<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 6 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]401023[/snapback]</div> I won't take that bet - I'd rather have the money towards my next car wash! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Mar 6 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]401029[/snapback]</div> I think Libby was the 'sacrificial lamb' - Cheney and company needed one and he was handy. I doubt there was ever any intention of 'saving' him.
It just goes to show, when facing a jury just plead the Ronald Reagan defense..."I can't remember" over and over, no matter what the question. The Bush White house 10,000 Woppers sold every day!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 6 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]401073[/snapback]</div> Your making just as much an assumption as I did. Maybe I should have worded it this way. The judge and confused jury made a liberal decision. Is that better? Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 6 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]401057[/snapback]</div> I agree that we're doomed, but for the opposite reason: A massive conspiracy went on right in the Oval Office, and the only person convicted was an underling. Instead of merely convicting Libby, they should have impeached Bush and Cheney simultaneously. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 6 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]401070[/snapback]</div> The real issue here is not the outing of Valerie Plame. That was what got people upset. But the real issue was the massive conspiracy to falsify "intelligence" to justify an illegal war against the wrong country. They outed Plame because they hoped that connecting her husband, Joseph Wilson, to the CIA through her would discredit his story that intelligence had been falsified. It backfired on them. But their intention was to preserve the credibility of their falsified information against Iraq. Both Bush and Cheney wanted this war, and so they conspired to manipulate public opinion by the deliberate falsification of "Intelligence" so they could start a war that would otherwise have been difficult to ram through Congress. They won't be impeached, and Libby probably won't go to prison, unless it's a very short stint at a "country club" type prison camp. And it's all just business as usual, nothing different than what presidents of all parties have done throughour our history. But it does place Bush and Cheney firmly in the criminal camp. Can you say Gulf of Tonquin? That was Democrat L.B.J.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 6 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]401141[/snapback]</div> What "stain" does this puton the administration, Libby wasn't the leak, Richard Armitage was, the problem Fitzgerald has is that it WASN'T A CRIME TO LEAK PLAMES NAME! If "leak" is even the proper term. Libby should get the same punishent another person who commited perjury recieved NOTHING, well actually, he was disbarred and can no longer practice law! I know its hard for the libs take but there was NO CONSPIRACY TO DISCREDIT PLAME! and Fitzgereald agrees since he is NOT pressing any charges! Libby was Fitzgerald's scapgoat not the administrations. Fitzgerald had to show something for the millions he spent! Plus before you say it, the convictions Ken Starr's investigation prompted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal "Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals — including Clinton friends Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker — were convicted of federal charges unrelated to Whitewater. Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency (see list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton)." Moderator's Note: This post has been edited to correct the misattributed quotation. When replying with a quote from a post made by another member, please refrain from editing the quoted text. Thanks!
First, don't edit the quotes of other posters. That's crummy. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 6 2007, 04:55 PM) [snapback]401141[/snapback]</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 6 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]401235[/snapback]</div> More of the right putting words in other's mouths. Just cause you say it doesn't make it so. Fitzgerald is a skilled prosecutor. His job is to get convictions, which he does well (much to the consternation of some of our Illinois politicians). He filed the charges that he knew he could get a conviction on. To say that he agrees there was no conspricacy is disengenous. What he believes is unknown. You might say he agrees that the obstruction worked so well he can't make a case against Cheney or Bush. But don't try to pass off a bunch of hokum that Fitzgerald agrees with you. From the closing argument The critic of the war comes out, he points fingers at the White House, fairly or unfairly. It’s not like that editorial he marked. He is fair game. Anything goes. That result is his wife had a job with the CIA. She worked in the counter proliferation division, that was stipulated. She gets dragged into the newspapers. Some may think that’s okay. That’s not. If people want to find out was the law broken, were the laws broken about the disclosure of classified information? Did somebody do it intentionally or otherwise? People want to know who did it. What role did they play? What role did the defendant play? What role did others play? What role did the Vice President play because he told you early on, he may have discussed sharing this information with the press, with the Vice President, but of course only after the Novak column. Don’t you think the FBI and the Grand Jury are not mad to want straight answers? They deserved straight answers. This defendant was focused on it. It was unique circumstances. It was important. He was angry at Wilson and knew those answers. I submit to you, when you go in that jury room, your common sense will tell you that he made a gamble. He said I’m going to tell them the story about the rumors. Hope it goes away. He lied.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 6 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]401223[/snapback]</div> So Bush and Cheney, often described as stupid idiots, was able to falsify the data on WMD's for every single country in the world including the top generals of Iraq? Now who is being stupid? Wildkow <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 6 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]401078[/snapback]</div> Beings as you are a liberal I would have to once again say WRONG ! It's not always a knee-jerk reaction sometimes its just a jerk reaction. BTW, all of the witnesses testimony not only conflicted with each other but with their own testimony. Wildkow
With regard to the post by Devil's Advocate, above, there are few tactics in debate more reprehensible than falsely quoting another person.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 6 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]401286[/snapback]</div> Typical Liberal tactic....er....wait a minute....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 6 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]401286[/snapback]</div> How about a complete distortion of the facts? 20,000,000 indians really? LOL!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 6 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]401371[/snapback]</div> Accepted estimates are that the population of North America was about 20,000,000 when Columbus arrived. Most of them were dead within a century. But even if you disagree with my figures, that's hardly in the same category as quoting someone else as saying the opposite of what he actually said.
Even McClellan said tonight that when he was press secretary it is now obvious that they lied to him in order to get him to lie to the press. It's very concerning that those in the White House can claim one thing but know the opposite is true. E.g., WMDs and leaking the identity of CIA agents. What has the world come to when the president and those under him lie in order to invade another country. If there is justice, there will be no pardon. But, I think I can just hear the pen getting warmed up to sign those papers. In other words, there is no justice.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 6 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]401452[/snapback]</div> These are not accepted estimates even Ward Churchill, a rabid America hater and liar, estimates the high at 12 million and the highest I have ever found was 18M they go down to a low of 1.5M. The real number may never be known but it is probably somewhere between 5-10 million. Therefore, your statement that this nation killed 20M Native Americans is just plain wrong. Estimates as high as 90% are due to disease, something no one foresaw, so your statement that this nation grededly killed 20 million of them for land is specious at best. Also at odds with your statement is the fact that we as a nation, by order of President Thomas Jefferson sent out smallpox vaccinations and continued to do so for 3 decades. I’m not denying that atrocities occurred just not in the wildly over inflated and phony numbers you misrepresent. Now your diatribe against Devil's Advocate for misquoting was nothing more on his part than a play at humor and a bit of a shot back at the person that used Regan in the original quote as well as historical trivia as it was one of Hillary’s defenses in the Whitewater case or was it the 900 FBI files? Probably both. However, your misquoting of facts to disparage America and bolster your own POV is deliberate and in this case quite reprehensible. If it such an accepted fact cite your sources. Wildkow p.s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 6 2007, 11:24 PM) [snapback]401500[/snapback]</div> While my numbers may be incorrect, I was not "deliberately misquoting facts." That is the number I have read. As you point out, the real number cannot be known. But the fact that the U.S. intentionally attempted to wipe out the Indians is hardly disputable. The multiple atrocities of entire tribes being slaughtered in cold blood, including woman and children, are well known. And my underlying point is valid even if my numbers turn out to be high.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 7 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]401656[/snapback]</div> Then if you have read it, cite it! Simple. Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 8 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]402495[/snapback]</div> I am 58 years old and have spent a lifetime reading. I do not have the memory for detail to be able to cite title and author for everything I've read. But it hardly seems relevant whether the correct number is 20 million or only 5 million, which would be low by any account.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 8 2007, 07:08 PM) [snapback]402495[/snapback]</div> Google is your friend. And Daniel's right. It doesn't matter if it's 1,000,000 or 100,000,000 - the fact is they were basically wiped out by the Europeans.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 8 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]402552[/snapback]</div> Only in your world, your gross exaggeration is no better than a lie. Especially when it is apparent that you are willfully negligent as Stev0 so easily proved by typing in a simple Google search. Stev0 the gist of Daniel's statement was that it was Americans that deliberty kill 20 million indians to grab land. The facts are so far removed from his assertation that anyone with half-a-brain would proclaim that statement a lie. Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 6 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]401078[/snapback]</div> I thought it was due to Republican human frailty - I think I read that somewhere here on PC... Republican = frail but good Liberal = deliberate and evil
