07-17-08, 10:48 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
| Student
Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Online: 01-02-09 07:14 AM
Posts: 240
Thanks: 83
Thanked 38 Times in 31 Posts
Lean: Independent
Current Mood:  | Re: Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records
Like I said, this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
To equate Clinton's "lying under oath" with anything Bush has done, is in my opinion, ridiculous.
The bias in the above article from an Associated Press Writer is clear.
Fact: After a lengthy investigation, no crime of having revealed Plame's status has ever been charged.
Yet speculation still abounds.
All we have is speculation that the Admin did something nefarious.
Yet when one looks at all the facts regarding the issue it is clear that there is more credence to it being nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.
And yes, I realize that there is speculation on this side of the coin too, yet that speculation has more to back it up than anything possibly done by the Admin.
So the question is; To what side do the facts and speculation give more credence?
. By Binary_Digit
Yeah right... Even if that's true, I don't see how you could think it changes anything. It's against the law to knowingly provide classified information to people not authorized to have it. Someone still may have committed a crime. It changes everything, and gives more credence to it being nothing more than political a witch hunt.
You might want to look up what is a defense to the charge and see why it changes everything before you read what follows.
Unfortunately the link to the Amicus Brief in the following is no longer good. You might want to read this also. It is linked to in the above piece. . By Binary_Digit
Yeah right... I'm pretty sure whatever timeline you're using to come up with this claim is flawed, but perhaps you could show your "evidence" of this? I have never seen anyone show the timeline to be flawed.
Be my guest. It is from the 'Sweetness & Light' Blog. Quote: When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame
Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.
And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.
2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates. We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)
When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light |
The bottom line is that Plame had already been exposed and the reason why they can not charge Wilson with it is the same reason they can't charge anyone in the Admin.
__________________ Cool  ________________________________________________
"These are my words... I give them to you... If you like them, then keep them.... If not, then throw them away, they were meant for someone else, they are not for you"... That choice is yours... I bear you no ill will... A
Last edited by Coolguy : 07-17-08 at 11:05 PM.
|
|  |