Glisch, none of what trumptman is talking about is relevant to the discussion. So just don't give him the pleasure of derailing one of the most legitimate threads of the year. If he has something to say beyond arguing with yet another member, then he will say it.
Really? I can think of many other possibilities. What even gives you the impression that he lied? What evidence do have that he did? That's a pretty heavy charge and you'd better be able to back it up.
I agree completely that in the interests of Justice, if someone at the White House violated the law, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Make an example of them even.
But we first have to figure out
1. if a law was broken
and
2. who did it
We know neither of these things right now, so it's irresponsible for us to speculate any further.
Really? I can think of many other possibilities. What even gives you the impression that he lied? What evidence do have that he did? That's a pretty heavy charge and you'd better be able to back it up.
I agree completely that in the interests of Justice, if someone at the White House violated the law, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Make an example of them even.
But we first have to figure out
1. if a law was broken
and
2. who did it
We know neither of these things right now, so it's irresponsible for us to speculate any further.
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
edit:
Of course, it's interesting that you've yet to bother to provide us with any evidence. In the absence of evidence, there's no reason for me to burden myself with thinking through all the alternative possibilities.
In the real world, then there is no evidence for a charge, responsible people don't run their mouth.
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
edit:
Of course, it's interesting that you've yet to bother to provide us with any evidence. In the absence of evidence, there's no reason for me to burden myself with thinking through all the alternative possibilities.
In the real world, then there is no evidence for a charge, responsible people don't run their mouth.
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
Please! That's soooooooo stupid!
On the one hand if he doesn't check these things out and was given false info he's ineffective and shouldn't be president ( at best ). After all this was a pretty important issue. He's president for christ's sake! Can't he do his job?
On the other ( and the more likely of the two ) he was really pushing for this war. He gave the impression that he would go to war at any cost. So connect the dots!
It's really pretty much out in the open for all to see. Obfuscation won't help you here.
The way the leak occurred and what happened after Novak published his article naming Plame.
The call was made to several reporters telling them about Plame. Only Novak wrote about it. I belive Time did too later that week.
They were trying to discredit Wilson... trying to make the suggestion that his wife sent him to Nigeria and that this was somehow insidious...
AFTER Novak named Plame... another round of calls went out to reporters trying to stir the pot and get them to look closer at Wilson and his trip in Nigeria. The reporters didn't bite because they didn't think there was a story there.
That's what's being reported. I think several reporters at this point KNOW who leaked... and White House insiders know who leaked... they're basically ratting them out to the post but not naming names... yet.
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
Please! That's soooooooo stupid!
On the one hand if he doesn't check these things out and was given false info he's ineffective and shouldn't be president ( at best ). After all this was a pretty important issue.
On the other ( and the more likely of the two ) he was really pushing for this war. He gave the impression that he would go to war at any cost. So connect the dots!
It's really pretty much out in the open for all to see. Obfuscation won't help you here.
I thought this thread was specifically about the Novak/Wilson/Plame situation, not the Iraq war.
It seemed that you were contending that Bush lied about the Novak situation which didn't make sense considering that he hasn't commented publicly on it, yet.
Now that you're talking about Bush lying about the reasons for the Iraq War, it's clear that you've gone off on a tangent.
I thought this thread was specifically about the Novak/Wilson/Plame situation, not the Iraq war.
It seemed that you were contending that Bush lied about the Novak situation which didn't make sense considering that he hasn't commented publically on it, yet.
Now that you're talking about Bush lying about the reasons for the Iraq War, it's clear that you've gone off on a tangent.
I think several reporters at this point KNOW who leaked... and White House insiders know who leaked...
I agree completely. The 500 pound elephant here is not "will novak be forced to disclose his sources"
What has got to have the WH shakin in their boots is the fact that they were SO zealous in making sure this information got out there that they now have SIX people who know who leaked it from the WH.
And how much you wanna bet that most of these S-I-X have better reputations then novak. If any of the S-I-X start to name names then as homer says.. "Doh!"
What do you think this is all about? You'll have to do better than that.
As I said before obfuscation won't help here.
If you are going to make a statement that Bush lied about Novak/Wilson/Plame, and you steadfastly want to claim that it is true, then point us to some proof.
Conjecture does not equal truth.
Drawing your conclusion that Bush lied about N/W/P, because he lied about the Niger uranium deal, is a stretch. You must be very limber.
I mean there is a connection in the fact that the administration had Wilson's report before the state of the union... so they had plenty of skepticism... if not evidence against the Uranium from Africa claim... but the speech writers were careful to say Africa rather than Niger... because they already had at least 3 reports that disputed any Nigerian link to Iraq...
The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?
feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.
It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.
I mean there is a connection in the fact that the administration had Wilson's report before the state of the union... so they had plenty of skepticism... if not evidence against the Uranium from Africa claim... but the speech writers were careful to say Africa rather than Niger... because they already had at least 3 reports that disputed any Nigerian link to Iraq...
The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?
feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.
It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Glisch, none of what trumptman is talking about is relevant to the discussion. So just don't give him the pleasure of derailing one of the most legitimate threads of the year. If he has something to say beyond arguing with yet another member, then he will say it.
Sorry Shawn, I had to reply to that one.
Look Bush lied. There is no other possibilty.
Really? I can think of many other possibilities. What even gives you the impression that he lied? What evidence do have that he did? That's a pretty heavy charge and you'd better be able to back it up.
I agree completely that in the interests of Justice, if someone at the White House violated the law, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Make an example of them even.
But we first have to figure out
1. if a law was broken
and
2. who did it
We know neither of these things right now, so it's irresponsible for us to speculate any further.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Really? I can think of many other possibilities. What even gives you the impression that he lied? What evidence do have that he did? That's a pretty heavy charge and you'd better be able to back it up.
I agree completely that in the interests of Justice, if someone at the White House violated the law, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Make an example of them even.
But we first have to figure out
1. if a law was broken
and
2. who did it
We know neither of these things right now, so it's irresponsible for us to speculate any further.
Other ( reasonable, likely ) possibilities?
Let's hear them.
Other ( reasonable, likely ) possibilities?
Let's hear them.
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
edit:
Of course, it's interesting that you've yet to bother to provide us with any evidence. In the absence of evidence, there's no reason for me to burden myself with thinking through all the alternative possibilities.
In the real world, then there is no evidence for a charge, responsible people don't run their mouth.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
That's what I thought.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Again, you've yet to back up your charge.....
I'm curious, too, of how the President has lied about this.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Well, since I've yet to even hear the President comment on the situation, it's hard to make a case that he lied. Even if, and I don't believe that he was, but even if he was responsible for the activity, I don't think he's yet lied to us about it!
edit:
Of course, it's interesting that you've yet to bother to provide us with any evidence. In the absence of evidence, there's no reason for me to burden myself with thinking through all the alternative possibilities.
In the real world, then there is no evidence for a charge, responsible people don't run their mouth.
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
Please! That's soooooooo stupid!
On the one hand if he doesn't check these things out and was given false info he's ineffective and shouldn't be president ( at best ). After all this was a pretty important issue. He's president for christ's sake! Can't he do his job?
On the other ( and the more likely of the two ) he was really pushing for this war. He gave the impression that he would go to war at any cost. So connect the dots!
It's really pretty much out in the open for all to see. Obfuscation won't help you here.
The call was made to several reporters telling them about Plame. Only Novak wrote about it. I belive Time did too later that week.
They were trying to discredit Wilson... trying to make the suggestion that his wife sent him to Nigeria and that this was somehow insidious...
AFTER Novak named Plame... another round of calls went out to reporters trying to stir the pot and get them to look closer at Wilson and his trip in Nigeria. The reporters didn't bite because they didn't think there was a story there.
That's what's being reported. I think several reporters at this point KNOW who leaked... and White House insiders know who leaked... they're basically ratting them out to the post but not naming names... yet.
Originally posted by jimmac
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
Please! That's soooooooo stupid!
On the one hand if he doesn't check these things out and was given false info he's ineffective and shouldn't be president ( at best ). After all this was a pretty important issue.
On the other ( and the more likely of the two ) he was really pushing for this war. He gave the impression that he would go to war at any cost. So connect the dots!
It's really pretty much out in the open for all to see. Obfuscation won't help you here.
I thought this thread was specifically about the Novak/Wilson/Plame situation, not the Iraq war.
It seemed that you were contending that Bush lied about the Novak situation which didn't make sense considering that he hasn't commented publicly on it, yet.
Now that you're talking about Bush lying about the reasons for the Iraq War, it's clear that you've gone off on a tangent.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I thought this thread was specifically about the Novak/Wilson/Plame situation, not the Iraq war.
It seemed that you were contending that Bush lied about the Novak situation which didn't make sense considering that he hasn't commented publically on it, yet.
Now that you're talking about Bush lying about the reasons for the Iraq War, it's clear that you've gone off on a tangent.
Sorry that won't work either.
It's clearly connected.
We're talking about who's leaked the Plame story to Novak...
The only person really possibly lying about it at the moment is Novak... he's fudging his story a bit. I believe to protect his source.
Also... if Rove had a part in it... he lied to the press secretary... but that's not against the law.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry that won't work either.
It's clearly connected.
How won't it work?
The connection seems to go like this:
Bush Lies (Uranium)
Wilson Counters
Novak Writes
Plame Worries
CIA Counters
White House Denies
Novak Backpedals
JD Investigates
At this point, you cannot say Bush has lied about Novak/Plame/Wilson, as clearly he hasn't.
I think several reporters at this point KNOW who leaked... and White House insiders know who leaked...
I agree completely. The 500 pound elephant here is not "will novak be forced to disclose his sources"
What has got to have the WH shakin in their boots is the fact that they were SO zealous in making sure this information got out there that they now have SIX people who know who leaked it from the WH.
And how much you wanna bet that most of these S-I-X have better reputations then novak. If any of the S-I-X start to name names then as homer says.. "Doh!"
Originally posted by audiopollution
How won't it work?
The connection seems to go like this:
Bush Lies (Uranium)
Wilson Counters
Novak Writes
Plame Worries
CIA Counters
White House Denies
Novak Backpedals
JD Investigates
At this point, you cannot say Bush has lied about Novak/Plame/Wilson, as clearly he hasn't.
What do you think this is all about? You'll have to do better than that.
As I said before obfuscation won't help here.
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
Originally posted by jimmac
What do you think this is all about? You'll have to do better than that.
As I said before obfuscation won't help here.
If you are going to make a statement that Bush lied about Novak/Wilson/Plame, and you steadfastly want to claim that it is true, then point us to some proof.
Conjecture does not equal truth.
Drawing your conclusion that Bush lied about N/W/P, because he lied about the Niger uranium deal, is a stretch. You must be very limber.
1. Andrea Mitchell
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
Someone at Faux. (Not that they would tell.)
Looks like in the press conference, JUNIOR did not answer the question "if he had talked to karl rove about this" directly..
Instead he responded,
"I don't know of anyone in my adminisration that leaked classified information"
A non-denial, denial.
Hmm... Define sexual relations...
Ignorance is Bliss eh Mr. "President"?
The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?
feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.
It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I mean there is a connection in the fact that the administration had Wilson's report before the state of the union... so they had plenty of skepticism... if not evidence against the Uranium from Africa claim... but the speech writers were careful to say Africa rather than Niger... because they already had at least 3 reports that disputed any Nigerian link to Iraq...
The Bush White House is always careful to have just enough wiggle room incase they get called out on what they say... what's the term?
feasible deniability? that's not it...hmmm... anyway.
It is obvious that the Bushies wanted to make the case for going to war... and going soon... wanting to generate a sense urgency... problem is they just didn't have the solid intelligence they needed.
Plausible Deniability.