You have a point of sorts regarding our elected reps telling us what they know about an important subject. But in this case, it just isn't practical.
Anything said by the principals would be deliberately misconstrued by both the press and the left and put int the worst possible light. In short, no matter what they said, the spin doctors in the media and on the left would twist it to fit into their narrative.
Not only that, if in fact some of what Bush or Cheney said was at odds with Libby's testimony, such a development would prejudice potential jurors - which is usually the reason given by prosecutors why they don't want witnesses blabbing what they know.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.04.2006 @ 11:21
I beg to differ.
The entire meaning of the sentence is altered - a sentence that is crucial perhaps not to Libby's defense but to testing the veracity of the White House, specifically the President, regarding whether he ordered Plame's name to be leaked.
Still to be discovered is when Bush knew Plame was Wilson's wife and if the leaking of the NIE was part of the effort to specifically discredit Wilson. The way the sentence was corrected makes the latter less likely.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.04.2006 @ 09:52
"...leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship"
Lemme get this straight. A Special Prosecutor releases a document with an error regarding the facts and substance of his entire case and I observe that some people might see that as partisanship.
I think that is a reasonable assumption. Mr. Ohplease, in what is becoming a distressingly regular occurence by lefty commenters on this site, can't tell the difference between an observation on what some other people might think and a statement of fact on my part.
I made no such statement of fact, something that Mr. Ohplease would have known if he had bothered to read my post.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.04.2006 @ 05:13
If you are indeed Mr. Leopold, I would seriously suggest you seek professional help from someone in the mental health field. I am not being funny. I am trying to be charitable.
I thought I was eminently fair to you - someone who by his own admission, has had problems with accuracy and, shall we say, originality in the past.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 11.04.2006 @ 19:25
You are probably correct. We only saw them for the briefest moment and the sillouette appeared to me that they were Bradleys.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 13.04.2006 @ 06:38
Only an idiot visits sites he doesn't like.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 11.04.2006 @ 09:10
Today's WaPo editoria:
"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
As I predicted, the left will continue to lie anyway.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.04.2006 @ 15:31
I'm sorry to see your time foil hat is malfunctioning. May I recommend you send it back to the link you provided to the Democratic Party? I'm sure they'll fix it up for you pronto!
btw - the next time you leave a non-germane comment on this site, it will be deleted.
You've been warned.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.04.2006 @ 11:30
1. Duh. No wonder you didn't address the thrust of my post - that the WH was pushing back against leakers.
2. What part of "Even if, as some claim," appears to be me stating that? READ THE FRICKING POST!
3. You're serious aren't you? Who the eff cares whether it was the VEep himself or his office - the point is that neither of them asked anyone to go anywhere period. The CIA (Wilson's wife) took it upon themselves to send him to Niger.
4. "Bush knew that the same person who leaked the NIE was responsible for leaking Plameâ€™s name." This is a false conclusion extrapolated from evidence that is not only murky but contradictory (See Tom McGuire's excellent analysis of this "evidence.)
All this makes your conclusion a bunch of BS.
And of course you didn't even bother to address the main thrust of my post - selective leaking of classified material by partisans on your side of the debate led to the WH forced into the role of leakers themselves.
No answer by you to what the WH was supposed to do. ANd the reason is you can't answer is that you have zero interest in the truth and are interested only in the same thing the criminal leakers at CIA and State were interestd in - bringng down this President.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.04.2006 @ 18:48
I guess you didn't read the NY Times today:
"The president has the authority to declassify information, and Mr. Libby indicated in his testimony that he believed Mr. Bush's instructions â€” which prosecutors said Mr. Libby regarded as "unique in his recollection" â€” gave him legal cover to talk with a reporter about the intelligence."
Next time you leave an off topic comment on this website, it will be deleted.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.04.2006 @ 07:49
Pages (132) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132