• 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!

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

That's just the man's style... you know, his trademark. He isn't going to change for you or anyone.

The man is intelligent and makes good, fact based arguments, so you're just going to have to get used to it. Or you could of course, use it as an excuse to ignore his posts so you don't have to address them.

.

The man? 'Prof' is like a child who craves our attention.

Giggles, LOL, his way through posts filled with

strings of seemingly related but mostly adjunct bits

of names spun stories rumors eggs and such

amusing for a moment

but time for the ADULTS to move on and

put the Boy on Ignore.

(shhh don't tell him and i bet he won't notice)

shhh lolol shhh:cool:
 
LOL!

hazlnut does the opposite of ignore The prodigious Prof

hazlnut is obsessed

all he talks about anymore is The prophetic Prof

hazlnut is a personality whore
 
Fitz couldn't charge anyone for outing Plame because Libby obstructed the investigation. Why are you having such a hard time with this? Maybe you should read and understand people's arguments before responding to them, huh?

You dismissed my post out of hand because it's too complex and "boring" for you and your hypotheteical jury, and you mislabeled it as circular reasoning because you obviously don't have the first clue what that means, yet you still pretend to understand the argument and somehow think you refuted it. What kind of sense does that make? Some intellectual honesty and effort on your part would be nice.

round and round

no, binary digit, i didn't dismiss your argument out of hand, i addressed it head on

i think most of the few things you say over and over again are true

except your claim that stonewalling by scooter is what saved mr armitage (LOL!)

you still, unfortunately, haven't explained why mr prosecutor never indicted ANYONE for outing poor ms plame

meanwhile, far more importantly, health care as envisioned by obama is dead

kent conrad this morning said---"we don't have the votes for a public option, we never had the votes for a public option"

wow

cnn's john king---lead story, state of the union---public option, bye bye

the left is gonna erupt
 
round and round

no, binary digit, i didn't dismiss your argument out of hand, i addressed it head on
In post 74 you mislabeled my argument as circular reasoning and too "boring" for any jury to read, without any other response except an irrelevant question. Are you going to sit there now and try to say that you didn't?

i think most of the few things you say over and over again are true

except your claim that stonewalling by scooter is what saved mr armitage (LOL!)
Is that what you think I've been saying? No wonder you're confused.

The law requires that the person knew the information was classified. Armitage was not charged because he didn't know Plame's identity was classified. He saw it on a memo that doesn't normally have that kind of information. Sorry, I assumed you knew those facts considering how knowledgable you appear to think you are on this subject in general. What other facts are eluding you here?

you still, unfortunately, haven't explained why mr prosecutor never indicted ANYONE for outing poor ms plame
No, I've been unable to explain it in a way that you can understand. So instead of asking the same darn question over and over, why don't you actually explain what it is that you're confused about?
 
Last edited:
round and round

no, binary digit, i didn't dismiss your argument out of hand, i addressed it head on

....by talking about Obama and Healthcare. :doh

Because changing the subject is so conveniently important all of a sudden.
 
In post 74 you mislabeled my argument as circular reasoning and too "boring" for any jury to read, without any other response except an irrelevant question. Are you going to sit there now and try to say that you didn't?


Is that what you think I've been saying? No wonder you're confused.

The law requires that the person knew the information was classified. Armitage was not charged because he didn't know Plame's identity was classified. He saw it on a memo that doesn't normally have that kind of information. Sorry, I assumed you knew those facts considering how knowledgable you appear to think you are on this subject in general. What other facts are eluding you here?


No, I've been unable to explain it in a way that you can understand. So instead of asking the same darn question over and over, why don't you actually explain what it is that you're confused about?

post 74---LOLOL!

you really like to argue, don't you?

why did the prosecutor fail to indict anyone for outing the agent---THAT's an "irrelevant question" to you?

LOL!

with all due respect, that's sillier than the circle

i didn't dismiss, i actually conceded the validity of your 360

but it doesn't GO ANYWHERE

if it did, mr fitzgerald woulda got somebody

he didn't, he failed

he flopped cuz there was nothing there

mr armitage committed no crime, according to you

and mr scooter outed no one, said the prosecutor

you silly
 
So what? I'm a teacher. Does that make you extra smart or something?

of course not

you possess the entire precious progeny of the planet in your underpaid palms

you are a prince

but, frankly, i'm not real concerned with you, if i were i'd be like the personality whores above

i'm not even that interested in myself

and i find plame/fitzgerald/novak/yellowcake/armitage/wilson/vanity fair tediously dull

ancient history

i'd much rather talk about health care

health care is very important TODAY

thanks for asking, i guess

have a lovely Sunday, the seventh day is so sweet, yes?
 
Maybe allowing inmates in sanatariums access to computers was not such a hot idea.

His manic mood seems to be peaking. The depression downswing will hopefully give us a break.

Somebody call the hospital, have them toss his room and find out where he's stashing his meds, because he sure as hell ain't swallowing them.:(
 
post 74---LOLOL!

you really like to argue, don't you?
Actually I prefer to debate when I have a worthy opponent, but you'll do for now because I'm not letting you get away with the bull**** you've pulled in this thread.

why did the prosecutor fail to indict anyone for outing the agent---THAT's an "irrelevant question" to you?
Actually you asked why Fitz didn't charge "scooter," not "anyone," and yes as a matter of fact it was irrelevant because I had just answered it in the very post you were replying to!

"What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here."

Does that ring a bell? Why would you respond to posts when you haven't bothered to read them thoroughly?

i didn't dismiss, i actually conceded the validity of your 360
Well I must have missed it then because all I've seen from you since that post has been dodging and missing the point.

but it doesn't GO ANYWHERE

if it did, mr fitzgerald woulda got somebody

he didn't, he failed

he flopped cuz there was nothing there
The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

How many times does that have to be said before you understand what it means?

Do I need to say it in your native language or something?

Will you understand it better if it's not surrounded by a block of text?

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.

It was not because there was no crime.

Your attempts to suggest such are dishonest, pig-headed, and ignorant considering how many times you've been reminded of the fact that

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

Are you still with me?

Do I need to say it again so you'll finally stop ignoring it?

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.

Maybe this will help:

Code:
while (TheProf.doesNotGetIt()) {
    try {
        TheProf.read("The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.);
        TheProf.read("That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.");
    } catch (Exception ex) {
        continue;
    }
}
 
All I can say is "BULL".

Nobody violated the law, yet you people still try and keep your conspiracy bs alive. We know who leaked the name, just as Fitz did.

There was no crime, and all the lame assed excuses in the world won't change that.

This was just another in a long series of attempts by liberals, to manufacture a scandal. What's funny about the whole thing is, the one who ended up being the scammer, was that lying sack of crap Joe Wilson. A man that to this very day, is touted as a hero to the left.
 
Last edited:
Actually I prefer to debate when I have a worthy opponent, but you'll do for now because I'm not letting you get away with the bull**** you've pulled in this thread.


Actually you asked why Fitz didn't charge "scooter," not "anyone," and yes as a matter of fact it was irrelevant because I had just answered it in the very post you were replying to!

"What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here."

Does that ring a bell? Why would you respond to posts when you haven't bothered to read them thoroughly?


Well I must have missed it then because all I've seen from you since that post has been dodging and missing the point.


The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

How many times does that have to be said before you understand what it means?

Do I need to say it in your native language or something?

Will you understand it better if it's not surrounded by a block of text?

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.

It was not because there was no crime.

Your attempts to suggest such are dishonest, pig-headed, and ignorant considering how many times you've been reminded of the fact that

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

Are you still with me?

Do I need to say it again so you'll finally stop ignoring it?

The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.

That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.

Maybe this will help:

Code:
while (TheProf.doesNotGetIt()) {
    try {
        TheProf.read("The investigation was obstructed because Libby lied.);
        TheProf.read("That's why Fitzgerald couldn't convict anyone.");
    } catch (Exception ex) {
        continue;
    }
}

!!!!!

LOLOL!

sure, dude, that's all that was MISSING

to catch the BIG FISH

just a couple little libby lies, if he'd'a only come clean

why, THE BRAIN himself woulda been bagged

LOLOLOL!

libby lied so rove could fly

scooter took the big fall

so rove could out the agent AT HER DESK

at LANGLEY

coming and going every day

some SPY

LOLOL!

she had to serve overseas in longterm capacity to be covered, my circular friend

when she testified personally before waxman's cmte in march, 07, she couldn't even claim herself that she was covered

"i'm not a lawyer," is the best she could do

because she hadn't been outta the country for more than a week in years

Valerie Plame Distorts Her 'Covert' Status | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET

poor little prosecutor

couldn't even get his HAM SANDWICH

LOLOL!

the prosecutor himself refused to say ms plame was covered until two months AFTER scooter was convicted

in the prosecutor's own BELATED finding that ms plame was afterall an op, he clumsily revealed why he'd been so reluctant to come forward for 19 months (libby was indicted on 10-28-05, yet the prosecutor refused to say plame was an agent until may of 07)

it's because of paragraph 2 of his own file that in his own words says ms plame was only out of the country on TEMPORARY DUTY---TDY

to qualify for coverage under IIPA, as you know, you have to have had a long term assignment outside our borders within the last 5 years

THIS was the bugaboo that tripped up mr fitzgerald and brought down your whole conspiracy

American Thinker: Fitzgerald, Plame, CIA Director Hayden and Scooter Libby

Among the documents that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed in connection with the sentencing of Scooter Libby, VP Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, was a lengthy PDF file which purports to support the contention that Valerie Plame Wilson was a "covert" employee of the CIA for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426 ). Of the 30 pages, all but three are a transcript of Plame's testimony before Rep. Henry Waxman's personal dog and pony show--the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The remaining three pages, however, are entitled UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF VALERIE WILSON'S CIA EMPLOYMENT AND COVER HISTORY and contain some fascinating material.

The Summary begins with three remarkable paragraphs:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in Temporary Duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.


fitzgerald refused to name plame as covered until may 29, 2007, when he released it to michael isikoff of newsweek

Was She or Wasn't She? | Print Article | Newsweek.com

scooter was convicted two months EARLIER, on march 6

United States v. Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

and circles

LOLOLOL!
 
Last edited:
As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do

I agree and unfortunately we are seeing a repeat with the current president as well. For all the well deserved bitching people did about Bush, the stupid masses went and elected a clone to take his place just because he gave good speeches. I believe the term is "lipstick on a pig."
 
Nobody violated the law,

Libby was criminally convicted for violating the law. GW Bush acted criminally by "Buying Libby's Continued Silence" with a bribe (commutation of sentence) & both Bush & Cheney violated the law by firing U.S. Attys for strictly political vengeance reasons.

That enough law breaking for you?
 
Last edited:
GW Bush acted criminally by "Buying Libby's Continued Silence" with a bribe (commutation of sentence) & both Bush & Cheney violated the law by firing U.S. Attys for strictly political vengeance reasons.

I know this will be asking a lot from you considering the side of the political spectrum you reside on, but do you have any proof to support that statement?

I will bet everything I own, that no proof will be provided... Because no proof exists.

I will also offer good odds, that no retraction will be offered... Because that would require a level of integrity that very few liberals possess.

.
 
I will also offer good odds, that no retraction will be offered... Because that would require a level of integrity that very few liberals possess.

.

Would you also say that very few conservatives have that level of integrity?
 
I know this will be asking a lot from you considering the side of the political spectrum you reside on, but do you have any proof to support that statement?

I will bet everything I own, that no proof will be provided... Because no proof exists.

I will also offer good odds, that no retraction will be offered... Because that would require a level of integrity that very few liberals possess.

.

I'll take everything you own, thank you:

Fired U.S. attorney says colleague told him politics was behind his ouster | McClatchy
U.S. Attorneys Fired for Political Reasons, Former Aide Says - March 29, 2007 - The New York Sun
Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals - washingtonpost.com


That's just three links my "I Own Nothing Anymore Friend"...(Do a google search & you will find 100's more)

You will, of course, disappear into the semantics weed forest claiming nothing I could provide would be "acceptable" evidence to you. I'll venture to say if I had video-tapes of Bush & Cheney themselves saying they want to illegally fire the U.S. Attys for petty political reasons, you would find some way of refuting that too.


You owe me EVERYTHING YOU OWN....& I want it now.
 
Last edited:
I'll take everything you own, thank you:

Fired U.S. attorney says colleague told him politics was behind his ouster | McClatchy
U.S. Attorneys Fired for Political Reasons, Former Aide Says - March 29, 2007 - The New York Sun
Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals - washingtonpost.com


That's just three links my "I Own Nothing Anymore Friend"...(Do a google search & you will find 100's more)

You will, of course, disappear into the semantics weed forest claiming nothing I could provide would be "acceptable" evidence to you. I'll venture to say if I had video-tapes of Bush & Cheney themselves saying they want to illegally fire the U.S. Attys for petty political reasons, you would find some way of refuting that too.


You owe me EVERYTHING YOU OWN....& I want it now.

BTW....How about issuing a retraction? I did what you said I wouldn't do right? (let's see YOUR integrity...or lack thereof)


BTW.....You can forget sending me everything you own. (600 autographed photos of Rush Limbaugh is something I can live without.....You keep your stuff)
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm....I still see no retraction. I am shocked!!;)

(your attacks came fast & furious but your integrity seems a bit slower)
 
Hmmmm....I still see no retraction. I am shocked!!;)

(your attacks came fast & furious but your integrity seems a bit slower)
President Bush is retired.
 
I'll take everything you own, thank you:

You stated:

Bush & Cheney violated the law by firing U.S. Attys for strictly political vengeance reasons

That was not a violation of the law, as the administration has the right to hire and fire them for any reason. Besides, nobody has been tried, much less convicted, of any violation of the law.

You also stated:

GW Bush acted criminally by "Buying Libby's Continued Silence" with a bribe

You have presented no evidence what so ever to back up this claim. Not surprisingly, you also ignored it completely, like you never said it.

So my friend, no retraction by me is warranted and I'll keep my stuff. You on the other hand, by foolishly attempting to justify your false claims, have exposed yourself as another in a long line of liberals that lie to justify their uncontrollable hatred.

Have a great day.

ps. I have to go to work now, so don't expect me to shoot down your next attempt to justify you false claims. I hope when I return, you have issued your retraction, since your claims can't possibly be backed up... I won't hold my breath though.



.
 
Last edited:
!!!!!

LOLOL!

sure, dude, that's all that was MISSING

to catch the BIG FISH

just a couple little libby lies, if he'd'a only come clean

why, THE BRAIN himself woulda been bagged

LOLOLOL!

libby lied so rove could fly

scooter took the big fall

so rove could out the agent AT HER DESK

at LANGLEY

coming and going every day

some SPY

LOLOL!

she had to serve overseas in longterm capacity to be covered, my circular friend

when she testified personally before waxman's cmte in march, 07, she couldn't even claim herself that she was covered

"i'm not a lawyer," is the best she could do

because she hadn't been outta the country for more than a week in years

Valerie Plame Distorts Her 'Covert' Status | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET

poor little prosecutor

couldn't even get his HAM SANDWICH

LOLOL!

the prosecutor himself refused to say ms plame was covered until two months AFTER scooter was convicted

in the prosecutor's own BELATED finding that ms plame was afterall an op, he clumsily revealed why he'd been so reluctant to come forward for 19 months (libby was indicted on 10-28-05, yet the prosecutor refused to say plame was an agent until may of 07)

it's because of paragraph 2 of his own file that in his own words says ms plame was only out of the country on TEMPORARY DUTY---TDY

to qualify for coverage under IIPA, as you know, you have to have had a long term assignment outside our borders within the last 5 years

THIS was the bugaboo that tripped up mr fitzgerald and brought down your whole conspiracy

American Thinker: Fitzgerald, Plame, CIA Director Hayden and Scooter Libby

Among the documents that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed in connection with the sentencing of Scooter Libby, VP Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, was a lengthy PDF file which purports to support the contention that Valerie Plame Wilson was a "covert" employee of the CIA for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426 ). Of the 30 pages, all but three are a transcript of Plame's testimony before Rep. Henry Waxman's personal dog and pony show--the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The remaining three pages, however, are entitled UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF VALERIE WILSON'S CIA EMPLOYMENT AND COVER HISTORY and contain some fascinating material.

The Summary begins with three remarkable paragraphs:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in Temporary Duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.


fitzgerald refused to name plame as covered until may 29, 2007, when he released it to michael isikoff of newsweek

Was She or Wasn't She? | Print Article | Newsweek.com

scooter was convicted two months EARLIER, on march 6

United States v. Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

and circles

LOLOLOL!


Okay Human events isn't a valid source another right wing rag, american thinker as well. I'm surprised you didn't post worldnetdaily or newsmax as a source on this. The fact is the CIA referred the matter to justice. If they hadn't thought that the law was broken in her outing they wouldn't have referred it. The director of the CIA stated she was a NOC. Your own information states she served overseas within the 5 years before her outing qualifying her under the act. Again trying to argue over something long established as fact.
 
Why not just pin this thread as a permanent meeting place for those who want to wallow in their disgust of all things Bush/Cheney?

It could be pinned at least until Cheney's book is published and their hopes for devastating and humiliating revelations about the former administration are dashed.

:2wave:
 
Okay Human events isn't a valid source another right wing rag, american thinker as well. I'm surprised you didn't post worldnetdaily or newsmax as a source on this. The fact is the CIA referred the matter to justice. If they hadn't thought that the law was broken in her outing they wouldn't have referred it. The director of the CIA stated she was a NOC. Your own information states she served overseas within the 5 years before her outing qualifying her under the act. Again trying to argue over something long established as fact.

LOL!

sources

sources aside, it's undeniable that:

1. libby was indicted on 10-28-05

2. he was convicted on 3-6-07

3. the prosecutor FIRST declared plame covered on 5-29-07

4. the source for the latter is ISIKOFF

5. ie, NEWSWEEK

6. what a WORM, fitzgerald

7. the sources for points 1 and 2 are WIK

8. "the CIA referred it:" LOLOL!

9. her testimony before waxman is verbatim, i remember it when it went down

10. she served overseas in temporary capacity, not long term

11. according to fitzgerald

12. to be covered by the act, you must serve overseas longterm

health care's dead
 
Back
Top Bottom