Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

The Prof said:

i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

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

Click to expand...

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.

The Prof said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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)

The Prof said:

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?

Click to expand...

Answers:

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

2. Because he didn't out an agent.

.

The Prof said:

wow, i thought i was being super nice

i'm sorry, don't get mad

Click to expand...

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?

The Prof said:

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

Click to expand...

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."

The Prof said:

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

Click to expand...

What 3 things?

The Prof said:

why did fitzgerald scoot libby on all questions of outing?

Click to expand...

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.

Binary_Digit said:

Because Libby was never even suspected of outing Plame, much less charged.

Click to expand...

why didn't the prosecutor go after ANYONE for outing an agent?

The Prof said:

why didn't the prosecutor go after ANYONE for outing an agent?

Click to expand...

He was trying to! That was the whole point of the investigation which compelled Libby to testify before a Grand Jury in the first place. But Libby lied his ass off and obstructed the investigation! Where have you been?

"trying"

"the whole point"

LOL!

Grateful Heart said:

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%.

Click to expand...

Mostly because 95% of what they think they did 'good' on has already been discredited.

Hatuey said:

Mostly because 95% of what they think they did 'good' on has already been discredited.

Click to expand...

How's that Obama economy working out for ya?

:rofl

fyi

jack murtha, perhaps the most personally corrupt member of congress, if not rangel, since rostenkowski's departure, said yesterday---no health care this year, gonna have to wait til 2010

very meaningful, considering the spokesman

a lot like durbin's announcement last week on john king's cnn that he was "open" to "cutting" the "public option"

the public option is therefore DEAD

durbin is WHIP

durbin, senior senator from chicago, is personally close to the prez

durbin saying is the white house signaling

that's how the game's played

tea leaves, baby

Grateful Heart said:

How's that Obama economy working out for ya?

:rofl

Click to expand...

Still a Young Money Millionaire and the world hasn't exploded. Guess the prayers of Sarah Palin's witch doctor didn't work. :2razz:

obama in grand junction, colorado, his 3rd town hall since this townhall phenom first began, his first being in portsmouth, NH, and his second just yesterday in belgrade, montana, home of gatekeeper max baucus

the 3 townhalls have been virtually IDENTICAL, the same half hour stump speech following the same personal story of some sad local with health care coverage issues, really big personal tragedies centering on lack of coverage, horrendous personal suffering detailed, heart wrenching

those problems the prez points up are very, very palpable, by the way, poignant, important

he's right

but the president's productions are always so identical, his audiences so fawning, they really do resemble michael jackson's funeral

except each time the prez makes tiny tweaks

in belgrade, for instance, his townhall #2, he removed the part about AARP endorsing his plan

anyway

today's tweak is QUITE REVEALING

asked by a critical young man (whom obama praised, rather condescendingly, i thought, for having the chutzpah to stand up to the potus)---how can you keep telling us that a private entity can compete with govt backed insurance?

obama's answer spoke TONS

he said, literally---"public option, if we have it or if we don't..."

"the public option is only a small sliver of our health care reform, we are talking about much more than just that..."

the point---public option is dead

read between the lines folks

there's NO NEWS here, senator durbin made it clear as clean glass last sunday on cnn's john king

look at the polls is another way of seeing it

the prez is just kinda hammering home a point

the PUBLIC OPTION IS DEAD

sorry

or congrats

depending on which side you're on, i spose

and, yes, even without a public option, congressman murtha declared that health care in whatever form won't be done this year, gotta wait til next

you all know who murtha is, his ROLE in the house

Hatuey said:

Mostly because 95% of what they think they did 'good' on has already been discredited.

Click to expand...

Has it really? We are still dealing with it, it's a current event for the most part. At the moment most people do not believe that they have experienced a good administration those eight years, but it is far too early to call just yet.

The Prof said:

fyi

jack murtha, perhaps the most personally corrupt member of congress, if not rangel, since rostenkowski's departure, said yesterday---no health care this year, gonna have to wait til 2010

very meaningful, considering the spokesman

a lot like durbin's announcement last week on john king's cnn that he was "open" to "cutting" the "public option"

the public option is therefore DEAD

durbin is WHIP

durbin, senior senator from chicago, is personally close to the prez

durbin saying is the white house signaling

that's how the game's played

tea leaves, baby

Click to expand...

Do you not like paragraphs or something? Or are you pausing after every sentence for dramatic effect? :doh

Let's try to string some sentences together next time, eh? No more of these sentence fragments, okay?

Lightdemon said:

Do you not like paragraphs or something? Or are you pausing after every sentence for dramatic effect? :doh

Let's try to string some sentences together next time, eh? No more of these sentence fragments, okay?

Click to expand...

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.

.

Grim17 said:

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.

.

Click to expand...

His posts are a bit...random. Either that, or he's trying to change the subject.

The ball was in his court when it was his turn to defend his argument. His response?

"trying"

"the whole point"

LOL!

Click to expand...

A couple posts later, and we find him talking nonsense. A few posts after that he's started taking shots at Obama. Intelligence? Fact based arguments? Please.

EDIT: And I'm the one ignoring the oppositions points and argument. :roll:

hazlnut said:

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush



That phrase jumped out at me. Partner? That's not how the constitution sees it. Cheney always came across as someone who thought he was the President's equal in terms of power and responsibility. The unprecedented expansion of VP powers aside, he always came off in interviews as if he thought of himself as the co-President.



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--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.

However, in the beginning of his second term, he declared himself the 'decider' and decided he was really going to have a go at being President. To co-president Cheney, this must have been infuriating.

I'm more interested in the tell-all book from Bush than I am from Cheney. Of course, if Cheney's book comes out first, this might inspire Bush to get more honest.

Every time something new is revealed about what really went on behind-the-scenes at the Bush White House, I'm never surprised.

Cheney comes off in some ways as the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men -- he wants so bad to tell people what he did and why he did it. I'm hoping his editor and advisors don't hold him back. Let the chips fall where they may.

Click to expand...

Cheney is turning on Bush now because the public is about to turn on Cheney. Bait and evade, typical tactics of the GOP. Fact is, if they are both guilty, then it doesn't matter who is mad at who, they are going to go down.

And I don't care about his book. We already spent eight years being lied to, I don't need to read a revisionist tale that is an attempt to vindicate himself of wrongdoing.

i changed the subject from mr libby and ms plame and mr prosecutor, ie, from ancient history, to today

cuz today is all that ever really matters

and today what's really significant, you silly obsessor, is HEALTH CARE

hello

and when bill clinton tells the left wing of his own party

headed by howard dean, by the way

that they better start getting ready for sell out city, suckers

Party leaders prepare liberals to accept a health care reform deal - Chris Frates and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

(thanks, celticlord)

well, it means something

when durbin said what he said on cnn's king last sunday

No. 2 Senate Democrat 'Open' to Health Care Bill With No Public Option - Political News - FOXNews.com

that's when i, The profoundly experienced, prepared and prescient Prof, apprehended completely that the president had prospectively thrown up his palms

(actually i've known since june 17)

TheHill.com - Baucus to chop $600 billion from healthcare bill

ms mccaskill indicated as such in hillsboro tuesday (the poor lady, did you see? ripped to pieces by a pack)

mr baucus has been beating around that bush since mid june

daschle declared it in undeniable detail the day before

Daschle Urges Obama To Drop Federal Public Health Care Plan

it is of extreme interest to astute observers that president obama in grand junction said this very afternoon---"if there's a public option or if there's not a public option..."

"the public option is just a small sliver of what we're talking about"

what do you think that indicates

it's 100 times more salient than scooter

and 10000000000 times more fascinating even than MY scintillating syntax, mesmerizing musings

you're being absurd in even lowering yourself to discuss me at all

because i do not matter

when ms deparle (she matters), white house office of health reform, said (aug 7) the white house was willing to look at co op's as proxy for public option...

The Washington Independent White House Open to Co-ops in Lieu of Public Option

well, there ya go

what i was really saying subliminally cuz it was so obvious to people, i thought, half my age is---

you can go ahead and parse 2004 all over again and ms plame and her vanity fair article

or you can completely waste your time examing my inimitable mode (LOL!)

but the only thing that really matters to mature americans are today and the important and the relevant and the issues of our times

and other highly happenin hypostases like that

health care's dead, at least as obama contemplated it

as far as late august, 2009 is concerned, mr fitzgerald might as well be too

and as for MY style---LOLOLOLOL!

my own mother doesn't give a damn

Lightdemon said:

His posts are a bit...random. Either that, or he's trying to change the subject.

The ball was in his court when it was his turn to defend his argument. His response?



A couple posts later, and we find him talking nonsense. A few posts after that he's started taking shots at Obama. Intelligence? Fact based arguments? Please.

EDIT: And I'm the one ignoring the oppositions points and argument. :roll:

Click to expand...

you had to edit that?

LOL!

when my correspondent came back with---the prosecutor TRIED to get someone for outing poor mrs what's-her-plame---he as much as conceded failure, did he not?

i'd be surprised the point requires spelling out, but i'm a teacher, i've seen it all

so, just for you:

L-O-L!

Orius said:

Cheney is turning on Bush now because the public is about to turn on Cheney. Bait and evade, typical tactics of the GOP. Fact is, if they are both guilty, then it doesn't matter who is mad at who, they are going to go down.

Click to expand...

they already went down, last november

that's why they don't signify, they're history, they're losers

all that really matters TODAY is obama and what he's trying to do

but he's failed so fast, fallen so far

his entire agenda is dead

losers, reversals, dead letters and false steps---cap and trade, the public option, personal diplomacy with iran, blaming bush, prosecuting cheney, investigating "torture," closing gitmo, paygo, cutting the deficit in half, the stimuli, the cars takeover, reaching out to rogues and runts, bailouts and bonuses for bagmen and bums, ending rendition, ending detention, reversing the patriot act, ending don't ask don't tell, ending earmarks, putting legislation online, public finance of campaign, not hiring lobbyists, taxing benefits (the mccain plan), taxing those under 250G, deficits at 12.65% of gdp...

a legacy of futility and frustration so far reaching nothing remains

what's left to try for?

minimum wage?

simplifying the tax code?

the hysterically historic obama is ALREADY IRRELEVANT

and he had it ALL

SIXTY senators, a self confessedly THRILLED media, a whole world hi 5'ing...

fastest LOSER in american history

most INCOMPETENT pol at the national level america has ever seen

no spin---he's THAT bad

not to change the subject away from more pertinent problems

like bob novak and yellowcake

LOLOL!

Always funny

the "Internets" is

how all sorts of crazies

use the freedoms to let loose

the dogs of insanity.

Since we get no

Death Panels I cry,

can we at least get better funding

for our degrading educational system.

Maybe then, some will learn to write

a coherent sentence, and just maybe

with practice, someday a complete paragraph.

My opinion is that GW Bush has always been the "Class Clown", not too serious fun loving man of mediocre intelligence. His religious beliefs & dislike of rules in general, (especially if they are imposed by government) made him ill suited to be President & therefore a real disaster for this country in his attempts to dismantle constitutional checks & balances of which he had little understand & no respect. (I do feel however, that GW took office intending to take down Saddam Hussein at all costs to avenge the alleged threat against his father)

Dick Cheney is a smart, ruthless man who sees everything in strict black & white & may well have been the more "Evil" of the two..

He needs to go back to his super secret cave. That man is evil.

Kali said:

He needs to go back to his super secret cave. That man is evil.

Click to expand...

I have a wall just perfect for an autographed license plate made & signed by Cheney. (prisoner # 324727)

The Prof said:

when my correspondent came back with---the prosecutor TRIED to get someone for outing poor mrs what's-her-plame---he as much as conceded failure, did he not?

Click to expand...

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.