal, then how could she be prosecuted for leaking such illegal activities to make the public and members of Congress aware of these activities?

I understand the necessity for secrecy, and I fully understand that as an intelligence officer it is her duty to keep such secrets and classified information from the public at all costs. But does that necessitate her to keep such events classified when her agency is doing something illegal? To that I honestly don't know.

But the irony of such an event is in relation to Condi, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and maybe even Hadley - when is it appropriate for members of our intelligence branches to be fired for leaking sensitive and classified information while members of our Administration who have access to similar highly classified information do not get fired for the same actions of leaking? IOW, why is she fired and possibly prosecuted when members like Condi, Bush, and Cheney do the same and retain their positions, if such allegations are demonstrated to be true?

quote:

BTW was a Sandy "Burglar" Berger appointee >source

To which I fully agree he should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. It may be difficult for you to understand this, but not everyone holds such undying allegiance to their elected leaders, commanders in chief, and their Administration cabinet members the way that you do. There are plenty of instances to which I hold Clinton and his Adminstration members at fault for their misdeeds and lack of judgements.

If memory serves, the same sentiments cannot be shared with you and your dear leader in charge because if I remember right, you don't believe he has made any mistakes.

quote:

It's all about the poll numbers, isnt it? "do and say whatever it takes to bring down those polls to bring back the Donkey party majority"

I'm actually willing to entertain such a notion and discuss that with you if you truly believe this is the case. My contention, and I think many analysts for Republican and Democrat tend to agree, is that the Democrats have done so very little in terms of making the GOPers look bad. It's actually a pretty hot topic amongst the bloggers as many are wondering if this is the actual strategy that the Dems. are choosing to take, or if they are actually going to come out with some plan of their own. In any case, I don't think it's too difficult to realize that whatever mishaps are occurring are NOT the actions of the Democrats.

The president and his corrupt GOP Congress are doing that all entirely on their own. You have no one but yourselves to thank for the current mess and horribly low poll numbers as of late. Whether the Dems. decide to capitalize on that remains to be seen, but until that point - keep the finger pointed at your own.

quote:

Defense lawyers are asking a judge to dismiss the charges because, among other things, they believe it seeks to criminalize the type of backchannel exchanges between government officials, lobbyists and the press that are part and parcel of how Washington works.

criminalizing illicit activities is wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T criminalizing illicit activities is wrong?

If anyone in the current administration is involved, then yes apparently

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Which is an interesting case, because what she was leaking about, if I recall correctly, was on rendition and secret CIA prisons. Now if she felt it was illegal activity for our government and intelligence branches to be running these prisons and rendition activities, and if it is indeed illegal, then how could she be prosecuted for leaking such illegal activities to make the public and members of Congress aware of these activities? I understand the necessity for secrecy, and I fully understand that as an intelligence officer it is her duty to keep such secrets and classified information from the public at all costs. But does that necessitate her to keep such events classified when her agency is doing something illegal? To that I honestly don't know.

keep what secret? the prevailing wisdom is this was a sting operation conducted by Goss to root out moles. tell me what the European counter/terror chief has concluded this week after an exhaustive investigation. secret prisons or no secret prisons? i'll give you one guess.

quote:

But the irony of such an event is in relation to Condi, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and maybe even Hadley - when is it appropriate for members of our intelligence branches to be fired for leaking sensitive and classified information while members of our Administration who have access to similar highly classified information do not get fired for the same actions of leaking? IOW, why is she fired and possibly prosecuted when members like Condi, Bush, and Cheney do the same and retain their positions, if such allegations are demonstrated to be true?

theres no irony here dude. it's called your accute biased imagination brought on by swamp fever. seems to to going around the Kos lately like a bad rash in an election year. it happens. don't be ashamed.
wtf do you not understand about the power of classification and declassification belonging to the Executive? it's almost exclusive power. tell me how it isn't. please.
she was canned because she wasn't authorized. it looks like she may have been set up. no one knows for sure.

quote:

If memory serves, the same sentiments cannot be shared with you and your dear leader in charge because if I remember right, you don't believe he has made any mistakes.

of course he's made mistakes. evreyone makes mistakes. i don't live on cloud 9. policy wise, i'm pretty much across the board in agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo keep what secret? the prevailing wisdom is this was a sting operation conducted by Goss to root out moles. tell me what the European counter/terror chief has concluded this week after an exhaustive investigation. secret prisons or no secret prisons? i'll give you one guess.

Yes, I read that in the NYTimes this morning as well. Interesting bit of editing really. Since you seem to love Kos so much, I thought I'd give you a little rundown on the Times editing hackjob on the ordeal:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/23/42010/8780

Funny, I wonder where you got the "prevailing" thought about a supposed "sting" operation on this whole ordeal? You wouldn't happen to love Captain's Quarters now, would you?

It is an interesting bit of editing by the Times. First they reported this:

quote:

Mr. de Vries said the European Parliament investigation, and a similar probe by the Council of Europe, had not uncovered rights abuses despite more than 50 hours of testimony by rights activists and alleged victims who say they were abducted by C.I.A. agents.

But they added that DeVries mischaracterized the report:

quote:

n January, Dick Marty, a Swiss investigator for the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog organization, said there was evidence that the United States was engaged in a system of "outsourcing of torture." But he did not offer irrefutable proof of clandestine C.I.A. prisons in Europe. Mr. Marty said it was "highly unlikely" that European governments or their intelligence services were not aware of a system of "relocation" or "outsourcing of torture."

But they then came out with this statement:

quote:

A similar investigation by the Council of Europe, the European human rights agency, came to the same conclusion in January

Which is interesting, given what the Council actually said in January:

quote:

As we have said, no cogent evidence has yet emerged on the existence in Europe of detention camps like the one at Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand, it has been proved (and in fact never denied), that individuals have been abducted, deprived of their liberty and all rights, and transported to different destinations in Europe, to be handed over to countries in which they have suffered degrading treatment and torture. This is serious enough to justify the continuation of the Council of Europe's inquiries and strenuous efforts from all member States to ascertain the truth. http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?li...doc032006_E.htm

And here is more of that January report that's supposedly lacking of any evidence:

quote:

On 5 December 2005 ABC reported, in turn, the existence of secret prisons in Poland and Romania that had apparently been closed following The Washington Post's revelations. According to ABC, eleven suspects detained in these centres were then transferred to CIA facilities in North Africa. They were allegedly submitted to the harshest interrogation techniques (so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques"). I would point out that the ABC article confirming the use of secret detention camps in Poland and Romania by the CIA was available on the Internet for only a very short time before being withdrawn. This strikes me as a telling indication of the pressure put on the media in this affair (in this particular case, the pressure was apparently brought to bear direct by the CIA). 7. It would seem from confidential contacts that the information revealed by The Washington Post, HRW and ABC came from different sources, probably all well-informed official sources. This is clearly a factor that adds to the credibility of the allegations, since the media concerned have not simply taken information from one another. 8. In an interview broadcast by the American channel ABC on 29 November 2005, the Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, Porter Goss, did not deny the existence of CIA secret prisons in various parts of the world where people suspected of terrorism were held. He did, however, categorically deny that the United States used torture, while refusing to pass judgment on certain interrogation techniques used by its services. 9. On 5 December 2005, Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, made a statement addressed to Europeans in which she did not, at any point, deny the existence of the alleged centres, or of the flights transporting detainees, but reaffirmed the need to resort to "extraordinary renditions" in the context of efforts to counter terrorism. The only thing that Ms Rice categorically denied was the use of torture.

The European Council was in agreement with the ABC report on the matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investiga...tory?id=1375123

And you can read the rest about how DeVries was forced to NOT even investigate this whole matter, which calls into question if this guy is talking a bit too much out of his ass.

It does appear the European Council doesn't think too highly of this DeVries hack character too much:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investiga...tory?id=1375123

Is this what you are referring to, or was there something I was missing?

quote:

theres no irony here dude. it's called your accute biased imagination brought on by swamp fever.

Not that muggy here in Kansas (yet).

quote:

seems to to going around the Kos lately like a bad rash in an election year. it happens. don't be ashamed. wtf do you not understand about the power of classification and declassification belonging to the Executive? it's almost exclusive power. tell me how it isn't. please.

I understand it fine, and I've even conceded that Bush MAY have had such authorization to declassify such information, though it's highly unusual of him or any president to merely wave their wand and declassify some highly sensitive intelligence. The normal protocols are usually taken up through a series of channels that do not involve the President, ESPECIALLY when it comes to highly sensitive intelligence matters.

But for now I'll go with the argument that he declassified it with the mere wave of his hand. There's still a myriad of troubles with it:

1. Why selectively declassify some information that bolsters the case for war but refuse to cite other information that clearly demonstrates dissenting views on that intelligence? Ex: aluminum tubes.

2. Why declassify information on the status of a covert CIA operative who's job is to hunt down foreign WMD proliferation, and who's husband happened to be the same guy who contributed to debunking the claims of Iraqi uranium procurement from Niger? What interest could that possibly serve?

3. Let's look at the timeline here:

a) Based on the assurances of Cheney's lawyer Mike Addington who essentially told Libby that Bush's permission to disclose information from classified intelligence "amounted to a declassification of a document":

http://nysun.com/timesleak.php

to which Libby went ahead and disclosed that information to Judy Miller on July 8th, 2002. So far so good.

b) Matt Cooper of Time speaks to Rove on July 11th. What did Rove say to him on the same information that was being leaked?:

quote:

"material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1083870,00.html

That means for you Captain Quarters lovers who hate that strange place called the Reality-Based Community that this information from the NIE document was NOT classified yet. And then:

c) The NIE document is officially declassified:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

So if it was "officially" declassified on the 18th, how could there be a declassification accord occurring by Bush's wand waving prior to that? For some strange reason, this Administration continued on the declassification process to the 18th anyway, even though the information was supposedly already declassified by Bush's wand?

So was it declassified prior to the 18th or wasn't it, Q? I'm afraid you can't have this both ways, nor can this Administration.

Even stranger:

quote:

According to defendant [Libby], at the time of his conversations with [Judith] Miller and [Matthew] Cooper, he understood that only three people - the President, the Vice President and defendant - knew that the key judgments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials - including Cabinet level officials - were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/do...?resultpage=24&

So is the story now that only the 3 little Muskateers knew about their little declassification process and didn't even tell Rove, only to allow the formal declassification process continue until July 18th regardless? That's simply beyond the pale of absurdity, and it still calls into one simple question:

Why? Why bother with all of this just to out a CIA operative working on saving our fucking country from WMD proliferation in rogue nations (including one of her primary operations in IRAN? Why give certain information to bolster your case for invasion and deliberately withhold conflicting intelligence from reliable source that clearly states otherwise?

Again, there's much more to come, and it's hard to make conclusions on all of this, but given what we've got so far, it's also exceedingly difficult not to follow where it leads.

quote:

she was canned because she wasn't authorized. it looks like she may have been set up. no one knows for sure.

I won't presume to know either, so I'll leave it at that until more information comes out (if it ever does).

quote:

of course he's made mistakes. evreyone makes mistakes. i don't live on cloud 9. policy wise, i'm pretty much across the board in agreement.

Well that's a different tone than what you once said, which is actually quite refreshing to see. Agreeing with the policies is one thing; agreeing with every action being taken is quite another.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It does appear the European Council doesn't think too highly of this DeVries hack character too much:

so after citing numerous speculative "confidential source" reports that the COE were also privy to for the last 5 months, you finish with the left's requisite character assasination thats rich.

quote:

I understand it fine, and I've even conceded that Bush MAY have had such authorization to declassify such information, though it's highly unusual of him or any president to merely wave their wand and declassify some highly sensitive intelligence.

it is not unusual. while not explicitly defined in the Constitution, Art 1. sect 1. is backed by US Code. what's unusual is for people to know that. USC 50 Section 783. Offenses

(a) Communication of classified information by Government officer
or employee
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United
States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any
corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part
by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to
communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom
such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an
agent or representative of any foreign government, any information
of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by
the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the
approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United
States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has
been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been
specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the
department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or
employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information.
since the President is the Executive, all powers of the Executive are derived from him.

quote:

Why selectively declassify some information that bolsters the case for war but refuse to cite other information that clearly demonstrates dissenting views on that intelligence?

in the interests of National Security and to protect that knowledge he [the President] thinks is critical to those interest, do not become illegal just because opponents characterize it as political.

quote:

Why declassify information on the status of a covert CIA operative who's job is to hunt down foreign WMD proliferation, and who's husband happened to be the same guy who contributed to debunking the claims of Iraqi uranium procurement from Niger? What interest could that possibly serve?

first off, you do not know if there is any validity to that question. second, no one has been accused or (indicted) for anything resembling that question...except reporters. what you have wet dreams about and what truly is the power of the Executive are two completely different things.

quote:

Let's look at the timeline here: a) Based on the assurances of Cheney's lawyer Mike Addington who essentially told Libby that Bush's permission to disclose information from classified intelligence "amounted to a declassification of a document": http://nysun.com/timesleak.php to which Libby went ahead and disclosed that information to Judy Miller on July 8th, 2002. So far so good. b) Matt Cooper of Time speaks to Rove on July 11th. What did Rove say to him on the same information that was being leaked?: That means for you Captain Quarters lovers who hate that strange place called the Reality-Based Community that this information from the NIE document was NOT classified yet. And then: c) The NIE document is officially declassified: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html So if it was "officially" declassified on the 18th, how could there be a declassification accord occurring by Bush's wand waving prior to that? For some strange reason, this Administration continued on the declassification process to the 18th anyway, even though the information was supposedly already declassified by Bush's wand? So was it declassified prior to the 18th or wasn't it, Q? I'm afraid you can't have this both ways, nor can this Administration. Even stranger: So is the story now that only the 3 little Muskateers knew about their little declassification process and didn't even tell Rove, only to allow the formal declassification process continue until July 18th regardless? That's simply beyond the pale of absurdity, and it still calls into one simple question: Why? Why bother with all of this just to out a CIA operative working on saving our fucking country from WMD proliferation in rogue nations (including one of her primary operations in IRAN? Why give certain information to bolster your case for invasion and deliberately withhold conflicting intelligence from reliable source that clearly states otherwise? Again, there's much more to come, and it's hard to make conclusions on all of this, but given what we've got so far, it's also exceedingly difficult not to follow where it leads. I won't presume to know either, so I'll leave it at that until more information comes out (if it ever does).

as far as the de-class of the OCT 2002 NIE, it was de-classed after Joe Wilson's hack of an op-ed in the NYT. there was no point in not de-classing certain portions of the NIE because it was already all over the pages of the NYT. otherwise, there is nothing more to say about Plame right now.

quote:

Well that's a different tone than what you once said, which is actually quite refreshing to see. Agreeing with the policies is one thing; agreeing with every action being taken is quite another.

wtf did you think i said? that the president is infallible? can do no wrong?

Right in the middle of finals week. I'll come back to this hopefully by tomorrow night (slight break until Thursday). I'm sure you'll be counting the moments with baited breath.....

Finals are done, so of course I can't leave too many stones unturned:

quote:

It is not unusual. while not explicitly defined in the Constitution, Art 1. sect 1. is backed by US Code. what's unusual is for people to know that. USC 50 Section 783. Offenses

Umm, yes it is unusual, and the USC section you quoted does not negate my point of this being highly atypical of any president to disclose selected parts of a classified document that bolsters his case for war while deliberately leaving out dissenting views from highly qualified and reliable sources from the State Dept., the IAEA, the Iraqi Survey Group, and the Dept. of Energy:

http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/fordmemo.pdf

And let's also keep in mind on who's voice on this matter turned out to be the correct one � the Pentagon/DIA headed up by Rummy, Wolfowitz, and a number of neocon hawks that wanted this invasion at all costs, or the State Dept., the IAEA, the Iraqi Survey Group, and the Dept. of Energy.

Which ones turned out to be correct, and which ones were handwaved away?

Again, I've conceded to the point that the President had such authority, but the point remains of the unusual maneuver of selective intelligence to be reported out in such a backdoor manner. These questions remain in regards to Bush's actions:

1. Why didn't the president openly release the information if he thought it was so important? Could he have not come before the public and lay out ALL the facts that our intelligence had gathered, rather than selectively pick and choose the ones he liked the most that agreed with his views and discard those that disagreed even though they were fully supported by the evidence given, and given those selective pieces of intelligence to Libby to disclose to reporters in such a hush hush manner?

That absolutely wreaks of irresponsibility and wrecklessness.

2. Why did he act like he didn't know someone was leaking the information, or that he had declassified it, and then threaten to fire anyone who was doing the leaking? Does that not seem a bit strange?

And perhaps it's a typo on your part, but I'm not sure how the USC code 50 section 783 backs up Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, which grants all legislative powers to the Congress consisting of the House and Senate.

quote:

in the interests of National Security and to protect that knowledge he [the President] thinks is critical to those interest, do not become illegal just because opponents characterize it as political.

Tony Snow already got the job, Q., the tryouts for Bush's Press Secretary are over so you don't need to attempt such a dismissive answer to a very simple question. If you want to play that game, fine, let me re-state my question for you:

quote:

Why did the president feel that selectively declassifing some information that bolsters the case for war but refuses to cite other information that clearly demonstrates dissenting views on that intelligence is somehow in the interests of National Security and is somehow pretecting that knowledge he thinks is critical to those interests? Ex: aluminum tubes.

And let's be clear about "opponents characterizing it as political". If indeed the President deliberately withheld highly reliable and valid dissenting viewpoints, which turned out to be 100% correct I might add, just so he could bolster his case for invasion, who the fuck is being political here, bub?

quote:

first off, you do not know if there is any validity to that question. second, no one has been accused or (indicted) for anything resembling that question...except reporters. what you have wet dreams about and what truly is the power of the Executive are two completely different things.

Wet dreams are hard to come by in my 30's (I'm sure you can relate). Regardless, that's a fair reply and I'll keep trying to stick to my statement that I'll wait until all the evidence is laid out by Fitzgerald.

BTW, Rove does appear to be squirming again. 5 times to the grand jury? Sheesh, that's a few too many.

quote:

as far as the de-class of the OCT 2002 NIE, it was de-classed after Joe Wilson's hack of an op-ed in the NYT. there was no point in not de-classing certain portions of the NIE because it was already all over the pages of the NYT. otherwise, there is nothing more to say about Plame right now.

If that op-ed was a hack, then I suggest you lay out your rationale as to why you feel Joe was incorrect in his op-ed. I'd be interesting in seeing what he said was, in fact, untrue, especially since we had this Administration THE FOLLOWING DAY AFTER HIS OP-ED WAS PRINTED RESCIND THEIR VIEWS ON THOSE 16 WORDS ABOUT URANIUM AND NIGER. You remember that, right? Can you please tell me why they took back their statements after his op-ed was printed, and why they have not corrected themselves on taking back such statements if, in fact, Joe's op-ed was incorrect?

Regardless, you did not address the discrepancy in the timeline of when things were declassified. Libby spoke to disclosed info. to Judy Kneepads on the 8th, so things must have been declassified by then. But then Rove spoke to Cooper on the 11th and specifically mentioned: "material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." That means either Rove didn't know the material was already declassified, or that he did know and leaked it anyway. But then things were officially declassified on the 18th.

So how could things be officially declassified on the 18th if, in fact, Rove and Libby were leaking out such information prior to that? And how could Rove be leaking out information that was to "be declassified in the coming days", if it was already declassified?

quote:

wtf did you think i said? that the president is infallible? can do no wrong?

I believe I asked if there was anything to which you disagreed with the President on at all, to which you replied, "No.":

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...sh&pagenumber=3

I think that directly implies infallibility from you, unless you willingly endorse incorrect or false policies and decisions.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.