This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!

11920212325

Comments

  • Reply 441 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    MaxParrish, rather than wasting my screen space, why not just post 18 USC 2381 and be done with it?



    And Wilson's politics are irrelevant.
  • Reply 442 of 494
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Yawn.



    1). First, Wilson's politics don't even matter. It has nothing to do with the fact that senior administration officials unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA Operative-- Valerie Plame. That much is known and that much has been agreed upon even by President Bush himself.



    2). Second, Wilson is probably a moderate Democrat-- not as far left as his critics would be happy to paint him. He has donated money to George W. Bush's presidential campaign (before the nasty South Carolina primary) and has worked for the first Bush administration. And if you think supporting John Kerry epitomizes far-left liberalism, you are mistaken (ridiculously so).




    First, if the "leak" controversy on this board was confined to a question of a violation of US statutes( and I did not take a position on that aspect), I might agree. However, the thread?s author, along with twelve pages of board discussion, have centered on far more expansive and serious allegations; e.g. a cover-up by Bush (or even worse), the political motivations of Karl Rove, treason, etc. In addition, many posters have done a lot of hair pulling on behalf of Mr. Wilson and his wife, which hardly makes the Wilsons immune to examination. As long as the motivations, personalities, politics, and veracities are board questions for the Administration, the CIA, and journalists, then all should be examined in the same light, especially the instigating accuser, Joe Wilson.



    Second, if the term ?far left? is the only substantive disagreement with my prior post (as it was for several posters), just replace the term ?far left? with ?solid left? or ?left?, it doesn?t change the points of the original post.



    But, in the meantime, do you really think that Mr. Wilson?s ranting about "the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations" and that ?Hegemony in the Arab nations of the Gulf has been achieved? is the rhetoric of a moderate liberal? Do you think ?The Nation? is a moderate liberal or moderate Democratic Party journal of opinion (the only thing to its left would have to be socialist)?



    Its no accident that Wilson has thrown his support to Kerry, after all, his ADA ratings live up to Wilson political expectations. In case you didn?t know, the lifetime ADA ratings for Democratic candidates are:



    Sen. John Kerry 92

    Former Sen. Moseley Braun 88

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich 86

    Sen. John Edwards 85

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman 78

    Rep. Richard Gephardt 74



    A ?moderate? democrat? Hardly.



    Last, Wilson did serve under Bush Sr. (12 years ago), but the claim of contemporary non-partisanship is ludicrous. Here is the breakdown of his contributions in 2002: Hillary Clinton' PAC ($1000),Al Gore ($1000), John Kerry ($1000), Ted Kennedy ($1000) and Charlie Rangle ($500); gave $500 to a Democratic Senatorial Candidate in Idaho in 2002 (former Ambassador to Belgium under Clinton from 1993-1998),gave $250 to Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia).



    His basis for non-partisan claims is that he Gave $1000 to President Bush in May of 1999 and a small sum to a minor, local, candidate. Interestingly, this was 2 months after he tried to give $2000 to Al Gore but apparently had to take back $1000 in April of 1999 as it would have been illegal to give $2000 at that time.



    This "non-partisan" gave heavily to the anti-Bush crowd (his Kerry contribution was reported on May 23, 2003--only a month before his New York Times Op-ed and subsequent Sunday morning talk show tour) and his last minute Bush contribution looks to be little more than second thought strategic hedging ( job hunting ?).



    My main points remain: going ballistic over an executive leaker and comparing him/her to the hunt for Bin Ladan or Saddam is someone who has lost touch with reality; someone who thinks this leaker is guilty of treason has no familiarity with the law (which requires acting on behalf of an enemy of the United States) or a sense of proportion.?
  • Reply 443 of 494
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Wow, I'm sold now. Wilson is a red commie bastahd. You're right. We should blow the cover off any CIA operatives who are democrats. Hang them all I say!!!



    By the way, the "Pax Americana" you like to mention is a favorite term of PNAC. Hardly liberals (red commies to you). Maybe you're just such a radical that everyone to your left is "far-left"?



    You should check out the PNAC website. Specifically : "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Then come talk about the Pax Americana.
  • Reply 444 of 494
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Wow, I'm sold now. Wilson is a red commie bastahd. You're right. We should blow the cover off any CIA operatives who are democrats. Hang them all I say!!!



    By the way, the "Pax Americana" you like to mention is a favorite term of PNAC. Hardly liberals (red commies to you). Maybe you're just such a radical that everyone to your left is "far-left"?



    You should check out the PNAC website. Specifically : "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Then come talk about the Pax Americana.




    My challenge:..."the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations" and that ?Hegemony in the Arab nations of the Gulf has been achieved? is the rhetoric of a moderate liberal?"



    What a pinhead ! Reread the quote sport, understand the meaning, and don't embarrass yourself with the arguement that the PNAC says the same thing (by the way the PNAC also use the word "the").



    Geeeshhh!
  • Reply 445 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Is it just me, or did this guy make no arguments at all concerning the actual topic here.



    It's not just you.
  • Reply 446 of 494
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    My challenge:..."the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations" and that ?Hegemony in the Arab nations of the Gulf has been achieved? is the rhetoric of a moderate liberal?"



    What a pinhead ! Reread the quote sport, understand the meaning, and don't embarrass yourself with the arguement that the PNAC says the same thing (by the way the PNAC also use the word "the").



    Geeeshhh!




    Wow, another "convincing" post by Max. And I'm the pinhead. lol
  • Reply 447 of 494
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Is there a terrorist in the whitehouse?



    According to the partiot act there is...



    http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/...ints-headlines
  • Reply 448 of 494
    Oh the frelling irony!!!!!
  • Reply 449 of 494
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...103&s=alterman



    Can you believe Elliott Abrams works at the NSC???? Hired by THIS administration. He was part of the Contra Scandal! He's used to lying and getting away with it. He was pardoned by BUSH 1.
  • Reply 450 of 494
    Plame Update:



    http://calpundit.com



    Quote:

    VALERIE PLAME UPDATE....Via Arthur Silber and Mark Kleiman, there have been a couple of small developments in the Valerie Plame investigation recently. First, in what the New York Times describes as an "unusual step," the director of the FBI's Washington office has been removed from the list of officials with access to the case:



    The official, Michael A. Mason, one of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's most senior managers, was taken off the list in an effort to restrict information about the case, the officials said.





    Customarily, a senior official like Mr. Mason would have full access to details of the case, which is being investigated mainly by agents from his office, although it is being supervised by F.B.I. headquarters.





    ....The decision to drop Mr. Mason and other officials from the list was made after Mr. Ashcroft emphasized to subordinates the importance of avoiding leaks in the case, one of the most politically delicate investigations of his tenure.




    I've been agnostic on the idea of whether a special prosecutor should be appointed in this case, but this nudges me in the direction of thinking it would be a good idea. Ashcroft simply shouldn't be a part of this case in any way, and he certainly shouldn't be providing direction that affects who's involved in the case and who isn't.





    Second, the Village Voice reports that the investigation is widening to include activity after the original leak:



    Of particular interest, the two sources said, were contacts between White House officials and the Republican National Committee during the burgeoning scandal. Probers are interested in how the Bush administration and party officials strategized to stymie negative press and to counter public criticism by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV of the leak of his wife's status as a CIA officer.





    The administration sources said, however, that they don't think the investigators are probing the efforts to discredit Wilson and Plame as potential criminal conduct but rather as a way of determining who leaked her identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak.





    "I guess their thinking is that if you were involved in efforts to damage their reputations or discredit them since the leak, you might have been the one to have leaked the name," said one of the administration officials. "And if you are someone managing the press response . . . you might have also been in contact with the leaker?or know who it is."



    As always, stay tuned.





    Ashcroft.Ashcroft.Ashcroft. tisk tisk...
  • Reply 451 of 494
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Last, Wilson did serve under Bush Sr. (12 years ago), but the claim of contemporary non-partisanship is ludicrous. Here is the breakdown of his contributions in 2002: Hillary Clinton' PAC ($1000),Al Gore ($1000), John Kerry ($1000), Ted Kennedy ($1000) and Charlie Rangle ($500); gave $500 to a Democratic Senatorial Candidate in Idaho in 2002 (former Ambassador to Belgium under Clinton from 1993-1998),gave $250 to Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia).



    His basis for non-partisan claims is that he Gave $1000 to President Bush in May of 1999 and a small sum to a minor, local, candidate. Interestingly, this was 2 months after he tried to give $2000 to Al Gore but apparently had to take back $1000 in April of 1999 as it would have been illegal to give $2000 at that time.



    This "non-partisan" gave heavily to the anti-Bush crowd (his Kerry contribution was reported on May 23, 2003--only a month before his New York Times Op-ed and subsequent Sunday morning talk show tour) and his last minute Bush contribution looks to be little more than second thought strategic hedging ( job hunting ?).




    You know, this seems to be an awfully detailed investigation of Wilson's activities. Gee, I don't suppose it might derive from a coordinated effort to paint the man as a crazed left-wing Bush hater that would do or say anything to "get" the president? And that wouldn't be part of a pattern of neutralizing opponents by providing the spade-work to various right-wing megaphones, so that the mantra can be memorized as quickly as possible by ditto-head nation? "That Wilson guy, you know he's not the saint the liberal media would have you believe, just listen to this...Liberal.... not that good at his job...his Africa visit was half-assed.... Oh yeah, and his wife wan't really even a real CIA agent, she was some kind of glorified secretary I heard, and anyway, everybody already knew..."



    BUT YOU HAVE TO TELL US, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, WHAT DOES ANY OF IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE MATTER AT HAND?



    What do Wilson's political affiliations have to do with a White House leak of a CIA agent's identity? Are you saying he made it up? Put his wife up to it? Does the fact that he is pissed, loves his wife, possible even enjoys the spotlight somehow mean nothing happened? Or something happened but it's OK by you? Wilson isn't heading up the investigation, doesn't have any real power at all, so WHY DO HIS POLITICS MATTER?
  • Reply 452 of 494
    http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=15896



    More from Joe Conason



    Quote:

    The Beltway warfare escalated dramatically when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exposed the hollowness of the administration's claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium "yellowcake" from Niger -- and persons unknown responded last July by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a C.I.A. officer.



    Still angry, Mr. Cannistraro told the Senators that the unknown administration officials who committed that "dirty trick" did so not only to "undermine and trash Ambassador Wilson, but to demonstrate their contempt for C.I.A. by bringing Valerie's name into it."



    Mr. Johnson expressed the bitterness felt by many in the intelligence community toward this President, whose father's name adorns their Langley headquarters. "We're all Republicans. We all voted for Bush. And we all contributed funds to him," he said. But after the assault on the Wilsons and the C.I.A., he believes "there are some bullies in this administration, and the essence of being a bully is being a coward. And I expect President Bush -- having voted for him, I expected something different from him."



    All those disappointed patriots know much more than they have yet disclosed. But then, the election year has yet to begin.





    You know things are bad when guys that are on the same team as you aren't going to vote for you...let alone moderates or independents.



    reason #49492234 why bush JUNIOR is going to lose...
  • Reply 453 of 494
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    You know, this seems to be an awfully detailed investigation of Wilson's activities. Gee, I don't suppose it might derive from a coordinated effort to paint the man as a crazed left-wing Bush hater that would do or say anything to "get" the president? And that wouldn't be part of a pattern of neutralizing opponents by providing the spade-work to various right-wing megaphones, so that the mantra can be memorized as quickly as possible by ditto-head nation? "That Wilson guy, you know he's not the saint the liberal media would have you believe, just listen to this...Liberal.... not that good at his job...his Africa visit was half-assed.... Oh yeah, and his wife wan't really even a real CIA agent, she was some kind of glorified secretary I heard, and anyway, everybody already knew..."



    BUT YOU HAVE TO TELL US, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, WHAT DOES ANY OF IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE MATTER AT HAND?



    What do Wilson's political affiliations have to do with a White House leak of a CIA agent's identity? Are you saying he made it up? Put his wife up to it? Does the fact that he is pissed, loves his wife, possible even enjoys the spotlight somehow mean nothing happened? Or something happened but it's OK by you? Wilson isn't heading up the investigation, doesn't have any real power at all, so WHY DO HIS POLITICS MATTER?




    I think I answered your "query" previously. For you edification, I'll repeat it:



    "First, if the "leak" controversy on this board was confined only to a question of a violation of US statutes( and I did not take a position on that aspect), I might agree. However, this thread?s author, along with twelve pages of board discussion, have centered on far more expansive and serious allegations; e.g. a cover-up by Bush (or even worse), the political motivations of Karl Rove, treason, etc. In addition, many posters have done a lot of hair pulling on behalf of Mr. Wilson and his wife, which hardly makes the Wilsons immune to examination. As long as the motivations, personalities, politics, and veracities are board questions for the Administration, the CIA, and journalists, then all should be examined in the same light, especially the instigating accuser, Joe Wilson...



    My main points remain: going ballistic over an executive leaker and comparing him/her to the hunt for Bin Ladan or Saddam is someone who has lost touch with reality; someone who thinks this leaker is guilty of treason has no familiarity with the law (which requires acting on behalf of an enemy of the United States) or a sense of proportion.?



    Of course, limiting the subject is an excellent way of avoiding uncomfortable issues. There is a lot to think about in this story: the political infighting of the CIA vs. the Administration; the spin the various parties are using to their advantage; what the investigation will do to staffers and morale; the grandstanding, phony outrage, and overblown characterizations by administration critics; the self-serving manipulations of press and the public; the degree of actual harm to the U.S.; the motivations of the staffers involved; the ethics and integrity issues. Etc.



    But then again, you only want to discuss ?the matter at hand?, right ? So, I suppose guess that the only aspects on this subject you wish to discuss are: firstly, who in white house leaked the name of a C.I.A. agent to the press; and second, is it against the law and how can they pay for it ?



    I?ll provide a short answer to that: someone in the Whitehouse, at some level, at least mentioned to one or more reporters that Wilson?s wife was a CIA employee. That alone is an offense of a minor aspect of the law, but the major outstanding legal aspects (and penalties) require answering some other questions: was she a covert employee at the time of the leak, was the revelation done with foreknowledge of the law and the intent to harm her official function in the CIA, and what are the legal penalties, if true ?



    Bush will fire the violator(s), and depending on the answer to the above questions, they will be prosecuted.



    Now is that all you want to discuss????
  • Reply 454 of 494
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Well, since you're interested in dealing with"uncomfortable truths", lets do this: lets take a long hard look at John Ahscroft's history of campaign contributions, public remarks, voting record, political affiliations, et al.

    I think we can quickly discern the man's "irrational hatred" for the Democratic Party and their agenda. And I'm sure we can drag up some instances of unseemliness, grandstanding, poor judgement, etc. In fact, let's make that the main topic of conversation, so we can endlessly parse his degree objectivity and worthiness, or lack thereof.



    It all leads to only one possible conclusion: we must appoint an independent prosecuter immediately, because the entire matter of "finding out what happened" is clearly and hopelessly compromised by Ashcroft's sordid history.



    This is a legitimate rhetorical cul-de-sac because of all the conservative breast beating about patriotism and treason.



    Yes?
  • Reply 455 of 494
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Max is comfortable with a white house the doles out retribution on people who work for fthe section of the CIA that tries to find WMD.



    As long as the law wasn't technically broken... no foul?
  • Reply 456 of 494
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    It all leads to only one possible conclusion: we must appoint an independent prosecuter immediately, because the entire matter of "finding out what happened" is clearly and hopelessly compromised by Ashcroft's sordid history.



    This is a legitimate rhetorical cul-de-sac because of all the conservative breast beating about patriotism and treason.



    Yes?




    Addabox:



    What cul-de-sac ? Perhaps in your mind, but its pretty clear: either you wish to discuss the story and its related issues, or you wish to narrow it to ?the matter at hand? ? I don?t care which, its up to you. It would seem, however, your frustration over the dialog is due more to your raw contempt for the Bush administration and Ashcroft, than any thoughtful points you wish to make.



    As you know, the special prosecutor's law was terminated with the invaluable assistance of the Democratic Party, in part because it became an endless nightmare of prosecutorial investigation over several administrations. Frankly, it was a wise choice by both parties.



    To date, the FBI and the Attorney General?s office have devoted substantial resources to the investigation (I think 11 in the AG?s office alone), and I have faith that both offices to carry out their constitutional duties.



    Why don?t you wait until the results are in before calling for a people?s court and lynch mob? Otherwise, it simply confirms there is more to this story than real outrage?
  • Reply 457 of 494
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    I mean the cul-de-sac where we basically change the topic from "what the hell was the white house thinking" to " Wilson is a bad man". I have no visceral hatred of the Bush administration, I just think we should apply your same metric to all the involved parties. After all, if it makes sense to offer up an extensive list of Wilson's campaign contributions in order to shed light on what happened, surely it follows that we should know about the predilictions of the man charged with gathering the facts.



    I'm glad you have complete faith in the Justice Department, but if Wilson's democratic affinities make him somehow less worthy of defending, then Ashcorft's demonstrable hard right ideology certainly makes him less than a disinterested observer and certainly less than a reliable source of justice. By your metric.
  • Reply 458 of 494
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    A full two months later, we finally get an update on this. Guess what? Ashcroft Recuses Himself From Leak Investigation (WaPo). It strikes me as a little too late.
  • Reply 459 of 494
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    A full two months later, we finally get an update on this. Guess what? Ashcroft Recuses Himself From Leak Investigation (WaPo). It strikes me as a little too late.



    Finally. Maybe the investigation will come to a head at a most unopportune time for BushCorp and Rove, Inc.
  • Reply 460 of 494
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Hmm. Maybe you're right. Josh Marshall just wrote something encouraging:
    Quote:

    I've only had a chance to do a cursory look at Fitzgerald. So these judgments are tentative. But, from what I've seen, he appears to be someone without any strong partisan profile and a career prosecutor with experience both in public corruption cases and intelligence and counter-terrorism.



Sign In or Register to comment.