• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou is sentenced to 30 months in prison for leaks

That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.

Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.

You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.

To a certain extent, you're right. No matter the outcome, no matter who fell on the company sword, the President would have pardoned him.
 
That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.

Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.

You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.

No, you are mistaken. If you run across a crime during the investigation, you don't just say, too bad. You continue. Armitage did not remove the possibility of a crime. Sorry.
 
To a certain extent, you're right. No matter the outcome, no matter who fell on the company sword, the President would have pardoned him.

Except that is NOT what happened....If you remember Bush and Cheney were at odds over this. Libby went to jail, and Bush refused to commute the sentence.
 
No, you are mistaken. If you run across a crime during the investigation, you don't just say, too bad. You continue. Armitage did not remove the possibility of a crime. Sorry.

Ok, well, let's hear what you did yesterday in minute by minute detail, and I'll take notes. Then in 15 months you come on back and I'll ask you again, however I will carefully reference my notes, and you must go by memory, and you damned well better get every detail correct or else you are charged with a crime, unrelated to what my investigation is about....Bull Joe....It was a process charge, designed to justify, and cover the fact that Fitz spent millions chasing someone whom he already knew committed the 'crime', but refused to prosecute for that crime, so if he brought that fact forward, the American people would have absolutely skewered him, and his name would have been mud, so Libby was the fall guy for a BS charge, in a BS case, brought forth by BS demo's that were playing to their whacked out base of frothing, irrational, hate filled base.
 
Ok, well, let's hear what you did yesterday in minute by minute detail, and I'll take notes. Then in 15 months you come on back and I'll ask you again, however I will carefully reference my notes, and you must go by memory, and you damned well better get every detail correct or else you are charged with a crime, unrelated to what my investigation is about....Bull Joe....It was a process charge, designed to justify, and cover the fact that Fitz spent millions chasing someone whom he already knew committed the 'crime', but refused to prosecute for that crime, so if he brought that fact forward, the American people would have absolutely skewered him, and his name would have been mud, so Libby was the fall guy for a BS charge, in a BS case, brought forth by BS demo's that were playing to their whacked out base of frothing, irrational, hate filled base.

Separate issue. But regardless of my minute by minute notes, I'd know if my boss asked met to out CIA personnel. You minimalize the crime because you don't really want to know.
 
She was a CIA Agent..

No, she was an analyst. Case Officer Working Undercover =/= Someone Who Lives In Beltway And Writes Papers For A Living.

and even trying to deny this is.. frankly pathetic.

Is it as pathetic about you attempting to lecture someone in the military about the military/intelligence labor structure?
 
Except that is NOT what happened....If you remember Bush and Cheney were at odds over this. Libby went to jail, and Bush refused to commute the sentence.

As I recall, the President pardoned Libby? Better than a commutation, if that's the case.
 
No, she was an analyst. Case Officer Working Undercover =/= Someone Who Lives In Beltway And Writes Papers For A Living.



Is it as pathetic about you attempting to lecture someone in the military about the military/intelligence labor structure?

I think you're wrong about Plame's job description. She worked to some extent in foreign countries and with foreign assets.
 
Separate issue. But regardless of my minute by minute notes, I'd know if my boss asked met to out CIA personnel. You minimalize the crime because you don't really want to know.


Prove that is what happened.
 
Prove that is what happened.

Stay focused j. First we must agree it s possible. Once we do that, Libby's testimony takes on meaning, and we have to consider the charges against him of which he was convicted.
 
Stay focused j. First we must agree it s possible. Once we do that, Libby's testimony takes on meaning, and we have to consider the charges against him of which he was convicted.


No, no....You don't get to do that pal....You said

Boo Radley said:
...I'd know if my boss asked met to out CIA personnel.

Clearly making a declarative statement that you think that Cheney told him to out a CIA agent, when we know, and it was known at the time WHO outed Valarie Plame...That's pure BULL ****!!!!!

So why don't you just drop the dishonest crap Joe.
 
No, no....You don't get to do that pal....You said



Clearly making a declarative statement that you think that Cheney told him to out a CIA agent, when we know, and it was known at the time WHO outed Valarie Plame...That's pure BULL ****!!!!!

So why don't you just drop the dishonest crap Joe.

I would know. So would you. I don't think either of us are brain damaged.

And, I don't know if Cheney, but the charge against Libby is that he hindered knowing. He was convicted of that. J, I'm not he one being dishonest, but the way some throw that word around, we might have to define it.
 
I would know. So would you. I don't think either of us are brain damaged.

And, I don't know if Cheney, but the charge against Libby is that he hindered knowing. He was convicted of that. J, I'm not he one being dishonest, but the way some throw that word around, we might have to define it.


"Memory can be unreliable, and misstatements can happen despite pure intentions. It’s only fair game to point this out.
So say Valerie Plame Wilson, former CIA case manager and Vanity Fair cover girl, and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, former ambassador to Gabon and extravagant self-promoter. Too bad the Wilsons, a power-mad federal prosecutor, an officious federal judge, a confused jury and a badly misled president wouldn’t apply those same common-sense considerations to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, wrongly convicted of perjury in the case stemming from State Department official Richard Armitage’s public identification of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA employee.
For the very first time since his conviction, Mr. Libby - former chief of staff to then-Vice President Dick Cheney - went on the record about his case.
As both Wilsons tried to explain away, each of them has been caught making significant false claims. Each claimed memory played tricks on them. The ambassador even justified one of his key falsehoods as “a little literary flair.” Yet neither Wilson was convicted of a felony. Mr. Libby was. He paid a quarter-million-dollar fine, served 400 hours of community service and had his law license taken away. All of this over a single dispute about whether his memory or that of TV journalist Tim Russert was correct, about a months-past conversation that had nothing to do with the actual leak of Mrs. Wilson’s name.
Never mind that Mr. Russert’s own memory had proved flagrantly untrustworthy in a previous instance. Never mind that equally famous journalist Bob Woodward testified that his own notes of a near-simultaneous conversation with Mr. Libby indicated that Mr. Woodward might have said to Mr. Libby what Mr. Libby remembered being told by Mr. Russert - in other words, that the conversations easily and innocently could have become conflated in Mr. Libby’s mind. And never mind that Mr. Libby was never shown to have a motive for lying about his conversation with Mr. Russert.
In our interviews, Mr. Libby explicitly and repeatedly asserted his innocence of knowingly misleading investigators. To this day, he says he thinks it was Russert who mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s name to him - but that either way, he remembers being surprised at hearing it from a journalist.
“America’s leading expert on the science of memory, Harvard professor Daniel Schacter, reviewed my case,” Mr. Libby said, “and he concluded that, ‘As someone who has studied memory for a lifetime, I could not render a fair decision based on the evidence before the jury.’”
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton did not allow the Libby defense team to introduce scientific testimony about how memory works, and jurors later said they would have liked to have heard such evidence.
“What’s startling,” Mr. Libby said last week, “is that, at the dawn of the 21st century, we had a trial that excluded relevant, scientific evidence. And it’s startling that the jury was prevented from hearing about the very kinds of evidence that scientists say are critical to understanding what happened.”


Read more: HILLYER: Scooter Libby, on the record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, an expert on memory wasn't allowed to testify, and says that he couldn't render a fair decision, but you somehow can?

Yes, define honesty for us Joe. :roll:
 
"Memory can be unreliable, and misstatements can happen despite pure intentions. It’s only fair game to point this out.
So say Valerie Plame Wilson, former CIA case manager and Vanity Fair cover girl, and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, former ambassador to Gabon and extravagant self-promoter. Too bad the Wilsons, a power-mad federal prosecutor, an officious federal judge, a confused jury and a badly misled president wouldn’t apply those same common-sense considerations to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, wrongly convicted of perjury in the case stemming from State Department official Richard Armitage’s public identification of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA employee.
For the very first time since his conviction, Mr. Libby - former chief of staff to then-Vice President Dick Cheney - went on the record about his case.
As both Wilsons tried to explain away, each of them has been caught making significant false claims. Each claimed memory played tricks on them. The ambassador even justified one of his key falsehoods as “a little literary flair.” Yet neither Wilson was convicted of a felony. Mr. Libby was. He paid a quarter-million-dollar fine, served 400 hours of community service and had his law license taken away. All of this over a single dispute about whether his memory or that of TV journalist Tim Russert was correct, about a months-past conversation that had nothing to do with the actual leak of Mrs. Wilson’s name.
Never mind that Mr. Russert’s own memory had proved flagrantly untrustworthy in a previous instance. Never mind that equally famous journalist Bob Woodward testified that his own notes of a near-simultaneous conversation with Mr. Libby indicated that Mr. Woodward might have said to Mr. Libby what Mr. Libby remembered being told by Mr. Russert - in other words, that the conversations easily and innocently could have become conflated in Mr. Libby’s mind. And never mind that Mr. Libby was never shown to have a motive for lying about his conversation with Mr. Russert.
In our interviews, Mr. Libby explicitly and repeatedly asserted his innocence of knowingly misleading investigators. To this day, he says he thinks it was Russert who mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s name to him - but that either way, he remembers being surprised at hearing it from a journalist.
“America’s leading expert on the science of memory, Harvard professor Daniel Schacter, reviewed my case,” Mr. Libby said, “and he concluded that, ‘As someone who has studied memory for a lifetime, I could not render a fair decision based on the evidence before the jury.’”
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton did not allow the Libby defense team to introduce scientific testimony about how memory works, and jurors later said they would have liked to have heard such evidence.
“What’s startling,” Mr. Libby said last week, “is that, at the dawn of the 21st century, we had a trial that excluded relevant, scientific evidence. And it’s startling that the jury was prevented from hearing about the very kinds of evidence that scientists say are critical to understanding what happened.”


Read more: HILLYER: Scooter Libby, on the record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, an expert on memory wasn't allowed to testify, and says that he couldn't render a fair decision, but you somehow can?

Yes, define honesty for us Joe. :roll:

Yes I can. So can you. I remember precisely being charged with investigating changes in developmental education at my school. I know what I was asked to do. So would you. You and others try to single on the smaller facts and then try to apply that to the issue at hand. It doesn't work. On the larger issue, Libby knew one way or the other, and so would we. Pretending that the misdirection to smaller issues means he wouldn't is more dishonest.


and remember, that testimony wasn't allowed. I wonder, in terms of honesty, if there might be a reason that would shoot down your claim. I'll try to look later.
 
Yes I can. So can you. I remember precisely being charged with investigating changes in developmental education at my school. I know what I was asked to do. So would you.

All fine, except I am sure that investigating changes at your school, is far different than being questioned by a Federal Prosecutor about a passing conversation that happened some 15 months earlier, without notes, and with the two other subjects of that conversation also not being sure who heard what from whom (supposedly)....Not the same at all.

You and others try to single on the smaller facts and then try to apply that to the issue at hand. It doesn't work. On the larger issue, Libby knew one way or the other, and so would we. Pretending that the misdirection to smaller issues means he wouldn't is more dishonest.

Nonsense Joe, what is dishonest about this is your trying to take for granted that Libby was prosecuted for something other than what he was...Do you even know what he was prosecuted for? Hint, it's in the article I gave you.

and remember, that testimony wasn't allowed. I wonder, in terms of honesty, if there might be a reason that would shoot down your claim. I'll try to look later.

Yes, testimony that would have cleared Libby. The fact that you are in here trying to tie Libby to the outing of Plame, when we know who outed Plame is not only patently dishonest, it is just plain a lie.
 
All fine, except I am sure that investigating changes at your school, is far different than being questioned by a Federal Prosecutor about a passing conversation that happened some 15 months earlier, without notes, and with the two other subjects of that conversation also not being sure who heard what from whom (supposedly)....Not the same at all.



Nonsense Joe, what is dishonest about this is your trying to take for granted that Libby was prosecuted for something other than what he was...Do you even know what he was prosecuted for? Hint, it's in the article I gave you.



Yes, testimony that would have cleared Libby. The fact that you are in here trying to tie Libby to the outing of Plame, when we know who outed Plame is not only patently dishonest, it is just plain a lie.

The FBI can question me. I still know what I was asked to do. So would you. So did Libby.

Libby was charged with obstructing the investigation. It was not for not remembering minor details.

And, the testimony would not have cleared Libby. You just want to believe it would. You don't know why it was objected to, or if it really spoke to the actual point f the charge.
 
The FBI can question me. I still know what I was asked to do. So would you. So did Libby.

Do you have proof that anyone ordered Libby to out the name of Plame, or anyone? NO, you don't. So you should stop implying that this was the case. It is not honest.

Libby was charged with obstructing the investigation. It was not for not remembering minor details.

Yes he was, and if you follow the case you would know that the charge stemmed out of questioning that Fitz underwent with Libby early on about who told him that Plame was the source of providing her husband to go over seas to investigate the yellow cake sales. Russert couldn't remember if he told Libby, or if Libby told him. Likewise with Libby, and because Libby answered one way that time, and 15 months later answered a different way, he was hung with that process charge. But what makes it worse is that Fitz knew all along who revealed the name to Novak, and that was Armitage. This was purely a case of Fitz not wanting to have to explain why he kept an investigation open for 15 months, costing the American people millions, when he knew all along who the person was that 'broke the law' in the scope of the investigation. It was a CYA by Fitz.

Even worse yet, mouth foaming liberals, like yourself wanted so badly to see a sitting President arrested, and jailed that you will do anything, including misrepresenting the facts, and outright lying about what this was about. Yet, will remain silent, or even defend Obama when the same sorts of things are divulged to the press.

And, the testimony would not have cleared Libby. You just want to believe it would. You don't know why it was objected to, or if it really spoke to the actual point f the charge.


That the testamony wouldn't have cleard Libby of Obstruction, is your opinion, and one that is noted to be from a biased, misinforming viewpoint of the case. As for the actual charge, read this......again.

"Between 2003 and 2005 intense speculation centered on the possibility that Libby may have been the administration official who had "leaked" classified employment information about Valerie E. Wilson (aka "Valerie Plame"), the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson and a covert CIA agent, to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and other reporters and later tried to hide his having done so.[70][71]
In August 2005, as revealed in grand jury testimony audiotapes played during the trial and reported in many news accounts, Libby testified that he met with Judith Miller, a reporter with the New York Times, on July 8, 2003, and discussed Plame with her.[72]
Main article: Plame affair#Judith Miller
Although Libby signed a "blanket waiver" allowing journalists to discuss their conversations with him pursuant to the CIA leak grand jury investigation, Miller maintained that such a waiver did not serve to allow her to reveal her source to that grand jury; moreover, Miller argued that Libby's general waiver pertaining to all journalists could have been coerced and that she would only testify before that grand jury if given an individual waiver.[73]
After refusing to testify about her July 2003 meeting with Libby, Judith Miller was jailed on July 7, 2005 for contempt of court. Months later, however, her new attorney, Robert Bennett, told her that she already had possessed a written, voluntary waiver from Libby all along.[74]
After Miller had served most of her sentence, Libby reiterated that he had indeed given her a "waiver" both "voluntarily and personally." He attached the following letter, which, when released publicly, became the subject of further speculation about Libby's possible motives in sending it:
As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.
....
You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover – Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats, bird flu and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
With admiration, Scooter Libby.[73][75][76]
After agreeing to testify, Miller was released on September 29, 2005, appearing before the grand jury the next day, but the charge against her was rescinded only after she testified again on October 12, 2005.[77] For her second grand jury appearance, Miller produced a notebook from a previously undisclosed meeting with Libby on June 23, 2003, two weeks before Wilson's New York Times op-ed was published.[77] In her account published in the Times on October 16, 2005, based on her notes, Miller reports:
... in an interview with me on June 23 [2003], Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12 [2003], Mr. Libby, ... [at the time] Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance... My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.... My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative"...[77]
Her notation on her July 8, 2003 meeting with Libby does contain the name "Valerie Flame [sic]", which she added retrospectively. While Miller reveals publicly that she herself had misidentified the last name of Wilson's wife (aka "Valerie Plame") in her own marginal notes on their interview as "Flame" instead of "Plame", in her grand jury (and later trial testimony), she remained uncertain when, how, and why she arrived at that name and did not attribute it to Libby:
I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled... I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.[77]
A year and a half later, a jury would convict Libby of obstruction of justice and perjury in his grand jury testimony and making false statements to federal investigators about when and how he learned that Plame was a CIA agent.[9][73][78]
In the 2010 film Fair Game, concerning the Plame affair, the role of Libby was played by David Andrews.[79][80]
[edit]Indictment and resignation

On October 28, 2005, as a result of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, Special Counsel Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI, and two counts of perjury in his testimony before the grand jury.[7] Pursuant to the grand jury investigation, Libby had told FBI investigators that he first heard of Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment from Cheney, and then later heard it from journalist Tim Russert, and acted as if he did not have that information.[81][82][83] The indictment alleges that statements to federal investigators and the grand jury were intentionally false, in that Libby had numerous conversations about Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment, including his conversations with Judith Miller (see above), before speaking to Russert; Russert did not tell Libby about Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment; prior to talking with such reporters, Libby knew with certainty that she was employed by the CIA; and Libby told reporters that she worked for the CIA without making any disclaimer that he was uncertain of that fact.[7][82][83] The false statements counts in the Libby indictment charge that he intentionally made those false statements to the FBI; the perjury counts charge that he intentionally lied to the grand jury in repeating those false statements; and the obstruction of justice count charges that Libby intentionally made those false statements in order to mislead the grand jury, thus impeding Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation of the truth about the leaking of Mrs. Wilson's then-classified, covert CIA identity.[7]"

Scooter Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To assert still today, that somehow Cheney, or Libby, or anyone else other than Richard Armitage, the person known to be responsible for leaking Plame's name to reporters, is responsible for the leak is dishonest, and not borne out by the facts of the case. Further it goes to the mindset of those who intentionally do such as so jaded by hatred of the Bush administration in this matter that it is really little more than frothing hate, easily dismissed in real life.
 
j said:
To assert still today, that somehow Cheney, or Libby, or anyone else other than Richard Armitage, the person known to be responsible for .

You're missing the point. 1. I haven't claimed Cheney was quilty. Nor do I or anyone have to. 2. 2nd What Armitage did or didn't do has nothing to do with whether Cheney, Libby or anyone else also tried to out her. Both of them may have or tried to, or anything else. And 3 you do not know the testimony you think was so special would have been significant. There is a reason it wasn't allowed. Until you KNOW the reason you can't make wild claims about it would have done.
 
You're missing the point.

We have hashed this many times before, and I doubt neither of us would change our minds about who, what, where, and why. You say I am missing your point, and I assure you I am not, I just think it is drivel. That's not missing it, that is dis-missing it.

1. I haven't claimed Cheney was quilty. Nor do I or anyone have to.

Not in so many words, see that is how the dishonest work. Yours is one of implication, and inference....

2. What Armitage did or didn't do has nothing to do with whether Cheney, Libby or anyone else also tried to out her. Both of them may have or tried to, or anything else.

Maybe not, but what you have to prove is that the extended investigation from Fitz wasn't some kind of witch hunt fabricated to cover the fact that the real leak was not prosecuted for the leak. And why? Who was pulling the strings of that investigation? And finally, what is the agenda of those who still today are so driven by hatred of Bush, or Cheney that they will continue the sham?

3 you do not know the testimony you think was so special would have been significant. There is a reason it wasn't allowed.

Yeah, what was the reason? See, you don't know that either. So your speculation is just as off base as mine, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Until you KNOW the reason you can't make wild claims about it would have done.

Well, isn't that convenient for you? You get to proclaim yourself the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable....Sorry teach, not here you don't. :lol:
 
So, is there someone here who actually sees Cheney as a good man? :confused:
 
So, is there someone here who actually sees Cheney as a good man? :confused:

Plenty of "good men" had tough decisions to make throughout history. I would say like all of us he is fallible.
 
We have hashed this many times before, and I doubt neither of us would change our minds about who, what, where, and why. You say I am missing your point, and I assure you I am not, I just think it is drivel. That's not missing it, that is dis-missing it.



Not in so many words, see that is how the dishonest work. Yours is one of implication, and inference....



Maybe not, but what you have to prove is that the extended investigation from Fitz wasn't some kind of witch hunt fabricated to cover the fact that the real leak was not prosecuted for the leak. And why? Who was pulling the strings of that investigation? And finally, what is the agenda of those who still today are so driven by hatred of Bush, or Cheney that they will continue the sham?



Yeah, what was the reason? See, you don't know that either. So your speculation is just as off base as mine, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.



Well, isn't that convenient for you? You get to proclaim yourself the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable....Sorry teach, not here you don't. :lol:

In not so many words, you're trying to read into my words the claim you want to fight instead of what was actually said. When you do that, as you did above, that is the definition of strawman, which if a form f dishonesty. You're doing that, not me.

I don't have to rove anything about a witch hunt. Libby was convicted. A jury found him guilty of the charge. That s a fact.

And no, I don't know the reason. But, you make judgement as if you do know. You want to believe the spin, and don't question it at all.but a judge has a rationale. Seeing every time you don't your way as being bised against is a form of removing responsibility. You have to consider the possibility there may have actually been a reason. Maybe even a good reason.

And quit with the abstract or nonsense. If you can't show the flaw in what I'm saying, just concede the point.
 
In not so many words, you're trying to read into my words the claim you want to fight instead of what was actually said. When you do that, as you did above, that is the definition of strawman, which if a form f dishonesty. You're doing that, not me.

Ha! Typical...Your attempt at table turning may work on gullible 18 to 20 somethings in class, but not on me....Nice try.

I don't have to rove anything about a witch hunt. Libby was convicted. A jury found him guilty of the charge. That s a fact.

Yep, every good boondoggle in DC is hung on a scapegoat of some sort...You know how many people in DC are wealthy for doing very little to nothing? Hint, it's a trick question, all of them....HA!

And no, I don't know the reason....

Ok, stop right there, the rest is BS.

And quit with the abstract or nonsense. If you can't show the flaw in what I'm saying, just concede the point.

I don't need to show your flaws, you do a fine job all on your own...:)
 
Ha! Typical...Your attempt at table turning may work on gullible 18 to 20 somethings in class, but not on me....Nice try.



Yep, every good boondoggle in DC is hung on a scapegoat of some sort...You know how many people in DC are wealthy for doing very little to nothing? Hint, it's a trick question, all of them....HA!



Ok, stop right there, the rest is BS.

And the jury did convict. A fact. No bs.

I don't need to show your flaws, you do a fine job all on your own...:)

J, your are in fact trying o ague what I didn't claim. You can't change that.
 
J, your are in fact trying o ague what I didn't claim. You can't change that.



Nah...It's clear, now you are devolving into foolishness, like so many times before when your argument falls through. So, have fun with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom