Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 129

Thread: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

  1. #71
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,685

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    I believe it was an attempt to gather a headline rather than keeping the bigger picture in mind. Cheney is more than likely largely proud of the achievements of the administration, and his Commander in Chief. Memoirs are going to expose "woulda coulda, shoulda" aspects because we are dealing with individuals who are passionate participants in public service who probably had severe disagreements with colleagues and superiors. Second of all, this is also more evidence that the relationship between the Vice President and the President surpassed the ridiculous tale of Fool and Conspiring Evil Man.

    It will be another useful (though flawed) tool for future historians to figure out to an even greater degree the complicated atmosphere of the George W. Bush administration.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 08-15-09 at 12:15 AM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #72
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Cheney is more than likely largely proud of the achievements of the administration, and his Commander in Chief.
    Very good point.

    The book will be 95% 'we did good,' 4% 'we could've done better', and 1% 'we shouldn't have done that.'

    All the headlines will focus on the 4% and the 1%.


  3. #73
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Libby didn't "obviously lie", but I am a believer in law, so I agree that there was no choice but to find him guilty.
    Well I think his lying was blatantly obvious. Honestly, how can someone discuss something 9 different times, and the suddenly be surprised to learn it during a 10th conversation only a couple weeks later? If that doesn't set your BS detector off then it needs some serious calibration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    The reason I said he didn't obviously lie, is because back when all this was taking place, it wasn't an issue. Even the CIA never stated, or even implied, that discussing her publicly would be any violation of the law.
    Huh? It's not the CIA's job to decide or announce whether a law was broken. That was Fitzgerald's job. It would have been inappropriate for the CIA to do what you're suggesting. And again, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that Plame was a covert agent when her name was leaked to the press. The only question was whether or not the leaker knew she was covert when he opened his mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    So the topic of Valerie Plame had no more significance than discussing Frank the White House gardener. Libby maintains that he just didn't remember, or wasn't sure about conversations he had about the lady... Which is very plausible.

    Think about it... Why would he lie about something that wasn't a violation of the law?
    1. It was a violation of the law if the person leaked what they knew to be classified information to the press, because Valerie Plame was a covert agent who had been on assignment during the 5 years prior. This was all confirmed by Michael Hayden years ago.

    2. Libby maintains that he was surprised to learn who Plame was during a conversation with Tim Russert, but he'd had 9 conversations about Plame with 9 different people before that. His supposed surprise during the 10th conversation is not plausible at all. He didn't contradict himself based on a faulty memory, he contradicted 9 other witnesses based on blatant lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Bull... Fitzgerald knew in the first few weeks of the investigation that Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's initial source for his op-ed. That was what this investigation was about... Remember? That fact has never been disputed.
    *sigh* Like I already said:

    1. Robert Novak's notorious article cited "two senior administration officials" as its sources. Not one, but two. Armitage was one. Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know who the other source was when the investigation started. So, any assertions that they knew who the leaker was before the investigation began are patently false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Nothing Libby did or said resulted in the investigation coming to a halt. The investigation ended, because there was no crime committed concerning the public disclosure of Valerie Plame. Patrick Fitzgerald just wasted 2 years and millions of tax payer dollars investigating something that wasn't even a crime, so he tried to make Libby look the the reason nobody was indicted for the leak.
    That is factually incorrect. Libby obstructed the investigation because his lying prevented Fitzgerald from determining who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press. And Plame was a covert CIA agent who had worked undercover during the 5 years prior to Novak's article, and outing her as a CIA agent was most certainly a crime if the person knew her identity was classified. Again, Plame's status as a covert agent was confirmed by CIA director Michael Hayden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Let me quote the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald:
    “the defendant was neither charged nor convicted of any crime involving the leaking of Ms. Plame’s ‘covert’ status.”
    He also went on to say:
    “The reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson, included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.”

    What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here. It is an undisputable fact that Libby was charged and convicted with obstructing the investigation that set out to determine who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press, and whether they knew it was classified at the time (hence violating the law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Of course, the one thing Fitzgerald fails to mention in that statement, is the fact that libby didn't discuss Plame to anyone outside the White House until nearly 2 weeks after Armitage told Novak that Wilson's wife was the one who got him the Niger assignment.

    Source.
    That's irrelevant. Nobody said that Libby leaked Plame's name to anyone, inside or outside the White House. Libby discussed Plame's CIA status with 9 different people before the 10th conversation which he falsely claimed was the first time he learned about her. It doesn't matter the least bit whether all of these people were government officials in the White House or not. The fact is he lied when he asserted that Tim Russert's interview was the first time he learned who Plame was.
    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 08-15-09 at 07:58 AM.

  4. #74
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Well I think his lying was blatantly obvious. Honestly, how can someone discuss something 9 different times, and the suddenly be surprised to learn it during a 10th conversation only a couple weeks later? If that doesn't set your BS detector off then it needs some serious calibration.


    Huh? It's not the CIA's job to decide or announce whether a law was broken. That was Fitzgerald's job. It would have been inappropriate for the CIA to do what you're suggesting. And again, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that Plame was a covert agent when her name was leaked to the press. The only question was whether or not the leaker knew she was covert when he opened his mouth.


    1. It was a violation of the law if the person leaked what they knew to be classified information to the press, because Valerie Plame was a covert agent who had been on assignment during the 5 years prior. This was all confirmed by Michael Hayden years ago.

    2. Libby maintains that he was surprised to learn who Plame was during a conversation with Tim Russert, but he'd had 9 conversations about Plame with 9 different people before that. His supposed surprise during the 10th conversation is not plausible at all. He didn't contradict himself based on a faulty memory, he contradicted 9 other witnesses based on blatant lies.


    *sigh* Like I already said:

    1. Robert Novak's notorious article cited "two senior administration officials" as its sources. Not one, but two. Armitage was one. Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know who the other source was when the investigation started. So, any assertions that they knew who the leaker was before the investigation began are patently false.


    That is factually incorrect. Libby obstructed the investigation because his lying prevented Fitzgerald from determining who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press. And Plame was a covert CIA agent who had worked undercover during the 5 years prior to Novak's article, and outing her as a CIA agent was most certainly a crime if the person knew her identity was classified. Again, Plame's status as a covert agent was confirmed by CIA director Michael Hayden.


    What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here. It is an undisputable fact that Libby was charged and convicted with obstructing the investigation that set out to determine who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press, and whether they knew it was classified at the time (hence violating the law).


    That's irrelevant. Nobody said that Libby leaked Plame's name to anyone, inside or outside the White House. Libby discussed Plame's CIA status with 9 different people before the 10th conversation which he falsely claimed was the first time he learned about her. It doesn't matter the least bit whether all of these people were government officials in the White House or not. The fact is he lied when he asserted that Tim Russert's interview was the first time he learned who Plame was.
    i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

    1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death

    2. why didn't the prosecutor go after scooter for outing an agent?

  5. #75
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

    1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death
    Hmm...It doesn't look like he's using [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic"]circular reasoning[/ame]. However it is repetitive, but only because you refused to listen, or you refused to address the points given. An example of this would be the above quotes.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  6. #76
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

    1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death
    You are boring me to death. How about explaining why my argument is wrong instead of mislabeling it and dismissing it out of hand? You know, debate and stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    2. why didn't the prosecutor go after scooter for outing an agent?
    I already explained this. I'm tired of reposting stuff when people refused to read it in the first place. Scroll up and read. Helps to understand, too.
    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 08-15-09 at 01:49 PM.

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    wow, i thought i was being super nice

    i'm sorry, don't get mad

    of course, i read your stuff, how else would i know it was circular and repetitive?

    and in it, tho you make points, you fail to explain WHY the prosecutor, armed with those (3) things you mention (3 times each), would give the scoot a complete pass on any outing of any agent

    why did fitzgerald scoot libby on all questions of outing?

    (tantrums too turn off the twelve)

  8. #78
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,135
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

    1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death

    2. why didn't the prosecutor go after scooter for outing an agent?
    Answers:

    1. Including myself... I'm done.

    2. Because he didn't out an agent.

    .

  9. #79
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    wow, i thought i was being super nice

    i'm sorry, don't get mad
    Ok, so you nicely missed all the key points I made, and politely committed the worst non-sequitor I've seen in a long time. Buds?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    of course, i read your stuff, how else would i know it was circular and repetitive?
    If you think it's circular logic then you either don't understand what circular logic is or you don't understand my post. Or perhaps you don't want to embrace the complexity of the matter and would rather label it as "boring."

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    and in it, tho you make points, you fail to explain WHY the prosecutor, armed with those (3) things you mention (3 times each), would give the scoot a complete pass on any outing of any agent
    What 3 things?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    why did fitzgerald scoot libby on all questions of outing?
    Because Libby was never even suspected of outing Plame, much less charged. Before Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he was just another witness in the investigation, same as Ari Fliecher, Harriet Meyers, Dick Cheney, GWB, etc. He was not testifying as a suspect, he was testifying as a material witness. Libby's Grand Jury testimony (in which he lied) and Libby's trial (for lying to said Grand Jury) were entirely different events.

    Libby's conversations about Plame among White House staff was never considered a crime because those people were authorized to have the information.

    Libby was not charged with leaking to Judith Miller because Miller testified, contrary to what her notes indicated, that she was certain it was not Libby who told her about Plame.

    Does any of that clear it up? I'm really not sure what the disconnect is anymore.

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Because Libby was never even suspected of outing Plame, much less charged.
    why didn't the prosecutor go after ANYONE for outing an agent?

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •