Author Topic: the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. (Read 1109 times)

Flatbar · « **Reply #30 on:** September 09, 2006, 02:25:30 AM »

I see you all have read Fitz's statement announcing the end of his investigation and his conclusions.

Would y'all please provide a link to it?

john9001 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 09, 2006, 07:13:48 AM »

fitz can't end the investigation, he hasn't found the NEO-CON link yet.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #32 on:** September 09, 2006, 07:28:25 AM »

Well, isn't this a big surprise. Much ado about nothing. Figures.

The same people who screamed about Martha Stewart being charged and convicted of trumped up obstruction of justice B.S. will remain deafeningly silent on "Scooter" Libby being railroaded in the same manner.

That too will be a big surprise.

Stringer · « **Reply #33 on:** September 09, 2006, 08:43:55 AM »

So is Armitage going to pay for the investigation?

I mean "chatty cathy" could have stopped it at it's start by owning up to his stupid gossipy ways.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #34 on:** September 09, 2006, 07:55:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
So is Armitage going to pay for the investigation?

I mean "chatty cathy" could have stopped it at it's start by owning up to his stupid gossipy ways.

Supposedly Armitage told the "special prosecutor" 3 years ago that he (Armitage) was the source of the leak, under oath. So, if the "special prosecutor" continued the "investigation", then the "special prosecutor" made that decision on his own. So maybe the "special prosecutor" should pay for the fishing expedition.

Stringer · « **Reply #35 on:** September 09, 2006, 08:14:36 PM »

I read a different version of that, where Armitage actually told the FBI and Justice Dept investigators that he had met with Novak and had passed along the info at that meeting.

Again, all he had to do was take it public and it would have effectively taken the wind out of the sails on most of the tail chasing. Some of the investigation would have continued as it should have.

The ironic thing about all of this, is that Armitage had huge misgivings about the Admin's tunnelled vision rush to war.

And speaking about fishing expeditions...I guess Bush, et al, should foot the 300+ billion for Iraq since the assertions for going to war have been shown to be baseless and worthless.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #36 on:** September 09, 2006, 09:36:57 PM »

Your opinion is that it is "baseless and worthless", that doesn't make it fact.

Arlo · « **Reply #37 on:** September 09, 2006, 09:39:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Do liberals really believe they can gain power by whining? Any power they might gain this way will be snatched away by the first non-fool to come along.

Well ... the conservatives did. Which explains the soon-to-be snatchin'.

Stringer · « **Reply #38 on:** September 10, 2006, 01:07:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Your opinion is that it is "baseless and worthless", that doesn't make it fact.

Not opinion....it is fact.

The assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.

The assertion that he had AQ links was baseless and worthless.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #39 on:** September 10, 2006, 08:48:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
Not opinion....it is fact.

The assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.

The assertion that he had AQ links was baseless and worthless.

Those were not the reasons Iraq was invaded. Just because you want them to be doesn't mean they were. Iraq was a very active supporter of terrorism. Just because Al Queada wasn't based there doesn't mean Saddam was not an active supporter of terrorism (Iraq publicly paying the families of homicide bombers means Iraq WAS a supporter of terrorsim, and offering to pay families of "martyrs" who attack the U.S. means he was a direct and immediate threat). Just because they had an entire year to move whatever weapons existed while the UN postured does not mean nothing was there. Evidence of their existence has been found. Keep reaching and stretching though, it is good excercise. You're still claiming opinion as fact.

Stringer · « **Reply #40 on:** September 10, 2006, 09:04:24 AM »

I suggest you reread a certain State of the Union address, among other documents.

It is fact, and you wishing it was opinion won't change the facts.

Oh, and talk about opinion with regards to moving WMD's for a year before the invasion.....that's actually more fantasy dreaming than opinion.

Head meet sand......

bj229r · « **Reply #41 on:** September 10, 2006, 09:13:17 AM »

Quote

the assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.

Bush NEVER said that, although DEMocrat Senator Jay Rockefeller did:

Quote

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012249.php